It's called shock wave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave

 

It's unlikely that exactly shock wave in air from exploding grenade will kill you. Rather fragments.

"Fragmentation grenades are common in armies. They are weapons that are designed to disperse lethal fragments on detonation. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade

 

Underwater reverse.

"The Mk 40 kills or otherwise incapacitates the target by creating a lethal shockwave underwater"

 

 

f.e. H₂O, CO₂ and typically other oxides of exploding material, or not fully burned intermediate compounds.

 

I don't think we really should use science to explain violence

I don't think we really should use science to explain violence

 

What should we use? Something less precise, or more emotional?

 

What should we use? Something less precise, or more emotional?

I mean't we shouldn't use science in any forms to develop violence. Oh... it would be cool something more emotional I guess with explain not killing other's while you're safe in your house.

I mean't we shouldn't use science in any forms to develop violence. Oh... it would be cool something more emotional I guess with explain not killing other's while you're safe in your house.

But we do. Whether we should is an issue of philosophy and/or ethics.

But we do. Whether we should is an issue of philosophy and/or ethics.

"Whether we should" ?

Really? For a lot of things we don't wait the appointment of ethics or philosophy, but for building weapons we do?

"Whether we should" ?

Really? For a lot of things we don't wait the appointment of ethics or philosophy, but for building weapons we do?

 

I'm not sure I follow. All I suggested was that this was an ethics discussion. But since we're here now, I'll say this: I've worked for the military for 24 years, almost 19 as a researcher, and I don't have any ethical issues with doing science in support of weapons (my work supports GPS, among other things)

So you are to blame for precision guided munitions.

 

Did you also serve swansont ?

So you are to blame for precision guided munitions.

 

Did you also serve swansont ?

I don't build the munitions and I don't make the decision to use them. But since that's going to happen anyway, it's better to use munitions that are likely to hit their target, rather than dropping even more munitions and hoping they hit the target.

 

5 years in the Navy.

Always wanted to fly military jets for the Canadian Air Force when I was young, but I've had terrible eyesight since I was 5 yrs old.

I mean't we shouldn't use science in any forms to develop violence. Oh... it would be cool something more emotional I guess with explain not killing other's while you're safe in your house.

 

Then why didn't you say that? You originally asked if science should be used to "explain" violence. If you want to stop something, it would be a very good idea to first understand it.

Always wanted to fly military jets for the Canadian Air Force when I was young, but I've had terrible eyesight since I was 5 yrs old.

I wanted to fly for the RAF when I was young - I got the "Terribly sorry old boy. But to be a pilot in the RAF, you have to be an officer. To be an officer you have to be a gentleman. You don't make it so f*ck off."

(I ended up many years later with French and Togolese pilots licences.)

What do you mean ? You aren't a gentleman ?

You don't hold the door for others ?

Say 'bless you' when someone sneezes ?

Pick up the check when out with a woman ?

 

( just kidding )

In the US, at least up to the early 80's, the act of being commissioned made you a gentleman by an act of congress. (Eventually I think they realized that women served, too)