Why Aren't There Weapons That Shoot Liquid Acids Like a Squirt Gun?

The question of developing weapons that shoot liquid acids, often compared to a squirt gun for their ease of concealment and apparent effectiveness, has long intrigued security and military analysts. While such weapons might seem attractive for their potential to cause significant harm and terror, they face numerous technical, ethical, and strategic challenges.

Technical Limitations and Ethical Concerns

Firstly, the creation and deployment of liquid acid weapons violate the ethical standards and legal frameworks established by nations like the United States and NATO. The pact against weapons that cause unnecessary suffering is a widely observed international norm, reflecting a commitment to humane warfare. The use of such weapons would undoubtedly be seen as excessively brutal and inhumane.

Technically, while there are methods to propel liquids, even acids, for industrial purposes, such as pest control and cleaning, these methods are not well-suited for effective or safe use as weapons. The hazards and difficulties involved in designing such weapons are significant. For instance, managing the production, storage, and transportation of acid would be complex and risky. Buying and reloading the weapon would be far from enjoyable, given the dangers involved.

Effectiveness and Practicality

Despite their potential for causing harm, liquid acid weapons would likely not be very effective in practical terms. The process of acid exposure is often slow and painful, allowing an attacker ample time to escape or neutralize the threat. Furthermore, the very nature of acid makes it a dangerous substance to handle, as it could easily splash back onto the user, causing injury or contamination.

In a tactical context, the use of such weapons would be fraught with risks. For instance, choosing a liquid weapon that can splash back on the user or leak while being transported would be a foolhardy decision. The primary ethical reason to avoid such weapons is the inherent danger they pose to the user. Other potential users might indeed be “pissed off” to learn that a nation like the United States is contemplating such weapons, leading to significant political and moral backlash.

Commercial Viability and Public Perception

The idea of liquid acid weapons is not only ethically dubious but also commercially unviable. Manufacturing, storing, and transporting such weapons would be impractical and costly, making them an unattractive option for any military or security agency. Public perception would also play a significant role in the rejection of such weapons, given the humanitarian concerns and the focus on minimizing suffering.

From a legal and moral standpoint, the use of liquid acid weapons would be considered a form of chemical warfare, which is prohibited under international law. The concept is also viewed as cruel and unusual, lacking the 'stopping power' necessary for immediate defense or effective use in covert operations.

Conclusion

The development and deployment of weapons that shoot liquid acids like a squirt gun is not only ethically and legally questionable but also impractical and ineffective. The technical challenges, combined with the inherent dangers and public perception, ensure that such weapons remain a distant and undesirable goal in the realms of both military strategy and ethical warfare.