November 16, 200321 yr depends on the bomb...and the scale of it...something small, like a hand grenade, kills mostly with debris and shrapnel...something huge, like a nuke, mostly kills (directly, anyhow) by force of shockwave... aside from that comment, I'm not getting into this one...the circumstances are suspicious, and anyone dumb enough to stand in the open filiming an explosion of unknown scale, or without at least the advice of someone qualified to tell them what is safe and what isn't deserves what they get... Nuke kills by heat and radiation. Bodies do not turn to ash because of a shockwave, they turn to bloody piles. In fact, most bombs kill by either heat or shrapnel, bombs that kill by force are just too inconvenient and are used only when going after buildings. However, an arguement can be made for the fact that shrapnel bombs are, in fact, bombs killing by using force. The things that kill by sheer force are the accidental explosions. Most things engineered to kill are engineered in a way as to be clean. When you're trying to kill somebody you don't want to have to clean up bloodstains after.
November 16, 200321 yr close in to the explosion, they don't burn...the heat "outruns itself" so to speak (you've GOT to have seen footage of the testing on our own troops, NWA)..at least with nukes...I won't dispute that out a bit further, where the shockwave is weakening, that intense heat does alot of the biological damage, because it's true...but it's still the shockwave knocking buildings flat...did a good job on Hiroshima, too...and it's the shockwave that carries fallout far enough up and out to be caught by normal winds, spreading the "aftermath"...but step away from nukes...it's shockwave that's used to level buildings in demolition...not debris and heat, it's shockwave that's effective in concussion grenades (flashbangs), which ARE deadly, when they go off close enough to you, or in a tight enough environment, and, strictly speaking, it's "shockwave" that creates an explosion to begin with, when using chemical explosives (as opposed to nukes)..without containing the rapidly expanding gasses from burning in something that has a specific bursting point, or igniting something that burns so fast that it acts as its own "damper", you don't get an explosion, you get fire...you can even make a halfassed bomb from match heads, if you contain the gasses from ignition well enough (tennis ball stuffed with matchheads, wrapped in duct tape, then thrown hard against the ground or a wall, and it makes a pretty loud "bang")...the bang itself is actually shock wave... and yes, shockwave CAN be that deadly...it's hydrostatic shock that kills in most fatal gunshots...otherwise, a simple piercing of most organs outside the heart is recoverable...what happens, basically, is this: your body is 70+% water...the momentum from the bullet is at least partially transfered to your body, as the bullet slows down while it travels through your body...if that momentum is transfered to less "solid" parts of the body, it causes a reaction something like dropping a rock into a fairly runny mud puddle...the ripples from this kind of spread through the more liquid tissues...if this wave is strong enough, it can destroy or disrupt organs...if this happens badly enough, THAT is what causes death (this isn't ALWAYS the case, but it IS part of why bullets are more deadly than arrows, and why slower bullets with less or equal mass aren't as deadly as faster or heavier ones..more momentum to transfer means more "splash" within the body)
November 17, 200321 yr shrapnel, shockwave and heat are all factors... you can't simply say a nuke kills only by it's heat, or a grenade because of fragmentation.
November 17, 200321 yr Actually thats not the reason they use shrapnel instead of concussion to kill. Concussion is not as effective in killing people as flying metal is, and on a smaller scale is just used to incapacitate and confuse before the actual killing happens. An example would be the potato masher grenades the germans used back in world war 2. They were not known for their shrapnel throwing, rather their explosive power, and were not known to be effective at killing. The American grenades on the other hand, used shrapnel as their primariy killing source, and were very effective.
