Will there ever be a military weapon so powerful, wars would never start because of the potential dangers?

Question

Throughout military history, there have always been weapons, theories, and strategies that prove decisive to victory. I was wondering how many weapons or tactics have been invented with the idea that the weapon is so horrible, that it'll never be used and war would be history.

A few do come to mind...the gatling gun, and the atomic bomb. The gatling gun for it's time was considered so awesome that it would never be used.....

What other weapons besides the gatling gun and atomic bomb were invented with the notion that they may never be used?

Yes, the threat of an atomic device is scary, but obviously not for all military planners. A certain famous general wanted to use the bomb against China during the Korea war....he was quickly removed from his post. And this guy is one of the most respected man in military history.

Answer 1

Probably hand held fully automatic weapons like those designs by Italy during WW1. The StG44 assault rifle invented by Germany in 1942 was a new concept. The V2 rocket was the first man made projectile to enter outer space I believe. Invention of gun powder was a big one. The MG34 was the first multi-purpose machine gun and had revolutionary use of mass production. The MG42 machine gun with its powerful 7.92x57 rounds and a 1600 rounds per minute rate of fire was truly awesome. The M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle adopted for full scale use by a major country. The mp40 machine-pistol was the first weapon ever made entirely of metal and plastic, no wood. Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 with ending all wars in mind, although it might have done the opposite since it allowed anyone to be armed with a hard hitting, reliable weapon without spending a fortune. I am sure it was suggested when armored tanks were invented. Mustard gas was first used at Ypres, I believe that is in France.

You can't find a day in history where someone didn't invent some new and terrible thing that would "end all wars".... so far they have all been wrong, just making wars more bloody. You cannot end war, people will hate others so much that they will not even care about destroying themselves to destroy their enemy, suicide bombers are a perfect example.

Answer 2

Hydrogen Bomb is the only weapon which can truly put a end to the war, it's the most powerful destructor which a man can make unless the natures fury gets so high that it itself triggers the planet like a hydrogen bomb by itself. Nuclear boms are horrible but these are the powerful ones...and just imagine if u can combine all the nuclear bombs with hydrogens bombs wat a scene it wud be lol rather no one wud be available to even see it. Yes combine these two and we have a end to the war initself. But whoz ending the war??? as far as i see the anger is bubbling to such an extent that these terrorists will screw the face of this world some day. I even shudder at the very thot of 9/11. I'd just hope that all the destructive weapons wud suddenly cease to work itself. maybe some of the natures fury does come onto the arms.

Answer 3

Well I think there is a point where the weapon is too powerfull to become usefull. The nuclear bomb is such a weapon. All that the nuclear bomb does is prevent other people from using nuclear bombs because they know that destroying us means they are destroying themselves. What people do then is not use the bombs and fight other ways.

The notion of the weapon to end all wars is adsurb because it assumes that all people who have weapons or have such a weapon are rational people. I think 911 proved that rationality does not have to play a part in waging war. You get a madman (or woman to be politically correct right) who gets this idea that the planet might be better off without us sining humans and BAM!! the ultimate weapon is used.

Answer 4

Unfortunately I don't think so. Military develops new weapons for the sole purpose of the potential need. Each country tries to continually improve is armaments in the event a need arises. Whether that need is perceived or actual is a moot point since they will be developed anyway and current weapons are sufficient.

The above poster mentioned the hydrogen bomb which is an exact point. Did it need to be developed? Of course not, the atomic bomb is sufficient for any purpose (short maybe of being a total global killer) of war. However, the silent arms race dictated as much.

One can only hope we progress to the point of having defensive capabilities equal to our current militaries offensive abilities before the use of such powerful weapons occurs.

Answer 5

Well it's not the military's fault. As far as I'm concerned they're the finest fighting force on the face of the planet. But, to win a war (and I will use WWII as an example here) you must have three things: (1. You must have the material tools to do the job. We, as the Arsenal of Democracy, have PLENTY of material goods and tools to wage war. In fact just about (and I'm making an estimate on my history days) 80% of the allied war effort was supplied by the U.S. factories. (2. You must have the men and women available to do the job. In today's world we have the finest, best-trained, best-motivated fighting force on the planet. (3. However, the most important point on winning a war is having the WILL to fight and that's not just for you're men behind the firepower, either. You must have the hopes and prayers of the people you are fighting for and the people behind you and SPECIFICALLY your politicians. In WWII the vast majority of Americans were behind the fighting men as they went on to battle Hitler's Thousand Year Reich and the Imperial Japanese. Today, Americans just don't support the military like they used to and politicians on both sides of the aisle do whatever they have to impede efforts. If you allow those fighting guys to go on and do their job you can win a war.

Answer 6

We pretty much have all the weapon technology necessary to win any war. The thing keeping us back is not weapons but rules. We are required not to target certain areas (churches, schools, hospitals, etc.). So the enemies will hide in these locations to avoid being targeted and destroyed. It's a matter of strategy rather than physical capability.

Answer 7

As long as man rules, we will have war. It's really that simple. And there will come a day when all those "so powerful" weapons will be used. It's only a matter of time. But no weapon ever prevented war and none will.

Answer 8

yes there are and have been weapons so powerful the very thought of them is a deterrent in itself.... such as.. the Neutron bomb... which is an extreamly high yeild low destruction atmoic bomb that is said to have such a high radiation yeild that it can wipe out an entire country but only leave the impact of a small fuel air explosive... also there have been rumors of a thermonuclear bomb in which its core is incased in cobalt.. this cobalt encased weapon is so powerful it was never allowed to be tested due to the fact that it would set the atmosphere on fire

Answer 9

The Cold War ended WITHOUT a war being fought between the US and the USSR. Reason: both sides had a nuclear arsenal that could obliterate each other; MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction kept both sides sane enough NOT to launch a nuke warhead. That's how P-O-W-E-R-F-U-L the idea was. Still is.

Answer 10

Some of the biological weapons are terrible but as the use of gas in WW1 proved, not able to comply with your question. The armies of today have access to sufficient weaponry to destroy life and the balance of life on this planet so the question is answered for you. Nobody will use these as it spells the end of civilisation as we understand it. The real dangers lie in weapons in the hands of poorly educated fanatics who have been brainwashed into believing they are using them in the name of a global deity.