Slashdot Mirror
USAF Readies Laser of Death
An anonymous reader submits: "From the SkyNet Terminator Death Beam Dept...The London Telegraph is carrying this article about U.S. military plans to outfit AC-130 Spectre gunships with a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) which can be used against personnel and materiel for lethal and nonlethal missions."
"The special operations AC-130 Spectre gunship, whose conventional weaponry has been used to devastating effect since the Vietnam War, is to be fitted with a laser that can shoot down missiles, punch holes in aircraft and knock out ground radar stations."
IIRC, use of lasers to kill/wound/maim/blind soldiers is illegal under international law. Not to say it's never done, but as a recongnized capability-- I doubt it. Besides, the article only says it'll be (intended to be) used against hard targets.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Well from my point of view.. So.. you can blow your enemies to pieces, put bits of lead at mach speed through their bodies and hack them to death with your combat knife but laser would be too inhumane?
This world doens't make alot of sense...
With this giant "laser" I could mount it on the moon and then...
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
http://us.imdb.com/Details?0089886
The New York Times had a blurb about this about three months ago. For the lazy, a chemical plant that fills about 3/4 of the cargo space feeds the lasing system in the turret. Desgined to be part of the "missile shield" for the US and allies. Seems like a boondoggle to me, but who knows? The article I read focused on the laser taking down cruise missiles and other aircraft. Not usable for ICBMs for obvious reasons. I didn't know that they were going to use these against ground targets. Yikes!
Now that it's a crime to have a Death Ray, on criminals will have Death Rays...
Something to think about.
Who did what now?
don't shoot at houses with giant Jiffy-Pop tins in them!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
The advantage of laser weapons is that they strike at the speed of light.
This way, we'll put even less thought into decimating villagers and frienly troops along with the meanies. oh goody.
on another topic: the USAF hopes to fit it to a whole range of manned and unmanned aircraft, such as the Predator reconnaissance probe, which is fitted with Hellfire missiles and has been used in CIA operations in Afghanistan.
didja ever wonder about data encryption, wireless communications, etc. with unmanned craft? yipes...
Isn't this the most powerful weapon we're ever going to see on a battlefield?
Think about it. The time to take to shoot down a wing of jets - five of them, say - is five times the time it takes to reposition the laser, fire, and acquire a new target. Maybe a few seconds.
The Airforce might be useless. This would completely change warfare - obselete the modern armor which is dominating the battlefield; make the shield against the laser more neccessary than standard metal plating.
It's scary, guys. The United States Military might become obselete by the technology it's procuring.
So, Mr. Bond. You have tracked me to my SPECTRE gunship. In fact, you are just in time to witness the test of my latest invention: the CHEMICAL OXYGEN IODINE LASER. AHHH HA HA HA! In mere moments, I will have vaporized the whole of France!
[bond thinks for a moment, then walks out of the room]
Fire!
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Run Forest...run!
The AC-130...zooomed in
been to new york lately? I used to work about a block and a half from WTC- those jackoffs took out one of verizon's CO's- took out huge hunks of bandwidth.
Trivial, but without the assurance that some zealot won't pilot an airplane into your neighborhood, all the bandwidth in the world is somewhat pointless.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
So instead of half-inch steel armor, all the enemy needs is reflective armor? That's a camouflage problem for tanks but not a problem for missiles. Am I just being dumb?
Because 5000 years of human history has shown that the side with the better weapons usually wins. Everybody wants to be a winner. That's why whole world is spending money on bigger guns.
How does the mechanism of the chemical laser work? Does the combustion of Oxygen and Iodine naturally cause the lasing effect, or does there need to be a radiation stimulus, just like a CO2 or Ruby laser?
Firepower happens to be a pretty decent deterrent. I've never heard of a mass shooting in, say, a police station, for instance -- you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to try it, and even if you got away, you'd have a LOT of power coming after you in retribution.
Of course, there are folks that won't be deterred, but, well, that's when you NEED the firepower.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I agree. But the price of peace is eternal vigilence. And a couple hundred airbourne deathstars patroling the skies supported by AWACS is pretty vigilent.
Until the nanobots take over....
Like the sun, its only harmful if you look directly into it. :)
--Joe Nerd
I hate sigs, and suggest we all stop using them.
"Once the Coil and its power plant have been fully developed, the USAF hopes to fit it to a whole range of manned and unmanned aircraft, such as the Predator reconnaissance probe, which is fitted with Hellfire missiles and has been used in CIA operations in Afghanistan. "
That is cool.
Of course also mentioned in the article is that this is a secret program and they have no idea how far along this has progressed. But how much fun would it be to have a predator with a laser on it. Probably could only have 50-100 shots at the very most but that would still be so much more fun than two or three missles. Granted that is probably several years(decades) off. But it just sounds cool.
I am 31337 or something.
Where's Mitch Taylor and Chris Knight when you need them?
This tagline is umop apisdn.
The Air Force has been working on an AirBorne Laser (ABL) project for antiballistic missile defense for a long time. Hitting targets such as SAM sites has always been a possible use of this system.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that they got it working. I had a friend working on the project for a while, but the technical obstacles were large enough that the funding was getting shaky, so he moved on to much much greener pastures..
> the ability to vaporise enemy troops
did they think about these words while writing them? does this get people off? this makes me sick. this makes me sad about all of humanity. there is so much that could be done instead of killing one another.
how many lives have been lost in this 'war on terrorism'. how much has been spent?
how many lives have been lost in the war on hunger? how much has been spent?
maybe if as a society, we stopped spending money on war machines, frivilous SUVs, and associated items, and spent more on helping the rest of the world, there would be a lot less reason to hate the US.
instead we let the world be run as an incredible pissing contest.
remember, blindly following someone elses ideas (patriotism) is the worst thing you can do. most likely they are simply doing the same.
you need to stand up for what you believe in on all fronts. you can crusade for anti-DMCA all you want, but you will never overturn the system unless you have the help of people who could be on your side, but haven't thought about the issue, because they are more concerned with anti-war.
you need to realize that it's all the same front. all the same battle for a nice, civilized, logically run society instead of the current tragedy of the commons ruled by selfish tendencies.
Qapla' batlh je!
"Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
"Despite the successful operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, the emergence of asymmetric terrorist warfare - attacks such as September 11 where the enemy is unseen - has led the Pentagon to identify the need for a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system."
