I had a course
mate by the name of Professor Dr Jason ST Teoh who studied nutrition together
with me at the University of London in 1966. His profile is here:
https://spm.um.edu.my/staff/jason-teoh-soon-teong/
We were the
first two Malaysians who did a postgraduate diploma in nutrition then. There
was another student by the name of Dr Sim from Singapore who also studied the
same course from the University of London, but he was one year ahead of us. Dr
Sim later became a Professor at the University of Singapore before it became
the National University of Singapore by merging with Nanyang University in
1980.
Professor ST
Teoh joined the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Malaya, while I joined
the Institute for Medical Research on our return from England to Malaysia.
I visited
Professor Jason ST Teoh a number of times, and each time instead of talking on
a common subject we were trained in together, he was more interested in talking
about guns and aerial photography. I really cannot remember all that he told me
about guns and rifles, but his interest in them captivated me too because when
I was in school, I had a teacher by the name of Khaw Eng Chin who had a .22
rifle who told us all about the rifle. Once he brought our school classmates up
to one of the mountains in Batu Pahat, Johore, Malaysia carrying his .22 rifle
with him.
I remember up
the top of the mountain he was shooting at some birds or eagles flying some
distance away. He shot at them, but did not manage to bring the eagle down,
probably because they were too far away out of the range of his rifle.
The eagle merely fluttered its wings erratically but was not
brought down.
I do not
have a gun of course, so the most I had was a catapult as a boy. But I was
fascinated by these chaps including bank security guards who carry
double-barrel shot guns who told me about their firing ranges. Professor Jason
ST Teoh used to tell me about pistols, and all these weapons.
But I have
always wondered about their muzzle velocities since I am interested in physics.
This interest
gives me some idea that the slowest pistol is the .45 ACP whose muzzle is some
830 feet per second (fps) or ~253 meters per second (m/s). The maximum
horizontal range it can reach is ~1,600 meters (1 mile) under ideal conditions,
and the maximum height it can go is ~500 meters (1640 feet)
The fastest
pistol I understand is the .357 Magnum where the muzzle velocity is ~1,450 fps
or ~442 m/s. Maximum horizontal range this pistol can reach is ~2,100 meters
(1.3 miles) under ideal conditions, and the maximum height against gravity is
~1,200 meters (3937 feet)
Then from
sources I gathered about the slowest rifles was the .22 Long Rifle (LR) my
former schoolteacher used to have where the muzzle velocity is ~1,080 fps or
~329 m/s. The maximum horizontal range for this rifle is ~1,500 meters (0.93
miles) under ideal conditions and the maximum height it can reach is ~450
meters (1476 feet).
The fastest
rifle is the .220 Swift where the muzzle velocity is ~4,100 fps or ~1,250 m/s,
and the maximum horizontal range this rifle can reach is ~5,000 meters (3.1
miles) under ideal conditions. The maximum height the bullet from a .33 rifle
can reach is ~3,200 meters (10498 feet)
But for double
barrel hunting guns (pellets), the muzzle velocity I gather is typically around
1,200 fps or ~366 m/s for 12-gauge shells. The maximum horizontal effective
range is around 50 meters (164 feet) for hunting purposes, but pellets can
travel up to 300 meters (984 feet) under ideal conditions
The maximum
height these pellets can reach heights of up to 60 meters (197 feet)
Pistols like
the .45 ACP is a slower round but very popular for its stopping power. The .357
Magnum is one of the faster pistol rounds, known for its high velocity and
energy.
Rifles like
the .22 LR is a common small-calibre round used for target practice and small
game hunting. The .220 Swift is known for its high velocity, making it a
popular choice for varmint hunting. Double-barrel shotguns firing pellets
(e.g., birdshot or buckshot) are widespread, making them effective for
close-range hunting and defence. The effective range is relatively short due to
the spread of the pellets.
The maximum
heights and distances mentioned are theoretical values calculated under ideal
conditions (vacuum, no air resistance). In real-world scenarios, factors such
as
The late
Professor Dr ST Teoh also told me about aircraft guns, but I have no idea why
from medicine and nutrition he became interested in all these weapons though he
did not owe one. Maybe out of academic interest to talk about other things
outside our professions. This gave me the question about those guns that can
reach an aircraft. What are these guns? What are their muzzle velocities and
height they can reach?
