On Guns, Missiles and Weapons of War vs A Peaceful Utopian World Outside Ours

 

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