So.... what they're saying is "We didn't see them coming, so we need bigger guns". Is it just me, or is that logic flawed? How do they get from A to B there? I think that the real need should be for better intelligence so they know more about what's going on, not bigger bang-bangs. Proactive is always better than Reactive, IMHO.
"Lasers could also be used as an additional weapon system to fighters, bombers, helicopter gunships and warships but this is unlikely for a decade."
I find this quite puzzling. One of the big threats to warships (i.e. aircraft carriers) today, is cruise missiles.
To defend against those, we use missiles and gatling guns today.
Wouldn't something like this be a ideal supplement to CIWS? Moving a mirror around, directing the laser beam, to hit a sea-skimming cruise missile, should be easier than hitting that missile with lots-of-flying-lead[tm].
/Styx
Certain countries have tried peace, Switzerland for instance, Iceland, Eire others? You could also count countries that only use armed forces for defense of it's own borders.
The problem with the US trying peace is that it requires an intelligent, educated and compasionate population, the current population in America is none of the above.
The US also has the problem of all the acts of war it has committed and continues to commit. America is financially built on it's defense industry, look where the current administration is spending it's money.
In short America is never going to willingly buy into peace. Take a look at some of the comments posted to your comment, hardly full of the milk of human kindness are they?
That is the ABL program: A big anti-ICMB laser on a 747. This looks to be quite diferent. This appears to be an anti-Stinger missle solution: Meaning the ability to knock down a missle fired at the plane itself.
Hooray for the spooks!
Why don't lottery players ever pick "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6"?
Actually, I know several people who do this...never won once.
I sing the doggie electric!
''Then it's not a laser, Riff!!''
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
What to do if you happen upon a peace rally hosted by some naive, objectors to the military movement in the Middle East:
1) Approach one individual talking about "peace" and claiming there should be "no retaliation."
2) Have a brief conversation with this person and ask if military force is appropriate.
3) When he says "no," ask, "Why not?"
4) When he says, "because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful, and we should not cause more violence"
5) Punch him in the face . . . hard
6) When he gets up to punch you back, point out that it would be a mistake, and contrary to his values, to punch you, because he would be just increasing the violence.
7) When he agrees that he has pledged not to commit violence,punch him in the face again . . . harder this time.
8) Repeat steps 2 through 7 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.
9) Move on to other people in his group until all have been converted.
10) Move on to other demonstrations and repeat steps 1 through 9.
I don't think that Bush has ignored the Geneva Convention. I do think that Bush has recognized the simple reality that adhering to the Geneva Convention does not make sense in the modern world of terrorism and unseen enemies. How can you expect to defend yourself if you're playing by your old set of rules and nobody else is bound to follow them as well? Simple, you can't.
Now, without getting into a political debate, the reality of the situation is that the Geneva Convention was signed by a group of nations who formally recognized each other and formally agreed (generally) to be bound by a set of "honour" rules of engagement and warfare. Do you see any of the so-called terrorist organizations stepping up to the plate and agreeing to be bound by those rules? Heck, do you see any of these terrorist organizations actually having a majority representation in the countries that they are apparently trying to liberate (or whatever they're trying to do)? Simple answer, no. They know that they can't win by playing by the formal rules of engagement, so they don't bother. Why should the USA allow it's hands to be bound? It shouldn't.
In a nutshell, if you want to hit somebody who's big then you can now expect them to hit back. The rules of engagement have now changed. Good for Bush. He's a dumbass, but a dumbass who's stepping in the correct direction.
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Line of sight is going to become really, really important in the battlefield. High-flying non-stealth aircraft would be in serious trouble if accurate enough fire-control systems for ground anti-aircraft lasers could be developed. Armored ground forces would regain importance. The derided Crusader artillery system could suddenly look prescient (antiaircraft suppression being one of its combat roles), assuming tracking lots of artillery shells is more difficult than tracking aircraft. F-117's ought to remain effective, but I still think it's dangerous to become overreliant on air power.
The new Spectre's might not work against ICBMs, but what about shorter range ballistic missiles, like the several hundred missiles China has pointed at Taiwan? (Yeah, why China's bitchy about America dumping the ABM treaty with that nation that no longer exists...)
Nice coincidence that it takes a free nation with a free-market economy to finance a proper high-tech military, long-term at least. Hopefully no one will figure out how to dump the "free nation" half of the equation.
I still don't understand why terrorists haven't made them yet. The tech would be readily available at any hobby store.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Antimater? Does that mean it doesn't matter?
We need him to play the super smart college student who cracks the computer system, aims it at the crooked prof's house and fills the house with popcorn. 'Come on, am I the only one who thought of this?
I'm not raising moral objections here, but practical ones.
Yes, okay, we now have a laser which really can be used to blow something up. Yippee, us.
The people who spent truckloads of money to develop this turkey naturally want us to deploy it.
Ask yourself: Does it have any advantages over a missile? Well, it's bigger, it doesn't go as far, it inflicts less damage, and it costs more. But it is a Laser (therefore the weapon of the future) and it does work at all.
We could also outfit our ground forces with supersonic vibrating swords. This would work, you could kill people with them. Likewise, giant robots as were discussed in a previous slashdot article.
However, the fact remains that all of these technologies, while Cool, are very much NOT the most effective means of achieving military objectives!
These laser weapons are nothing but a white elephant for defense contractors, who have seen the end of the cold war erode their profits.
The idea of using one of these things to shoot down a missile - which is a very difficult feat even using inherently practical weapons systems - is absurd.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Certain countries have tried peace, Switzerland for instance, Iceland, Eire others? You could also count countries that only use armed forces for defense of it's own borders.
The problem with the US trying peace is that it requires an intelligent, educated and compasionate population, the current population in America is none of the above.
Do you think the populations of other coutries are inherently different in their intelligence and compassion? (Education is a different issue.) Perhaps in tribes and certain cities the flavor of the people can be fundamentally different, but for the most part, people are people, and some will be bullies and some will be bullied, there will always be the one nice guy that everyone respects, and the crumb that gets what he deserves. In America, in Iceland, in Nazi Germany.
However, I'll grant you that there can be certain differences. So let's look at Japan, both pre-European influence and post. Certainly, the people of Japan are intelligent and educated. As for compassion, the entire culture is founded on the concept of family. The school teacher is very patriarchal, as is the company president, as is the Emperor. Everyone owns everything and therefore respects everything. Everyone is sort of a sibling of everyone else, so privacy as a concept didn't exist until Western influence introduced it. These people will work together without government prodding to fix things, to help each other out, to celebrate. They are extremely compassionate.
