Geneva convention and weapons

[munky99999]

Why not make a gun that shoots bullets that have a rather large core of Rubidium or Cesium with say a thine copper jacket that blows off inflight thusly exposing the Rubidium or Cesium and causing big troubles for the poor guy who it hits. As it would virtually be melting in the air and burning then it hit and be explosive.

or similar with a core of radioactive material with a jacket that keeps the ammo completely fine for the soldier carrying it around. That when radioactive material hits its a guarenteed kill. Plus probably further damage to others.

Now I am not suggesting that anyone do this. But I am just wondering. Why hasnt anyone. People are so worried of chemical attacks and nuclear problems from iran and other. It is portrayed that these people are without morallity and such. But why arent they doing things like this. It would be virtually less problematic for the world. What is it? 3 nukes and we get a nuclear winter from the dust. There really wouldn't be any problems with using these. Maybe the radioactive one.

So why don't people do this? to expensive to do? Not easy to do? or is it against the geneva convention or something? That any side caught doing such things would be in big trouble.

 

[brewnog]

Setting aside legal and moral issues, I don't suppose there's much point. Conventional bullets are designed to immobilise and incapacitate the enemy instantly, and they do a pretty good job of it when they're on target.

 

[Astronuc]

or similar with a core of radioactive material with a jacket that keeps the ammo completely fine for the soldier carrying it around. That when radioactive material hits its a guarenteed kill. Plus probably further damage to others.

Radiation is not a 'guaranteed' kill unless it has a high intensity, in which case a soldier using such ammunition would be killed.

Radiation takes time to damage or kill cells in the body - which in high doses (100s of rads) could be hours or days.

As brewnog indicated, what exists, works. Unfortunately!

For every bullet on target - there are lots more that are not. And there is usually a big mess left to contaminate the battlefield. Let's not add more!

 

[munky99999]

so its not really against any rules its just stupid for the enemy to use such a thing? as it will just slow down their advancement.

I think ill try to do some sort of google search to see what kind of weapons arent allowed to be used in a war.

Like perhaps make a bullet that mushrooms when it hits something, but has a very very short life non-presistent neuro-toxin. When it hits even nearby the enemy the neurotoxin spreads for 2-3 seconds and will instantly incapacitate the enemy. but keep them alive and in good health, that you simply need a reverse agent to bring em back to work it up.

It could virtually make taking prisoners easy as hell. and such a thing could even be used in like civil hostage situations. Instead of like teargas have this come in. Knock everyone out consistently and easily and keep them that way. until the cops have everything and everyone safe.

Like there is the flash bang. but it only lasts what 10 seconds? I am talking permanent incapacitation until another chemical is added in. I think it could be pretty good.

 

[Pengwuino]

We have made it a fairly efficient battlefield munky. The goal is rarely to kill someone for the average soldier. The goal is to put him down so that he can't shoot back at you. That's all you care about, not getting shot at; the soldier's ultimate fate is a non-issue to the average soldier.

Also, the chemical ideas your talking about are probably incredibly difficult to create if not impossible. I suspect things that work so quickly are of such great potency that it's hard to control their lethality.

 

[munky99999]

Also, the chemical ideas your talking about are probably incredibly difficult to create if not impossible. I suspect things that work so quickly are of such great potency that it's hard to control their lethality.

Actually as far as i know. neurotoxins are something that generally does what its meant to regardless of potency. As far as i can tell in my study.

Like when you look at the bad ones like anthrax and ricen. the lethal dose is TINY; less then 1 milligram. and when your at such a low amount it takes a little while. But you have certain ones like the Botulin toxin. even the smallest lethal potency can be instantly effective.

Ive been thinking perhaps using a narcotic like HEroin or coke. which as far as i know you get hit instantly with the effects. So you use the neuroreceptors and make a chemical like the botulin toxin but to target these receptors and not any bad receptors. actually this is a lot like that Synthehol thread.

and basically any chemical has a lethality dosage. Water could even be lethal in HUGE amounts. Ethanol(beer) has a lethality dosage, what 40% blood level?

i suspect that this is very possible to work. and if it was to work. it would be such a huge thing.

