The Military Thread

[PhillyPhanInDC]

I'm of the opinion that investing in technology of this kind does preserve lives and help keep the peace.

This was John Gatling's thinking when he invented the machine gun. It's also inline with the thinking of some of the physicists who helped in the Manhattan Project. In both cases they were horrified by the damage wrought by their creations.  As a former service member, I can attest that we only get more efficient at killing people. If we wanted to stop killing people, our governments would play Call of Duty or chess to decide the matters that currently call for war.

All that being said, I agree with Sarge, blowing shtein up gives me a rager.

[Rome]

that will totally work with thousands of warheads raining down on us.

The missle was taken out 3 minutes after it was launched. The laser will be able to track multiple targets and destroy them. So the idea is that they will work in order to not have multi warheads raining down on us as you so elequently put it.

What part of "it won't work" don't you understand?

If some lunatic gets it into his head to launch a full-out nuclear attack on us there's nothing we can do about it.  Even if 99% of the warheads are destroyed there'd still be more than enough to get through to wipe us all out.

But hey, if hearing news like this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then good for you.

Bottom line is we've been planning the Earth's destruction for 60 years and it's going to happen one way or another.  And there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.

[shorebird]

The concept has been in development for a while now. The pentagon had plans of building up to 7 of the jets, but it was deemed way too costly and defense secretary Robert Gates canelled plans to build a second one. The initial jet was kept around as a R&D platform. Good thing becuase it has resulted in a low cost was of defending against a ballistic missle attack compared to any other way of defense the U.S. has now. The missle was disabled in the boost phase which is the main goal and when the missle is at it's most vurnable, traveling at low speed.

the navy, as a battle fleet, is probably only going to continue becoming more and more obsolete since the days of ship to ship combat are an extinct practice.  seriously, when's the last time 2 ships have fired back and forth at each other? 

as technology continues to improve, the need for a battle ready fleet of destroyers does become less relevant.  this is not to say that the navy itself is obsolete because if you get rid of the squids, then who is going to take the marines on a tour of luxurious medeterranian ports?

en
LOL! at that. I still think that with the boost of technoloy, the Navy will grow as the country needs it. The destroyer has been regulated to the role of protecting the Carrier. So yeah, some parts of the Navy are obsolete. But the Navb still provides control of the Sea and Air, which is critical in a battle arena. Thats why the've been moving foward in the way of Stealth ships and smaller, more economical ships that provide a broader more versatile means of service

[Sgt PSN]

I'm of the opinion that investing in technology of this kind does preserve lives and help keep the peace.

This was John Gatling's thinking when he invented the machine gun. It's also inline with the thinking of some of the physicists who helped in the Manhattan Project. In both cases they were horrified by the damage wrought by there creations.  As a former service member, I can attest that we only get more efficient at killing people. If we wanted to stop killing people, our governments would play Call of Duty or chess to decide the matters that currently call for war.

it's funny because people say it all the time......if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past, you're doomed to repeat them".....or some shtein like that.  yet when it comes to weapons, especially those designed for war, we keep making the same mistake.  people think that this will be the gun or the tank or the aircraft or the ship or the bomb that will finally bring an end to war and save lives and preserve order, blah blah blah. 

and yet whenever this new weapon is unleashed, there's almost always regret from the creators and the desired outcome (peace) is never acheived.   

for thousands and thousands of years, man still hasn't been able to figure out a way to settle their differences without bloodshed.  maybe it's because no matter how much we've "evolved" we still can't shed that instinctive desire for war.  or maybe it's because we're just too lazy to explore other alternatives. 

in any case, for every big ass gun and every missile defense system we come up with, someone out there will build a bigger gun and will find a way to beat that defense system and the never ending cycle of bloodshed will continue. 

in war, truth is the first casualty.   - aeschylus

im fed up with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.  - george mcgovern

[shorebird]

that will totally work with thousands of warheads raining down on us.

The missle was taken out 3 minutes after it was launched. The laser will be able to track multiple targets and destroy them. So the idea is that they will work in order to not have multi warheads raining down on us as you so elequently put it.

What part of "it won't work" don't you understand?

If some lunatic gets it into his head to launch a full-out nuclear attack on us there's nothing we can do about it.  Even if 99% of the warheads are destroyed there'd still be more than enough to get through to wipe us all out.

But hey, if hearing news like this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then good for you.