Japanese history is FULL of war. Granted, mostly civil war before Western influence, but they're an island nation. And post influence? War again! And they were willing to help us (as much as their newest treatsie would allow) with Afghanistan, with their warships.
This is not an America-specific problem.
the laser idea is cool, but woefully impractical.. it depends too much on line of sight and environmental conditions to be terribly useful. once power supplies for these things are portable we'll see grunts toting them into battle for use in land combat..
the REAL next big thing is microwave.. you could concentrate a blast of microwave radiation that would penetrate the walls of a bunker and cook human flesh at 3,000 degrees.
Because you are dealing with people who don't know peace or want to negotiate / compromise for that matter.
Yup. That's what you have to deal with when you vote Republican.
-no broken link
"To secure peace is to prepare for war."
BTW, That jackass Clinton did everything he could to pussy-fy our military over the last 8 years, the reason we're seeing so much about military "build-up" is simply that Bush is smart enough to try to build our defenses up to the point that they were at
...for instance, a friend of mine works at Sheppard AFB, which is one of the biggest training bases in the country, and he's mentioned quite a few times that, due to cutbacks from Clinton's presidency, we have roughly 1/3 of the pilots needed to fly the number of planes that our military has. That's jacked up, re-read the quote above and think about it.
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
Explosives and other large-area-effect devices are much simpler, probably. Like another ol' standby, the AK-47, they're also very common -- e.g. during the Cold War the Czechs flooded the world with Semtex, with the intention of it reaching terrorist groups.
Terrorists usually don't care about finesse or precision, anyway. Although -- if one had, say, assassinated the POTUS (and only him) during the opening ceremony of the Olympics, that'd have been worth FAR more press to the terrorist group than merely blowing up another Israeli disco, I suspect.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The whole passive resistence thing didn't work for that Ghandi guy, right?
xxx straight edge xxx
Now all I have to do is fill my professor's house with jiffy-pop, and get my teenage roommate to hack into the laser guidance system...
from the article...
In the coil, the power of a chemical reaction is converted to laser energy, and the weapon can carry on firing as long as its power source is intact.
The Navy uses nuclear reactors to power submarines and the Airforce already flies all over the place with nukes hanging by a couple of bolts under the wing, why not create a small nuclear reactor and put it in an unmanned drone aircraft. Slap some efficient electric motors on the propellors and you would be able to provide 100% uptime for a completely mobile platform to mount uber lasers on. Now imagine a beowulf cluster of these flying death squadrons equiped with eschelon/carnivore style listening equipment that has the distributed capacity to monitor, filter, digitize, and catagorize anything that the govornment had the slightest interest in. If you consider all that, then you will agree that there is no doubt: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Because a big gun can sometimes save you from a fight, when negotiation fails. Five guys with baseball bats and a problem with a pissant are going to be reluctant to start a fight once that pissant produces a pistol.
99.9% of avoiding war is diplomacy, negotiation, and just knowing how to step lightly and not be a jerk. Those won't save you from irrational people, and that's when you need to use physical intimidation.
I support this laser project 100%. My concern isn't with our military development, it's with our short-sighted attitude about foreign policy, which arguably has been a major contributing cause of the last four wars (Afghan, Gulf, Panama and Vietnam), and has lent support to human rights abuses worldwide. The fact that our President decided to mix it up with North Korea and Iran in the State of the Union Address doesn't exactly help things either. If your concern is about peace, you should focus on that rather than on weapons R&D. We've got nukes and we haven't blown ourselves up yet, but we just might unless we clean up our act, pronto.
Finding God in a Dog
That's always been the government's logic too. You remember the devices terorists used to take over those three planes? They were box cutters. Would baggage handlers have stoped them for those? No. It wasn't there fault for being lazy or underpaid or underqualified, there wasn't anything against having box cutters. That's one of those items that could end up in your bag by accident. But now a lot of people in government are screaming about federalizing bagage handlers; there's no connection.
The military always needs more funding for their little toys, so the best way to get funding is to tell the government that they need money to thwart a threat, even if the weapon doesn't counter the threat. Usually this type of funding is masked under the rhetoric of "military readiness" and "military effectiveness."
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
So, in my non-geek life, I am an Army Field Artillery officer, and I have some background in Fire Support and Close Air. This thing will be used to support US ground troops( army or marine) in the middle of bad fights, where Field Artillery, or bombs are not availble or inappropriate. AC-130s are big, slow, relatively low flying aircraft, and they are generally committed to support our guys that are in a bad fight. This weapon probably will not be used as some sort of non-discriminate area fire weapon, ( would take too much energy, plus there is a higher risk of losing it to ground fire), but it will help our guys in a fight. If we had used a Spectre in Mogadishu, you folks wouldn't be watching "Black Hawk Down" in the theaters right now. Obviously, I am for it.
For the moralist out there, I wish to ask them one simple question: If we are to be continually called to be the world's cop, like we were in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia, why are you against giving the guys who are doing the dirty work the support to do their jobs? If you don't want us to be the world's cop, then do you have any right to be self rightous about the massacres in these same countries? I oughta know. I did a tour in Sarajevo, Bosnia, right at the beginning of the US mission. So, either you want us to do these missions, and you give us the tools, or you convince your elected officials that you won't get upset by the pictures on TV, and then we don't need these sorts of tools.
If memory serves -- Iceland has at least at one time, if not now, hosted American and allied military forces due to its strategic location. At least during that time, they could also count on those forces for protection.
Switzerland would be a remarkably tough nut for many forces to crack, since the population (not just a career military) is *very* heavily armed (read: fully automatic weapons, ammunition and training), and the terrain most unfavorable to coherent occupation. Invading is not recommended.
And Ireland is in the UK's backyard. I doubt that the UK would let anybody else try an invasion, and the UK itself has its hands full trying to peacefully disengage from that rather fractious part of Ireland that it still occupies.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
By not defending himself. The British wanted control. Not the destruction of entire people e.g. Death to America. There is no compromise or appeasement with these type if terrorists.
Anyone have more details on how exactly a Coil laser works? I always assumed lasers that can travel a decent distance and still carry enough power to do damage would required a huge amount of power. Assuming the best power source you can think of, how many shots would you be able to get out of something that would fit in the AC-130. Even if you used a generator, wouldn't it drain way faster than you could charge? It wouldn't be as useful if you only had one shot an hour or something.
