Why are rocket launchers and weapons of mass destruction less dangerous to humanity than microbes, and is this so?

Why are rocket launchers and weapons of mass destruction less dangerous to humanity than microbes, and is this so?

Teaching Space With NASA - What's Next for Mars Exploration

Previous questionIf a perfect humanoid Artificial Intelligence is developed, will it be given a passport (and all human rights)?
Next questionHow to find motivation to implement your deeds?!?

answers (2)

Answer 1
August, 2021

Because rocket launchers and weapons of mass destruction are completely under human control, and microbes and other dangerous microorganisms can infect anyone they do not understand.

Answer 2
August, 2021

Less dangerous? It depends on how you look at it. They are rarely used. in Serbia, the Americans blew up a dozen churches where refugees were hiding. Surprised journalists wrote: how can it be, with modern electronic guidance systems, how could they have made such a depressing blunder? American officials did not comment on the situation or referred to technical errors, purely formal versions, repeated to divert attention. But eyewitnesses who saw this nightmare with their own eyes, who remained, one way or another, alive, emphasized that it was not a mistake, it was quite an aimed strike at a strategic point.

The amers' most power is concentrated in anti-aircraft missile complex with the pretentious name "Patriot". These are intercontinental missiles that can overcome the gravity of the Earth and fly across the Atlantic in 20 minutes. If such a strike happens, then there are interceptor missiles and warning systems. But after all, we also missed the Chelyabinsk meteorite, we sometimes wonder: how do these warning systems work? Maybe they didn’t miss, they simply didn’t think it was necessary to inform the layman. We have comparable intercontinental missiles - this is (basically) the Topol-M complex. It is designed to be highly portable, can travel over rough terrain, camouflaged in lowlands and areas of vegetation. It is convenient to cover it both from the air and from the ground. Trucks are driving, which, instead of a body, have rather large systems of equipped weapons behind their backs. Ballistic missiles of the surface-to-air class, as well as water-to-surface missiles, can fly to Antarctica. But this is far from the only brainchild of the Russian military-industrial complex. The world community is more worried about not Topol-M and its analogues, and nuclear weapons, which are often based on submarines, the size of which seems to be created for intimidation. These submarines can navigate the waters around the globe. Imagine a military headache. The US will enter the San Francisco Bay of its own nuclear-armed submarine. Directly from there, she will make a volley, and the rockets, coming out of the water, will fly in the direction of the Plisetsk cosmodrome or somewhere else. After all, journalists who either do not know anything about the military-industrial complex, or simply make money on hearsay and speculation, are scared by all sorts of missile defense systems that are installed either in Poland or in Finland, they say, close to our border. It does not matter their proximity to our border, and missile defense missiles are not intercontinental, moreover, they are directed rather not even at Russia, but at the Euro-zone. All this is not some kind of fantasy, all this is rather yesterday. So already since the 60s, there have been intercontinental missiles. The climax of such tension came in the Caribbean Crisis, where prudence on both sides only miraculously triumphed, and when the leaders of the countries met, the diplomats settled the situation, orders were received to withdraw the fleet back from Cuba, on both sides, that the military, that the citizens were very disappointed - "How is it, really there will be no turmoil, we have already tuned in with all our hearts and souls! Now the rollback ...?!"- but if then the buttons were pressed, we would now live in a world similar to the Stalker's Universe, there would be no winners. Or not at all. So pacifists sometimes say that nuclear weapons should be written off and reduced, while other pacifists say that it was nuclear weapons that served the basis of lasting peace in the second half of the 20th century. There were many local conflicts, but there were no global wars. The last supporter of disarmament was Barack Obama in the United States, already a man from a bygone era. He pledged to close high-security prisons and dispose of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. After all, there is too much of it, the earth can be destroyed 20 times, while maintaining landfills and bio / chemistry laboratories is unimaginably expensive. Then it turned out that the decommissioning and competent disposal of such types of weapons is even more expensive than maintaining them. Strategically, for full control of the entire globe, such expensive laboratories and landfills, moreover, could be less dangerous by 80%. An attempt to reduce them provokes strong opposition from numerous, influential social groups. So, Barack Obama didn’t really disarm anything and didn’t close a single maximum security prison. I just promised a lot. When Donald Trump was elected, on the contrary, he said that we would increase military power more and more, the promise was already quite different.

All Russian weapons systems have a code name in the NATO classification, as well as jargon names among the military , most often they are humorous on the one hand, and with respect on the other.

The problem of nuclear weapons has attracted quite a lot of public attention. At the same time, it seems that the public simply does not know a lot of other facts. For the destruction of an entire city, like a large metropolis, and not necessarily nuclear weapons. On this score, there are quite a lot of bombs and missiles that will cope with the goal.

