Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons are banned for a reason. They cause long lasting poisoning of the environment. Napalm, or it's similar compounds, do not do this. On the other hand, I have to say I am not proud we used it, if we did. In my opinion incindiary weapons like this are hideous and cruel beyond belief. That's why they have such a profound psychological effect. They threaten extreme pain, suffering, and disfigurment. To burn one's skin off to kill them. I find this approach to the ugly business of killing nothing less than barbaric! If killing and maiming must be done, at least let us attempt to be as humane as possible. Incindiary weapons are overtly NOT humane. I don't like it. I wouldn't be part of it.

<font color=cadetblue>But the US didn't make the reason for war that they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he was an evil man, they said that he had WMD and that he would use them on the US. THey had no proof of it but yet they still invaded Iraq. The countries who stayed out of the invasion did do because of the flawed case for war. If Bush stated that "hey guys, they'res an evil dude in Iraq, let's get rid of him and free the Iraqi people!" then this war would have been justified. But as of now, there's no justified reason for the US invading Iraq as no WMD have come up. And the UN, several years ago had set up the Nuremburg II tribunal to charge Saddam Hussein with war crimes but France and Russia threatened to veto it so it was dropped. I'm not anti-France or anti-Russia but I think that if they hadn't put their business interests before human rights, then we wouldn't need to be messing with Iraq today.</font>

<font color='white'> Well, what makes a war justified? I mean, if you would have supported the war if Bush's reason were becuase Saddam was evil...Saddams out of power now. So you should be satisfied with that. </font>

<font color=cadetblue>But Saddam was kicked out for the wrong reasons. The US attacked him because he supposedly had WMD and was going to use them instead of attacking him because he was a horrible and cruel dictator.</font>

<font color=cadetblue>But Saddam was kicked out for the wrong reasons. The US attacked him because he supposedly had WMD and was going to use them instead of attacking him because he was a horrible and cruel dictator.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]:rolleyes:

Attacking is attacking! If I say I am going to punch you with my left fist and punch you with my right, it doenst much matter does it? You still got punched.

But I see you point. I personaly dont think Bush lied. I think Saddam had WMDs, maybe the Bush adminastration are just giving people enough rope to hand themselfs with, so to speak. </font>

Aren't explosives chemicals? Why I even believe gunpowder/cordite is a chemical compound, I know let's use sticks wait sticks are a carbon based chemical compound, ok let's use stones no wait stones are made of chemicals also. I know let's use our hands, no our bodies are made of chemicals also. "Hale" I guess we'll just have to gather around a camp fire and sing Kumbyaw.

<font color=cadetblue>Lol, well it would be great if the world could actually do that.</font>

I bet that would depend on IF Iraq had signed the treaty saying they wouldn't use Napalm. Something the USA DIDN'T do, but I guess since it was a treaty then EVERYBODY must be held to it even if they didn't sign it. And since that is now the case "Hale" let's do away with treaties alltogether and just tell everybody this is what you can do and can't do.

Ladies and gentlemen The purpose of WAR is to kill, breaking things is a bonus. The more people try to make war "nice and humane" the more likey it is to be accepted.

<font color=cadetblue>Lol, well it would be great if the world could actually do that.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]It would be nice but there are a whole lot of people out there that aren't willing to do it, so the others had better be prepared to protect themselves or die.

<font color=cadetblue>Lol, well it would be great if the world could actually do that.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]It would be nice but there are a whole lot of people out there that aren't willing to do it, so the others had better be prepared to protect themselves or die. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=cadetblue>*sigh* A sad truth in our lives.</font>

how bout this for a chemical weapon? A really large aircraft flies over Iraq and drops MILLIONS of hits of acid...the americans go in after everybody is really stoned and just picks thru everyone till they get all the troublemakers???

How to win the war and make big savings.<font color=cadetblue>Now, THIS is a good idea.</font>

Ya but thats not Chemical so it dont count!

That's a great Idea. I'd poar the pennies out from 30,000 ft to get a better spread. It could also double as finacial aid ;)

<font color=orange>Proof, once again, that one should not be drinking coffee (or any beverage) when reading posts on Ironworks!!! My System Manager is going to kill me!!! Where is the damn Windex?

Once again Mr. Harris, you are right on!!! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

That's a great Idea. I'd poar the pennies out from 30,000 ft to get a better spread. It could also double as finacial aid ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Sadly this would only produce the atrocity of killing civilians while leaving the enemy troops alive.

a little math:

a penny weighs 2.5g
dropping height = 10000m (about 33000 feet)

s = g/2*t^2
10000 = 10/2*t^2
t = sqrt(2000) - square root of 2000

The pennies fall for about 45 seconds

v = g*t = 10*sqrt(2000)

They reach a speed of about 450m/s

E = (m*v^2)/2
E = (0.0025 * (10*sqrt(2000))^2)/2
E = (0.0025 * 200000) / 2
E = 250 N

The pennies would have an energy of 250N which is about the same as a 9mm short bullet (e.g. Walther PPK) or twice the energy of a .22 caliber gun.
Most armor will withstand that leaving troops unharmed. After all standard flak jackets or Kevlar vests are designed to protect from 9mm Parabellum and .40 S&W which have energies around 600N.

