Weapons that changed the world

[McAvoy]

When I meant low level, I didn't mean hugging the ground. It was more like 200 or 300 feet off of the ground. Also those high level bombing doesn't work that well with semi-bad weather. I don't know how many times our pilots came back when they had the target but couldn't drop the bombs because of clouds.

I know you were not saying hugging the ground. What I am saying is no one bombs that way anymore. It is not really a useful capability and no one even did that much of it (except for A-10's) during the 1st Gulf War.

Why do you say that?

I already told you that the current method of bombing a target by a Hornet has a tendenancy to be blocked by clouds. Moderate cloud cover causes many bombing runs to be cancelled. Not saying that the low angle and lower altitude bombing that the Tomcats perferred (which by the way they did the Hornet way as well) is foolproof. It has it's own dangers and weather can play a part in cancelled bombing run as well.

[Thorin]

There were two completely separate London Blitzes - the first (September '40 - May '41) was carried out purely by bombers. The second (June '44 - March '45) was purely V-weapons.

I did not know that. When people say 'the blitz', are they referring to it collectively or one in particular?

I'd say the V-2 was a step that helped change the world in terms of technology, but not for its qualities as a weapon.

Ah, yes, but the question was "what weapon changed the world" as opposed to "what weapon changed the world thanks to its qualities of destruction". Introducing a technology like that is unquestionably on the podium (which I forgot in my other list) with nuclear bombs and gunpowder weapons, in my humble opinion.

However, that is still redundant as the question super-really was "what weapon changed the world since WW2".

Meh, moot point. But I am interested in modern history, particularly in innovations of war (I have recently been reading up about Frank Whittle's adventures, incidentally). It's quite far from my area of expertise, but also quite close, too.

[Captain Seafort]

I did not know that. When people say 'the blitz', are they referring to it collectively or one in particular?

99.9% of the time, the first one.

[Deepcrush]

Which I answered before you asked your very clever question.

It was a simple enough question, I didn't expect it to confuse you so much.

Nuclear 'power' - Well, I'll assume you're talking about the nuclear bomb as nuclear power isn't a weapon. It might take some digging through university libraries and archives, but I think (from memory) that there was a nuclear bomb used in WW2. Which would disqualify it from 'weapons that changed the world since WW2'. I'll send an email to some national museums and see if I can get in contact with some modern history expert and confirm that nuclear weapons exist, and whether they were used.

No, when I said nuclear power, I meant nuclear power as in power coming from a nuclear source used to provide power. So while you talk to your local expert, ask if there were any nuclear powered ships in WWII and if he could pull that cock out of your ass.

High altitude recon - Very good surveillence, undoubtedly increased surveillence capacity of various states. Don't think it's done too much otherwise.

Doesn't shock me at all that it's beyond your understanding why intelligence is important for war.

Guided missiles - Again, the V-2, I think, was used during WW2. Understandable you wouldn't have heard of them, they're not too well known, just like nuclear bombs.

Look kid, if I wanted to hear whining like this I would have handed out summer book reports. V-2's while a nice starting point, weren't world changing devices.

Stable jet flight - jet fighters actually began production in WW2, but your nonsensicial use of 'stable' might just pass to mean after WW2. However, I don't think a 'stable' jet fighter improved enough over a 'jet fighter' to be considered world changing.

Yes they did, they also tore apart in take off and flight and landing and weren't available in numbers to turn the tide of war. Which is why the word "Stable" is used. Now I know that's a tough word for someone like you to grasp... you are the child who claims he's going to college but can't read.

Stealth - already addressed that it has given rise to many developments, but again, not really world changing.

The ability for a power to strike another power with out the target being able to respond... is world changing.

The AK-47 has led to such a black market that has indirectly and directly initiated wars (with the majority of combatants using said gun) and developed conflicts and shaped global politics in a way that nothing else has.

Yes, which is why we agreed that its place as number one on the list was correct. However being the top of the list doesn't make it the whole list.

Now, I do understand why you struggle to get this: because the gun isn't as big as a Nimitz, because it doesn't have the range of a cruise missile, or the silence of a stealth jet, you think it can't possibly have changed the world. How can it? It doesn't have a loud enough explosion!