Cluster bombs and phosphorus bombs are also available in Russia and the United States.

Cassette exists on the principle of accumulating an explosive charge, where a large number of explosives detonate in a cascade effect, the kinetic energy of the explosion increases. The energy of the explosion is generally the same as in a big explosion, but this allows you to save explosives, to compact explosives, and is also designed to cover a large area of ​​terrain. There will be simply nowhere to hide, being inside armored vehicles, the crews will roast, hiding behind a tree or absolutely the entire area of ​​destruction will be covered in a crevice.

Phosphoric as a whole is designed to destroy the terrain, poison the environment and acts through the blinding of the enemy and destruction .

Such weapons are recognized, of course, not humane by many international conventions on the use of weapons. However, reports on the use of such weapons often fall into the hands of the private press and numerous places of warfare.

What about biological and chemical weapons? After all, it is already so dangerous that the authoritiesthe possessors can turn to dust and decay, it is very poorly controlled. If the powers that be for themselves have saved the vaccine in the warehouse in advance, then everyone will know if they start using it.

Destroying the entire globe is not very strategically beneficial, because then there will be nothing and no one to rule. You won't be able to make money either.

Natural viruses, bacteria and microbes that Mother Nature has reserved for us, they can frighten even more than the product of the inflamed consciousness of scientists and military men, who, in fact, are engaged in theft of ideas from Nature. However, the most dangerous viruses mutate and go out to harvest, usually at the moments when the automatic natural process of regulating food chains starts, if any one species disproportionately increases its population. This process is not fully and accurately described and understood, and is not proven at all. However, the most dangerous viruses, with the most rapid and massive lethal effect, they rarely spread widely, exist only in isolated areas, infect only a separate species or genetically rare material, because the purpose of the virus is not to instantly kill everything that it sees, but rather to mimic. parasitize on biological organisms. There are also theories where social upheavals on a global scale can also be caused by all kinds of microorganisms that affect the behavior of certain natural species.

There are also hypotheses about the so-called "climate weapon".

Today technologies of this kind are no longer so closed. Many organizations, not only Muslim ones, want something similar. Biohacking and bioterrorism are in demand, as well as anti-globalism, armed fundamentalism, both outside, on the surface of society, and inside, hidden.

Related question

How great is the danger of ISIS developing chemical and bacteriological weapons?

Read more

I have a craving for self-destruction and destruction of everything that is dear to me. Unknowingly, but I think so. What should I do?

Read more

Why is Apple still so successful and its products are so popular when Samsung is already ahead of the technology and costs less?

Read more

Why Most \

Why is it scary to google symptoms? Why are doctors on the Internet less right than real ones, suggesting a diagnosis even before the tests are done?

Read more

Why is humanity developing the gaming industry so much? Does this make a practical sense?

Read more

Why is the reaction genre so popular on YouTube? How can this be interesting? Than?

Read more

What are the names of this kind of photography and why are they so popular on the Internet?

Read more

Why don't people build some rockets, collect all the garbage and send it to the Sun so that the rockets and the garbage can burn up under the high temperature?

Read more

What Happens When a Nuclear Bomb Hits

Why are most of the comments on the internet written by idiots? Is this a slice of the population as a whole, or are more reasonable people less likely to express their opinions?

Read more

What are the advantages of a nuclear power? Why doesn't Ukraine want to acquire nuclear weapons again?

Read more

Why are more than 10,000 followers on Instagram cutting 10k? What is this k?

Read more

Why are men so fond of playing computer games? And how do women solve this problem in family life?

Read more

Is there a weapon on the ISS, and what measures are provided to protect against aliens?

Read more

Weapons of Mass Destruction

What kind of mirror is in SLR cameras and why are they better than others?

Read more

Why does SpaceX launch and land rockets on a platform at sea, because it is not so stable, isn't it easier from the ground?

Read more

Are bananas really treated with nitrogen so that they ripen quickly and how dangerous is it for health?

Read more

Why are prisons so good in Norway? Is this the motive for the commission of crimes by the Norwegian lumpen?

Read more

Why is the human body so poorly "designed"? (Eg throat near trachea - risk of choking)?

Read more

Why Is It So Hard to Build an ICBM?

Under what conditions are the administrators of thousands of channels ready to advertise for free niche channels with less than a hundred subscribers (do not offer mutual PR)?

Read more

Why in the 21st century are motorcycles still so noisy in the city that you want to wish death to every motorcyclist? Why not make motorcycles less noisy?

Read more