DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bizarro » The “Deadlies”: Earth’s Most Lethal Gadgetry

The “Deadlies”: Earth’s Most Lethal Gadgetry

The post below, on per­sonal heli­copters, got me think­ing: There must be a zil­lion tech­no­log­i­cal won­ders out there that are beyond haz­ardous to use. What are they? Let’s hear from you… Share your lethal giz­mos (with links, if pos­si­ble) below.
17-suit1.jpgReader Steve Weintz starts us off with a fine, fine sug­ges­tion: the steam­punk jet­pack.

Resembling a cast-​​iron uterus with whirring, razor-​​sharp den­tata more than a jet­pack proper, Andreas Petzoldt has spent the last decade per­fect­ing every rocket lad’s dream on his own dime…
It hasn’t been tested yet, but… it’s hard not to imag­ine the test flight. With great ebul­lience, Andreas soars into the heav­ens. He sneers at grav­ity with con­tempt, a spurned mis­tress, a whore who embraces all but him. But sud­denly he hears a hor­ri­fy­ing choke and shud­der and a sick­en­ing ver­tigo creep­ing up from his gen­i­talia and into his bow­els as he plum­mets back down to the ground, strapped to over 200 pounds of highly-​​explosive rocket fuel and whirring metal blades. 

So what could give the steam­punk jet­pack and the per­sonal copters a run for their sui­ci­dal money? Vote now, and vote often. Think of it as a cross between Popular Mechanics’ Breakthroughs (or Wired’s Raves or Pop Sci’s BOWNs) and the Darwin Awards.
Call it… “The Deadlies.”

Share |

November 17th, 2006 | Bizarro, Blog Bidness, The Deadlies | 226462 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/11/17/the-deadlies-earths-most-lethal-gadgetry/The+%22Deadlies%22%3A+Earth%27s+Most+Lethal+Gadgetry2006-11-18+02%3A29%3A48jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Personal Copter, Lifespan-​​Chopper | Noah vs. Fox News » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. kevin h. says:
    November 17, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    Hungry Man All Day Breakfast
    http://​www​.​x​-enter​tain​ment​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​0​7​44/

    Reply
  2. DS says:
    November 18, 2006 at 3:48 am

    lol…this looks like it might be a con­tender for Earth’s Most Lethal Gadget (EMLG):
    http://​blog​.scifi​.com/​t​e​c​h​/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​s​/​2​0​0​6​/​0​7​/​2​8​/​j​e​t​_​p​a​c​k​_​t​h​e​_​r​o​.​h​tml

    Reply
  3. Steve Weintz says:
    November 18, 2006 at 10:00 am

    (thanks for the ups!)
    I don’t know if this qual­i­fies, as the Army retired it many long years ago, but I always found the “Davy Crockett” nuclear bazooka to be a grand exam­ple of dead­lytech:
    http://​www​.gun​truck​.com/​D​a​v​y​C​r​o​c​k​e​t​t​.​h​tml
    I think it may qual­ify as a “fos­sil deadly” in that it’s 1) truly extinct and 2) the weapon’s lethal­ity zone (mostly radi­a­tion effects) was greater than its range…

    Reply
  4. Endyr says:
    November 18, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Actually the Davy Crockett was not dan­ger­ous for the crew assum­ing that they were not inept. The range of the weapon com­bined with the .01 kilo­ton yield meant that the crew was out­side the direct effects of the blast, and if they stuck around long enough to have to deal with the radi­a­tion then they fall under the cat­e­gory of inept.

    Reply
  5. Richard R says:
    November 18, 2006 at 8:31 pm

    MOOSE — Man Out Of Space Easiest. Your own per­sonal emer­gency reen­try vehi­cle.
    http://​www​.space​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​s​p​a​c​e​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​/​m​o​o​s​e​_​0​0​0​9​2​3​.​h​tml

    Reply
  6. Davester says:
    November 18, 2006 at 10:42 pm

    That was a good one Richard R. This line caught my atten­tion though…
    “Finally, GE tested MOOSE with a dummy inside, toss­ing it over an aban­doned bridge near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, to splash in the river below.“
    It sounds like they were try­ing to get rid of the damn thing.

