World without guns

archery and swords will have made some great advancements for sure.

Do we have gunpowder?

Rocket assisted arrows of various sizes like what the various Chinks used

They'd advance to the stage of effectively being guns

We've always used projectile weapons for direct and indirect fires in wars

Not much would change

File: Hug-Your-AK-day.jpg (303KB, 649x763px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 649x763px

>>32142423
I don't even want to think about a world without guns. Gives me shivers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycEZIbQqA8A

>>32142423
Guns would still exist since there are other means to propelle objects over great distances.

>>32142435
But what if? In general, without guns the way war was fought would have stayed the same for a long time. How can you be so certain that guns MUST exist, even when the question asked is a hypothetical, alternate world?

>>32142475
I mean to ignore the concept of flinging small bits of lead at each other through explosions would mean we couldn't discover a lot of things.
Like combustion or any exploding things really, a lot of shit wouldn't get invented.
I don't think we could comprehend a world like that.

Considering how good modern armor is, we'd have to have some ridiculous firearm alternatives. I imagine that flamethrower and chemical weapons would have had a headstart in development as we entered the industrial age.

I think the main difference would come down to: does full body armor stay relevant, or does a new weapon render it obsolete like firearms did?

If body armor stays in use we'd see some real medieval fighting. More optimization of armor, more weapons to punch armor.

If body armor falls out of use then everything goes to alt projectile weapons. Crossbows, slingbows, flamethrowers, anything that can kill the enemy further away than he can kill you.

Maybe it would be biological.
Carefully grown cultures of shortlived bacteria and virusses which will wipe an area clean of all humans.

>>32142475
Ok, realistically, our entire chemistry including biological life would then be completely different. All those redox- and catalytic chains of reactions to support life should not then exist either. It's just so.

Should we be so stupid not to invent gunpowder or any other of those multitude of chemical and physical propellants is another story. You are basically describing an elephant-size object in your living room you have never noticed at all, despite you have been living with it for your entire life.

We can always imagine. There's nothing wrong with that.

Spring-loaded arrow/bolt tips would be cool. The impact of hitting a guy would release a mechanism which punches the tip of the projectile deeper in, like a switchblade or something.

Pneumatic weapons.

I wonder how spears would develop. Or perhaps armor has been developed so far that only a cannon could damage it?

>>32142785
Those ARE still guns. Even though they don't use gunpowder, they are weapons based off of guns.

>>32142676
How you gonna propel that virus

>>32143011
From a trebuchet, on the bodies of your dead enemies.

Duh.

>>32142423
That's a stupid and meaningless question. The logical advancement of weaponry is projectile weapons; look at how bows evolved into crossbows, then muskets and rifles and assault rifles and ATGMs. Saying "What would technology be like without guns" is dumb because there is no reason someone wouldn't make, for instance, an air-based gun or a flamethrower.

If guns were completely eliminated from today; riot police are now armed with steel armor and lances for warfare. Tanks have big spikes in to ram enemies.

Or more realistically, everyone has rockets now.

No rockets? We use flamethrowers.

No fire? Fuck the fuck off.

The first recorded battle was fought with slings.

Humans have always used projectile weapons.

Removing one form just means we'd develop another.

We'd have compound bows with rocket assisted projectiles or some shit which would be just as powerful as any firearm.

long sticks with a katana on each end

File: 1479711608541m.jpg (81KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1024x765px

>>32142423


Don't be so hard on OP anons. If he's noguns he probably doesn't understand how simple a firearm really is or how easily a projectile can be flung at high speeds by other ways of rapidly building pressure. Hell even if he's hasguns or is one of the people who's really smart but not so mechanically inclined and just never took the time to see how they really worked he wouldn't fully understand how incredibly simple it is.

OP even hundreds of years ago there were air powered multishot repeating air rifles that could easily kill people. This was a time period where standardization of parts didnt exist, things were handmade, and anything not metal was wood so they were more rare and expensive.

Even an M16 which a lot of people describe as being complicated comes down to a forged bolt with a big spring behind it. The bolt is shaped to push a round into the barrel and drop a pin on the primer once the trigger (triggers have been around since before guns) is pulled.

Once the round goes boom, the bullet flies out the barrel riding on the explosion.

The explosion simultaneously goes through a small hole in the barrel connected to a tube going back to the bolt that puts enough pressure on the bolt to push it back against the spring a distance and throw the spent casing out.

Then, the spring forces the bolt back into place once their is no longer pressure against it. This action pushes the next round into the barrel and cocks the firing pin.

Almost all the little pieces you hear people bitch about have to do with things that make the rifle more functional like the magazine release and bolt release and to make the gun easier to take apart and clean.

It sounds complicated in words but if you google a few pictures of the insides you'll figure out what I'm talking about in a few minutes. Just pay attention to all the parts in line with the barrel, think of everything else as extra until you get that part.

File: 1479755256713.jpg (15KB, 228x217px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 228x217px

>>32142423

A more realistic (lol) to ask your question is what would it be like in war if god, just for fun, put a spell over the world so that you can only harm a human using objects propelled directly by muscle, under string tension directly by muscle, or with falling gravity related energy.

>>32143294
>Don't be so hard on OP anons
I am a fan of imagination, creativity, stories and fantasy.

But if things start to feel like I'm dealing with a flat earth society supporter, I can't help it.

>>32142423
We've been down that road before, its very bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djCdoThfwwM

Assault atlatls
Auto crossbows
Those crazy launchers from the slingshot channel on YT

repeating cross-slings:basically germany wins because they have joerg sprave

there was already a world without guns and that was before guns were made, there