Bottom line is we've been planning the Earth's destruction for 60 years and it's going to happen one way or another.  And there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.

I understand that you saying it won't work is your opinion, and nothing more, and no reason not to move foward with technology that would protect you and maybe save your life even it you can't see it. But I guess that even if the military studies technology that is purely of a defensive nature, you would rather them do nothing at all, because the military does nothing good or worthwhile and we are all gonna' die anyway. 

[Rome]

There's never been a weapon invented that wasn't used to full effect eventually.

This planet is doomed.  All we're doing at this point is biding time until it happens.

[Sgt PSN]

This planet is doomed.  All we're doing at this point is biding time until we find another one to farg up.

[shorebird]

I'm of the opinion that investing in technology of this kind does preserve lives and help keep the peace.

This was John Gatling's thinking when he invented the machine gun. It's also inline with the thinking of some of the physicists who helped in the Manhattan Project. In both cases they were horrified by the damage wrought by their creations.  As a former service member, I can attest that we only get more efficient at killing people. If we wanted to stop killing people, our governments would play Call of Duty or chess to decide the matters that currently call for war.

All that being said, I agree with Sarge, blowing shtein up gives me a rager.

If you could get the rest of the world to agree with that, it would be a great idea. Until then, the United States Military is a necessary evil.

[shorebird]

There's never been a weapon invented that wasn't used to full effect eventually.

This planet is doomed.  All we're doing at this point is biding time until it happens.

All the more reason to proceed with technology that would possibly protect us from it.

[Sgt PSN]

I'm of the opinion that investing in technology of this kind does preserve lives and help keep the peace.

This was John Gatling's thinking when he invented the machine gun. It's also inline with the thinking of some of the physicists who helped in the Manhattan Project. In both cases they were horrified by the damage wrought by their creations.  As a former service member, I can attest that we only get more efficient at killing people. If we wanted to stop killing people, our governments would play Call of Duty or chess to decide the matters that currently call for war.

All that being said, I agree with Sarge, blowing shtein up gives me a rager.

If you could get the rest of the world to agree with that, it would be a great idea. Until then, the United States Military is a necessary evil.

personally, i think that since the us is the "leading country in the world" especially in terms of military force, we should make the first move and encourage other countries to follow suit.  because i don't know about you, but if i'm about to fight the bully on the playground, i don't put my fists down until he lowers his. 

but it'll never happen so i don't worry too much about it.  it's just one of those crazy, idealistic dreams i have of living on a planet where diplomacy, compromise and the value of life reign supreme. 

[shorebird]

I'm of the opinion that investing in technology of this kind does preserve lives and help keep the peace.

This was John Gatling's thinking when he invented the machine gun. It's also inline with the thinking of some of the physicists who helped in the Manhattan Project. In both cases they were horrified by the damage wrought by their creations.  As a former service member, I can attest that we only get more efficient at killing people. If we wanted to stop killing people, our governments would play Call of Duty or chess to decide the matters that currently call for war.

All that being said, I agree with Sarge, blowing shtein up gives me a rager.

If you could get the rest of the world to agree with that, it would be a great idea. Until then, the United States Military is a necessary evil.

personally, i think that since the us is the "leading country in the world" especially in terms of military force, we should make the first move and encourage other countries to follow suit.  because i don't know about you, but if i'm about to fight the bully on the playground, i don't put my fists down until he lowers his.

but it'll never happen so i don't worry too much about it.  it's just one of those crazy, idealistic dreams i have of living on a planet where diplomacy, compromise and the value of life reign supreme. 

If not for the precieved hate of other countries towards the U.S., I could agree with that. I guess I'm paranoid, a right wing idealist, whatever. I just don't see other countries laying down their arms just because we would.

[Diomedes]

for thousands and thousands of years, man still hasn't been able to figure out a way to settle their differences without bloodshed.

[ice grillin you]

im fed up with old rich men dreaming up wars for young poor men to die in.  - george mcgovern

[Sgt PSN]

for thousands and thousands of years, man still hasn't been able to figure out a way to settle their differences without bloodshed.

that was actually from my post, not rome's.

can't see the pic because i'm at work and wordpress is blocked but i see mlk in the url so i assume you're countering my statement.  and while mlk was obviously a man of peace, i beleive his life was cut short by gunfire which further validates my post. 

either that, or you're emphasizing my post by saying that every time someone is an advocate for peace they end up dead.   

[Diomedes]

The honky who killed MLK settled nothing.