the most evil weapon

[NobodyHereButUsTrees]

What about weapons you can't fight back against? Like UAVs, IEDs, artillery, mines and what not.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

The Gay Bomb. It's a bomb that turns people temporarily gay.

Seriousness: Biological/chemical weapons.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

Giant lasers.

Nothing's says evil more then the classic giant laser.

 

[Eldarion]

for arguments sake lets say you have been given the ability to wipe any one weapon from history (for instance if you select AK-47, all the AK-47 ever past present and future will vanish) what would you select? i personally would choose to eliminate all land-mines....to many innocent bystanders have died by that weapon.

A tool cannot be evil, weapons are inanimate objects.

But maybe nuclear weapons if I had to pick, something not right about being able to wipe out the whole planet with a few missiles....

 

[gonzo20]

gunpowder, means no more guns or explodey things ever made and wed still have good old sword and boards and horses! yeah, i love the old warriors, i just wish they would put a broadsword in games instead of the katana! broadswords have the same cutting power for christ sakes!

 

[Arkzism]

the spear... why? cause humanity would never have made it out of the stone age... ie the biggest impact possible to man, hmm or... well no if removed the nukes.. most of japan would be a grave yard... um hmm... chemical weapons to be honest.. i would get rid of them...

 

[JLML]

Explosives. Simply remove the existence of explosives from the face of earth, and the only ones dying because of weapons (in war, idiots running around with guns excluded) are the ones participating in the wars. More or less.

 

[psivamp]

I can think of many, but I have to say gas is the most horrible one.

I might be wrong, but isn't it the only weapon banned from war by the UN? That's at least one good reason.

Also flamethrowers, expanding or fragmentary anti-personnel bullets... bunch of other stuff.

Edit: Just to clarify, these are items banned from "civilized" conflict. I don't know that I can narrow down a weapon of war to eliminate. I'm not sure I agree with Nobel and the whole M.A.D. situation since the Cold War, but nuclear war has certainly been used as a deterrent much more than it has been actively used as a weapon.

 

[Eldarion]

Explosives. Simply remove the existence of explosives from the face of earth, and the only ones dying because of weapons (in war, idiots running around with guns excluded) are the ones participating in the wars. More or less.

Artillery would still misfire.

 

[moeller]

Dumdum bullets are pretty nasty. Napalm grusom invention. In the new CoD Black Ops u'll get to use exploding crossbow arrows ::D

 

[Zacharine]

Nuclear Weapons.

Sure, it means we might have a few more wars, but I'd take a few hundred thousand dead over the spectre of total annihilation hanging over our heads anyday.

The truly scary thing? I'm fairly certain there's enough nuclear weapons collectively held by the countries that have them to blow up the entire surface of the planet a few times over. Why do that many even exist?

To guarantee succesfull MAD in any and all scenarios. There are the warheads that are in maintenance, in transit, in silos/bunkers, in tubes, several for backup, even more to backup the backup.

Essentially enough nuclear weapons to ensure the attacker dies as well, even if you lose up to roughly 80% nukes to enemy weapons and sabotage before even knowing you are under attack, and a third to half what you do launch are shot down on the way by enemy defences.

The numbers are made up, but illustrate the point.

I once heard that for every missile that you want to reach an enemy target with, you need to launch 3. To ensure you can launch those three, you need 10 ready for launch.

To have ten ready for launch, at any time, you need a total of 15 to cover the timegaps caused by logistics and maintenance.

Any precise numbers that strategic offensive/defensive/MAD scenarios are based on are more or less are secret.

OT: We'll, I'd like to say NBC-weapons, but will have to narrow it down due to the OP. So I'll just say ICBM-missiles. Not as a weapon, but as a delivery system. Around-the-globe range with ridiculously powerful payloads of nuclear or alternative warheads... Yeah, not good.

To take out a single weapon is useless: we have so many innovative methods to kill eachother off with such a variety of ways, losing one weapon doesn't really make too much of a difference.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Nuclear Weapons.

Sure, it means we might have a few more wars, but I'd take a few hundred thousand dead over the spectre of total annihilation hanging over our heads anyday.

I think you missed an /thread. Seriously, there is no question that those are the most horrific weapons in all of creation. Never before have humans had a credible ability to make the planet unhabitable.

 

[JLML]

Explosives. Simply remove the existence of explosives from the face of earth, and the only ones dying because of weapons (in war, idiots running around with guns excluded) are the ones participating in the wars. More or less.

Artillery would still misfire.

Well, without explosives there wouldn't be any artillery, now would there? (unless you count medieval stuff and such)

 

[Slaanax]

Can I do the reverse and add weapons? I think we need more!

 

[TimeLord]

*Creates a paradox bubble with a kettle and some string*

Daleks

They are created my an evil scientist in a genetic laboratory on a warring planet as a means to destroy the opposing faction in a never ending war.

Pure evil

 

[Spoonius]

Guns in general. I liked it back when soldiers fought up-close and personal with swords and other melee weapons.

I'll bet that the soldiers in question didn't.

 

[swolf]

Guns in general. I liked it back when soldiers fought up-close and personal with swords and other melee weapons.

Why? Despite being less likely to harm innocent bystanders, swords and melee weapons are a bit more brutal as they are less likely to kill the opponent but would instead maim them and they would die from bleeding out, infection, or some other injury. I would rather be shot than to die slowly. On the topic, I would say flame-based weapons such as the flamethrower and napalm (and white sulphur, thanks SteelStallion). I've seen a pic of a young girl immediately/shortly her and her village were caught in a napalm attack...that image haunts me. Her clothes had been mostly burned from her body, her body was rather charred, and her face told the story of what she had witnessed. That had to be so horrible for her.

 

[VincentX3]

Biological Weapons, there are no good use of them.

Oooh pssshhhh

Whats the WORST that can happen?

 

[Soluncreed]

Sharks.

Because then I'll finally dare go to the pool again without having to worry about someone releasing those hideous monsters for the sake of killing me.

I'm like that except that I think they will release a box jellyfish just so that I cant see it.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

hmm... the most dreaded weapon is one in use every day. The vagina. It has immeasurable power over the minds of men. However, i don't think i could bring myselfto be rid of it.