News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows?. Parent comment

Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by Xylakant on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:30AM (#38219295)
There's a line of reasoning that argues that chemical/biological weapons have not been banned because they're inhumane, but rather because they're costly and ineffective against a technologically advanced peer. Few things you can achieve with a chemical bomb against an advanced adversary cannot be better achieved with a nuclear bomb, while steamrolling an inferior adversary is easily possible using conventional means. See https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... for a longer discussion.

If one subscribes to that view, there's no argument that this was a collective decision for humanities sake, but rather a cost/benefit analysis by the military.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by htrp on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:39AM (#38219393)
Better example is landmines.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by umanwizard on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:43AM (#38219434)
Land mines are not banned by any of the major powers (China, Russia, USA)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by bluGill on Friday November 10, 2023 @10:35AM (#38220134)
Countries that have banned landmines have allies who have not that will step in and place those mines if needed. If US EU relations (NATO) go south and war (not necessary with the US) looks likely Europe will get rid of those treaties fast.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by shawabawa3 on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:44AM (#38219444)
We've banned the use of landmines globally?

Someone should tell Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmines_in_Ukraine

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by red-iron-pine on Friday November 10, 2023 @03:59PM (#38224444)
low effort agi-prop is low effort.

The US and the USSR never banned them. Most of the world did so they could claim moral clout, but make no mistake, if the shooting started they'd be buying them from one side or the other like crazy.

As former USSR countries, UKR and RUS never agreed to ban them. Same for cluster munitions. And we're seeing just how brutally effective both are.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by lolinder on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:58AM (#38219636)
Landmines are a great example of what would happen if you tried to get everyone to cooperate and go back to low-tech weapons—some countries would agree to do so, and others would laugh and invade them, guns blazing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by MichaelZuo on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:33AM (#38219324)
There are also global, collective, restrictions on the bomb though?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by brazzy on Friday November 10, 2023 @09:38AM (#38219378)
Nuclear, you mean? Sure, but you can make the same argument about a cost/benefit analysis, they're more efficient as a threat or deterrent than in actual use.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by MichaelZuo on Friday November 10, 2023 @12:33PM (#38221766)
> they're more efficient as a threat or deterrent than in actual use.

Why do you believe so?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows? by bluGill on Friday November 10, 2023 @10:37AM (#38220157)
The biggest con of chemical weapons is you can't prevent the wind from shifting and blowing it back at you. Any general that has an attack backfire and be worse for their side than the enemy looks bad so no great general will risk it.
[ Parent | on HN ]