Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#102 Dec 12 2012 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe we should have a philosophical discussion about whether or not you can have accuracy without inaccuracy?


If a bomb falls in the woods...
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#103 Dec 12 2012 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

In a scientific sense, accuracy is how close your measurement(s) are to the true value, while precision is how little variance there is among your measurements. So if a laboratory scale weighs a 10 gram standard as 6 grams half the time, and 14 grams half the time, it's got 100% accuracy, but very poor precision.

I don't know if there's a widely accepted application of the terms to weapons science, but in common language terms, a weapon would be accurate if it hits its intended mark, and precise if its spread is highly predictable or controlled. By this definition, a GPS-guided atomic weapon could be very accurate (down to ~1 meter I guess?), but its precision would be poor, because I don't think even the experts know exactly how wide the blast will be (or how wind, rain, and other factors will spread the fallout).

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#104 Dec 12 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Larger weapon systems have a larger error in their accuracy. They also tend to have a higher tolerance for it.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#105 Dec 12 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
SomeProteinGuy wrote:
If you literally define your target as hitting everyone and everything, then sure they're accurate. Assuming you don't want to kill your own people though, I could see an argument for inaccuracy when you have chemicals being blown around by changing winds or something.


That would be "everyone and everything" within a certain radius. If your goal was to hit Rhode Island and you drop an A-Bomb, you will more than likely affect outside of that radius.

TLW wrote:
Larger weapon systems have a larger error in their accuracy. They also tend to have a higher tolerance for it.


Please give an example.
#106 Dec 12 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
This all seems paradoxical to me.

Isn't this perceived "accuracy" of WMD's derived from the indiscriminate goals of their use? As in, it's "accurate" because you don't really care how accurate it is?

That's silly.


Also, I'm so glad that I haven't been following this thread.
#107 Dec 12 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Almalieque wrote:
SomeProteinGuy wrote:
If you literally define your target as hitting everyone and everything, then sure they're accurate. Assuming you don't want to kill your own people though, I could see an argument for inaccuracy when you have chemicals being blown around by changing winds or something.


That would be "everyone and everything" within a certain radius. If your goal was to hit Rhode Island and you drop an A-Bomb, you will more than likely affect outside of that radius.

TLW wrote:
Larger weapon systems have a larger error in their accuracy. They also tend to have a higher tolerance for it.


Please give an example.


A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#108 Dec 12 2012 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sooooo. which definition did my statement contradict?

TLW wrote:
A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.


You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.

#109 Dec 12 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sooooo. which definition did my statement contradict?

TLW wrote:
A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.


You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.



Wow.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#110 Dec 12 2012 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Sooooo. which definition did my statement contradict?

TLW wrote:
A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.


You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.



Wow.


Your mind is now blown....
#111 Dec 12 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.


Um... But when the center point of your hit varies from the center point of the target by some statistically consistent value, then that *is* a function of the inaccuracy of the delivery system (at a given range of course). An NFL quarterback who can throw the ball at a receiver 20 yards away and consistently get that ball to a random location within a foot of his receivers hands is considered "accurate". One who can only consistently get the ball to a random location within 10 feet of his receivers hands is considered "inaccurate".

Similarly, a Syrian rocket that randomly hits a point within 100M of the center of the target area is less accurate than a US smart bomb that will randomly hit a point within 3 feet of that same center point. Regardless of the payload being delivered, that is how we measure accuracy within the context of projectiles (whether weapons or footballs). The advantage of a more accurate delivery system is that you can put a smaller payload on it and hit just what you want. The reason one might gravitate to using chemical weapons instead is because there is less need for being accurate without dealing with the significantly increased weight involved in just putting a bigger explosive in there. Being "close" is good enough in that case.