Anti-aircraft
guns are designed to target and destroy enemy aircraft. Here are some examples
of such guns, along with their muzzle velocities and the maximum heights they
can reach. Examples of anti-aircraft guns are the Bofors 40 mm L/60 where the
muzzle velocity is ~ 881 meters per second (2,890 feet per second) and the
maximum height it can reach is ~7,200 meters (23,600 feet)
Then there is
the M163 Vulcan Air Defence System (20 mm). The muzzle velocity is ~1,030
meters per second (3,380 feet per second) and the maximum height it can reach
is ~4,000 meters (13,123 feet). The ZU-23-2 (23 mm) aircraft gun is another.
Its
muzzle
velocity is ~970 meters per second (3,182 feet per second) and the maximum
height it can reach is ~2,500 meters (8,202 feet). Others are the Oerlikon 35
mm where the muzzle velocity is ~1,175 meters per second (3,855 feet per
second), and the maximum height it can reach is ~4,000 meters (13,123 feet).
The S-60 57 mm
antiaircraft gun has a muzzle velocity of ~1,000 meters per second (3,281 feet
per second), and the maximum height it can reach is ~8,800 meters (28,871
feet).
But I think
none of the anti-aircraft guns can reach a commercial jet that normally has a
cruising height of 10,000 metres, except the Patriot and S-400 Missile Systems.
If that is so, then why did they call it anti-aircraft guns? Maybe for low
flying propeller planes and helicopters. Many traditional anti-aircraft guns
have limited altitude capabilities compared to modern commercial jet cruising
altitudes. Maybe that was why they develop the anti-aircraft missiles
While
traditional anti-aircraft guns are still in use, modern air defence systems
primarily rely on surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). These missiles have higher
ranges and can reach greater heights than traditional guns. For instance, they
have the Stinger missile (Man-Portable) where the maximum speed is Mach 2.2
(~750 meters per second or 2,460 feet per second). The maximum height it can
reach is ~3,800 meters (12,500 feet)
The Patriot
Missile System has a maximum speed of Mach 5 (~1,600 meters per second or 5,249
feet per second) and the maximum height it reaches is ~24,000 meters (78,740
feet)
The S-400
Missile System has a maximum speed of Mach 12 (~4,000 meters per second or
13,123 feet per second) and a maximum height the missile reached is ~30,000
meters (98,425 feet).
Muzzle
velocity refers to the speed of the projectile as it leaves the barrel of the
gun. Higher muzzle velocities contribute to greater range and effectiveness
against high-speed targets like aircraft.
Maximum height
is the highest altitude the projectile or missile can reach. Effective
engagement height is usually lower due to the need for accuracy and control.
These
anti-aircraft systems are designed to protect against various aerial threats,
from low-flying helicopters to high-altitude jets and even ballistic missiles.
The advancement in missile technology has significantly enhanced air defence
capabilities compared to traditional anti-aircraft guns.
Many
traditional anti-aircraft guns have limited altitude capabilities compared to
modern commercial jet cruising altitudes.
Traditional
anti-aircraft guns include:
Bofors 40 mm
L/60: Maximum height ~7,200 meters
M163 Vulcan
(20 mm): Maximum height ~4,000 meters
ZU-23-2 (23
mm): Maximum height ~2,500 meters
Oerlikon 35
mm: Maximum height ~4,000 meters
S-60 57 mm:
Maximum height ~8,800 meters
Modern
Anti-Aircraft Missiles are the:
Patriot
Missile System: Maximum height ~24,000 meters
S-400 Missile
System: Maximum height ~30,000 meters
Traditional
anti-aircraft guns were originally designed during times when aircraft operated
at lower altitudes. Early military aircraft, including propeller-driven planes
and some early jets, often flew well within the effective range of these guns.
These guns are
still effective against low-flying threats such as helicopters, drones, and
ground-attack aircraft, which operate below their maximum height.
Modern
Anti-Aircraft Systems have shifted towards missile-based technology due to the
need to counter high-altitude, high-speed threats. Missiles like those in the
Patriot and S-400 systems can intercept targets at much higher altitudes,
including commercial jets and ballistic missiles.
The term
"anti-aircraft gun" originates from their initial use and development
during periods when their capabilities were sufficient for the aircraft of
those times.
As aircraft
technology advanced, reaching higher speeds and altitudes, the technology for
anti-aircraft defence also evolved. This led to the development of more
advanced missile systems capable of engaging targets at higher altitudes.
