Position 1. Dumb question, no answer or discussion warranted.
Position 2. Anyone making high explosives is a bad thing and that is why there are various national laws forbidding it. It places lives and property
at risk.
Position 3. Now, the question is whether everyone could and not necessarily would make HEs. If this were possible, it could have some upside as every
citizen would be on more equal ground with his/her government.
For example, the American Constitution gave every citizen the right to bear arms, and implied therein, the right to make(use) gunpowder and bullets.
This was an intended preventive measure against tyrannies. However, the streets of early America were possible too violent and dangerous. Gun control
laws were enacted to mitigate this serious issue.
But in today's world, a gun is no match for machine guns or grenades or more. So shouldn't the constitutional right be extended to be meaningful even
if there is more blood in the streets? Also, does anyone believe a military powerful self-reliant people can be long subjected to obvious economic,
political or military tyranny? If the answer is evidently no, no-one would even try!
[EDIT] Position 4. The moral ground is loss if a minority use the HEs to assert their views over the wishes of the majority.
---------------------------------------
Does anyone have an opinion on these positions.
[Edited on 11-9-2012 by AJKOER]kristofvagyok - 11-9-2012 at 10:42
Position 3. Now, the question is whether everyone could and not necessarily would make HEs. If this were possible, it could have some upside as every
citizen would be on more equal ground with his/her government.
---------------------------------------
Does anyone have an opinion on these positions.
I would say that anyone could make HE-s, they are not that hard to prepare. The "military" grade is also a wide category, because e.g.: russian amatol
looks exactly like sh˝t
The bigger question is: why would anyone make HE-s? If you want to defend yourself, then a gun is much more practical, than a kilo of
potassium-picrate... Also, if you live in the states, then you can get guns, if you live somewhere else, then you can't get guns, but noone else
could, so there is nothing to defend yourself from.
Also, if you want to make HE-s, while you are in danger, then to call the police is a better idea, then preparing a large amount of HMTD, or if you
are not in danger and you still want to prepare some HE for "defense", than you are probably a terrorist or a stupid kid who has nothing else, than
mental masturbation.AJKOER - 11-9-2012 at 11:56
Kristofvayok:
I think you make good points with respect to Point 3.
The only counter argument (I can think of) is that Point 3, at least in the context of the American constitution, may still be justifiable on
something other than isolated individual actions. That is, concerted group behavior in defense of the 'people'.Vargouille - 11-9-2012 at 12:36
I agree (mostly) with Kristof that firearms are more useful than explosives. If I remember correctly, the average lethal range of a hand grenade is
about 40 meters, which, you may guess, means that the operator of such a device can only with some difficulty throw it far enough away to prevent
self-harm. Going behind cover, of course, negates this. A trained citizen with a handgun can easily be lethal in ranges far in excess of this.
Inferiority to a machine gun, I will make no arguments against.
In countries where guns are outlawed, however, it is with some hesitation that I resort to the oft-used "it only keeps citizens from defending
themselves from armed criminals".
Before I get onto my more on-topic discussion of high explosives, I wish to comment on the slightly off-hand assertion that the US Constitution grants
the right to bear arms to every citizen. I support the use of firearms by citizens--don't misunderstand me--but the 2nd Amendment literally says "A
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There
are multiple conflicting interpretations to this, but the Supreme Court has upheld the meaning of "well-regulated militia" to exclude felons and the
mentally ill (see the Opinion of the Court from District of Columbia v. Heller, easily found under the second article of the Syllabus (pg. 2)), which opens to more
restrictions on the application of the 2nd Amendment.
Now, onto high explosives. At the start of writing this, I had only a cursory understanding of what constitutes a high explosive. After some reading,
I still firmly believe that a firearm is much more useful for self-defense than an explosive. Let us divide this into two scenarios: Being attacked
outside of one's home, where any self-defense device would be relatively small; and being attacked while at home, where more permanent protections (eg
booby-traps) can be set up. In the first scenario, a handgun will fairly quickly end the danger, assuming, of course, that the scenario is not an
ambush of multiple assailants of high-caliber firearms. In that case, I doubt that you would have much of a chance of surviving whether you had a gun
or an explosive. The death of Sonny in the first Godfather comes to mind. If you use an explosive (a grenade, if you will) has the limitations I
already mentioned of being dangerous to its operator. A gun is much less so. In the second case, I find that explosives are much more useful, in the
form of true booby-traps. Mines, for example. The problem is in their implementation and design. If they are packaged well, they will resist the
elements. However, a citizen-made mine is unlikely to be packaged well enough. In any case, mines have serious limitations that they can only be used
in fairly narrow situations, and will degrade with time. Once a mine beings to degrade, it is extremely dangerous, if not impossible, to maintain it.