Is blowing in the wind.
"which can be used against personnel and materiel for lethal and nonlethal missions".
meaning
"which can be used to kill people and destroy what they have".
It might be better to deploy something that would diffuse the laser's energy before it reached it's intended target...smoke, thick clouds of dust, water vapour, mylar 'chaff', etc...
Ideas anyone?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Terrorists aren't interested in taking out one or two people, or hardened targets. They strike civillian establishments, which are not built to withstand a fertilizer bomb. Bunkers are. It's easier and cheaper to just buy the fertilizer, drive it into a parking garage, and set it off, rather than building a superlaser, mounting it on a plane, flying it into range, and setting it off.
Not every conventional warfare weapon is useful in the arena of terrorism, just like not every terrorist weapon is not useful in conventional warfare. How many car bombs did the US use in the Gulf War, again?
Since these babies will be totally useless for nuking terrorists (ie, one man suicide bombers, Unabombers, etc.) I propose that maybe it can take out a few SPAMMERs instead ... hmm. See if the feds are serious about this crackdown on junk email.
"Little fuckers keep jumping IP blocks, but we'll get 'em!"
You mentioned Switzerland and Iceland as countries that have "tried peace," with the implication that they have been enlightened and successful in this endeavor. It's worth pointing out that Switzerland has been avoided as a target for a couple of reasons: First, their geographic location is a very difficult for occupation; and second, virtually every male citizen of Switzerland is not only required to be a member of the military (militia) but is required to keep their equipment (read guns) in their home for rapid mobilization.
Iceland, on the other hand, is a barely noticeable strategic target except in terms of its possible use as a base in an "east versus west" war. It's also worth noting that Iceland is NOT really neutral in that they are a member of NATO for Heaven's sake!
Finally, being intelligent, educated and compassionate as a nation should never have anything to do with defending oneself or initiating military action. Violence is unfortunately sometimes necessary. Most of us don't like it, but if we ever forget it I'm sure that someone will come along to remind us (you may remember 9/11?).
Good luck with Utopia ("no place").
1) Approach a Spammer and punch him in the face - HARD.
2) Have a brief conversation along the lines of "This hurts me more than it hurts you"
3) Punch the spamming gobshite again, harder.
4) Laser the spammer's family and spamming friends
5) Move along to the next spammer, until all have been 'converted'
The article refers to this as a secret weapons program. Yet I am able to find all kinds of interesting info all over the web.r esearch.html
h tml
The Air Force: http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/factsheets/coil.html
The Academy of Sciences in Prague: http://www.fzu.cz/departments/gaslaser/chemlaser/
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/Labs/chemlaser/chemlaser.
And much more.
There is more than enough info to tell you not only how this works, but to suggest how to go about building one. The fact that they have scaled it to high power and seem to believe that a version that can be placed in an aircraft comes as no surprise. Especially considering how these devices work. It seems to be a kind of chemical rocket engine, which when used in conjunction with an optical lazing cavity will produce a high energy beam, most labs seem to have a 1-10Kw output.
I seem to remember reading about thermal diodes being able to convert excess heat in the 200-400 range into electricity. Perhaps these two technologies could come together.
Here is a link for something along those lines
For 1200 years china was the richest empire in the world. They were initially very war like and had great military might. Soon they set out and saw the world and saw that there wasn't anything worth while out there. just barbarians and italians. So they turned inwards, stoped spending so much on military and poured more energy into civil engineering projects and stopped developing weapons technology.
Result: a hundred years later the british came kicked chinas ass and China became asia whipping boy for a few decades. Peace is overrated. Prepare for war because it will come.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Something similar is already in the works.
You're using her as bait, Master!
that I served in the military (not as a cook). I experienced having to defend myself first hand. Your theories are nice within the relative walls of safety in the United States. I know what is like to run with a machine gun to help one of my buddies who was already engaging three individuals in military uniform rushing our perimeter. I didn't have time to think of the social ramifications of using my weapon because you see, if I had, I could be dead. PERIOD. Your belief system is nice within the walls of academia.
"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Benjamin Franklin
The advantage of laser weapons is that they strike at the speed of light.
Yay! Who gives a flying fudge?! At the ranges where this specific laser system would be used, the difference in speed between our plain old supersonic bullets and lightspeed weapons really doesn't matter. If they're actually aimed right and firing at you, you won't be dodging either.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Now I understand why all those futuristic movies in the old days had people wearing silver jumpsuits... to protect against the lasers!
Seriously, though, would a mirror-chrome covering be enough to deflect the beams off the tanks and planes? It would make for a cool looking army!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Go smoke some pot and start a 'peaceful dialog' with Saddam Hussein.
What sort of "peaceful dialog" are you refering to? The sort conducted in the 80's by the Regan/Bush administration that led to his being able to purchase large quantities of american made weapons, including so-called "weapons of mass destruction", such as poison gas?
You're using her as bait, Master!
I think you should admit that YOU were just as impressed with the big explosions in Afghanistan as the other Yanks. Seeing thousands of innocent people blown away is a small price to pay for the ultimate destruction of one evil man...
oh, wait - they still haven't got him, have they?
but they sure did waste a lot of people.
think i need another Guinness.
Yah, these terrorists sons of bitches don't play by the rules. But if we don't play by the rules, even with scum like these, then other countries start doubting whether we'll play by the rules with them. And that's the path to a whole world of diplomatic hurt, my slashdotting friends. That's how negotiations the world over break down - when a little voice starts whispering in your head "can I trust these people to keep their word?" The United States must always adhere to the Geneva Convention, even with people who never signed it, or we will never be trusted to adhere to the Geneva Convention.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Hey, haven't you seen The Terminator? :)
...that's the question that I'm sure you (and most other) americans are afraid of asking (or answering).
You're using her as bait, Master!
Teddy Roosevelt knew the power of the bigger guns. He built up the United States into a world naval power by giving us tons of kick-ass (for the day) battleships, and then he sent them around the world on "courtesy calls". Or he'd just park a few battleships off the coast of a country, and ask them very nicely if they would please do as the United States wanted, and if they did that would be really nice. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Every new weapon we own makes other countries just a little bit more afraid of us, and a bit more inclined to listen when we speak ever-so-softly-and-respectfully.
I'm the stranger...posting to
"All I want are sharks with frickin' laser beams on them."