Yes, what a cunning response... Of course a Nimitz can't be important to the world. It's only a system of unlimited range, weapons deployment and visual symbol of American power around the planet. Not only this but something that can be reproduced in effective numbers to allow its presence across the globe without having to deprive other sectors of command.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions.

While I understand you're just a child pretending to be something more important and or intelligent then a mushroom. Calling what you have as an opinion would simply be an insult to the opinions of mushrooms around the world.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell the rest of the children I work with. If a question is to hard for you to answer then just say so.

[Thorin]

Interesting that. I've seen a few of the documentaries on the V's (admittedly one of them was James May's big ideas), and particularly remember a photograph of a house flattened by a V-2, which seems to have lodged in my memory and given more credence in my mind to the overall destruction of the V-2 during the war than it perhaps deserved. I do find it supremely interesting, though, just how (relatively) accurate they could come to their targets with just the internal workings of accelerometres, gyroscopes and barometres. Indeed, some of the later ones apparently used radio transmission guidance - not all too different from what is a modern (albeit basic) standard.

[Mikey]

I didn't know that later V-2's had the capability of flying a beam, or do you mean that they were operated via radio?

[Thorin]

No, when I said nuclear power, I meant nuclear power as in power coming from a nuclear source used to provide power. So while you talk to your local expert, ask if there were any nuclear powered ships in WWII and if he could pull that cock out of your ass.

You really meant nuclear power? In which universe is nuclear power a weapon?

Doesn't shock me at all that it's beyond your understanding why intelligence is important for war.

It's perhaps the most important thing going in war. And if high altitude recon was the propagator or the initiator of 'intelligence', then I would have that at the top of my list in a heart beat. It's not. It gave nothing revolutionary, it didn't change the world. Was it better than what already existed? Considerably, but you can't have a smooth improvement on what already exists and call it revolutionary.

Look kid, if I wanted to hear whining like this I would have handed out summer book reports. V-2's while a nice starting point, weren't world changing devices.

My point. In all seriousness, do you actually turn on your brain when you type?

Yes they did, they also tore apart in take off and flight and landing and weren't available in numbers to turn the tide of war. Which is why the word "Stable" is used. Now I know that's a tough word for someone like you to grasp... you are the child who claims he's going to college but can't read.

You got me! I can't read and I'm not at university. Touche.

The ability for a power to strike another power with out the target being able to respond... is world changing.

Finally a semi-coherant argument! I would respectively disagree - it is very important, and has affected a great many things, but I just don't think it's quite pushing world changing.

Yes, which is why we agreed that its place as number one on the list was correct. However being the top of the list doesn't make it the whole list.

Okay, happy to agree to disagree again.

Yes, what a cunning response... Of course a Nimitz can't be important to the world. It's only a system of unlimited range, weapons deployment and visual symbol of American power around the planet. Not only this but something that can be reproduced in effective numbers to allow its presence across the globe without having to deprive other sectors of command.

Everything you said is true, but it's just an improvement on what already existed. To change the world, in my opinion, it must be something revolutionary, something which sparks either one or many world changing events.

While I understand you're just a child pretending to be something more important and or intelligent then a mushroom. Calling what you have as an opinion would simply be an insult to the opinions of mushrooms around the world.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell the rest of the children I work with. If a question is to hard for you to answer then just say so.

Coolio

[Thorin]

I didn't know that later V-2's had the capability of flying a beam, or do you mean that they were operated via radio?

Well my use of 'apparantly' lead from my source being wikipedia, but 'apparantly' yes; they could fly a beam.

Some later V-2s used "guide beams" (radio signals transmitted from the ground) to keep the missile on course

[McAvoy]

No, when I said nuclear power, I meant nuclear power as in power coming from a nuclear source used to provide power. So while you talk to your local expert, ask if there were any nuclear powered ships in WWII and if he could pull that cock out of your ass.

You really meant nuclear power? In which universe is nuclear power a weapon?

Really?

Maybe you should read more in context.