Just think of how well this would work in a hostage situation. The negotiator accepts to go into exchange for 2-3 other hostages. but he goes in with a nice little stinkbomb that will instantly knock out him and the terrorist. It would work out so well. or you could just teargas gun it in and hope he's knocked out before he can do anything bad.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, i got to say that ends my knowledge on the subject but I'm sure there's no easy way to do it or someone woudl be making millions on it by now.

 

[munky99999]

Well, i got to say that ends my knowledge on the subject but I'm sure there's no easy way to do it or someone woudl be making millions on it by now.

before cars were made everybody used horses. id laugh if someone said

"im sure there's no easy way to make a mechanical horse, or someone would be making millions on it by now."

your right, maybe no easy way. but the application and worth of this knowledge would be priceless just if they used it for hostage situations.

 

[russ_watters]

so its not really against any rules its just stupid for the enemy to use such a thing? as it will just slow down their advancement.

No, such a thing would also most certainly be illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[dduardo]

How about making any type of weapon fair game to use. That would make it less desireable to go to war.

 

[Mk]

How about open-source weapons? Or would the big companies keep em down?

 

[munky99999]

How about open-source weapons? Or would the big companies keep em down?

is that a joke? lol

 

[Mk]

I can't find the name... but I'm surprised no body else did. Some kind of exploding cartridges were decided to be put out of use because it so severely hospitalized soldiers of both sides in the war. Munky's ideas are the kind that we would use against alien invasion. Ones where we really want them dead, where its not just a small argument or a web of alliances causing the war.

 

[Pengwuino]

before cars were made everybody used horses. id laugh if someone said

"im sure there's no easy way to make a mechanical horse, or someone would be making millions on it by now."

your right, maybe no easy way. but the application and worth of this knowledge would be priceless just if they used it for hostage situations.

Well i didn't mean it like that. The time from the actual realization of what an IC engine was to when it was being used was very short. We've known about these chemicals for some time however and things progress much quicker now-a-days with the increased rate of information sharing.

 

[Pengwuino]

I can't find the name... but I'm surprised no body else did. Some kind of exploding cartridges were decided to be put out of use because it so severely hospitalized soldiers of both sides in the war. Munky's ideas are the kind that we would use against alien invasion. Ones where we really want them dead, where its not just a small argument or a web of alliances causing the war.

Are you talking about hollow-points? Aren't those banned by the GC?

 

[munky99999]

well forum has been down for awhile.

but from CSI itself.

You take a normal bullet and put much heavier metal for the tip(so like very heavy uranium for the tip and copper for the shell). with the heavier tip. it has just a bit more momentum(mass*velocity) and then it has a little more hitting power and depending on the difference in metal materials the bullet may even have the power to armor pierce. so regardless when it hits the tip breaks off and the rest mushrooms and spins and cuts the meat to hell. Hollow point on the otherhand is pretty much the same thing without the heavy tip.

As for explosive ammo. I honestly can't think of anything. Generally the largest guns are like .50 cal and those are usually mounted guns. with the exception of those berret sniper rifles which are .50 cal. and well .50 cal is probably not big enough to carry much of a bang. Usually the problem with explosives is that to get a bang you either need lots of space for like tnt/c4 or you have something pretty unstable like nitroglycerin.

which is why i was thinking more of an alkali metal. it will be pretty hot until it hits your body and hits water(we are like 80% water :) ) and well I am sure everyone mixed lithium with water and then mixed sodium in water. and had little sparks. Then my teacher, being insane and a guy who loves the big fireworks. He had a piece of potassium and a nice sized piece of rubidium and it made some nice effects.

Then my teacher said in chemistry class his proffessor had a large fish tank and placed a fist sized piece in it and it was a real good bit of fireworks. Though i can't say i really believe that though. as id expect rubidium to be a liquid in room temp.

