The discussion in “not sure about this” made me wonder. Should we ever complain of a civilian technology because it can be weaponised?

That generated a ridiculous idea of mine. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps if it can’t be weaponised then it isn’t worth having?

The following can (and often have) been weaponised:
Hubble space telescope – a civilian spin-off of military technology, spy satellite.
Earth observation satellites – ditto.
Rockets – a civilian spin-off of military technology
Uranium mining and nuclear power – ditto
Walls – a civilian spin-off of military technology, originally used to repel armies
Internet – a civilian spin-off of military technology
Microsoft, www, Google – can be weaponised
LSD – has been tested for military use
Research into alleviating pain – has recently been weaponised for generating pain
Alkaloids and snake venom – civilian and military uses
Genetic engineering – can be weaponised
Nanotechnology – ditto
Dams – civilian, but have been used as weapons
Glass – has been weaponised
Iron ore – has been used for military purposes
Vehicles – have been used for military purposes
Jet engines – a civilian spin-off of military technology
Seawater – electrolysis of seawater is how chlorine gas is produced
Climate change – sufficiently militarisable that climate manipulation is banned by arms limitation treaties
Space – sufficiently militarisable that putting weapons in space is banned by arms limitation treaties
Dog – military and civilian use
Dynamite – a civilian spin-off of military technology
Insecticides – are nerve gases
Herbicide – see Vietnam war
Pigeons, dolphins – have been used as weapons

Walls were originally civilian inventions to ward of attacking beasts and bad weather, not armies.

I’d say the original purpose of bridges was also civilian.

That generated a ridiculous idea of mine. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps if it can’t be weaponised then it isn’t worth having?
…………………………

Correct; it is a ridiculous idea.

Virtually everything you can imagine has been adapted for military use. Virtually everything can be weaponised.

eg: toothpaste (keeps soldiers healthier) (try squirting in someone’s eye…)

Michael V said:

That generated a ridiculous idea of mine. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps if it can’t be weaponised then it isn’t worth having?
…………………………

Correct; it is a ridiculous idea.

Virtually everything you can imagine has been adapted for military use. Virtually everything can be weaponised.

Rocks and sharp sticks.

Whilst the end use of weapons isn’t good you can admire the research and engineering going into designing them, we don’t do things by halves when it comes to killing each other and blowing things up

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

That generated a ridiculous idea of mine. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps if it can’t be weaponised then it isn’t worth having?
…………………………

Correct; it is a ridiculous idea.

Virtually everything you can imagine has been adapted for military use. Virtually everything can be weaponised.

Rocks and sharp sticks.

And who can forget the latter stages of the vietnam war when they were dropping stuffed toy animals on villages… checks notes… naplam. I mean napalm…

Cymek said:

Whilst the end use of weapons isn’t good you can admire the research and engineering going into designing them, we don’t do things by halves when it comes to killing each other and blowing things up

unless it is a spontoon aka half-pike.

Speaking of toys, in a post apocalyptic future my plan is to equip a nerf gun with poison darts. No good on zombies, of course, but it is quiet and the zombies won’t hear it as I systematically take out my human enemies…

Cymek said:

Whilst the end use of weapons isn’t good you can admire the research and engineering going into designing them, we don’t do things by halves when it comes to killing each other and blowing things up

My dad was an amourer, and an armorer, among his jack-of-all-trades career. I was a gunnery sailor to start with.

I’ve seen what firearms do, and it appalls and it disgusts me.

But, i do admire the engineering. How so much happens in such such small spaces, with such fine tolerances and at such pressures and temperatures.

*My dad was an amourer, and an armorer

Given you exist, I guess he was also an amor-er…

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Whilst the end use of weapons isn’t good you can admire the research and engineering going into designing them, we don’t do things by halves when it comes to killing each other and blowing things up

My dad was an amourer, and an armorer, among his jack-of-all-trades career. I was a gunnery sailor to start with.

I’ve seen what firearms do, and it appalls and it disgusts me.

But, i do admire the engineering. How so much happens in such such small spaces, with such fine tolerances and at such pressures and temperatures.

Yes you can understand PTSD from seeing people broken

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

Whilst the end use of weapons isn’t good you can admire the research and engineering going into designing them, we don’t do things by halves when it comes to killing each other and blowing things up

My dad was an amourer, and an armorer, among his jack-of-all-trades career. I was a gunnery sailor to start with.

I’ve seen what firearms do, and it appalls and it disgusts me.

But, i do admire the engineering. How so much happens in such such small spaces, with such fine tolerances and at such pressures and temperatures.

Yes you can understand PTSD from seeing people broken

Doesn’t do wonders for your religion, either.

Hard to believe in a ‘divine spark within us’ when you’ve seen what can happen to what’s actually in there.

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

My dad was an amourer, and an armorer, among his jack-of-all-trades career. I was a gunnery sailor to start with.

I’ve seen what firearms do, and it appalls and it disgusts me.

But, i do admire the engineering. How so much happens in such such small spaces, with such fine tolerances and at such pressures and temperatures.