[Captain Seafort]

Or, for that matter, the rest of the thread, given that the relative impact of nuclear power was the defining bone of contention.

[Thorin]

Doesn't make a difference, you still have to attach nuclear power to a ship and then ask whether that ship (which can constitute a weapon) is a world changer. 'Nuclear power', even taking it to mean the power generator of a ship, is not a weapon. Maybe: "What about the 'USS x', the first nuclear powered warship?"

Even had I not been purposefully facetious, the context was way off the mark.

[McAvoy]

Doesn't make a difference, you still have to attach nuclear power to a ship and then ask whether that ship (which can constitute a weapon) is a world changer. 'Nuclear power', even taking it to mean the power generator of a ship, is not a weapon. Maybe: "What about the 'USS x', the first nuclear powered warship?"

Even had I not been purposefully facetious, the context was way off the mark.

Incorrect. Nuclear powered ships is a part of the whole that makes the 'weapon' a world changer. Submarines being the biggest example of the difference. Same goes for other weapons above.

By your logic, stealth technology doesn't make a difference either. F-117, B2 and F-22 are just planes.

[Thorin]

Well then it's just semantics; is a weapon a single thing in existance, is it the group of those identical things, is it a category of similar groups, or is it an entire branch of the military? It's fairly arbitrary to say which, but I'd contest that "nuclear powered ships" can be considered a weapon, where as I would consider the "nuclear powered USS x", or even the "nuclear powered x class ships" to be categorised so. Each to their own.

And by your logic, you can apply some paint to anything and make it stealthy (earlier point, I know, but you never responded).

[McAvoy]

Yes you can paint something to make it stealthy. But if you really look at the Super Hornet very carefully, there are other things on it that is stealth based. However there is more to that stealth paint than a can of paint. It's painted in layers. Abit more than a coat of paint.

No, a weapon is a collection of it's parts. A gun with it's bullet. A ship with it's propulsion, damage control, weapon outfit, defense and so forth.

Part of the argument about nuclear power was the fact did a CVN (Enterprise/Nimitz) change the world or did it's original CV counterpart (Forrestal) change the world. Not semantics. Nuclear power changes alot and for the good on how a aircraft carrier operates. The two biggest obvious is range, and aviation fuel carrying capacity.

[Thorin]

Yes you can paint something to make it stealthy. But if you really look at the Super Hornet very carefully, there are other things on it that is stealth based. However there is more to that stealth paint than a can of paint. It's painted in layers. Abit more than a coat of paint.

Okay well I am going to flat out tell you you're wrong; the shape, aerodynamics, and engine output/signature all play a major part in stealth technology - particularly, getting the shape right to lower a planes radar cross section (this is extremely difficult), and reducing the engine signature as much as possible. A 20 foot long jet of superheated gas shows up pretty easily on a whole lot of tracking equipment.

No, a weapon is a collection of it's parts. A gun with it's bullet. A ship with it's propulsion, damage control, weapon outfit, defense and so forth.

Part of the argument about nuclear power was the fact did a CVN (Enterprise/Nimitz) change the world or did it's original CV counterpart (Forrestal) change the world. Not semantics. Nuclear power changes alot and for the good on how a aircraft carrier operates. The two biggest obvious is range, and aviation fuel carrying capacity.

It's still semantics. So is the missile launcher on the deck of a frigate not a weapon? If you had it on the back of a truck (soviet-style) you'd call it so, but not on a ship? What about on a truck on the ship? It's all rather arbitrary (and slightly beside the point)

It''s impossible to come to a solid conclusion. I'd always say the 'first' is the one that changes most. That 'first' weapon changes the world more not only because of its inherant properties, but because it gives rise to its very successors. So you could say the Forrestal was the most revolutionary because it was the first nuclear powered ship and it gave rise to the Nimitz. You need a discrete and significant 'jump' in technology for it to do something major and world changing. Or have some form of unconventional revolutionary aspect (like the AK-47 and its black market).

Having said all that, I still don't think that any nuclear powered ship/submarine significantly improved on its predecessor enough, to be considered a single point of world changing weaponary.