But to go back to explosive ammo. Once you get to much larger calibers. you can get cannon like ammo which is explosive. or my favourite. Aircraft guns. Whats real funny is that the Red Baron from like the world war. His .50 cal guns or the fokker plane. the bullets coming out those guns arent even fast enough to catch the jets that we have today. f-16 etc. and those guns took loads of bullets to take out another plane. The guns on the modern aircraft. you'll have 500 bullets or whatever. but you need only 2 to hit and its just as good as a missle hitting. as the caliber is so big and they are explosive so when they hit the plane. They do big damage. So are they illegal. I would assume not as nato-canada-usa-china-russia-israel all use this technology that i know for a fact. other countries might also be. id expect a lot of the other european countries also do.

Ones where we really want them dead, where its not just a small argument or a web of alliances causing the war.

well i expect that was the point usually, "kill your enemy before he kills you." plus there is my other idea to create a super stun neurotoxin core type of weapon. which is the complete opposite of kill or injure anyone.

 

[Pengwuino]

What is the website? What you said didn't sound like you interpretted what they said correctly. A heavier tip does not translate into more momentum, it really depends on the assumption that you use a larger charge...wait is that the word? I've been playing this stupid game too long...

 

[munky99999]

website? CSI is a tv show. they have like 3 series going.

/though I am just checking some sites and i think i stumbled on something rather close to what I've been saying.

Incendiary projectiles include a material such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus" which burns fiercely.

i never really thought of phosphorus. it seems like its a lighter material. So it wouldn't make as well of a bullet which tends to like to pierce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet"

This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of The Declaration of St. Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, and weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable.

well so much for me lol. so how about that neurotoxin that instantly incapacitates.

A heavier tip does not translate into more momentum, it really depends on the assumption that you use a larger charge...wait is that the word? I've been playing this stupid game too long...

perhaps momentum is a bad/wrong word. but think of it more like this. Say you have 2 cars. one is made of entirely plastic and somehow you accelerate it to 100 m/s using Z force when it impacts this ballistics gelatine wall it will penetrate X distance. If you take the next car. which is all plastic except the car the bumper is made of a very strong unbreakable material which is essentially a negligible increase of mass. So when force Z is applied your going 99.9 m/s instead. when it hits. the bumper won't break and will continue on without breaking up.

Now when you look at it like this it makes sense. unless the original bullet your thinking of is like full metal jacket which are meant not to break up and fragment thusly fmjs stay pretty damn strong. with lots and lots of piercing power.

the word i think ur looking for is explosive or propellant. but charge works perfectly fine.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wait wait, you're using a TV show as a reference?

 

[munky99999]

Wait wait, you're using a TV show as a reference?

you would perfer i use a good old geocities webpage?
http://www.geocities.com/nasenoviny/17pdrGunEN.html"

I don't know as far as i can tell CSI was telling the truth. at the time they were more so explaining this specific bullet they had. which was made to pierce cop bullet proof vests and thusly kill cops. (cop-killers) the tip being a much heavier metal doesn't deform and the vest doesn't stop it as easy so it goes straight thru. but when it hits through the tough vest. the tip which broke off from the vest's resistance is now free to go off on its own and the now "flatish/hollowtipped" remaining part is free to open up and mushroom and cause lots of problems.

Now when you want to shoot further then close combat. you need faster speeds(might be hard to shoot 2km if the bullet only goes 500m/s, 4 seconds of gravity, that's a lot of bullet drop.) and thusly the power goes up. so the tip won't be enough to pierce. its more of a core of lead or some other heavy metal(my fav is depleted uranium(it just sounds cool)) with a jacket that more so is meant to break up quickly on impact and the core keep going.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But to go back to explosive ammo. Once you get to much larger calibers. you can get cannon like ammo which is explosive. or my favourite. Aircraft guns. Whats real funny is that the Red Baron from like the world war. His .50 cal guns or the fokker plane. the bullets coming out those guns arent even fast enough to catch the jets that we have today. f-16 etc. and those guns took loads of bullets to take out another plane. The guns on the modern aircraft. you'll have 500 bullets or whatever. but you need only 2 to hit and its just as good as a missle hitting. as the caliber is so big and they are explosive so when they hit the plane. They do big damage. So are they illegal. I would assume not as nato-canada-usa-china-russia-israel all use this technology that i know for a fact. other countries might also be. id expect a lot of the other european countries also do.