    Reply
  7. David Hardy says:
    November 18, 2006 at 11:32 pm

    None of this can hold a can­dle to the older stuff.
    Muzzleloading can­non: You have to ram a load of VERY spark-​​sensitive black pow­der down a bore still hot from the last shot. Hopefully, that swab of water put out any sparks from the cloth car­tridge of the last one, and the guy hold­ing his thumb over the touch­hole will keep air from fan­ning anythng inside that. If not, good­bye right arm. Oh, and when fired it will bound back, crush­ing you if you don’t stand clear.
    The matchlock mus­ket. Dress your­self up with 1–2 pow­der flasks, and a chest cov­ered with ban­doliers full of black pow­der. Now equip your mus­ket with a glow­ing match (treated rope that glows like a cig­a­rette). This must con­stantly be adjusted for length, just above the tray that holds the pow­der that will fire the gun. Oh, and you should keep the other end of the match lit, too, just in case the first end goes out. And note that with each shot the flash back through the touch­hole may blast your match free of its clamp and send it into your face and down your body, past all that gun­pow­der.
    And since the pow­der is very sen­si­tive to humid­ity, it’s com­monly stored in bar­rels and only issued when fight­ing in immi­nent. And there’s always some guy who pan­ics and lights his match before, instead of after, run­ning to the pow­der keg.

    Reply
  8. trainer says:
    November 19, 2006 at 1:06 am

    How about this one.
    When you des­per­ately need to use it, it takes a sec­ond to warm up, works 90% of the time, and then kills you. Oh, and it is soon to be required in the Great State and Criminal Enterprise that is New Jersey.
    The ‘Smart’ gun.
    http://​www​.the​-trainer​.com/​b​l​o​g​/​0​0​1​6​0​7​.​h​tml

    Reply
  9. Cap'n Dan says:
    November 19, 2006 at 1:27 am

    Hey, if we all waited until risk was zero, would the Wright broth­ers have tried that first manned launch? Would they have “lit the can­dle” on that first Mercury/​Atlas? Six test pilots died in the F-​​100 devel­op­ment pro­gram — they still went up, and we fielded a great air­craft. I’m in the flight test busi­ness. Every launch is a cal­cu­lated risk. You do all the test­ing you can, then you put a man in it and pull the cord. After the Challenger acci­dent, I told peo­ple I would hap­pily sign on to ride a shut­tle the next day. It’s always a risk/​benefit calculation.

    Reply
  10. Swen Swenson says:
    November 19, 2006 at 11:28 am

    A few com­ments (http://​coy​oteatthe​do​gshow​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​0​6​_​1​1​_​0​1​_​c​o​y​o​t​e​a​t​t​h​e​d​o​g​s​h​o​w​_​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​.​h​t​m​l​#​1​1​6​3​9​5​3​4​1​2​4​3​6​1​1​100) on can­non — they’re a ton of fun — and a nom­i­na­tion for heavy machin­ery of all kinds. Is there any­one with so lit­tle Peter Pan left in them that a drilling rig isn’t fas­ci­nat­ing? But they pro­vide a nearly infi­nite vari­ety of ways to maim or kill your­self. And farm machin­ery, prob­a­bly the most dan­ger­ous cat­e­gory of gad­getry on earth..

    Reply
  11. michael says:
    November 19, 2006 at 11:41 am

    This sport killed 14 peo­ple I knew before I gave it up. The 14th was my best friend.
    http://​www​.hang​g​lid​ing​.org/

    Reply
  12. Noah Shachtman says:
    November 19, 2006 at 11:41 am

    DIY robotic machine gun, any­one?
    http://​www​.techeblog​.com/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​/​t​e​c​h​-​g​a​d​g​e​t​/​v​i​d​e​o​-​h​o​m​e​-​b​u​i​l​t​-​r​o​b​o​t​i​c​-​s​e​n​t​r​y​-​gun

    Reply
  13. GILBERT J MARTINEZ says:
    November 19, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    how about work­ing on a sys­tem to pick up explo­sive devices on the ground warn­ing the dri­ver on mil­i­tary vechiles and air­craft. this device could pick up any­thing on the ground on trav­el­ing roads and rural areas where there is a detec­tion of a explo­sive device on that road there trav­el­ing on. or areas where our troops may travel or patrol.

    Reply
  14. David Hambling says:
    November 20, 2006 at 9:14 am

    There’s one gad­get that kills around 400,000 Americans a year. People know how dan­ger­ous it is, but that doesn’t seem to stop them.
    It’s called a cig­a­rette lighter.

