Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I think that those who will be allowed by the production capacity will simply find a replacement. Something similar already happened when small arms of mankind switched from black, ” smoky “gunpowder based on coal and saltpeter to nitrocellulose”smokeless”. Moreover, black powder did not even need to stop igniting – nitrocellulose simply turned out to have the best efficiency.
Not much will change. It's simple: put another explosive substance in the bullets. Rockets no longer fly on gunpowder and explode. The nuclear chain reaction will continue to work.
If you mean the general rejection of all explosives, then Humanity will quickly find ways to kill their own kind. DARPA (Advanced military development company from the US Department of Defense) it already has significant developments in railguns (or railguns, as you like), which are supposed to be installed on ships for accurate shooting at ultra-long distances. Nothing prevents them from being installed near cities or military bases.
In low-stability countries, where only bandits and police (and similar organizations) have weapons, riots are possible, which will be stopped by tear gas, batons and other simple things.