I don't particularly feel like looking it up at the moment but from what I understand there is a section of the GC that states anti-vehicle/aircraft/whathaveyou ordinance is not allowed to be used on personel. So if you have say a rocket launcher you can only use it on vehicles and maybe structures but you can not directly target soldiers with it.

As for the idea of neuro toxins and the like there are plenty of people working on non-lethal and less-than-lethal weapons of various types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlethal_weapons
You'll have to scroll down for more current technologies.
I'd imagine that the biggest hurdle is making these devices practical. If nuerotoxin bullets were to be made I'd imagine that they would be rather expensive. Outfitting all soldiers with these would be incredibly expensive and the number of rounds that do not hit their target or meet some sort of armor would make the proposal even less cost effective. The bullets that go into a general issue fire arm or rifle are not that expensive and can be made in very large qauntities.

 

[Pengwuino]

you would perfer i use a good old geocities webpage?
http://www.geocities.com/nasenoviny/17pdrGunEN.html"

I honestly haven't had time to look anything up but geocities and TV shows are about the worst when it comes to looking up facts. centralized information areas that are reliable are like wikipedia, government websites, university websites...

 

[munky99999]

I don't particularly feel like looking it up at the moment but from what I understand there is a section of the GC that states anti-vehicle/aircraft/whathaveyou ordinance is not allowed to be used on personel. So if you have say a rocket launcher you can only use it on vehicles and maybe structures but you can not directly target soldiers with it.

but then they use artillery which is the same thing pretty much.

I'd imagine that the biggest hurdle is making these devices practical. If nuerotoxin bullets were to be made I'd imagine that they would be rather expensive.

actually i sort of developed the idea from the core of a bullet to more of a gas grenade. like tear gas

I honestly haven't had time to look anything up but geocities and TV shows are about the worst when it comes to looking up facts. centralized information areas that are reliable are like wikipedia, government websites, university websites...

i was just kidding with geocities. as its like the worst place to get information. but i do believe CSI was speaking the truth.

 

[munky99999]

alright i looked up what they are. For planes.

My favourite plane(not including stealth or bombers) is the good old warthog.

It's chain/gattling gun is the GAU-8 which has 30 mm bullets

which is like 1.2 cal. double the size of any of those common .50 cal guns.

Since its larger sized it can have explosived in it. and it has ammo

PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary [DU]
PGU-13/B HEI High Explosive Incendiary

which is most commonly used in close combat dogfights. or shooting at armor on the ground. But it can be used to shoot people and commonly has been seen to happen.

and the armor piercing rounds are using depleted uranium as their core. and as I've stated before. the plane will have like 500 bullets. but only need 2-5 to destroy anything.

 

[daveb]

I would take a lot of what CSI says with a grain of salt. A coworker of mine told of one episode where a person was injected with a large activity of iodine-131 - enough to cause his arm to melt off or something like that.:rofl: :rofl:

 

[munky99999]

I would take a lot of what CSI says with a grain of salt. A coworker of mine told of one episode where a person was injected with a large activity of iodine-131 - enough to cause his arm to melt off or something like that.:rofl: :rofl:

ya, the person took like 350 cc's of high energy iodine and injected it like it was heroine(i think that's the one u melt and syringe in)

so well according to the story like 6 hours later a huge chunk of his hand like decayed away. well i don't know where to check what kind of effect this would have using a large dose of radioactive iodine. but such an effect would literally need to be like 6000-10000 rads. which is mega high. which then makes you question. how could anyone have such a high energy radioactive material and be able to smuggle it out of a very very low security building. it wouldn't make sense.

so you sure that was pretty much faked and they did it for the story. but as far as i know. the information on the bullets is correct.

/addition
id also like to point out that such high radiation would not only be super illegal in the USA. no workers could ever work with it. what's even more sad is that this iodine was meant for like chemotherapy. which is just silly.

 

[pallidin]

An active enemy combatant is subject to death at any time. The methods used to achieve lethal resolution should be effected humanely, if possible, given the circumstances of encounter.