    Reply
  15. Nicholas Weaver says:
    November 20, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Sweet Jeebus:
    Fly by wire­less air­craft and drive by wire­less cars…
    http://​www​.new​sci​en​tist​tech​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​d​n​9​1​7​6​-​f​l​y​b​y​w​i​r​e​l​e​s​s​-​p​l​a​n​e​-​t​a​k​e​s​-​t​o​-​t​h​e​-​a​i​r​.​h​tml
    Yes, you too can con­tem­plate the future where string­ing a SINGLE WIRE (uhh, next to say, the POWER CABLE YOU NEED TO MAKE IT WORK AT ALL!) to each aero­ron in a plane or to the BRAKES ON YOUR CAR is too com­plext and costly!
    If you too are heart­ened by the idea of a sim­ple blue­tooth jam­mer or noisy trans­mit­ter caus­ing a planecrash or 50 car pileup, this future is for you.

    Reply
  16. Haninah says:
    November 20, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    Not quite deadly, but less life­sav­ing than it sounds:
    I’ve always won­dered about those inflat­able rafts they tell you about in your safety instruc­tions before a flight. Sure, if my plane went down over water I’d like to have a raft to hang out in till the res­cuers came, but when was the last time a com­mer­cial air­liner went down over water suf­fi­ciently intact that the rafts were deployed? Has any­one ever heard of these things being used?

    Reply
  17. lester says:
    November 20, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    any male sex device that accu­rately mim­icks any part of the female anatomy.
    or the space shuttle

    Reply
  18. Robot Economist says:
    November 20, 2006 at 9:11 pm

    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​A​n​t​o​n​o​v​_​A​-40
    I was always fond of the Antonov A-​​40 “Tank Wings” — it was a set of glider wings the Soviets could fas­ten to a T-​​27 tank. The tank would then be towed by a heavy bomber or other large plane to be released near a bat­tle­field. The Ruskies weren’t dumb enough to drop a manned tank, but they did scrub the idea because the vehi­cle tended to crater upon land­ing. It prob­a­bly would have been smarter to drop the thing on Germans, it might do more dam­age that way.
    http://​blog​.mod​ern​mechanix​.com/​2​0​0​6​/​0​7​/​1​0​/​f​l​y​i​n​g​-​t​a​n​k​s​-​t​h​a​t​-​s​h​e​d​-​t​h​e​i​r​-​w​i​ngs
    Walter Christie tried to sell the same idea, but got nowhere.

    Reply
  19. Robot Economist says:
    November 20, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    Two more great ideas:
    http://​blog​.mod​ern​mechanix​.com/​2​0​0​6​/​0​7​/​2​0​/​s​p​a​n​i​a​r​d​s​-​m​i​r​r​o​r​-​s​y​s​t​e​m​-​c​r​e​a​t​e​s​-​a​n​-​i​n​v​i​s​i​b​l​e​-​a​r​my/
    The Spanish thought mir­rors could ren­der their troops invis­i­ble by reflect­ing their sur­round­ings — when the mir­rors and your enemy are per­fectly aligned. Otherwise, an oppos­ing force might be sus­pi­cious of the noon­day sun being so close to the ground.
    http://​blog​.mod​ern​mechanix​.com/​2​0​0​6​/​0​5​/​2​1​/​s​n​i​p​e​r​s​-​i​n​-​c​a​m​o​u​f​l​a​g​e​-​n​e​t​s​-​d​i​f​f​i​c​u​l​t​-​f​o​r​-​i​n​v​a​d​e​r​s​-​t​o​-​s​p​ot/
    I just think this pic­ture is hilar­i­ous. The net may help obscure the sniper, but I bet it is hard to move in it.

    Reply
  20. Wade says:
    November 21, 2006 at 8:36 am

    My can­di­date:
    Secretaies of Defense from Industry:
    Robert Strange McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld.

    Reply
  21. John says:
    November 21, 2006 at 11:27 am

    The De Lackner HZ-​​1 Aerocycle.
    You only fall off this cycle once.

    Reply
  22. Brian Wang says:
    November 21, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Coal power plants put about 2 bil­lion tons of car­bon into the air. Harvard stud­ies indi­cate that 178,000 die pre­ma­turely each year from coal pol­lu­tion in Chinese cities. Double that to include rural areas. The American lung asso­ci­a­tion indi­cates that 27,000 amer­i­cans die pre­ma­turely from coal pol­lu­tion. Coal also puts out 20,000 tons of radioac­tive ura­nium and tho­rium (how many dirty bombs is that?). Thousands of tons of mer­cury and arsenic every year. About 10,000 die in coal min­ing acci­dents each year. So over 400,000 pre­ma­ture deaths (over 1,000 every day) directly from pol­lu­tion each year not includ­ing deaths from cli­mate change or increased dis­ease from higher tem­per­a­tures. Coal use is increas­ing. The world adds about 200 Gigawatts of elec­tri­cal power each year. Solar pro­vided 1.7 GW of added power in 2005. Wind added 12 GW in 2005. Mass pro­duced nuclear power will need to be a major part of the answer. At least nuclear waste can be kept in vats instead of in your lungs and air. We can also make closed cycle reac­tors or accel­er­a­tors that can process the transuranic waste that lasts for 10,000 years leav­ing the sev­eral hun­dred year waste or shorter.
    The solu­tions to the incon­ve­nient truth are that we will have to do a lot more than change our light bulbs to make a sig­nif­i­cant difference.

