Will this invention end all wars?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I was thinking about the history of all wars and weapons of wars and began to think of something that would systematically shut down all abilities of known warfare and come up with the following and wish other opinions on these ideas.
First, I wanted to do this legally and without harming anyone.Being an electrical eng I found that chemical reactions can be speed up or slowed down by adding electromagnetic energy,So I began to make an "ANTI-WEAPON".It is a harmless devise and can harm nothing and nobody, But when activated "NO gunpowder will ignite within 100 miles"I percieve this invention to be totaly leagal and it would put warfair back into the stone age. If 20,000 troops showed up to kill me or my town the only thing they could do is beat us with clubs and stones.
I took It a step further and planned out other "ANTI-WEAPONS" to stop other systems of electronic warfair such as the new and speading electronic harasment" SYCOTRONICS" So far I have cured 17 people that have a horrible screaching in both ears, All research sugests this is caused by mutiple countries expironmenting on each others citizens.Am I crazy for trying to change this out of controll world?




posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
No single invention no matter how effective or what it does will end all wars. You have a tool that negates most weapons on the battlefield? Ok, people will just use other weapons. Invent something that solves one of the problems people go to wars for (like a perpetual energy machine)? Ok, people will just go to war over different reasons. It's sad but humans are addicted to war. We are so addicted to it, we will go to war over the silliest and strangest reasons.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Are we in the "Stories" forum? If not, Mods should move this.. 'nuff said.


Or, better, give us a simple explanation how you (a) decelerate any chemical reactions or (b) how did you specify "gun powder" as there are more chemicals for this than (simple) names for them or (c) how you distinguish between a "gun powder" and.. a match. You know, a match to light up a candle.

My doubt-O-meter is at the end of its scope.

Your technology would require (in my opinion) the use of a huge number of nanobots which might disable those kinds of reaction.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Yes ,you are right, all weapons have multiple countermeasures but with a whole army of anti-weapons one could severely cut down the violence around the world.And again this army would have no offensive weapons, This would make it totally legal.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

supergravity
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Yes ,you are right, all weapons have multiple countermeasures but with a whole army of anti-weapons one could severely cut down the violence around the world.And again this army would have no offensive weapons, This would make it totally legal.



But then people would just chop each other to pieces or go back to bow and arrow, or projectiles like trebuchets and catapults firing diseased livestock.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


The anti gunpowder Devise is still in the works but the anti- tinitis countermeasure is a reality and helping many people.I just wanted some opinons on "THE CONCEPT" of a practice and meathod for creation of said omni-directional wave front technology that can affect said chemical reactions of many types of combustion.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Yes, but they would be unable to kill thousands with one blow.Warfare would not be worth the expense and time.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

supergravity
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


The anti gunpowder Devise is still in the works but the anti- tinitis countermeasure is a reality and helping many people.I just wanted some opinons on "THE CONCEPT" of a practice and meathod for creation of said omni-directional wave front technology that can affect said chemical reactions of many types of combustion.


Nuclear?

What about electromagnetic propelled weapons?

Biological weapons, chemical weapons?



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Now picture this

A guy holding your kid with a knife to his throat.
You have a gun and cannot use it because of your invention, and can't get there before..................................

Just a thought

Cody



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Yes, There have been reports of nuclear weapons being disarmed from a distance,Its just how you look at things that resrict your abilities. If your told nobody has ever done it, and you cant ether, then most people stop trying.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


Yea,his machine gun did not work so he could not kill us all,he could only take one hostage.It still saved lives.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


You would take that shot? Honestly? A few inches off and you shoot your own kid.

And it's not like knife dude is gonna be standing there, totally still, with all his body exposed so you can take a bead on him. Get real man, this isn't the movies.

With nervousness, sweaty hands, jumpy heart beat, etc you would be very lucky not to hit your own kid.

Also, this thread is ridiculous



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Or you could have shot him and saved that life as well

After all it was your kid and a knife to the throat, no gun apart from the one that could save your kid

Cody



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 


Yea, when they invented electricity they said it was useless and silly.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Wars don't happen because of weapons. Wars happen because of people.

In Rwanda half a million people died (a goodly number by machete, think about that). If you stop guns, we'll use swords, you stop swords we'll use clubs. This logic applies all the way down to bare hands and teeth.

We are killers. The spawn of the most successful killers from countless generations thousands or years back into history. There is no technological solution to war as an issue unless you get into genetic modification of humanity. Thats not a cure I would advocate.

A proper system of international law and agreed norms is the only realistic short term mitigation. The UN is a flawed implementation of whats really required. We may live long enough to get there, we may not. Time will tell.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 


Yeah I'd take the shot

Straight to the leg

I might hurt my son, but I'd free him from the situation, and be left with a full target.

Call it training

Cody



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Did we all just forget our history or something? Many of our most bloody conflicts happened before guns. If your going to come up with fantasy weapons your going to have to do better than that.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


Dont get me wrong,I am pro-gun under the constitution,I just put out the concept of putting the power of guns back into the peoples hands.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


In the past they did not have the ability to destroy the entire earth 10 times over.There is no compairing now with the stone age.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

supergravity
reply to post by cody599
 


Dont get me wrong,I am pro-gun under the constitution,I just put out the concept of putting the power of guns back into the peoples hands.


Firstly I'm a Brit

We don't carry guns

I also have Israeli citizenship so I've seen both sides of the coin

Given the choice ...................... I'd carry a weapon again...............To save life though

Cody



top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join