Note that this has nothing at all to do with how accurate the weapon is. If a weapon system (payload plus delivery system) is "accurate enough", then we might use the term called "effective". An inaccurate weapon can be effective if accuracy is not required. But that doesn't magically make it accurate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Dec 12 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Quoted Text

Um... But when the center point of your hit varies from the center point of the target by some statistically consistent value,


But it doesn't. Do you honestly believe that with all the money that we spend on weapons, that we wouldn't put a great emphasis on the accuracy of weapons with such destruction power? Seriously? I would argue that the bigger weapons are more accurate than the small arms due to the possible aftermath. You missing a shot with a 9 mm is one thing, you missing your target with a tank or arterillary round is a completely different story. There simply isn't any room for error.

Gbaji wrote:
An inaccurate weapon can be effective if accuracy is not required. But that doesn't magically make it accurate.


Except in this case it's effective because it's accurate. Again, ask a Field Artilleryman. At this point, you're simply creating fictitious weapons in order to prove a point.
#113 Dec 12 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
What the **** are you talking about? Yes "we" (meaning the US military) put great weight on the accuracy of our weapons. But "them" (meaning folks who lob chemical weapons on scud missiles) do not.

I thought we were talking about folks launching chemical payloads on rockets that randomly hit a spot within a 5 mile diameter circle. Their weapons are *not* accurate. Using Chemical weapons on those sorts of rockets is fine because in that case you don't care how accurate they are. But that doesn't magically make them accurate. WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Dec 12 2012 at 8:37 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Quote:
What the **** are you talking about? Yes "we" (meaning the US military) put great weight on the accuracy of our weapons. But "them" (meaning folks who lob chemical weapons on scud missiles) do not.

I thought we were talking about folks launching chemical payloads on rockets that randomly hit a spot within a 5 mile diameter circle. Their weapons are *not* accurate. Using Chemical weapons on those sorts of rockets is fine because in that case you don't care how accurate they are. But that doesn't magically make them accurate. WTF?


1. No, you got off on a tangent. This thread was created on why the US should care what weapons other nations have while we're here crying over the right to "bear arms". The response was that chemical, biological, nuclear,etc. weapons are not accurate because they cover a large area and can't be directed to a single target.. I responded that it is accurate because it attacks the desired target, a city. You then created fictional weapons with horrible accuracy to prove a point. HOWEVER, these WMD were never restricted to missiles or rockets. I can have a smart bomb, which was admitted to be accurate, with chemical gas and detonate it on the desired target. You can't get any more accurate than being on top of your target.

2. Given the fact that actual detailed data on weapons are often kept at least a SECRET level of any nation, I would say that you're creating fictional weapons again.

3. Just because the US has the best military in the world, doesn't mean that a poor country can't have the means of getting good firearms.
#115 Dec 12 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Dec 13 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,824 posts
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Dec 13 2012 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.

When the dog bites when the bee stings when I'm feeling sad, i simply remember my favorite thread and then I don't feel so bad.

I singed for you.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#118 Dec 13 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.


It's a full time job for Almalieque.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#119 Dec 13 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Almalieque wrote:
2. Given the fact that actual detailed data on weapons are often kept at least a SECRET level of any nation, I would say that you're creating fictional weapons again.


TCPs are foolproof.

Also, noone can see a system in use.


____________________________
Just as Planned.
#120 Dec 13 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.

So my years of Command & Conquer mean nothing to you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Dec 13 2012 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#122 Dec 13 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#123 Dec 13 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems ...

What people are you talking about.

Inaccurate delivery of chemicalized weapons will be very ineffective.

It's easy to effectively gas people dead if you can contain them in a chamber and control the concentration of gas that fills the confined space. Otherwise it can be pretty hit or miss.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#124 Dec 13 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,280 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.


Seven days after you get the phone call a Navy Seal crawls out of your T.V. and stabs you to death?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#125 Dec 13 2012 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.


Seven days after you get the phone call a Navy Seal crawls out of your T.V. and stabs you to death?
McAfee will block seals.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#126 Dec 13 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,280 posts
Elinda wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.


Seven days after you get the phone call a Navy Seal crawls out of your T.V. and stabs you to death?
McAfee will block seals.


But not extradition papers.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)