Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sornaensis 952 days ago
If you investigate all banned weapons though, you'll find it's more to do with practicality+cost+optics than some high minded agreement. Wars fought today are still brutal, and people use anything that will get them ahead.

So e.g. chemical and biological weapons are pretty poor performers when you put them up against conventional weapons.

For one thing, both can backfire greatly if for example they are improperly handled behind the frontlines. Weapons need to be stable and easy to handle and able to deal with fuckups without killing your own people.

They also are expensive as hell, it costs a lot more (and is probably harder) to find competent people willing to make these types of weapons, and per dollar, they don't kill as many people as conventional bombs do. (See: World War 1) So, they are 'banned', but mostly because they aren't very effective.

When you look at so-called chemical weapons that are in use, they are usually used for temporary area denial, are stable, not that lethal, if at all, and easy to produce: white phosphorus, CN and CS gas, etc. The US of course calls white phosphorus for 'illumination' but the people firing it know what they're using it for. So when they do beat out the alternatives, they get used anyway.

Laser weapons are being developed but they are basically just not there yet. Batteries are heavy and the usefulness seems pretty limited to shooting down incoming drones/missiles possibly. Just using anti-missile missiles or just a stream of bullets is still cheaper and more reliable. Again, if you can see and hit someone in the eyes with a laser, why not just shoot them with a normal bullet? The economics don't make sense.

Poisoned bullets I haven't really heard of, I'm not sure what kind of poison would survive being coated onto a bullet and fired out of a gun, or how making a really expensive nerve agent bullet and then shooting someone with it is better or more sensible than just shooting them with a regular bullet so I can't really comment.

Expanding ammo was 'banned' but again, it was essentially replaced with spitzer style rifle bullets that are more accurate and effective anyway, and can have a similar result on impact.

tldr it's not a good comparison to call these things actually banned in a meaningful sense.

3 comments

A good complementary example is cluster munitions. They’re banned but the big players like Russia and the US never signed those treaties because they found the cluster munitions too useful, while signing plenty of chemical and biological weapons bans because they weren’t very useful.
> If you investigate all banned weapons though, you'll find it's more to do with practicality+cost+optics than some high minded agreement.

The only "banned" weapons that aren't still being used routinely are nukes.

I don't think it makes sense to ban weapons of war. People don't go to war for fun; they fight out of desperation, whether it's a desperate struggle for national survival, or a desperate struggle for the political survival of some despot. If they can't buy precision glide-bombs and cruise missiles, they use barrel-bombs and gas. Rape as a weapon of war is banned as a warcrime, but it happens in every war, because killing seems to give men a stiffy.

Waging war on civilians is a warcrime, but all wars are fought against civilians; siege warfare is as old as warfare itself, and is the epitome of war against civilians. The same applies to carpet-bombing, and most kinds of economic sanctions. Armies don't usually go to war - countries go to war.

(The situation in Sudan looks anomalous to me; the warring parties seem to be two branches of the same military force, fighting over control over illegal mines).

> Laser weapons are being developed but they are basically just not there yet.

If lasers were available in WW2 I think they would have been used as blinding weapons against kamikazes. One could make the argument the rules of war against blinding don't apply to someone who is already going to kill themselves to attack you -- he's not planning on having usable eyes anyway.

Of course if we were advanced enough to have laser weapons in WWII, we'd likely have laser guided bombs, hence laser guided planes which would have made any attacks against ships more deadly.
I'm not sure laser guidance works how you think it works. The laser is probably the least important part of laser guidance. It's basically being used as a highly collimated and monochromatic photon source. Radio-guided weapons were already being deployed by the end of WWII. The presence of lasers which probably could have been invented with 1940s tech had priorities been different, wouldn't really have drastically changed much. Semiconductors and microelectronics are what enabled practical laser-guided weapons, by reducing the size, fragility and cost of guidance packages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbTWzC86R4Y

The Device that Won WW2 - The Cavity Magnetron

Yea, the fact the US/Britain had RADAR while Germany/Japan did not, or did not in the same fashion the allied forces did dramatically shifted the favor towards the allies.