A gun? Not so much. They can (except in exceedingly rare situations) be maintained, and have a higher range and ability to be used in such a scenario
than explosives. But can a bomb not be used out of the elements? Yes, but this is not without issues, besides the obvious "there's a bomb where you
eat and sleep". These bombs are not impervious to degradation, and may be set off by poor wiring, animal-induced wear, or what I am deciding to refer
to as "operator error". To wit, "a bullet may have your name on it, but a grenade is addressed "To whom it may concern". hiperion42 - 11-9-2012 at 12:39
Well i think i know what you are trying to get at.
If every person would have the ability to easily
fabricate large quantities of HE i think it would probably
substantially undermine the workings of human society's
which are still de facto based on a 'might makes right' principle.
In the global system of state backed capitalism it would be
existentially threatening the governments monopoly on the use
of force.
At the end of the day it is the military complex (and the lack
of access to the same military gear to civilians) that prevents
any serious challenge to the enormous concentrations of
capitalist wealth.
One person with 2 tons of HE is a big problem for society.
Virtually every member of society potentially having access to this
means at least the end of a capitalistic society and very
probably of any human arrangement of living with a small top
layer of rich and a mass of non rich.
It could possibly mean the end of any human
living arrangement.
[Edited on 11-9-2012 by hiperion42]kristofvagyok - 11-9-2012 at 13:15
One person with 2 tons of HE is a big problem for society.
Virtually every member of society potentially having access to this
means at least the end of a capitalistic society and
possibly of any human arrangement of living with a small top
layer of rich and a mass of non rich.
It could possibly mean the end of any human
living arrangement.[Edited on 11-9-2012 by hiperion42]
On person with a large amount of HE is a problem for society, but also one man with a firearm is also a problem for the society if noone else has a
gun.
I live in a country where the firearms for "civilians" are not legal, so almost noone have them, here if someone has one means a problem. In the
states were having a gun/pistol/ect. is common, almost everyone has one and everyone knows this, so noone will attack anyone because he has a pistol
in his pocket. Here if someone has one, then he will probably climb to the top of the mountain and start to be someone more. After that, he goes to
jail. 100% different from the states.
Let's say that similar to the guns, the HE works also like described above. So, let's say that in the US everyone has some dynamite and some tetryl
under his pillow, but noone uses it for anything, because if they would throw it to the neighbors house, they soon (not by the ex-neighbor) would be
attacked similarly. But if just 1 people would have the dynamite rod under the pillow, then he would know that noone would throw it back to him, so he
could do anything.
Conclusion: why would the "legalisation of HE" would be the end of the society?hiperion42 - 11-9-2012 at 13:33
Conclusion: why would the "legalisation of HE" would be the end of the society?
Not legalisation of HE.
I read the OP statement as the (for arguments sake)
ability of civilians to easily manufacture large quantities
of HE outside of state control.
What do you think will happen if everyone would have easy
access to large quantities of HE? AJKOER - 11-9-2012 at 13:48
Vargouille:
I like your constitutional reference to Columbia vs. Heller. In reading the court's opinion, I noted the interesting fact that the court views the
weapons protected to be those "in common use at the times". My hypothetical reference to military grade HEs would appear to be particularly relevant
as they are, by name definition, military explosive in common use, and as such, there is a plausible (?) constitutional argument (or, at least, an
ethical argument) that Point 3, which is expressly illegal, may, nevertheless has some standing.
--------------------------------------------------------
Hiperion:
I am not sure if you meant this, but one reading of your comment is that the fabrication of large quantities of HEs by individuals is not appropriate
as it undermines the workings of human society through its attack on state based capitalism, challenge to government's monopoly on the use of force,
the military industrial complex, the enormous concentrations of capitalist wealth and associated income inequality. Wow!