Yes you can understand PTSD from seeing people broken

Doesn’t do wonders for your religion, either.

Hard to believe in a ‘divine spark within us’ when you’ve seen what can happen to what’s actually in there.

Doesn’t take much to kill us either, bit of a worry just going out into the world when we die so easily let alone going somewhere were others are actively trying to end that life.

furious said:

Speaking of toys, in a post apocalyptic future my plan is to equip a nerf gun with poison darts. No good on zombies, of course, but it is quiet and the zombies won’t hear it as I systematically take out my human enemies…

Any forumites among them?

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

captain_spalding said:

My dad was an amourer, and an armorer, among his jack-of-all-trades career. I was a gunnery sailor to start with.

I’ve seen what firearms do, and it appalls and it disgusts me.

But, i do admire the engineering. How so much happens in such such small spaces, with such fine tolerances and at such pressures and temperatures.

Yes you can understand PTSD from seeing people broken

Doesn’t do wonders for your religion, either.

Hard to believe in a ‘divine spark within us’ when you’ve seen what can happen to what’s actually in there.

We’re getting better though. For most of human history warfare was a legitimate political and economic policy. Most of the world is now at peace thankfully.

Witty Rejoinder said:

furious said:

Speaking of toys, in a post apocalyptic future my plan is to equip a nerf gun with poison darts. No good on zombies, of course, but it is quiet and the zombies won’t hear it as I systematically take out my human enemies…

Any forumites among them?

I don’t, currently, have a list.

Adds “make a list” to the list…

fairly much anything can be materially lent to hostility, or a strong active defensive posture, or offensive actions

this raises the possibility some things can be weaponized, or be weapons against hostile weaponization, the proposition of neutralization

the opposite of weaponization can be seen to be neutralization, and friendly and hostile can be seen as flipsides I guess

friendliness makes the swing to hostility potentially more expensive, like trade has a stabilizing influence, there are dependencies involves

weaponized defined by way of a naive definition, concept, stereotype, hardly goes to defining hostile, so it’s quite open how you define weaponized

so you could add some of the above to rev’s paradox thread

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

That generated a ridiculous idea of mine. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps if it can’t be weaponised then it isn’t worth having?
…………………………

Correct; it is a ridiculous idea.

Virtually everything you can imagine has been adapted for military use. Virtually everything can be weaponised.

Rocks and sharp sticks.

And let’s not forget John Cleese’s lesson on how to defend yourself against someone who attacks you with a piece of fruit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Walls were originally civilian inventions to ward of attacking beasts and bad weather, not armies.

I’d say the original purpose of bridges was also civilian.

I’m not going to agree with you there. For walls, only true if you count animal hides and brushwood as walls. I mean real walls, of mud or stones.

Bridges have been military from the start haven’t they? Only later adapted to civilian use.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Walls were originally civilian inventions to ward of attacking beasts and bad weather, not armies.

I’d say the original purpose of bridges was also civilian.

I’m not going to agree with you there. For walls, only true if you count animal hides and brushwood as walls. I mean real walls, of mud or stones.

Bridges have been military from the start haven’t they? Only later adapted to civilian use.

Bridges are usually commercial, traders get together and pay for them, or king builds it and taxes crossings. But they are so important to military use they are the first things on maps and considerations of movement and blocking.

KJW said:

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

That generated a ridiculous idea of mine. Perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps if it can’t be weaponised then it isn’t worth having?
…………………………

Correct; it is a ridiculous idea.

Virtually everything you can imagine has been adapted for military use. Virtually everything can be weaponised.

Rocks and sharp sticks.

And let’s not forget John Cleese’s lesson on how to defend yourself against someone who attacks you with a piece of fruit.

I haven’t yet heard of any way to weaponise wind power, it seems totally benign. It’s the best counterexample I’ve thought of so far.

How about we just decide that commerce and war are often get very closely interlinked…?

party_pants said:

How about we just decide that commerce and war are often get very closely interlinked…?

… and that my grammar is sometimes appalling when I write one thing and then try to reword it rather than delete the whole lot and start again.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Walls were originally civilian inventions to ward of attacking beasts and bad weather, not armies.

I’d say the original purpose of bridges was also civilian.

I’m not going to agree with you there. For walls, only true if you count animal hides and brushwood as walls. I mean real walls, of mud or stones.

Bridges have been military from the start haven’t they? Only later adapted to civilian use.

Bridges are usually commercial, traders get together and pay for them, or king builds it and taxes crossings. But they are so important to military use they are the first things on maps and considerations of movement and blocking.

Plus if you destroy them you’d slow down the enemy and have time to mass your forces

mollwollfumble said:

KJW said:

Woodie said:

Rocks and sharp sticks.

And let’s not forget John Cleese’s lesson on how to defend yourself against someone who attacks you with a piece of fruit.

I haven’t yet heard of any way to weaponise wind power, it seems totally benign. It’s the best counterexample I’ve thought of so far.

i’ve seen movie scenes with helicopters or whatever going between them, Mission Impossible maybe, with Tom Cruise

so there, I seen it on TV