# !!!???!?!?!?most powerful weapons ever created!!??!?!?



## BLACK LION (May 12, 2009)

Many people will go down a laundry list of tools in the arsenal that could be considered the most powerful "weapon" and many will say the nuclear bomb.   Fact is, no matter what you come up with it is just a tool that was made by man.    
Humans have forged every tool in existence...from the rock to the stick to the sword to the bow to the gun to the bomb etc.... gunships, apaches, aircraft carriers, subs, jet fighters etc...   

The most powerful "weapons" ever created is the human brain and body.
They the only true "weapons"... regardless of what "terminology" tells us, this is the fact...especially when dealing with an armed threat.   

These tools alone are inanimate and incapable of anything without an "operator" and thus the prime reason not to consider them true "weapons"...rather than the living breathing human whos intent and capable of putting it to use for whatever purpose...    

Far too many times I see reference made to the snap on labor saving device attached to the real threat.  Rather than the ultimate threat which is the active brain and able body.  


I will stop here and wait for some feedback...

I appreciate the interest and response in advance....  thanks


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 12, 2009)

> The most powerful "weapons" ever created is the human brain and body.


 I have to agree with a "that we know off"

any other weapon that was made by man would have to be considered in it's place in history abd it's time in history


----------



## Grenadier (May 12, 2009)

It only makes sense, that the power of someone isn't so much the weapon, but rather, the person using the weapon.  

To put it this way, a Winchester model 70 rifle, equipped with a nice scope, in the hands of Master Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock or Chuck Mawhinney, is going to be far deadlier than an entire squadron of your average soldier, even if they are equipped with the latest and greatest small arms available.  

A 1911 pistol in the hands of Bob Mundin would be deadlier than a gang of thugs wielding those "evil, black colored, high capacity spray and pray" TEC-9 firearms.


----------



## Jenna (May 12, 2009)

Are you talking in an individual sense?

I might have no great fighting mind but I might command a battallion.  Or worse, a nation.  Great mind or not, I still wield a powerful fighting machine, yes?

In an individual sense (hand-to-hand) I still worry that the assumptions.  Yes, the tool or weapon is only as good as the mind wielding that weapon, and but there is no implication that that mind is actually any good in the first place!  We can hardly suggest the mind is the most powerful weapon, if its owner is an idiot, right?

In an individual sense, for the mind to be regarded as the most powerful weapon, imo, it must: 
*1).* be housed within an appropriately proficient and skilled practitioner
*2).* belong to an individual who has the intent necessary to become that weapon

Also, you are talking purely about using the weapon as *a fighting tool *rather than a weapon in the peacemaking sense.  I would ask, which is the more powerful? A fool with a Cruise missile or the greatest intellect with a pen and a sense of integrity?

Good question though 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## searcher (May 12, 2009)

I am going with T.V. mixed with a large helping ofr McDonald's food.     It has killed more people than the Nuclear arsenal of all countries combined.

In order to be classified as "deadliest" it needs to be a regular use item.   Nukes are not on the regular use list of any country currently.     If we off of that, then the good ole MG42 ranks at the top with nerve gas a close second.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 12, 2009)

searcher said:


> I am going with T.V. mixed with a large helping ofr McDonald's food.     It has killed more people than the Nuclear arsenal of all countries combined.
> 
> In order to be classified as "deadliest" it needs to be a regular use item.   Nukes are not on the regular use list of any country currently.     If we off of that, then the good ole MG42 ranks at the top with nerve gas a close second.


Agreement on the television :lol: 

I would say Nerve or Chemical and Biological weapons are among the most powerful. Particularly nerve gas because you can wipe out an entire area's population and leave everything intact and the gas becomes inert very shortly after dispersal... thereby rendering it safe for the users to move into that area. 
Granted those three are not in "regular use" but it's (to me) more powerful than a nuke... probably because they're more efficient. You save the costs of rebuilding and decontamination is at a minimum. 

But for a single tangible piece of hardware, definitely an ICBM - with multiple independent targeting warheads.


----------



## elder999 (May 12, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I would say Nerve or Chemical and Biological weapons are among the most powerful. Particularly nerve gas because you can wipe out an entire area's population and leave everything intact and the gas becomes inert very shortly after dispersal... thereby rendering it safe for the users to move into that area.
> Granted those three are not in "regular use" but it's (to me) more powerful than a nuke... probably because they're more efficient. You save the costs of rebuilding and decontamination is at a minimum.


 
Not exactly true. Part of the reasoning behind our scrapping of NBC weaponry was their being so subject to atmospheric vagaries. Dosages of a variety of agents can be reduced, confined or completely obliterated by the weather, and their reliability in terms of efficiency (which, believe it or not, there is a rather diabolical formula for based upon the ratio of projected deaths to amount of agent deployed) was thus considered very low.

The stuff is all pretty scary, though, and that is its biggest strength.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (May 12, 2009)

The human mind will only be dominant until replaced by a superior AI. Go Skynet!


----------



## redantstyle (May 12, 2009)

> Not exactly true. Part of the reasoning behind our scrapping of NBC weaponry was their being so subject to atmospheric vagaries. Dosages of a variety of agents can be reduced, confined or completely obliterated by the weather, and their reliability in terms of efficiency (which, believe it or not, there is a rather diabolical formula for based upon the ratio of projected deaths to amount of agent deployed) was thus considered very low.
> 
> The stuff is all pretty scary, though, and that is its biggest strength



in the basic NBC classes i had, the Bio freaked me out the most.

it's the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## lklawson (May 13, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Fact is, no matter what you come up with it is just a tool that was made by man.


That is inherent in the definition of weapon. If it were not a tool made by an intelligence for the purpose of inflicting injury upon another intelligence, it would not, by definition, be a weapon.

I guess, therefore, that I disagree with your premise in that it appears to be circular reasoning. A weapon is a weapon BECAUSE of the intelligence. If you're going to go to the trouble of attempting to differentiate the intelligence from the "inert object" then you're left with some rather unsettling questions about whether or not some intelligences are more deadly/dangerous than others and what should be done about that threat. Should we require anyone with an IQ over a given mark to "register" with the government? Should we "ban" anyone who tests as having potentially threatening intelligence? Should we "regulate" and "document" the flow of potentially threatening ideas? What&#8217;s the logical conclusion of this, Winston?

Consequently, because "intelligent creator/operator" is implicit in the definition and understanding of "weapon," I'd still have to go with the current record holder of a Fusion device.

While I agree that some operator, past or present, guides the operation of a weapon and that many people have an irrational fear of weapons based on an illogical tendency to anthropomorphize objects, I think that dismissing the graduated potential of various weapons is simply dismissing reality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JDenver (May 13, 2009)

The most dangerous weapon is a lion tied to a shark.


----------



## lklawson (May 13, 2009)

JDenver said:


> The most dangerous weapon is a lion tied to a shark.


With a frick'n laser?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## BLACK LION (May 13, 2009)

_A *weapon* is a __tool__ used to apply or threaten to apply __force__ for the purpose of __hunting__, attack or defense in __combat__, subduing enemy personnel, or to destroy enemy weapons, equipment and defensive structures. A weapon is therefore a device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force.[1] In general, they can be defined as the simplest mechanisms that use __mechanical advantage__ (also called __leverage__) to multiply force.[2]_


----------