Modern
Anti-Aircraft Roles:
Today,
traditional anti-aircraft guns are often part of layered defence systems,
providing close-in defence against low-flying aircraft and missile threats,
while missiles handle high-altitude and long-range threats.
They can also
serve in roles such as point defence, protecting specific strategic assets
(e.g., military bases, critical infrastructure) from low-flying threats.
Traditional
anti-aircraft guns have limitations in reaching the altitudes of modern
commercial jets. This has necessitated the development and deployment of
missile systems for comprehensive air defence. The term "anti-aircraft
gun" persists from historical usage but represents a component of broader,
integrated air defence strategies today.
Then what
about those space satellites carrying military weapons or military devices that
circle the Earth. Can any ground-based missile systems reach them. Even if
there are it is almost impossible to know what they carry or their purpose at
such an altitude, the lowest being more than 160 km above the Earth's surface.
Unfortunately,
there have been incidents where space orbiting satellites have been brought
down by some missile systems.
As far as I
have read, there are ground-based missile systems capable of reaching and
destroying satellites in space. These are known as Anti-Satellite (ASAT)
weapons. Some of what I read are about Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons.
ASAT weapons are designed specifically to incapacitate or destroy satellites
for strategic military purposes. These weapons can be ground-based, sea-based,
air-launched, or even space-based.
Several
countries have developed and tested ground-based ASAT systems capable of
reaching satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), which ranges from 160 km to 2,000
km above the Earth's surface. Some notable ASAT Systems and incidents are from
the United States. The U.S. has conducted several ASAT tests since the 1980s.
One notable test was in 2008 when the U.S. Navy used a modified SM-3 missile to
destroy a malfunctioning reconnaissance satellite (USA-193) at an altitude of
about 247 km (153 miles).
Russia
has their Nudol System. Russia has developed the Nudol missile system,
capable of targeting satellites in LEO. There have been reports of successful
tests, although specifics are often classified.
China too
currently as the second most powerful country on Earth, now catching up very
fast to supersede the US to be the most powerful country in anything, from
finance, trade, economics, science, engineering, technology to military too has
their ASAT
China
successfully tested an ASAT missile in 2007, destroying a defunct weather
satellite (FY-1C) at an altitude of about 865 km (537 miles). This test created
a significant amount of space debris. India also has their Mission Shakti
(2019) where they conducted a successful ASAT test in 2019, using a
ground-launched missile to destroy a live satellite at an altitude of around
300 km (186 miles).
There are
challenges and risks with all these military weapons. First, detection and
identifying the purpose and payload of satellites is challenging due to their
high altitudes and the vastness of space. Ground-based radar and optical
telescopes are used to track and monitor satellites, but detailed information
is often limited.
Then we also
have the problem with space debris. Destroying satellites creates space debris,
which poses a hazard to other satellites and space missions. The 2007 Chinese
ASAT test, for example, generated thousands of debris pieces that continue to
orbit Earth.
China's ASAT
test resulted in widespread condemnation due to the creation of a significant
amount of space debris. That was the FY-1C incidence in 2007.
Following that
was the USA-193 ASAT incident in 2008 when the U.S. used an SM-3 missile to
destroy a malfunctioning satellite, purportedly to prevent the release of toxic
hydrazine fuel.
Ground-based
ASAT missile systems do exist and have been successfully tested by multiple
countries. These systems can target satellites in low Earth orbit, which
includes many military and reconnaissance satellites. However, the destruction
of satellites carries significant risks, including the creation of space debris
that can threaten other space assets and missions. The strategic use of ASAT
weapons is heavily debated due to these risks and the potential escalation of
conflicts in space.
Terrible!
Terrible!
Having said
all these, I think this is terrible. Man is out only to destroy each other
wherever they are, perhaps even when they stay on the Moon or landed on Mars.
Why can't they live peacefully with each other but bent to develop weapons to
seek and destroy the other. This is terrible.
My concerns
are deeply worrying and resonate with many who hope for a more peaceful and
cooperative future for humanity. The development of weapons, especially those
capable of targeting satellites or other space assets, does highlight a
troubling aspect of human nature and international relations. However, there
are several perspectives and ongoing efforts aimed at fostering peace and
cooperation:
The
perspectives on military development I believe are:
First,
deterrence. Some argue that the development of advanced weapons serves as
a deterrent, preventing potential conflicts by ensuring that any aggression
would be met with significant retaliation. This concept, known as mutually
assured destruction (MAD), was a key factor during the Cold War.
