Hacker News Reader

Comment by dm2 | Hacker News Reader

It's debatable. Fire it at a ship/building and most of the people on that ship/building would die. I don't think many objects could survive being hit by a railgun, is that considered mass destruction?

According to US law it would be considered a WMD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Crim...

"any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris."

"Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a."

View on HN

Modern U.S. Law is an exceedingly poor source for definitions. It is purposefully vague, broad, and often misrepresented for political, propaganda and public relations reasons. i.e. the law that limits our rights being called "The FREEDOM Act".

A weapon should not be labeled a WMD unless it does at least as much damage as Little Boy and Fat Man did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

WMD is a political term, so U.S. law is not a bad place to look for commonly held definitions.

Chemical and biological weapons are commonly considered to be "WMDs", but do far less damage than a nuclear bomb.

> WMD is a political term.

No it's not. It has been co-opted by politicians (and that is the crux of my complaint and why I choose to not use/accept the politicians recent expansion/redefinition). You are correct, C&B do not do as much physical damage but at least biological can easily kill as many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Evol...

A nuclear weapon can take out an entire city, not just a building, or even a group of buildings.

Interestingly, the "Davy Crockett" nuclear rocket had a blast radius in the "building" range, not even quite "city block" range. That's probably why it didn't really catch on. Why use a nuclear weapon when a few, much cheaper mortar rounds would destroy the target just as well and not leave the spot uninhabitable for a long time?

Because the "uninhabitable for a long time" part is actually desired. Bomb Russia into the Middle Age and make sure it will never be a threat again basically was what fueled the Cold War. It will be a problem again when Ukraine finally blows up.

You need a lot of mortar rounds to have the same effect as 10 Tons of TNT let alone the radiation damage.

Well dug in troops can survive a motor round a small nuke a lot less so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs

So could a large enough railgun, or laser, or even a large enough marshmallow could take out an entire city. Or even bats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

WMD doesn't mean take out an entire city though.

Of course a "large enough" railgun could be a WMD, but they aren't large enough, so they are not WMD.

your payload does not need to be nuclear to take out a city, nor does your payload actually have to do that work if you hit the right target within the city of close enough to it (there are more than enough cities with some very hazardous manufacturer close enough to cause harm )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com