    Reply
  23. erewhon says:
    November 21, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    DARPA’s “human can­non­ball” device to put SF on top of build­ings…
    http://​www​.new​sci​en​tist​tech​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​d​n​9​1​7​0​-​i​n​v​e​n​t​i​o​n​-​h​u​m​a​n​-​c​a​n​n​o​n​b​a​l​l​s​.​h​tml

    Reply
  24. David Gomez says:
    November 21, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    Driving in New Mexico, espe­cially on a week­end night:
    http://​www​.state​.nm​.us/​t​a​x​/​p​u​b​s​/​d​w​i​.​htm
    New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division
    DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED
    If you are between the ages of 15 and 34, you are more likely to die in an alcohol-​​related crash than any other sin­gle cause. Although tougher laws and greater enforce­ment has resulted in a drop in DWI deaths over the last 10 years, New Mexico’s rate of impaired dri­ving deaths still tops the list nationally.

    Reply
  25. Swen Swenson says:
    November 22, 2006 at 8:55 am

    “… Harvard stud­ies indi­cate that 178,000 die pre­ma­turely each year from coal pol­lu­tion in Chinese cities. Double that to include rural areas. … About 10,000 die in coal min­ing acci­dents each year. [Also mostly in China.]
    The solu­tions to the incon­ve­nient truth are that we will have to do a lot more than change our light bulbs to make a sig­nif­i­cant difference.Yeah, we need to send Algore to China, where the prob­lem lies. How, oh how will we keep 1.3 bil­lion Chinese down on the farm?
    Okay, under pres­sure from the pro­pri­etor of this fine blog to vote for a sin­gle “coolest, dead­liest gad­get” the wickedest I’ve ever seen is the A-​​10 Warthog. Not deadly to the user, but the ground effect is awsome in the extreme.

    Reply
  26. Swen Swenson says:
    November 22, 2006 at 8:58 am

    Okay, I can take a hint. Embedded HTML doesn’t work here, eh? Sorry for the scram­bled quote below.

    Reply
  27. Lance says:
    November 22, 2006 at 10:38 am

    I think that this data is incor­rect in stat­ing Million Tons! I think it was more in the range of Kilo tons. That would make the Davy Crockett 10–20 times more pow­er­ful than that which was dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    Reply
  28. Robot.Economist says:
    November 22, 2006 at 11:08 am

    We made the oblig­a­tory Davy Crockett ref­er­ence, but no one has men­tioned nuclear satchel charges, like the Special Atomic Demolition Munition:
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​ADM
    The thing was a dial a yield that could go from 10 tons up to 1 kilo­ton. Considering that the world record swim­ming speed is a lit­tle over 5 mph, I hope that its timer was longer than 10–15 min­utes.
    More impor­tantly, I would hate to be UDT or SEAL who has to jump from a plane with that thing strapped between his legs. Not that it would go off dur­ing the jump or any­thing, I’d just like to have chil­dren one day.
    I’ve also heard rumors that the Army con­sid­ered a SADM-​​type nuclear satchel charge. Let’s just hope they were plan­ning to have a wired detonator.

    Reply
  29. Mike Jacobs says:
    November 22, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    On the topic of nukes, how about the MK45 ASTOR tor­pedo. This was a nuclear tipped anti-​​submarine tor­pedo fired from a tor­pedo tube from a US sub­ma­rine intended as a last-​​ditch defense. It was said to have a Pk (prob­a­bil­ity of kill) of two — the sub being tar­geted and the sub fir­ing the ASTOR (Hansen: US Nuclear Weapons, p208).
    The MK45 ASTOR had a range of 10–12 miles, a speed of 22 knots, and was 19 inches in diam­e­ter and 18 ft 9 inches long. The W34 war­head on the ASTOR had a yield in the 10–20 kilo­ton range.