Irritatingly enough, I've only seen the sequel. *shrug*
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Outsiders who harp on American ignorance probably just watch too much TV. One night of "Must See TV" must make an awful impression...
when the m-16 was first introduced, there was some controversy over the design. a bullet, when fired from an m-16, would tend to wobble as it flew, making it more messy when it hit a target.
... early in vietnam, but i don't recall the outcome. they might have redesigned the ballistics, but i don't recall.
Here you go, an article talking about FMJ and the M-16
Snippets from the above:
The landwar convention from The Hague doesn't allow fragmenting bullets for purposes of war, so every army in the world uses FMJ bullets. Usually a hit from a conventional FMJ doesn't kill, but leaves a clean hole. No hunter will use FMJ, since they want to kill, not to wound.
[snip]
This, in theory is better for two reasons -- one, it creates a situation where instead of creating a dead enemy soldier it creates a wounded one, which must be cared for by his buddy, thus taking two men out of action with each hit. The second reason behind the idea is that it is more humane to wound than to kill. This type of ammunition was agreed upon by the Geneva convention, and both sides of the vietnam war agreed to it's use.
[snip]
So I think the difference is between temporary wounding (the above) and permanent scaring (say from blinding lasers, mustard gas, biological agents, dirty nukes). The Geneva Convention is for the former and against the latter.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Why do a shootout in a heavily armed building when such actions require the use of explosives?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
They tried to do this back in the sixties with a cruise missile calles PLUTO - sucker woulda flown at supersonic speeds, treetop level, and be powered by and unshielded fission reactor ramjet. Air goes in one end, gets heated up and contaminated with radioactice byproducts, and goes out the rear. Thing would have had practically unlimited ranges, could carry and drop multiple individual bombs, and the sonic boom alone would have killed people on the ground, not to mention the contamination.
The problem, is, quite simply, nobody likes working with unshielded nuclear reactors, and shielding would made it way too heavy. Been there, scrapped that idea.
I'm the stranger...posting to
This device will let us single out particular bad guys who need killing, without all the collateral damage. I'm entirely supportive of this effort.
1) The Chinesse embassy in Yoguslavia
2) The recent death of 60 Afghani tribes leaders.
Those are just two modern examples of well planed
attacks which have singled out the "bad guys".
All sarcasm aside, there is no "perfect" attack
from space/distance, without a solid intelligence
to guide the missiles to the inded target.
America needs intelligence, and intelligence requires
diplomacy and making aliances. But then, with a
solid intelligence, our conventional weapons would
have sufficed.
Either way, this "new" weapon is simply uncalled
for. I think of it as an over-clocked wet-dream,
for irresponsible weapon geeks in th military.
--
Violence has had its place at the forefront of change for the better or worse since before history. The idea of this weapons potential in the hands of freedom fighters, terrorists, and the like as a tool for retribution is a trully bewildering thought. The infrastructure needed to combat the effectiveness of such a weapon does not yet exist, but through the dangerous presence of said weapon countermeasures that may be very expensive and time consuming to prepare will become a priority for those seeking protection from the ease of use this weapon offers anyone who wields it.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I hate to break it to you, but the reason we have to keep developing our military technology at the rate that we do is because people want to kill us. That's the cold reality of the world we live in. Dropping all defenses would be a naive and fatal mistake.
For whatever reason, this information doesn't seem to proliferate the American news media. You only read it in newspapers from outside the USA. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Search some news sites for articles involving other major world powers and the USA and you'll find that our relationship isn't as warm and fuzzy as the American news media would like you to believe.
"The problem with the US trying peace is that it requires an intelligent, educated and compasionate population, the current population in America is none of the above."
Obviously, you don't understand the United States...maybe you prefer intelligent, educated and compassionate European bloodlust?
I guess maybe my aluminum foil hat may come in handy?
I was a field artillery forward observer (MOS 13F) and got to observe for an AC-130U... awesome plane... incredible accuracy considering what it does. Wish our the artillery was that accurate the first time.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
So Bush puts a country like North Korea in the 'Axis of Evil' for developing weapons of mass desctruction and then, as if having his own nukes weren't enough, he goes ahead with a real laser weapon.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Japan broke its treaty obligations regarding the balance of naval power, (Washington Treaty) and began building more main battleships than they were allotted. A few years later they invaded Manchuria, conflict over which invasion propelled the United States into war with Japan. Nazi Germany ripped up the terms of the Versailles Treaty and reoccupied areas of strategic military importance and began to rearm. British and US foreign policy elites tended to look the other way in this case of the Nazis since Versailles had been a terrible resolution to the conflict in the first place, its punitive measures insisted upon by France and Belgium, and also they looked to a remilitarized Germany as a bulwark against Stalin. A miscalculation that ended in world-tragedy.
In 1956, the United States backed the government of South Vietnam's decision not to allow elections to take place in South Vietnam in conjunction with elections in the Communist North. With this abrogation of the 1954 Geneva Conference agreement, which was a condition of the partition of Viet Nam demanded by the US to begin with, the United States took its first irrevocable steps down the road to military disaster and genocide in Southeast Asia. Soon they would take France's place in Indochina and be fighting the Vietnamese for possession of their own country causing the deaths of over a million people.
Now we see the United States government tearing up its international treaty obligations left and right. What should we expect the future holds?
I just read Sean Rayment's breathless title and note a couple of things.
- Although the article is entitled "America's laser of death cleared for take-off", a quick glance over the article itself reveals that the laser in question will be "capable of carrying out lethal and non-lethal attacks". I guess the chosen title plays better than "America's laser of death (or not) cleared for take-off".
- Mr. Rayment does a good job of noting the weaponry that was available on the AC-130 before the advent of the laser of death (or not) in question. I think we can take it for granted that getting hit by a round from any one of the "twin 20mm Vulcan cannon (capable of firing 2,500 rounds per minute), 40mm Bofor cannon (100 rounds per minute) and a 105mm Howitzer" is at least as unhappy an event as being hit by a pulse from the laser of death (or not). In fact, the laser of death (or not) may be a more humanitarian (as it were) weapon than anything the AC-130 has had to date. Of course, presenting that notion probably won't sell much copy.
My thoughts, this hyperventilated Sunday afternoon.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Only now is this technology appearing in the military, GET WITH THE TIMES MILITARY! Britain had developed a laser turret device back in WWII, to defend bases along the shore, but had no way of powering it.
You mean like the vietnam war, or the bay of pigs.
Or you mean like the war on terror where all the guns might have defeated the Taliban (witch is a good ting IMHO btw) but Bin Laden and friends are still out there.
