This reminds me of this low tech magazine article:<p>What if We Replace Guns and Bullets with Bows and Arrows?
<a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2022/11/what-if-we-replace-guns-and-bullets-with-bows-and-arrows/" rel="nofollow">https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2022/11/what-if-we-replace...</a>
Modern military technology seems to become too costly. Recent conflicts in the middle east seem to indicate that low-cost approaches can have some terribly effective successes against much more sophisticated militaries.
Isn't it easy enough to make ammunition for modern rifles?<p>I'm not a gunsmith or gun engineer, but it doesn't sound difficult to reuse casings and make ammunition.<p>Of course, one would still need to make:<p>* pointy bullets with steel scraps and some cast/mold and some coal-powered oven (you see a lot of youtube guys melting metal with not that much equipment)<p>* gunpowder and a primer, and might not require a lot of chemistry. Smokeless powder is hard to do, but normal powder should be easy enough.<p>Even in the end times when there is no oil or industry, it seems that making rifle ammunition is still better, modern rifle are quite accurate and deadly at 100m, maybe even with low quality ammunition, while you need a very skilled archer to hit a target at that distance.
The license terms of the article seem contradictory in a way. When I download the PDF it includes an appendix stating:<p>> Copyright of Full Text rests with the original copyright owner and, except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, copying this copyright material is prohibited without the permission of the owner or its exclusive licensee or agent or by way of a license from Copyright Agency Limited. For information about such licences contact Copyright Agency Limited on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601 (fax)<p>However, in the margins of the whole text and also on the appendix page'S margin it says:<p>> Available under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence<p>Does this already count as a license from Copyright Agency Limited? What does the law say about such potentially conflicting terms?
> A current example is the oil industry, which some argue could require as much as US$100 trillion over coming decades just to replace ageing and rust-affected infrastructure.<p>This aged like milk. 15 years later, and the US extracts 2.5 times more oil.
Funny. Induatry transformed tobbe one of the most profitable public2private transfer is not suitable to produce even more robust things.
It works perfectly however - they will propose even photovoltaic propelled tanks in the near future, just to get the money