Second,
security. Nations develop military capabilities to protect their
sovereignty and ensure national security. The goal is often to prevent external
threats and maintain stability within their borders.
Technological
advancement in military research often leads to technological advancements that
can have civilian applications. For example, satellite technology and the
internet both have roots in military research.
There are also
efforts toward peace and cooperation. There are numerous treaties aimed at
limiting the proliferation and use of weapons, including space-based weapons.
Notable examples include the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which prohibits the
placement of nuclear weapons in space, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
(1972), which sought to limit missile defences.
There are also
diplomacy and conflict resolution. Many countries and international
organizations work tirelessly to resolve conflicts through diplomatic means
rather than military action. The United Nations and various peacekeeping
missions aim to mediate disputes and prevent wars.
Space
exploration often brings nations together for collaborative efforts. The
International Space Station (ISS) is a prime example, involving cooperation
between the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada.
There are also
numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Numerous advocacy groups
promote peace, disarmament, and international cooperation. They work to raise
awareness, influence policy, and foster dialogue between nations.
What would be
a vision for the future? Many envision a future where humanity can
transcend its conflicts and work together for the common good. This vision
includes:
Global
Governance that aims at strengthening international institutions that can
effectively manage global issues and mediate conflicts.
Education and
awareness is another to promote education that emphasizes peace, empathy, and
global citizenship can help foster a more understanding and cooperative world.
Sustainable
development is aimed at addressing underlying issues such as poverty,
inequality, and resource scarcity can reduce the factors that often lead to
conflict.
Cultural
exchange is created to encourage cultural exchange and mutual understanding can
help break down barriers and build connections between people from different
backgrounds.
While the
current state of military development and international relations can indeed be
disheartening, there are also many ongoing efforts aimed at fostering peace and
cooperation. The hope is that humanity will continue to evolve, learning from
past conflicts and working towards a more peaceful and unified future.
That's why I
often wonder, instead of developing guns and weapons to destroy each other,
if there are better and happier worlds out there among the stars where
our souls can go peacefully when we die. As long as we have a physical body, I
don't think we can live peacefully with each other because of our material
needs fighting for survival. When we die, I don't think we need all these
anymore. This is terrible. I am sure among some 100 trillion, trillion worlds
spanning across over 96 billion light years in diameter in this vast universe
there must be a Shangri-La where we don't need all these fighting and jealousy
My reflections
touch on deep philosophical and spiritual questions that have been pondered by
humans for millennia. The hope for a peaceful and harmonious existence, whether
in this life or beyond, is a common aspiration. Let me give you some
perspectives that align with my thoughts.
First,
we have philosophical and spiritual perspectives through religious
beliefs. Many religions and spiritual traditions speak of an afterlife or
other worldly realms where souls can find peace and happiness. Concepts such as
heaven, nirvana, or the afterlife offer comfort and hope for a place free from
suffering and conflict.
I also
think of a philosophical utopia sharing with other philosophers. Throughout
history mankind has envisioned ideal societies where harmony and justice
prevail. Plato's "Republic" and Thomas More's "Utopia" are
classic examples of attempts to imagine better worlds. This may be scientific
speculation that may not be grounded in empirical evidence. Nevertheless, some
scientific and speculative ideas suggest the possibility of other habitable
worlds or even alternate dimensions where different laws of nature might allow
for more peaceful existence.
We also quest
for peace in our world coming from such as inner peace. Many spiritual
traditions emphasize that true peace begins within. Practices such as
meditation, mindfulness, and compassion can help individuals cultivate a sense
of inner tranquillity that can ripple outwards into the world.
Then we can
have community and cooperation. While material needs and survival instincts can
lead to conflict, human history is also full of examples of cooperation,
compassion, and altruism. Communities can come together to create environments
of mutual support and harmony.
Visionary
movements are another quest. Various movements and philosophies aim to
create a more just and peaceful world. Concepts such as the "Global
Village" or the principles of nonviolence advocated by figures like
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. inspire efforts toward global
harmony.
Since I have
briefly studied astronomy at Oxford after my retirement from medical research,
I always look at the vastness of the Universe from the cosmic perspective. The
sheer scale of the universe, with its countless stars and potentially habitable
planets, invites wonder and speculation about the existence of other
civilizations and ways of life. The idea that there might be "better and
happier worlds" is a hopeful thought for many.