    Reply
  30. Hawthorne says:
    November 22, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Two nom­i­nees:
    1. The Japanese Type 94 pis­tol. Any gun with an exposed sear *has* to be on the list, IMO : http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​T​y​p​e​_​9​4​_​8​_​m​m​_​P​i​s​tol .
    2. And in that same vein, while not deadly per se, just really, really painful, the Type 89 Grenade Launcher, aka “Knee Mortar”, http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​T​y​p​e​_​8​9​_​G​r​e​n​a​d​e​_​D​i​s​c​h​a​r​ger . A lot of GI’s wound up with bro­ken legs after try­ing to use it the wrong way.

    Reply
  31. Joe says:
    November 22, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Hang glid­ing?? You gotta be jok­ing. Hang glid­ing only kills between zero and 8 peo­ple a year on aver­age.
    Try auto­mo­biles. 50,000 to 60,000 deaths a year!

    Reply
  32. Robot Economist says:
    November 22, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    Dude, Noah, you have to put the fly­ing bat­ter­ing ram up there.
    http://​www​.damn​in​ter​est​ing​.com/​?​p​=​553
    This quote says it all:
    “If all went accord­ing to plan, the bomber would be fatally wounded and the ram­ming plane and its pilot would sur­vive the impact, ready to move on to the next vic­tim.“
    If all went accord­ing to plan, eh? What about that old axiom about bat­tle plans not sur­viv­ing first con­tact with the enemy? lol.

    Reply
  33. Peter Wood says:
    November 23, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    With regard to the devel­op­ment of bunker bust­ing bombs, the ques­tion should be asked, why not go with proven designs? I refer to Sir Barnes Wallis’ designs fromm WW2. Does the name “Tallboy” ring a bell?
    It was quite effectcive.

    Reply
  34. James says:
    November 23, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    The F-​​104 Widowmaker or the “fly­ing lawn dart” comes to mind, as a deadly.
    Project Pluto the nuclear cruise mis­sile may not qual­ify as it was never flown.
    The French Chauchat light machine gun with its open mag­a­zine and inabil­ity to fire sus­tained fire, and it inabil­ity to accu­rately fire at any­thing beyond point blank range, is a contender.

    Reply
  35. Ian says:
    November 24, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    Well, if you’re going to include the atomic car, the air­borne equiv­a­lent must be even more deadly. The details here: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html
    Note the Russian equiv­a­lent — a 1000-​​ton, 130-​​metre wide fly­ing boat with four reac­tors onboard. Bad idea from start to finish.

    Reply
  36. Eric C says:
    November 27, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    How about some much larger scale dead­lies…
    Almost any­thing advo­cated by Edward Teller, like Project Plowshare/​Project Chariot.
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​O​p​e​r​a​t​i​o​n​_​P​l​o​w​s​h​are
    Or more recently Lowell Wood’s sug­es­tion of dump­ing par­ti­cles of burnt sulfer into the atmos­phere to con­trol gol­bal warm­ing.
    http://​www​.rolling​stone​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​1​2​3​4​3​8​9​2​/​c​a​n​_​d​r​_​e​v​i​l​_​s​a​v​e​_​t​h​e​_​w​o​r​l​d/1
    These ideas wouldn’t be directly deadly to the oper­a­tor, but they sure could end up being deadly to nearly every­one else.

    Reply
  37. Ken C says:
    November 28, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Anyone remem­ber the M202 Multishot flame weapon. It looked like a 4 bar­rel der­ringer on steroids and fired a 40mm rocket. It was sup­posed to fire them one at a time, but more often than not it would fire all 4 at once and scare the crap out of the shooter and any­one that hap­pened to be close by.