Its not the guns that count its the brains behind them (granted you do neet them). But 'peace due to supreme fire power' never workerd,
what we need is 'peace due to not pissing everybody off'
Pick a god you trust
Live the life you love
And dont worry too much about it
42
because if we didn't have some battle to fight, the government couldn't justify the amount of money its spending on various "wars" (drugs, terrorism, etc.) and to keep people occupied and thinking of these wars. otherwise, more people would (gasp!) give a damn about what the goverment does.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
You do yourself a disservice by assuming that people who object to spending all this money in this way don't understand that the world is a hostile place. That is a false assumption. Can we cut something else, if these giant flying lasers of death are so mission-critical? We will military-spend ourselves into another 80s-style stagnation/recession period if we are not careful.
"Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war..."
1984
"We will call it the Alan Parsons Project!"
Everything I say is a lie.
Except that. And that. And that. And that.
Hmmm... so now we're going to have an AC-X winged aircraft with lasers on it. Next month are we going to have a pilot named Luke flying it along a trench in Iraq trying to take out their biggest military installation?
I just hope no one is working on a genetically engineered fighting force of small, fuzzy, teddy bears...
Looks like a pitchfork pistol to me ;-)
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Because 8000 years ago, Og the caveman picked up a big stick and beat the living crap out of Ug the other caveman who didn't know what a 'tool' was. Since then, it's been the universal rule - he with the most guns rules.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
AFAIK, the Geneva Convention only refers to soldiers in uniform... a signatory that captures anybody else under arms or performing other combatant roles (e.g. spying) can do whatever amuses it with that person.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Hasn't anyone heard of mirrors?
``Build me an army worthy of Mordor.''
Just DO think about this.
If we had bigger weapons, we could wipe out ever desired target in a country out in an afternoon. That's the cold hard truth you weren't looking for.
It saves American lives too. That's the beauty.
And by dusk get your arse boycoted by all the remaing countrys in the world. two weaks later, the whole economy collapses and by the and of the month civil war.
And you dont need bigger guns for that the USA has the power to wipeout almost any country on earth in a day.
What most ppl seam to forget is that the USA might be the bigest and mightest country in the world, but it is no way self sustaining, hell it cant even produce enough oil fast enough to keep all those nice and shiny SUV's running.
42
Firepower happens to be a pretty decent deterrent. I've never heard of a mass shooting in, say, a police station...
Ironic timing, that comment:
120 police and soldiers have been killed in a battle with Nepalese rebels (from CNN).
If firepower were truly a deterrent, wouldn't the nuclear weapons of the U.S. have been a deterrent against 9/11 ever happening? Or Palestinians attacking Israel? Yet those things happen.
This is getting somewhat off-topic. While I hope that the U.S. will not have to use such weapons, I would prefer to have them as an option. I just wish they'd spend a little more money on social services, protecting the environment or even space exploration.
please
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
I'm not talking about the power to wipe out a country... I'm talking about the power to wipe out all the selected targets in a country. Big difference.
Yeah, but then Ug got pissed and captured a flatulent Pteranodon and crashed it into Og's cave ...
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
$gTrollText =
/_SUBJ_/$gTrollSubject/g
"We should all keep in mind this simple truth: _SUBJ_ is dying. You don't need to be Kreskin to predict _SUBJ_\'s future. The hand writing is on the wall: _SUBJ_ faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for _SUBJ_ because _SUBJ_ is dying. Things are looking very bad for _SUBJ_."
($troll = $gTrollText) =~ s
print "$troll\n";
## todo:
## Better deal with multiple-word subjects
## Add "river of red ink", etc.
## Update Usenet stats, insert
## need "charnel house" refs - how to autogen?
## snappy title
What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?
I did not vote for Bush. I am not a fan of Bush either.
However, Bush has not ignored the Geneva Convention. Article 4 clearly states the criteria necessary for classification as a POW (prisoner of war). If you read 4.A.2(b) and 4.A.2(d) you will note immediately that the Taliban and al Qaeda failed these criteria. 4.A.2(b) for the uninitiated means uniforms or clothing that differentiates themselves from the civilian population. Also, al Qaeda fails 4.A.2(a) because purposely targeting civilian targets is not within the rules of war. Giving POW status to the Taliban was generous on the part of the Bush administration because the conduct of the Taliban towards the Tajiks and other ethnic minorities in Afghanistan technically violates 4.A.2(a).
I am not a supporter of Bush's policies or his intelligence but he did make the right call on the Geneva Convention.
For Your Information: Geneva Convention excerpts
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Because a big gun can sometimes save you from a fight, when negotiation fails. Five guys with baseball bats and a problem with a pissant are going to be reluctant to start a fight once that pissant produces a pistol.
Unless those five guys believe that they are invincible, and the puny firepower of a single pistol can't hurt them in any meaningful way. Does that sound anything like USA-ian foreign/military policy?
Or unless that one guy with a pistol believes that he is truly enacting the will of his Supreme Being, and that he will be rewarded for doing so. Does that sound anything like Taliban/A-Q/Palistinian/Israeli military policy?
To see if your analogy scales, swap "pistol" with "4 jet aircraft", and "baseball bats" with "gigantic nuclear-powered industrio/military complex".
Didn't think it did...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I hate to break it to you, but the reason we have to keep developing our military technology at the rate that we do is because people want to kill us. That's the cold reality of the world we live in. Dropping all defenses would be a naive and fatal mistake.
I wonder how often the Russians, the Afghanis, the Pakistanis, the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Turks, the Greeks, the Romans, etc, have told themselves this?
They've certainly had more reason to do so than the Americans. 3500 people is not a war, it's a failure of intelligence and foreign policy...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Firepower's only a deterrent to them that cares about living. It's useless against martyrs.
I will catch, that's right, CATCH this laser-bolt with my teeth. You heard it right, patrons of the arts, my teeth.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Thoughts:
First, this laser works when there are no clouds. There is not enough energy in the beam to punch through the aerosol droplets of water in clouds. It is necessary to have a clear line of sight.
Second, lasers are VERY dangerous to use when there is a clear line of sight. The people at whom the U.S. government is shooting may have a mirror.
Remember, corner cubes are mirrors that automatically aim back exactly along the direction of the arriving beam. They don't need to be pointed. There are no moving parts. They work at the speed of light.