[Edited on 11-9-2012 by AJKOER]kristofvagyok - 11-9-2012 at 13:59
What do you think will happen if everyone would have easy
access to large quantities of HE?
I meant the "legalization" as the same. Everyone would have an access to get or prepare it.
I think if everyone would have a chance to make it, then it wouldn't cause big problems.
Also. Here I think everyone can get a litre 30% H2O2 for the value of 2-3USD, hexamine is not hard to prepare, everything is available for that,
acetone is also OTC, so at us everyone could make a large bomb if they would want to do that.
The "problem" is and the reason that almost noone makes bombs:
-the chemistry education is really low, people are afraid from chemicals
-people are afraid of explosives (funny, but no firecrackers at new eve)
-and afterall, why would anyone make a bomb? Are you a bit more if you made something what explodes? No. Could you do anything else then terrorism
with a HE filled device? No. So, why would you make one? The only reason would be the previously mentioned mental masturbation... zed - 11-9-2012 at 14:40
Here in the U.S., most people could make HEs in their basements. But, because most people are not flaming infantile assholes, they choose not to.
I have noticed, over the course of time, that many people who are clearly not experienced chemists are posing questions that are aimed at acquiring HE
precursors. Often, these queries come from areas of the world, where blowing other people into hamburger, is a popular pastime.
Being a trusting type, my suspicions are not easily aroused. When a plethora of questions regarding the acquisition of Phenol were floating around,
I thought nothing of it. Later, it was reported that U.S. law enforcement, had arrested a terrorist suspect for attempting to take delivery of a
large parcel of Phenol. Apparently, Phenol can be easily nitrated, to produce a dangerous explosive.
In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't reveal how easily Phenol could be synthesized from common chemicals.
AJKOER - 11-9-2012 at 15:20
Zed:
After reading your comment on 'suspicions', I do feel better that many of my suggested synthesis are generally theoretically interesting, but of
limited commercial value.
in the u.s. (certain states excluded) if you have the time, and the money to acquire a license to manufacture explosives (providing you can pass a
background check) you could legally manufacture and possess explosive devices at the cost of a federal tax stamp ($200 each item).
this law covers title 2 weapons and not the actual explosive compositions inside the weapon so you would have to complete a course and acquire a
license to manufacture explosives.hiperion42 - 11-9-2012 at 23:29
AJKOER :
Yes i think it would undermine the workings of a capitalist society
because it distorts the imbalance of power on which it is build.
If power in society was truly balanced wealth distribution would be balanced to.
The imbalance of power being a military who has the sole
monopoly on the use of force under state/capitalist control.
When push comes to shove the uneven distribution of wealth
in the world is made possible only by the backing of military force.
But this is covered and masked by illusions of equality and opportunity
and American dreams and such.
A little statistic :
"The 200 richest people in the world own assets which combined
are greater than the income of more than 2 billion people at the other end
of the economic scale."
Doesn't it seem obvious this imbalance has/needs protection
of some kind?
But i also believe one is not what one owns.
Every person has to decide for themselves
what they do with their lives.
I think if everyone would have a chance to make it, then it wouldn't cause big problems.
Also. Here I think everyone can get a litre 30% H2O2 for the value of 2-3USD, hexamine is not hard to prepare, everything is available for that,
acetone is also OTC, so at us everyone could make a large bomb if they would want to do that.
Try making 2 tons of hmtd. This is not what i meant.
I meant purely hypothetical : if there was an easy way
to convert massive amounts of an ordinary material into
massive amounts of quality HE and it would be
impossible for governments to regulate the ordinary
starting material then yes i think the government would
loose it's monopoly on the use of force and everything
that depends on it.
[Edited on 12-9-2012 by hiperion42]SM2 - 12-9-2012 at 05:44
There is (IMO), a huge and laughable distinction between the uber sensitive high explosives (HMTD, peroxides), and RDX and the like. Both are high
velocity, but you don't have to get an ulcer in your stomach just worrying if your peroxide is gonna blow any minute.kristofvagyok - 12-9-2012 at 14:20
A bit offtopic, but: just for this topic I made this pic a few day ago
It was approx. 0.2g of pure HMTD wrapped in an Al foil.AJKOER - 13-9-2012 at 14:51