November 17, 200321 yr "Well, your dick is so small, when you take a leak, you piss on your balls" hehehe
November 17, 200321 yr close in to the explosion, they don't burn...the heat "outruns itself" so to speak (you've GOT to have seen footage of the testing on our own troops, NWA)..at least with nukes...I won't dispute that out a bit further, where the shockwave is weakening, that intense heat does alot of the biological damage, because it's true...but it's still the shockwave knocking buildings flat...did a good job on Hiroshima, too...and it's the shockwave that carries fallout far enough up and out to be caught by normal winds, spreading the "aftermath"...but step away from nukes...it's shockwave that's used to level buildings in demolition...not debris and heat, it's shockwave that's effective in concussion grenades (flashbangs), which ARE deadly, when they go off close enough to you, or in a tight enough environment, and, strictly speaking, it's "shockwave" that creates an explosion to begin with, when using chemical explosives (as opposed to nukes)..without containing the rapidly expanding gasses from burning in something that has a specific bursting point, or igniting something that burns so fast that it acts as its own "damper", you don't get an explosion, you get fire...you can even make a halfassed bomb from match heads, if you contain the gasses from ignition well enough (tennis ball stuffed with matchheads, wrapped in duct tape, then thrown hard against the ground or a wall, and it makes a pretty loud "bang")...the bang itself is actually shock wave... and yes, shockwave CAN be that deadly...it's hydrostatic shock that kills in most fatal gunshots...otherwise, a simple piercing of most organs outside the heart is recoverable...what happens, basically, is this: your body is 70+% water...the momentum from the bullet is at least partially transfered to your body, as the bullet slows down while it travels through your body...if that momentum is transfered to less "solid" parts of the body, it causes a reaction something like dropping a rock into a fairly runny mud puddle...the ripples from this kind of spread through the more liquid tissues...if this wave is strong enough, it can destroy or disrupt organs...if this happens badly enough, THAT is what causes death (this isn't ALWAYS the case, but it IS part of why bullets are more deadly than arrows, and why slower bullets with less or equal mass aren't as deadly as faster or heavier ones..more momentum to transfer means more "splash" within the body) I am talking INITIAL deaths. The first deaths from a nuke are always the heat from the nuke burning the people to death almost instanteneanously. Other than that, yes, it is the shockwave that carries radiation and disperses your ashes if you're unlucky enough to be far enough away that you aren't vaporized. To the rest of your paragraph: those types of things were not engineered to KILL. Humans are good at making things that reduce us having to pick up shit afterwards. If the USA blows up a building we have to rebuild it later in most cases. We don't like giving away money as much as most people think, so we prefer not to blow shit up unless we have to. The shockwave that causes hydrostatic shock and the explosion that propels the bullet are two very different things. The shockwave is a result of the explosion, yes, but the shockwave is by no means a definite possibility. There are too many variables to say that each and every bullet ever fired killed by hydrostatic shock, it's not even fair to say more than half did. Remember that we are talking about the explosion's shockwave, not the projectiles. Bullets do not explode normally, so bullets can't really be put into the explosives category. Find me a bullet that explodes and I'll show you a bullet that kills by heat, shrapnel, or both. Engineers try to minimize shockwave to decrease "friendly fire." A bomb does the army no good if it blows the building above you up on top of their head.
November 17, 200321 yr I just used hydrostatic shock as an example of how deadly a shockwave can be, NWA...wasn't trying to claim it was an "always thing" OR that bullets fit in the category of "deadly explosives"...airbourne shockwaves have to be pretty intense in order to be deadly within a controllable area, after all (kind of hard to reliably move enough air to create a "moving wall" of it strong enough to guarentee deaths..especially since the openness and shape of the area the explosive is set off in effects the shockwave so much..it's alot easier to count on debris and shrapnel...and takes less force)...maybe I'd have been better off using depth charges as an example...but that example just now occurred to me.
November 17, 200321 yr lmfao, I did't think it was that bad until the last explosion, knocked him the fuck out.
November 17, 200321 yr nah, I'm not a bomb expert, by any means...primer knowledge of them from military training.
November 17, 200321 yr Author how many nam vets does it take to change a lightbulb? http://members.lycos.co.uk/highclasswt/vnvet.jpg (scream that part when telling joke)
November 17, 200321 yr I just used hydrostatic shock as an example of how deadly a shockwave can be, NWA...wasn't trying to claim it was an "always thing" OR that bullets fit in the category of "deadly explosives"...airbourne shockwaves have to be pretty intense in order to be deadly within a controllable area, after all (kind of hard to reliably move enough air to create a "moving wall" of it strong enough to guarentee deaths..especially since the openness and shape of the area the explosive is set off in effects the shockwave so much..it's alot easier to count on debris and shrapnel...and takes less force)...maybe I'd have been better off using depth charges as an example...but that example just now occurred to me. This is why you lose arguements. You get off track. We are talking about how bombs kill, not how shockwaves effect water and matter.