Third, powerful chemical lasers are very big and bulky weapons. They are also very expensive. Those who have the mental illness that makes them want to kill people like to try different methods. However, there may come a time when the citizens of the U.S. decide that they don't want to use their hard-earned money to support the activities of sick people.
Fourth, this laser is just one of many, many weapons designed by the U.S. government. It is a lot like angry children playing. They don't really care if the weapon is used, or who it is used to kill. They have never learned adult responsibility. They are mentally bound to their infantile conflict and have never learned to see other people as beings like themselves.
It just confuses the issues when people assume that the U.S. government has some kind of healthy rationality about weapons.
More on corruption in the U.S. government: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
The Roman empire fell because of lead poisoning. They used lead acetate to sweeten food, and pewter for plates and bowls.
love is just extroverted narcissism
THere is a weapon like this already. It is used to shoot down nukes and such. the thing they don't tell you is that these lasers are powered by some nastie chemicals. When ever the laser fires it releases them and if one of the planes crashes there is a 2 mile kill zone form these toxic chemicals. That is a cool weapon in it self, I fly over to shoot you with my laser, you go'nna die if you shoot me down or not!
It was dark and I didn't have my contacts...
If you defeat your enemy by becoming him... whats the point? We ARE NOT under direct duress... dont believe me? Then why are you on vacation... drinking a beer... and watching TV? People like you are terrorized by the idea that one day you wont have a martini to sip while dreaming up all kinds of ideas of what to do to those silly "hatefull" terrorists... Unfortunately if you dont understand the problem... then you cant solve it.. Just cause you kill maim and torture these terrorists isnt going to make the problem go away... in fact youd just make the problem worse... NEVER EVER make a martyr of your enemy... the second you do youll have thousands upon thousands of supporters for his causes... What you want to do is catch them alive and well, treat them as good as you can, and sentance them in the most humane and respected way possible... You defeat terrorists by not being afraid to fight them with honor... Terrorists seek to destroy us by ripping our morals away from us, by convincing us to be like them through violence... If we murder and torture them to "win"... they will only get to point at us and say to the rest of the world "YOU SEE, Americans are cold blooded murderers, no better than us" Murder is murder... there is no such thing as justification of killing. Thats whats makes them "evil", and if we murder them... that makes us "evil" --VISION
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Anybody catch the bit that went "the ability to vaporise enemy troops and vehicles Star Wars-style will take a few more years to develop."
HAHA... "a few more years"?
well on that time scale i expect transportation, Molecular refabrication or sequencing (think HoloDeck and food synthisizers) within a decade or two...
That warp drive must be on schedule for mid century... Lord knows we WILL have holographic doctors that ACT better than the on on voyager by then... AND HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE NEW!!!
Commander DATA will no longer be a dream of 23rd century, but a has been of the 2010's (search about for the self navigating human shaped robots in japan)
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Group think is everywhere - religious cults are perhaps the most prominent example, but you don't have to try very hard before you spot it elsewhere. (it's an especially easy task here on slashdot! =) )
most individuals are not aware that they suffer from group-think.
Group-think is what gets lemmings to walk over cliffs. There are only individuals, everything else is just a convenient abstraction.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
While energy weapons can be pretty devastating and while they offer a number of unique uses, a physical round is usually going to be less expensive and more reliable. Especially in ground situations. My guess is that the only reason they'd bring such a dumb-ass device into a ground battle for a conventional, made for TV war (like this war on terrorism crap), is to affect the minds of the public back home.
And about this airplane mounted laser system. . .
I watched some bullshit documentary on 'cutting edge' technology a month ago, and the 'cutting edge' is apparently a jumbo jet with a big-ass laser good for about 30 shots using hopelessly out of date chemical fuel to direct power technology of some sort. The contraption is designed for use as an anti-missle defense system; part of Bush's highschool campaign/drama of unmaking every last fragment of stability in the make-believe world so's he or his people can declare military rule on home soil at a moment's notice.
As for the laser jet; the U.S. is supposedly putting a (small) fleet of about these expensive aircraft into operation in the coming months, with one or two already in service.
(All this from memory taken from a piece of P.R. crap full of lies and propaganda, so take what you will with plenty of salt).
-Fantastic Lad
The US military has FINALLY upgraded to the MDC battle system. It is about fucking time. They will however ph33r m3 in my Glitterboy Mk I power armor. I shall fuck them up railgun style.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
This is almost as bad as when AP and Reuters covered that idiot undergraduate who 'discovered' that TCP/IP could not work for interplanetary communications.
Maybe when you learn something for the first time, you should research its background to find out that your ignorance is not shared by others.
The technology might not be that new, but this is the first time it's going to be fielded and operational on actual deployed weapon systems.
Keep watching CNN and they might show you some krispy kritters from it soon.
Yeah, I was surprised that it was modded as insightful too...I mean, it was just a joke.
Also, please lighten up, dude. See previous paragraph about it being "just a joke."
I can't believe nobody busted my ass for spelling the word "only" wrong.
Who did what now?
My brother runs a laser laboratory. When I visited it I was amazed to find all the walls covered with plywood. He told me that plywood is inpenetrable to many laser types, since the glue in the wood vaporizes and diffuses the beam before it can penetrate the wood.
Second, the attack was not unprovoked--or rather, if you think our response was provoked, than by the same standard, so was the attack. Its victims had much more responsibility for international crimes than did the 4,000+ innocent Afghani citizens which we killed in our raids. (Many more were maimed.) After all, WTC victims are overwhelmingly citizens in a democracy, and as such had the power to stop their government in the atrocious starvation of Iraq, the destruction of the only medical supply factory in Sudan (which meant tens of thousands of Sudanese people died from treatable diseases), the arming of Israel, ... well, I could go on. The American people are not innocent of these crimes. It was in our power to prevent them, and we chose not to. On the other hand, when the leaders in Afghanistan acted criminally, the ordinary citizens had no recourse. Thus, they were innocent in a way that the even the WTC victims weren't. I'm not a fan of revenge killings, but our brutal actions don't even rise to the level of revenge. Revenge requires that we cause suffering to the people who wronged us. So far, I see no evidence that this has happened. We did cause a lot of suffering to people who did no wrong at all, and upon witnessing the destruction, found it somehow gratifying. That's not even taking an eye for an eye; it's just plain sick. I've never been more ashamed to be an American. Shitheads like you with comments like the above certainly don't help.
Firepower is only a deterrent if the other fellow believes you're willing to use it. So unfortunately, we have to demonstrate this from time to time.