    Reply
  38. mrnitropb says:
    November 28, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    There’s a whole plethora of radi­o­log­i­cal wun­der things from back in the day, but this one stuck with me.
    Shoe Fitting X-​​Ray Device
    “In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the shoe-​​fitting x-​​ray unit was a com­mon shoe store sales pro­mo­tion device and nearly all stores had one. It was esti­mated that there were 10,000 of these devices in use. The pri­mary com­po­nent of a shoe-​​fitting x-​​ray unit was the flu­o­ro­scope which con­sisted essen­tially of an x-​​ray tube mounted near the floor and wholly or par­tially enclosed in a shielded box and a flu­o­res­cent screen. The x-​​rays pen­e­trated the shoes and feet and then struck the flu­o­res­cent light. This resulted in an image of the feet within the shoes. The flu­o­res­cent image was reflected to three view­ing ports at the top of the cab­i­net, where the cus­tomer, the sales­per­son, and a third per­son (your mother?) could view the image at the same time.
    The radi­a­tion haz­ards asso­ci­ated with shoe fit­ting x-​​ray units were rec­og­nized as early as 1950. The machines were often out of adjust­ment and were con­structed so radi­a­tion leaked into the sur­round­ing area.
    By 1970, shoe fit­ting x-​​ray units had been banned in 33 states includ­ing Minnesota and strict reg­u­la­tion in the remain­ing 17 states made their oper­a­tion imprac­ti­cal.“
    http://​www​.mtn​.org/​q​u​a​c​k​/​d​e​v​i​c​e​s​/​s​h​o​e​x​r​a​y​.​htm
    A lit­tle belated, and at this point played out, but appa­rantly turkey deep fat fry­ers, accord­ing to teh var­i­ous news inves­tiga­tive reports are gonna kill us all, clogged arter­ies aside.
    “Here’s why using a deep-​​fryer can be dan­ger­ous:
    * Many units eas­ily tip over, spilling the hot oil within the cook­ing pot.
    * If the cook­ing pot is over­filled with oil, the oil may spill out of the unit when the turkey is placed into the cook­ing pot. Oil may hit the burner/​flames caus­ing a fire to engulf the entire unit.
    * Partially frozen turkeys placed into the fryer can cause a spillover effect. This too, may result in an exten­sive fire.
    * With no ther­mo­stat con­trols, the units also have the poten­tial to over­heat the oil to the point of com­bus­tion.
    * The sides of the cook­ing pot, lid and pot han­dles get dan­ger­ously hot, pos­ing severe burn haz­ards“
    http://​www​.ul​.com/​c​o​n​s​u​m​e​r​s​/​t​u​r​k​e​y​s​.​h​tml

    Reply
  39. Eco Author Eldridge says:
    November 28, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    The F-​​22 rap­tor is a dinosaur indeed. While the entire world has now embraced the Swedish canard for­ward con­cept for com­bat air­craft, the F-​​22 remains a con­ven­tional lay­out. Canards are small wings for­ward of the main wing and give an air­craft a land­ing abil­ity only sec­ond best to the har­rier. This allow it to oper­ate from remote air­fields where they are far less likely to be destroyed.

    Reply
  40. Panzersteppenwolf says:
    December 14, 2006 at 9:02 pm

    What sits firmly in my mind is the German Ferdinand/​Elefant tank destroyer of WWII.
    A giant steel box with sub-​​par armor hold­ing a gun with EXTREMELY lim­ited trans­verse and no pro­tec­tion against enemy infantry except friendly infantry stand­ing on its sides. Not only that, but any­one who could pass a high-​​school level fit­ness exam could out­run the thing. And this thing was designed by Porsche!

    Reply
  41. SSG_G_Conner says:
    March 15, 2008 at 10:16 am

    While I hail the inno­va­tion in new “cleaner cars,” I do not think I would drive Hydrogen or Nuclear pow­ered car. On one hand, you could go out like the Hindenburg in an acci­dent, or you could be a dirty bomb.

    Reply
  42. skyraider8 says:
    March 25, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    As far as the m16, it is a piece of junk and will always be a piece of crap. The Liberator main inten­tion was ONLY to shoot one time to get a weapon from the bad guys, and to con­tinue to fight with that cap­tured weapon.

    Reply
  43. Mr.Scott says:
    November 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    The F-​​104 deadly? Hardly… If flown by the book, you will have no prob­lem with it.

    Reply
  44. HD Video Converter says:
    September 24, 2009 at 1:54 am

    http://​www​.hd​-video​con​verter​.com

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Keep it Simple
      Dear Big Daddy; Your last post is a laugh. You carried 100 lbs for 20 miles?...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      All the Muslims in the USA should be immediately rounded up and shot. We...
      Zandor
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
      Yeah, and every president since Reagan has proposed a Mars...
      jmatt
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
      Awesome. Now to be a *real* military contract we have to spend $40...
      jmatt
    • Keep it Simple
      Anybody who went to basic training will never forget about weight. Like...
      Big Daddy
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      It had been a while since I came by the site- and now I...
      Mod
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      In DTI this article is credited to Sharon...
      Wembley
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Jews wasn't a threat for anyone, that's why this was a tragedie
      A.g.
    • Quick-Deploy 120mm Mortar
      The 120 is mounted in the back of a mortar track and...
      SSG Knapp 11C3O
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I am a New Yorker, and have seen the holes in the ground where...
      Sam
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage