It bears mentioning that while "dum dum" and hollow point bullets were banned for military use in the 19th century, they remain in common use by law enforcement and civilians. There popularity is not so much because of superior mayhem, but actually safety. In personal defense or law enforcement scenarios, there are often other people in the area, including people behind walls or otherwise hidden from view, but still at risk for being inadvertently shot by penetrating bullets. However, a hollow point round by expanding, expends most of its energy in the target and is less likely to penetrate through either the target or subsequent structures in its path. This makes collateral damage less likely. Further, if a police officer, or a civilian, needs to discharge a weapon at close range, the priority is "stopping power". Hollow point ammunition is more effective at stopping a threat at close range. This is important in a military context as well. In he nineteenth century, firearms were mostly used in by he military across a battlefield, with some distance between the combatants. Modern warfare is more and more taking place in a more populated urban environment in closer quarters. Accordingly, some have suggested that hollow point ammunition would be actually more appropriate than full metal jacket bullets. However, there has been no major effort to update the laws of war on this matter.
"remain in common use by law enforcement and civilians" I think you forgot the "in the USA" there. Most of the rest of the world consider them, justifiably, as weapons that should not be used.
Johnny Dominguez I was a copper in the seventies and it was never an issue or a discussion concerning not using hollow points.. there were rounds that were introduced that were considered safer.. but oddly enough they were designed to dump energy quickly to avoid ricochet and range.. The damage a bullet did to the intended target was rarely a consideration..
MrLuchenkov so I see you have never returned fire... you want a bullet that dumps energy fast and stops a fight. You also want a bullet that stays in the body and doesn’t travel through a house and hits someone.. Lots of countries use these bullets. Surprisingly it is for safety ..
Dallas Kroyer at the end of the second world war, a Jewish guy tried to wipe out the German survivors by poisoning the water supply. He didn't succeed but went on to be a prominent politician in Israel.
Well, that was accidental poisoning of the water supply, therefore it is legal. Seriously, is fixing water supply that difficult in the US, or the politicians are just waiting for an opportunity to sweep in and gain political brownie points.
There are parts of Belgium where you get signs saying "do not camp in these woods, poisonous/explosive material present". This is all stuff that's lingered from the world wars.
For context its also important to note that all those banned weapons except napalm were eventually proven ineffective at accomplishing any practical objective. Usually before they were banned. Ironically most because they werent lethal enough to do what they were intended to do, so the drawbacks outweighed the benefits.
My Top 5 most evil and devastating weapons: My cooking! (Biological) Me after eating beans: (poison gas) Maiming weapon (My chair... The nemeses of all arches) My stupidity (Always begins with "Hey, watch this!") My mental torture (Terrible puns and jokes)
When I first read All Quiet on the Western Front I was shocked at two passages in which the effects gas were mentioned. In one Kat, the unofficial, veteran leader of their squad was about to kill a fellow German soldier who had fallen into a shell hole filled with mustard gas. He was stopped by a medic crew that had come to gather up the stricken man. In the next, Pvt Paul Bauman mentioned that in a hospital he was receiving treatment in he described gas exposed soldiers coughing up the remnants of their scarred lungs. I am had an uncle that had served in the U.S. Cavalry in WWI. I met him in the mid 1980's. After nearly 70 years since his exposure to gas he STILL had coughing fits from it.
Immediately after the expanding rifle bullet was banned by treating or by consent to replace the expanding bullet the British created Mark 7 ball designed with a bullet with a heavier base than nose so that when striking soft tissue it tends to flip producing a significantly larger wound. This concept has been copied by many others since.
Whilst the Geneva Convention on the use of Biological and Chemical Weapons prohibits their USE, it does NOT prohibit their DEVELOPMENT, since the "need to develop possible bio/chemical offensive systems, in order to tailor effective defensive systems" argument may be used, which is well within "allowed use". Of course stockpiling such weapons "with intent" is an entirely different matter.
It's interesting to be that the dum dum bullets/hollow points etc are banned for military usage, yet here they are required for hunting. FMJs are banned for hunting
One sneaky use of mine warfare is to create a minefield without mines (nowhere does it states you must use mines). So what's the point of a mine less minefield? Well the enemy are forced to treat it as a real minefield, so it can funnel troops in to a true kill zone, or slow an advance.