November 17, 200321 yr lol...well, if you didn't notice, I was answering what's his name's question about "do shockwaves really kill?" not about bombs in general, when the whole thing started out...maybe YOU should pay some attention to what's being argued before declaring yourself the winner :) Yes, in the process of answering him, I did make several statements about bombs/shockwaves, and so on...but that wasn't the point of the post...rofl.
November 17, 200321 yr lol...well, if you didn't notice, I was answering what's his name's question about "do shockwaves really kill?" not about bombs in general, when the whole thing started out...maybe YOU should pay some attention to what's being argued before declaring yourself the winner :) Yes, in the process of answering him, I did make several statements about bombs/shockwaves, and so on...but that wasn't the point of the post...rofl. He asked whether the shockwave killed him or whether (this part was implied) the explosion actually hit him (ie - shrapnel, flame). And the answer is that heat and shrapnel probably took him down. Take that you arsonist. And just for reference: I skip over posts that start getting boring after the first sentence and the topic WE were arguing over was bombs killing people. I never even read the other shit.
November 17, 200321 yr doesn't change what the content of my p[osts was covering (i.e. that shockwaves DO kill, in some cases, and are quite capable of being strong enough TO kill)
November 18, 200321 yr I think we should all believe Pyschobud because he is the only one here who has killed anyone IRL.
November 18, 200321 yr dunno about that Fuzzy..there are a couple others here who did military time..one of which I know did theirs in Storm as well (won't name names, but he's the reason I came to the original myg0t forums)
November 18, 200321 yr I'll believe he's killed an Iraqi when he sends me the Iraqi's ears (or the American's dog tags if you killed an American). Anyone can claim to be in Desert Storm just like Fuzzy? can claim to not be gay.
November 18, 200321 yr would a pic of the Bronze Star, and the file copy of the award paperwork do, NWA? I didn't take ears (besides, how would you tell an iraqi's ears from any other sand niggers? I COULD just run down to 7-11, knock Apoo out, and cut his off...lol), but I have a copy of my release papers, which includes a copy of every award you get...I'll be blackign out identity info, obviously, since military ID's by last name and social...but knowing you, you'll announce that unless I leave that on there, all it proves is I had access to the record of someone who'd been there <grin> I could give a flying fuck less if you believe me or not, NWA <grin> *I* know what I've been through, YOU don't know me from Adam...good enough for me :)
November 19, 200321 yr would a pic of the Bronze Star, and the file copy of the award paperwork do, NWA? I didn't take ears (besides, how would you tell an iraqi's ears from any other sand niggers? I COULD just run down to 7-11, knock Apoo out, and cut his off...lol), but I have a copy of my release papers, which includes a copy of every award you get...I'll be blackign out identity info, obviously, since military ID's by last name and social...but knowing you, you'll announce that unless I leave that on there, all it proves is I had access to the record of someone who'd been there <grin> I could give a flying fuck less if you believe me or not, NWA <grin> *I* know what I've been through, YOU don't know me from Adam...good enough for me :) A pic of the Bronze Star with the ears would do, but just the ears is good enough. PS - You sound like a fucking pussy draft dodger with your YOU DON'T KNOW I WAS THERE saying.
November 19, 200321 yr look again...that wasn't me with the "you don't know" pic...and I told you I didn't take ears...best I could do would be pic of the bronze star, and scan of the file copy of the award stating what I got it for (killing Iraqis, but it says it more politely--"successfully identifying and neutralizing multiple enemy firing positions"--LOL..I dumped a couple drums in the general direction bullets were coming from, and happened to kill a couple idiots who didn't take cover well enough, is all.)
November 19, 200321 yr I was refering to your "I could give a fuck less blahblah" line, the Nam vet picture just reminded me of how whiney most military people are who think they've actually been in a war.
November 19, 200321 yr pft! Storm amounted to a 9 month campout with some occasional "fireworks" that could get dangerous, man...lol...I was in more danger from idiots on our side than I was ever in from Iraqi soldiers...Just Cause had more "real action" in the whole two weeks of action there than ground troops saw in all of Storm. Compared to what my dad and uncles went through, I wasn't in a "war", I was in a schoolyard scrape, and I know it...but it's still more than YOU, or most of the folks on this forum have experienced, now, isn't it?
November 19, 200321 yr Each and every forum member fights a war everyday of their goddamn lives against the zionist plague that threatens to consume us all. All together now.... "Getin teh oven....."