So only civilian casualties and everybody who hurries inside a house roofed with more than a blanket or rotten wood will lekely survive as well. No use against any military targets.

How about nickles then?? They are substantialy heavier than pennies.

yes but they also cost 5! times more
and being heavier you could carry less of them in a bomber
and the payload would be more expensive of course

a B52-H has a maximum bombload of 50000lbs for example
50000lbs = 25000kg = 10 million pennys (= 100 000$) = 5 million Nickels (250 000$)

Still the energy would only be 500N again less than a .40 S&W

Dimes weigh less than Pennies and are therfore useless in our matter and Quarters (5.67g) also would only raise to 567N while raising the price of our payload to 1.1 million $

[ 08-18-2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

So drop them in groups, or bags. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Hell, just drop 'em for the fun of it. Who needs pennies anyway?

<font color=cadetblue>Wow, someone actually took the time to figure out its effectiveness...I applaud you Faceman! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

Could you then please bomb MY home. I consider myself on of the persons who need 100 000$ :D

And a little more math to illustrate just how pathetic pennies are

1 penny is
19.05mm in diameter
and 1.55 thick

therefore a penny has a volume of
((19.05/2)^2) * pi * 1.55 = 441.78 cmm = 0.44178 ccm/ml

assuming you could store pennies in any container without spaces between them
100 million pennies (1 mio $)would take up

0.44178 ccm * 100 000 000 = 44178558.33 ccm/ml = 44178.55 cdm/l

This equals about 11700 US gallons which filled with beer
would

1. only weigh 44tons as opposed to the 250tons the pennies would weigh

2. be a lot cheaper a 0.5l can is about 50 cents where I live
therefore
44000l would be worth 44000$

3. contain enough alcohol to get 10 000 men up to a BAC of 0.277%

required math
weight of one man = 200lbs = 91kg
alcohol content of a beer = 5%vol

grams of alcohol = bodyweight in kgs * blood alcohol in promille * 0.7 (constant would be 0.6 for females)

now 4.4178l beer would contain

4.4178*5/100 = 0.22l = 220ml alcohol
this is
220*0.8(density of alcohol) = 176.712g alcohol

so
176.712 = 91*blood alcohol in promille*0.7
176.712/63.7= blood alcohol in promille = 2.7741

Now promille = %BAC*10 so 2.77promille = 0.277%BAC

So maybe they should just drop the beer and make the enemies all drunk. Nice tactical strike that one :D

[ 08-19-2003, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Starting to like this so I've started a new <a href=http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=017192>topic</a> for my silly calculations in General Disussion.

Got curious through your thread at GD .. just have a question:


[quote]Originally posted by Faceman:

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris: a little math: a penny weighs 2.5g dropping height = 10000m (about 33000 feet) s = g/2*t^2 10000 = 10/2*t^2 t = sqrt(2000) - square root of 2000 The pennies fall for about 45 seconds v = g*t = 10*sqrt(2000) They reach a speed of about 450m/s

Where did friction go ?
Because a feather takes a preeeetty long time to get down from 33000 feet, but I can assure you that it does not reach speeds like 450m/s, which if you use just your formula would appear to be the result ...

friction was disregarded because I was aiming for the highest possible speed (which I should have outlined I concede).
Also it is quite low in this case where aerodynamic resistance would play a more important role as it would with your feather which actually might never ever reach ground because of aerodynamic resistance and the fact that it would be dragged around by different air streams.

This is also another thing I disregard for my coins (which because of density definitely WOULD reach ground) which could be thrown around and slowed down by wind too. Yet their max speed remains what I have outlined above disregarding exact numbers for g (which varies with height and actually is set at approx 9.801) and disregarding any effects of air (friction, aerodynamic resistance,...).

[ 08-19-2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

I think grouping Napalm along with some of the more horrible chemical and biological agents is quite misleading.


I think the reason why we choose to ban the use of those weapons is that:

1: Their effects are too hard to control. You have little knowledge about who will actually die from them, and they can have lingering effects.

2: They are deliberately designed to kill people as painfully as possible.

There is a great difference in deep-frying a few select people in a bunker and letting loose a plague.

But you are not 'frying' a few select people in a bunker when you use napalm - the very nature of the weapon means that it can *not* be precise. Don't forget that the bomb must first release a vapour cloud of inflammable liquid (which is then be dispersed yet further by the wind) before ignition. Obviously, you don't want to be downwind of this:
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/u...s/napalm66.jpg

As for the results, it *is* designed to kill slowly and instill fear. The problem with trying to get people to understand the nature of this weapon is that photographers and journalists tend to prefer not to be in the area where napalm is being dropped - consequently few photos exist - but those that do tell a horrific story:

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/boatpeop...lmbombing.jpeg (US Napalm)
http://tuantran.org/050402pic2.jpg (US Napalm)
http://tuantran.org/050402pic3.jpg (US Napalm)
http://www.afghan-web.com/gallery/injuredwoman.jpg (Russian napalm)
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/boatpeop.../dovandan.jpeg (Agent Orange)

...and then, after some money-dropping, american troops can get in'n kill anything that moves, knowing that they won't hit any civilians [img]tongue.gif[/img]