Scientific
endeavours such as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) and the
exploration of other planets (e.g., Mars missions, exoplanet studies) seek to
understand whether life exists elsewhere and what forms it might take.
I always
imagine the existence of Shangri-La, not the weapons of war. The concept of
Shangri-La, a mythical paradise, resonates with the human desire for a place
free from strife. Whether it is a metaphor for an ideal society on Earth or a
literal place among the stars, it represents the hope for a better existence.
Reflecting on
our place in the Universe needs to be taken very seriously. The vastness of the
universe and the possibility of other worlds can provide a humbling perspective
on our own struggles and conflicts. It can inspire a sense of connectedness and
a desire to transcend our limitations.
I strongly
believe my perspective is both scientifically intriguing and philosophically
profound. The vastness of the universe indeed suggests that the statistical
probability of diverse forms of life and civilizations is extremely high. Let
us consider some points from astronomy from the scientific perspective the
presence of life elsewhere unlike ours.
Exoplanets and
habitability from exoplanet discovery. With thousands of exoplanets
discovered in the habitable zones of their stars, the potential for
life-supporting conditions is vast.
Diversity of
Worlds. These exoplanets vary greatly in size, composition, and distance
from their stars, indicating a wide range of environments that could
potentially host life.
In
astrobiology we consider life in worlds unlike ours elsewhere. We are aware of
extremophiles on Earth where life on Earth exists in extreme conditions, from
deep ocean vents to acidic lakes, suggesting that life could thrive in a
variety of extraterrestrial environments. We also consider chemical building
blocks. The basic chemical building blocks of life, such as water, amino acids,
and organic molecules, are abundant in the universe.
We also have
the Drake Equation estimating civilizations elsewhere. The Drake Equation
attempts to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial
civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. While many of its variables are still
unknown, the sheer number of stars and planets increases the likelihood of
diverse life forms.
We also have
philosophical and spiritual considerations of pluralism of worlds where we have
historical views from philosophers like Giordano Bruno in the 16th century
speculated about an infinite number of inhabited worlds, each with its own
unique forms of life and intelligence. Today, these ideas align with scientific
discoveries, suggesting that the universe is filled with a multitude of
possibilities.
Besides
scientific implications we also have ethical implications. We need humility and
unity by recognizing our small place in the vast universe can inspire humility
and a sense of unity with all forms of life, promoting peace and cooperation.
As we explore
the cosmos, ethical considerations about how we interact with potential
extraterrestrial life become crucial.
The Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is another.
First, we
listen for radio signals from other worlds. SETI initiatives involve listening
for radio signals or other forms of communication from advanced civilizations.
While we have not yet detected such signals, the search continues, driven by
the hope of making contact. Projects like Breakthrough Listen and Breakthrough
Starshot aim to find evidence of extraterrestrial life and explore nearby star
systems, pushing the boundaries of our knowledge and technology.
We need
imagination and inspiration by expanding horizons. Science fiction often
explores themes of diverse worlds and civilizations, inspiring both scientists
and the public to think beyond our current understanding.
There are
moral lessons for us to learn in that we must not have guns and weapons to
destroy ourselves. Many stories highlight the potential for peaceful
coexistence and the importance of ethical considerations in our interactions
with other beings. We must strive for human aspirations instead.
The quest for
Shangri-La is our idea of a utopian world or society, whether on Earth or among
the stars. It reflects humanity's enduring hope for a better existence.
The drive to
explore and understand the universe can serve as a catalyst for advancing
knowledge, fostering international cooperation, and inspiring future
generations rather than making guns and weapons to find out how far than can go
to kill another human being. That’s not the way we want to live.
The vast
number of worlds in the universe indeed makes it statistically likely that
there are places with entirely different forms of life and potentially more
peaceful and harmonious societies. This possibility invites us to continue
exploring, learning, and striving for a better future, both on Earth and
beyond.
While the
challenges of living peacefully on Earth are significant, the longing for a
better world, whether here or among the stars, is a powerful and enduring
aspect of human nature. This longing can motivate efforts toward personal
growth, community building, and global cooperation.
I really hope
this is so. With so many, many worlds out there far, far more than all the
sands on this Earth, the statistical probability of something entirely
different out there is extremely high. We cannot assume all the sands in the
world are exactly the same unlike coloured balls in a bag
Let us lay
down our guns, missiles and weapons
No comments:
Post a Comment