Kudos for the comparison and I totally get why you used the it, but, the initial footage you use when explaining what a neutron bomb is, you actually use video footage of a bomb called a MOAB. That bomb produces no radiation whatsoever. Spectacular explosion tho. Props.
most of this i already knew, but had no idea that explosive rounds were banned in 1868. very interesting. what would todays warfare be like if they didnt ban them way back then?
The British Army used Dum Dum bullets at the Battle of Omdurman against the Sudanese Dervishes. A small force of British soldiers was able to inflict thousands of casualties on the Dervishes, so many in fact that even the colonial powers were horrified at the effectiveness and signed the treaty banning them. Cluster munitions are one of the most recent additions to the banned list, bombs usually dropped from aircraft that explode and send fragments of shrapnel flying through the air with the intention of being as deadly to the enemy as possible. Again the British have used these as recently as the Falklands War, Battle of Goose Green, inflicting dozens of casualties and crushing Argentine morale.
Just because weapons are banned doesn't mean we don't still test and develop new versions of them. I've seen ammo supply wearhouses full of modern napalm rounds for current us military weapon systems.
😆 jaaa. Zombie gas Side effects may include epidermic ulcers legions gang green,nausea vomiting seizures convolutions and "idiopathic" peripheral neuropathy Reaction in human subjects who consume bold nicotine products or malt liquors may be accelerated. Side effects also include heightened vulnerability to Neurological technologies Plant life may be effected rapidly if cut from sources of nutrition And may brown and blacken in 120 seconds or less depending on levels of contamination in a general affected area. "No walking dead tho" Kind of disappointing right?
I wish you would've gone more into why these weapons are banned. Obviously weapons are designed to kill, so at first glance it makes sense to ban a neutron bomb. But why is a neutron bomb banned and not a nuclear bomb? You covered the reason behind non-metallic fragments well, but I think a premise behind each one would allow viewers to come to the "humane warfare" conclusion that is behind most of the rules of engagement.
Johnny Dominguez they work well enough to get mentioned in the Geneva Conventions and the American Law of Land Warfare, so there's gotta be something there.
The point of the neutron bomb wasn't to leave property intact-it absolutely would not. The point was to act as an anti-tank weapon. Normal nukes would kill civilians over a radius about 3x bigger than the radius that they would kill off enemy tanks. The enhanced radiation warheads produces less of a thermal and pressure wave, which tank crews were well protected from, and more hard radiation, which would penetrate the tanks' armor. The relative kill zones for tanks and civilians was about the same radius, with the result that collateral civilian causalities were reduced by about 9x.
I think you should consider naming the title to weapons that are not aloud to be used, or banned weapons. not weapons we aren't supposed to know about, considering that most of these are well known.
I was just in an argument where the other person insisted the smallpox blankets was a myth that is not supported by historical inventories or combatant locations. Very curious now.
Fire weapons only banned against civilians? That would include flamethrowers right? I'm pretty sure they were banned altogether in military combat and only available for private purchase by civilians with uses for them (animal infestations, clearing vegetation, entertainment displays etc.)
The more I learn about the history of mankind, the more it disturbs me that we would do that to each other; because you know the politicians who started the war or who started the draft and then basically used most soldiers as cannon fodder, would NEVER show up to help fight in the war that they started. I think about much earlier history when kings would ride out with the troops. They might not be in the front line, but they were there observing what was happening to their troops, and made decisions by observation. Politicians now don't have the balls to go out to fight. If they did, we wouldn't have had the nasty weapons we have wound up with. Lousy wankers!!!!!!
That only against the Chinese at 2:10 was a bit poorly worded. I know what you probably meant, but it sort of sounded like "It was only against those Chinese."
I'm surprised (yet pleased) you didn't include nuclear weapons in this list. If you have two countries in conflict, but both of those countries have weapons so powerful they could utterly destroy the other side AND these weapons can not be deployed quickly enough to destroy the other sides mega weapons then going to war becomes unthinkable, because in any war, to avoid losing you don't hold your most powerful; weapons back. So if you have a weapon so powerful it prevents war form taking place at all, is that weapon evil, or is it good?
Not a MG but if I remember from my NCOs, something of using the depleted uranium rounds caused it to punch through and cause more damage in armored vehicles. Haven't heard much as far as if those rounds cause radiation poisoning, I want to say not enough that it would qualify as a hazard
I will subscribe if you add captions for my deaf homies. Other then that we really enjoy your channel. It’s kind of hard watching and translating in sigh at the same time
You should have mentioned the use of Agent Orange by the USA during the Vietnam War. The affects were and still are truly horrifying after so many decades!
You left out one of the most devastating and cruel weapons ever. Sonic weapons. They could be used for little to no cost and could kill everyone in any amount of area that the attackers felt like killing. It also caused no damage to anything except people. The people effected would essentially have their brain melted. It was banned by the world and is therefor qualified for this list.
Anyone else think it’s ironic that all these weapons are banned to prevent ‘permanent’ damage to enemy soldiers... when they cross the battlefield they should be as fit as possible to be shot... the world really sucks at times!
you got it....illegal in Military applications...legal in Civilian hunting applications...not that it would surprize me if someone in the military found a way to modify their bullets in the field , and get the same result as a hollow point...and just not advertize the fact that he was doing that...however, the injuries sustained to his enemy might be enough 'advertizing' the use of illegal weaponry.
jawn1977jaws I suppose all they can really do is document injuries and bring it up afterwards. It’s not like there are “War Referees” that can stop everything and give the violators a penalty, ha.
@@Alulim-Eridu The way it was phrased, it could be interpreted as dismissing there use of chemical weapons against China as unimportant because it was "only against the Chinese." Axis use of chemical weapons in WWII was only against countries without the capability to retaliate: China and Ethiopia are the primary examples. Historically, atrocities committed against less industrialized nations have been dismissed as unimportant because it was "only the _______". Fill in Cherokee, Congolese, Chinese, etc, as appropriate.
@@PaulSteMarie that's why we use context clues while reading and listening... I can see how it COULD be interpreted that way... But it seemed rather obvious that it was ment not to demean the Chinese, but instead to point out their unique position as being the only people who Japanese used chemical weapons against.
Your “equation” for #5 is relatively easy to produce. If there are 100 enemies and 10 civilians in a compound the 10 civilian casualties, while sad, is justifiable if the enemy in question has proven to have hurt civilians in the past. 100 men could kill much more than 10 civilians so the equation balances.
Botox is a biological weapon in a different form. In a gaseous form it can kill large amounts of people, in a liquid form it is injected into vain idiots faces.
Hmmm, yes, would you want someone to drop a gas that can move around with changing winds? Or a weapon that kills millions in the blink of an eye, then brings a nuclear winter? Or bio weapons that affect unborn children?
Because when police or civilians employ lethal force, they are concerned about 2 things: 1) stopping the threat and 2) minimizing risk to other people. Military actually PREFERS to wound bc a wounded soldier takes 2 more shooters off the field to take care of the wounded man. Full metal jacket handgun rounds are pretty bad at actually stopping people. They tend to go right through targets and hit things on the other side. Hollow points dont. We use them for safety of the person and those around them.
It bears mentioning that while "dum dum" and hollow point bullets were banned for military use in the 19th century, they remain in common use by law enforcement and civilians. There popularity is not so much because of superior mayhem, but actually safety. In personal defense or law enforcement scenarios, there are often other people in the area, including people behind walls or otherwise hidden from view, but still at risk for being inadvertently shot by penetrating bullets. However, a hollow point round by expanding, expends most of its energy in the target and is less likely to penetrate through either the target or subsequent structures in its path. This makes collateral damage less likely. Further, if a police officer, or a civilian, needs to discharge a weapon at close range, the priority is "stopping power". Hollow point ammunition is more effective at stopping a threat at close range.
This is important in a military context as well. In he nineteenth century, firearms were mostly used in by he military across a battlefield, with some distance between the combatants. Modern warfare is more and more taking place in a more populated urban environment in closer quarters. Accordingly, some have suggested that hollow point ammunition would be actually more appropriate than full metal jacket bullets. However, there has been no major effort to update the laws of war on this matter.
"remain in common use by law enforcement and civilians"
I think you forgot the "in the USA" there.
Most of the rest of the world consider them, justifiably, as weapons that should not be used.
Johnny Dominguez I was a copper in the seventies and it was never an issue or a discussion concerning not using hollow points.. there were rounds that were introduced that were considered safer.. but oddly enough they were designed to dump energy quickly to avoid ricochet and range..
The damage a bullet did to the intended target was rarely a consideration..
MrLuchenkov so I see you have never returned fire... you want a bullet that dumps energy fast and stops a fight. You also want a bullet that stays in the body and doesn’t travel through a house and hits someone..
Lots of countries use these bullets.
Surprisingly it is for safety ..
Thomas R. Jackson The US is not a signatory to the treaty about “dum-dum” bullets.
Looks like you used copy and paste for this one, Bud. Lol
1: Fidget Spinner
Truth.
Chuck Norris
ID10T that's funny. :) This is why I read the comments section.
Can tell this comment was written in 2017 😂
Haven’t seen a fidget spinner for months
This generations lawn dart
"poisoning water supplies is frowned upon today." I'm sure the citizens of Flint Michigan will be glad to know that
The problem would go away real quick if the political authorities were forced to drink it.
Dallas Kroyer everyone in Michigan including me knows that
Dallas Kroyer at the end of the second world war, a Jewish guy tried to wipe out the German survivors by poisoning the water supply. He didn't succeed but went on to be a prominent politician in Israel.
Well, that was accidental poisoning of the water supply, therefore it is legal. Seriously, is fixing water supply that difficult in the US, or the politicians are just waiting for an opportunity to sweep in and gain political brownie points.
We are talking about weapons of war here, not an industrial accident.
These videos are like crack, they're so addictive. I watch one video then fall into the youtube vortex and waste most of my day; thanks guys.
The green screen really loves your glasses.
I didn’t realize mustard gas hung around so long.years?for real?damn,glad I’ve never encountered that stuff.
There are parts of Belgium where you get signs saying "do not camp in these woods, poisonous/explosive material present". This is all stuff that's lingered from the world wars.
Space Force! Service guarantees citizenship!
I'd like to know more!
For context its also important to note that all those banned weapons except napalm were eventually proven ineffective at accomplishing any practical objective. Usually before they were banned.
Ironically most because they werent lethal enough to do what they were intended to do, so the drawbacks outweighed the benefits.
Thank you Simon, love your posts, and for having the courage to tell the truth
Quite good video, awesome!
Top Tenz this video was very well named. These facts were just as you described. They were scary.
My Top 5 most evil and devastating weapons:
My cooking! (Biological)
Me after eating beans: (poison gas)
Maiming weapon (My chair... The nemeses of all arches)
My stupidity (Always begins with "Hey, watch this!")
My mental torture (Terrible puns and jokes)
You betcha!
When I first read All Quiet on the Western Front I was shocked at two passages in which the effects gas were mentioned. In one Kat, the unofficial, veteran leader of their squad was about to kill a fellow German soldier who had fallen into a shell hole filled with mustard gas. He was stopped by a medic crew that had come to gather up the stricken man. In the next, Pvt Paul Bauman mentioned that in a hospital he was receiving treatment in he described gas exposed soldiers coughing up the remnants of their scarred lungs.
I am had an uncle that had served in the U.S. Cavalry in WWI. I met him in the mid 1980's. After nearly 70 years since his exposure to gas he STILL had coughing fits from it.
I’m surprised depleted Uranium or DU projectiles were not mentioned in this video.
....Why would they be?
Lego brick
Lego brick should be number 1 in the video.
Time to clean out my basement! :(
When I was stationed in Germany, in the 80s, there was still traces of Mustard under bridges along rivers.
Immediately after the expanding rifle bullet was banned by treating or by consent to replace the expanding bullet the British created Mark 7 ball designed with a bullet with a heavier base than nose so that when striking soft tissue it tends to flip producing a significantly larger wound. This concept has been copied by many others since.
1:bio weapons
2:bio weapons
3:bio weapons
4:bio weapons
5:bio weapons
6:cod ghosts odin
7:fire
8:fallout bomb
9:fake bullets
Chemical weapons are not "bio weapons."
My girlfriends insults should be on this list.
@Maurits van den Berg She sounds like my kind of woman. You are a lucky man.
Never a more sharper weapon wielded than the tongue of a woman!
Females stick daggers in your soul.
lmfao damn
Whilst the Geneva Convention on the use of Biological and Chemical Weapons prohibits their USE, it does NOT prohibit their DEVELOPMENT, since the "need to develop possible bio/chemical offensive systems, in order to tailor effective defensive systems" argument may be used, which is well within "allowed use". Of course stockpiling such weapons "with intent" is an entirely different matter.
my great-grandfather was left with damaged eyesight with mustard gas
It's interesting to be that the dum dum bullets/hollow points etc are banned for military usage, yet here they are required for hunting. FMJs are banned for hunting
One sneaky use of mine warfare is to create a minefield without mines (nowhere does it states you must use mines). So what's the point of a mine less minefield? Well the enemy are forced to treat it as a real minefield, so it can funnel troops in to a true kill zone, or slow an advance.
Kudos for the comparison and I totally get why you used the it, but, the initial footage you use when explaining what a neutron bomb is, you actually use video footage of a bomb called a MOAB. That bomb produces no radiation whatsoever. Spectacular explosion tho. Props.
most of this i already knew, but had no idea that explosive rounds were banned in 1868. very interesting. what would todays warfare be like if they didnt ban them way back then?
You mentioned the smallpox blankets. Weren't those done before germ theory?
Great vid
The British Army used Dum Dum bullets at the Battle of Omdurman against the Sudanese Dervishes. A small force of British soldiers was able to inflict thousands of casualties on the Dervishes, so many in fact that even the colonial powers were horrified at the effectiveness and signed the treaty banning them.
Cluster munitions are one of the most recent additions to the banned list, bombs usually dropped from aircraft that explode and send fragments of shrapnel flying through the air with the intention of being as deadly to the enemy as possible. Again the British have used these as recently as the Falklands War, Battle of Goose Green, inflicting dozens of casualties and crushing Argentine morale.
Only banned if you lose...but if you win you of course keep the ban so no one uses them against you.
Cluster Bombs.
- tri-tipped bayonet
- sharks with laser beams
Just because weapons are banned doesn't mean we don't still test and develop new versions of them. I've seen ammo supply wearhouses full of modern napalm rounds for current us military weapon systems.
I see Simon has had his caffeine intake today....
1: Nova 6
😆 jaaa. Zombie gas
Side effects may include epidermic ulcers legions gang green,nausea vomiting seizures convolutions and "idiopathic" peripheral neuropathy
Reaction in human subjects who consume bold nicotine products or malt liquors may be accelerated.
Side effects also include heightened vulnerability to
Neurological technologies
Plant life may be effected rapidly if cut from sources of nutrition
And may brown and blacken in 120 seconds or less depending on levels of contamination in a general affected area.
"No walking dead tho"
Kind of disappointing right?
They have kinetic projectile satellites that are like shooting a meteor at a City.
it hasn't been created yet
As you can tell from the thumbnail the skateboard is a vile evil weapon
Keep it up!
I wonder how many viewers picked up on your Captain Trips reference at 3.25mins? I reckon that THE STANDard reply would be no....;)
The Rock. Fantastic old school action film.
What about the scary black rifles that CNN keeps telling me about?
Have you ever spoken with the Green’s(the brothers from Indiana. John Green wrote “A Fault in Our Stars”
I wish you would've gone more into why these weapons are banned. Obviously weapons are designed to kill, so at first glance it makes sense to ban a neutron bomb. But why is a neutron bomb banned and not a nuclear bomb? You covered the reason behind non-metallic fragments well, but I think a premise behind each one would allow viewers to come to the "humane warfare" conclusion that is behind most of the rules of engagement.
Where can I get or build these guns?
Glass bullets were always an interesting one to me,
Johnny Dominguez they work well enough to get mentioned in the Geneva Conventions and the American Law of Land Warfare, so there's gotta be something there.
The point of the neutron bomb wasn't to leave property intact-it absolutely would not.
The point was to act as an anti-tank weapon. Normal nukes would kill civilians over a radius about 3x bigger than the radius that they would kill off enemy tanks. The enhanced radiation warheads produces less of a thermal and pressure wave, which tank crews were well protected from, and more hard radiation, which would penetrate the tanks' armor. The relative kill zones for tanks and civilians was about the same radius, with the result that collateral civilian causalities were reduced by about 9x.
I think you should consider naming the title to weapons that are not aloud to be used, or banned weapons. not weapons we aren't supposed to know about, considering that most of these are well known.
the blinding weapons part ridiculed me XD I've heard of it being banned before but like... dafuq.
So the ChiCom use of the Kung Flu is among these!!!
I was just in an argument where the other person insisted the smallpox blankets was a myth that is not supported by historical inventories or combatant locations.
Very curious now.
I've heard that as well...
Smallpox hadn't been isolated yet during that time period
Fire weapons only banned against civilians? That would include flamethrowers right? I'm pretty sure they were banned altogether in military combat and only available for private purchase by civilians with uses for them (animal infestations, clearing vegetation, entertainment displays etc.)
The more I learn about the history of mankind, the more it disturbs me that we would do that to each other; because you know the politicians who started the war or who started the draft and then basically used most soldiers as cannon fodder, would NEVER show up to help fight in the war that they started. I think about much earlier history when kings would ride out with the troops. They might not be in the front line, but they were there observing what was happening to their troops, and made decisions by observation. Politicians now don't have the balls to go out to fight. If they did, we wouldn't have had the nasty weapons we have wound up with. Lousy wankers!!!!!!
That only against the Chinese at 2:10 was a bit poorly worded. I know what you probably meant, but it sort of sounded like "It was only against those Chinese."
CREATING A SUPER DISEASE...HMM...NAH COULDN'T BE...
Nice video man!
I'm surprised (yet pleased) you didn't include nuclear weapons in this list. If you have two countries in conflict, but both of those countries have weapons so powerful they could utterly destroy the other side AND these weapons can not be deployed quickly enough to destroy the other sides mega weapons then going to war becomes unthinkable, because in any war, to avoid losing you don't hold your most powerful; weapons back.
So if you have a weapon so powerful it prevents war form taking place at all, is that weapon evil, or is it good?
Depleted uranium rounds?
Are those just super heavy or is there residual polarizing radiation?
Not a MG but if I remember from my NCOs, something of using the depleted uranium rounds caused it to punch through and cause more damage in armored vehicles. Haven't heard much as far as if those rounds cause radiation poisoning, I want to say not enough that it would qualify as a hazard
I will subscribe if you add captions for my deaf homies. Other then that we really enjoy your channel. It’s kind of hard watching and translating in sigh at the same time
You should have mentioned the use of Agent Orange by the USA during the Vietnam War. The affects were and still are truly horrifying after so many decades!
Am I the only one who keeps comments on and noticed all the extras they have for detail?
I'm glad you mentioned the French were the first ones to use poison gas in ww1. Most people think it was the germans...wrong!
Actually it was the Germans. They started the use of lethal gases like chlorine. The French usage before this was a tear gas.
You left out one of the most devastating and cruel weapons ever. Sonic weapons. They could be used for little to no cost and could kill everyone in any amount of area that the attackers felt like killing. It also caused no damage to anything except people. The people effected would essentially have their brain melted. It was banned by the world and is therefor qualified for this list.
I've just Googled that. Very disturbing 😮
What about thermonuclear weapon? That was banned because researchers and tests during Cold War didn't find the limit of it's power?
Glad somebody brought it up.
Anyone else think it’s ironic that all these weapons are banned to prevent ‘permanent’ damage to enemy soldiers...
when they cross the battlefield they should be as fit as possible to be shot... the world really sucks at times!
Charles Yuditsky hahahahaha 👍🏻😂
Hollow Points are illegal for warfare, yet US Police Officers use them?
What about cluster bombs? i think they are banned too.
Why isn't my trailer hitch in this video?
We should just agree to fight wars with laser tags.
Hollow point bullets are very common now, they aren’t illegal. Or are they legal for civilian but not military??
you got it....illegal in Military applications...legal in Civilian hunting applications...not that it would surprize me if someone in the military found a way to modify their bullets in the field , and get the same result as a hollow point...and just not advertize the fact that he was doing that...however, the injuries sustained to his enemy might be enough 'advertizing' the use of illegal weaponry.
jawn1977jaws
I suppose all they can really do is document injuries and bring it up afterwards. It’s not like there are “War Referees” that can stop everything and give the violators a penalty, ha.
All a bit worrying. if elimination of the opposition is the ambition, firing a bullet almost seems a bit old hat and archaic.
What is the citations for the 1000BC?
Hmm. No photon torpedoes on the list.
Nuks should be on that list
Forgot cattle prods
for real though he was gonna say sponsored by the great courses plus
How about anything that involves EMP blasts? Not counting nuclear bombs.
No gulags, huh? Well that deserves a severe sentence in gulag
No fire weapons to be used on civilians but regular weapons are ok
Keyword is: "Supposed".
1:48 i am pretty sure that the Germans were the first to use poison gas against the French at the Second Battle of Ypres
If I remember correctly the French used tear gas and they were indeed the first to use gas as a weapon during WWI, not the Germans.
Kim Jong Stunning
It was used against the French Foreign Legion first, African Troops.
The Germans were the first so successfully use it, but the French had already been making (failed) attempts
@kimjongstunning i love your youtube name
Reagan: DONT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Also Reagan: Lets put nukes on satellites
Hollow point were invited so they travel that far
I loved those bullets in No1 lives forever.
An upturned UK plug should be on here
I’m pretty sure the military can use green tips
Number 6 technically deathstars don't break the treaty
Then gimme dem kinetic rods
Why isn't Bieber songs on this list?
What about gallium bullets?
The French used poison gas first in WW1... It was Frenches Mustard gas.
"... only against the Chinese"??
That perhaps could have been phrased better?
Curious...?
What do you mean?
The Japanese used chemical weapons in ww2, but only against the Chinese.
@@Alulim-Eridu The way it was phrased, it could be interpreted as dismissing there use of chemical weapons against China as unimportant because it was "only against the Chinese." Axis use of chemical weapons in WWII was only against countries without the capability to retaliate: China and Ethiopia are the primary examples.
Historically, atrocities committed against less industrialized nations have been dismissed as unimportant because it was "only the _______". Fill in Cherokee, Congolese, Chinese, etc, as appropriate.
@@PaulSteMarie that's why we use context clues while reading and listening...
I can see how it COULD be interpreted that way...
But it seemed rather obvious that it was ment not to demean the Chinese,
but instead
to point out their unique position
as being the only people who Japanese used chemical weapons against.
Your “equation” for #5 is relatively easy to produce. If there are 100 enemies and 10 civilians in a compound the 10 civilian casualties, while sad, is justifiable if the enemy in question has proven to have hurt civilians in the past.
100 men could kill much more than 10 civilians so the equation balances.
zach tyo the worst weapon ever created was hate.
Well, to be clear, weapons can't be evil. The people who use these weapons however, would be despicable and evil in every way imaginable.
There are no benign effects of biological or chemical weapons. The mere creation of them is evil and their existence is evil.
the microscopic biological entities that thrive on humans might disagree with you
Botox is a biological weapon in a different form. In a gaseous form it can kill large amounts of people, in a liquid form it is injected into vain idiots faces.
would we rather be killed by a nice weapon?
steamfans You can take chemical, I'll take incendiary bombs. Deal?
Hmmm, yes, would you want someone to drop a gas that can move around with changing winds?
Or a weapon that kills millions in the blink of an eye, then brings a nuclear winter?
Or bio weapons that affect unborn children?
console gaming and microtransactions should be on this list
Copper “gilding,” not copper “gliding.”
The US in every talk about bombs.......but ma bombs
Hollow points - way too brutal to be used in warfare but fine for police on civilian or civilian on civilian use... Hmmm...
Because when police or civilians employ lethal force, they are concerned about 2 things: 1) stopping the threat and 2) minimizing risk to other people. Military actually PREFERS to wound bc a wounded soldier takes 2 more shooters off the field to take care of the wounded man. Full metal jacket handgun rounds are pretty bad at actually stopping people. They tend to go right through targets and hit things on the other side. Hollow points dont. We use them for safety of the person and those around them.
My mix tape