A well-aimed 105MM round will do the job quite well, however - and they're cheap!
That might be the problem. Remember the Korean War, in which our Army was pathetically supplied, to the point that some GI's scavenged boots off of enemy dead, while a huge part of the defense budget was going straight to Boeing. This wouldn't be the first time that a horribly expensive (read B-2., star wars, etc.) program was funded at the expense of things like more exercises, housing, pay, etc. for the troops. There's a reason why the Air Force is short on pilots, and it's not due to lack of prestige.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Oh, I forgot. You're American and you make the rules. And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...). Yeah, STFU, kiwi. If George II says they ain't POWs then amen so be it! I'm sick and tired of the Eurofag press whining about us mistreating these dirtbags....hey don't we have a mercenary in custody from your country? :P
Is it just me or is anyone else getting flashbacks to the movie 'Real Genius'?
Popcorn anyone?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Really? How did you determine this? Did you use your tin-foil hat to magically interview the 300 people in custody in Cuba and determine that they were in fact obeying the rules for lawful combatants? Are you even aware of what the laws are, as stipulated by the Geneva Convention?
And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...).
Eh? The US established diplomatic relations with Vietnam about 10 years ago. Pay attention, skippy.
As for Cuba, it would take about 2 hours to overthrow Castro. But we don't. He has "stood up" to the US by bankrupting what used to be the richest country in Central America. And all he had to do was steal all the foreign aid given to the country, confiscate private property, lock up any political dissident he could find, lock up any homosexuals he could find, lock up any AIDS patients he could find, and generally run his country like a thugocracy. This is the country that you think is the moral superior to the US. Go Castro!
-jon
Remember Amalek.
So answer me this: When did George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney ever actually work for a living? These men, and all the others in the current administration were born into MASSIVE wealth. They never had to actually labor for food and clothing. This allegedly "new" system is just another cash machine to fatten their already bloated bank accounts. Just like every other military spending program.
-- Defenestrate Microsoft!
where the enemy is unseen - has led the Pentagon to identify the need for a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system.
Okaaaay...
We can't see the enemy. We don't know who he is. We don't know where he is....
Therefore we need more a more sophisticated and deadly weapons system?
This thing sounds pretty cool, I just don't follow that logic.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The US never backed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, you idiot. They were Communists, and rabid anti-Western ones at that.
As for Cuba, sounds like yer typical Central American banana republic from what you are saying.
No, most of those banana republics are now democracies, with the Soviet-backed rebels (or ruling thugs, depending on the country) now without funding. Funny, that. Cuba is still a prison.
Do you get anything right?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
*waves* We kinda, like, y'know, started the war against Iraq? We told them that their actions in Kuwait were fine by us [regional dispute we would not become involved in], and then we built up in Saudi Arabia and invaded.
Naturally, we created massive destruction and suffering in our wake and punished the nation for nearly a decade after that.
I can feel my sanity, beyond my reach and slipping...
Excuse me but I'd rather not have you guys as the world's cop. GWB seems to think force is the only way to solve problems. With that attitude and his irresponsible statements he's done a lot of damage to international relationships.
why would you give oral to an isreali
Because he's Joel
(Joel is a talented developer. He's also a former Isreali paratrooper and a homosexual, at least according to his website
Writers imply. Readers infer.
"But if we kill them, we sink to their level, and they win."
"Yeah? But there won't be as many of their boys at the trophy ceremony, will there?"
-- paraphrased Dennis Miller
Writers imply. Readers infer.
I, too, shoot to kill.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
OTOH, have you noticed that the American armed forces only attack countries that have ineffective or non-existant air forces?
Show me the hostile nation that has an effective AF, Mr. Carlin.
Then dare them to piss off the US to the extent of provoking retaliation.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
They would've had this 15 years ago, but val kilmer foiled walter peck.
...in attacking Afganstan *after* verifying facts well enough for 3/4's of the world, *after* demanding the surrender of the peoples that we felt were responsible. After all, we didn't just fly in there immediately and started killing *everyone*! Right?
The Taliban kept putting up rediculous road blocks while saying that the US would drown in our own blood.
The Taliban and its ilk are terrorists who would love to see the US and anyone who is like-minded to us brutally killed.
Did we have to attack Afganinstan to oust the Taliban and the Al Queda? Yup, because they were more than happy treat their own, deprived, *downtrodden* people as a shield in their war against the hated 'satan'.
But in a war like that, the US played the *moderate* card. We didn't aim at civilians if we could help it. We minimalized the deaths (and if you don't think we did, you haven't checked your WWII battles.)
The US, if it had wanted to, could have wholy depopulated the entire country. And we would have been rightly called barbarians for doing it that way.
Now the US and Great Britan are helping to rebuild that country as best we can under the constraints of international law.
It sucks to be the US. We're the bad guys even when we're doing the right thing. Just because we're on top.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Thank you for this post.
At least now I know that there are a few americans left that don't share GWBush's "Wild West" mentality. Maybe there is still some hope.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Actually, the US used M16's with wobbling FMJ's in Somalia... They're designed to hit, and then spiral inside someone on the way out, which does massive damage... The problem is that with the Somalians, they drank all day, and the M16's bullets would exit their malnourished thin bodies before they spiraled, so it'd take 5 or 6 rounds to bring down a drunken man.
I guess the positive side is that they were probably too drunk to feel it.
-=Lothsahn=-
I personally do not want you to be the world's cop. I can safely say the same is true for most people in this world.
I would be perfectly happy if no americans went to Bosnia, Kosovo or Somalia.
As far as i am concerned the military should stay here, protecting the US.
Of course i would agree to wars like WW2, but most wars after that (and i apologize if this truth offends you) have been the result of US imperialism, and have not benefited the world at large or most americans either.
And if you believe that politicians send you out there because of the pictures on TV, you are quite naive, my friend. The pictures on TV come only after the politicians decide to send you there.
Thats why you werent sent to Rwanda, or East Timor, or Turkey where some grave human tragedies (much worse than the balkans) happened.
I just did some Internet-based research on this topic, and as far as I can tell, there's exactly one source document that claims that the US aided the Khmer Rouge: John Pilger in Covert Action Quarterly (I don't have a date for the article, but it's some time before 1998). Someone scanned the article in and you can find it at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=us+support+khmer +rouge&hl=en&selm=v02130500b0e4411beba0%40%5B131.2 36.2.193%5D&rnum=1. You'd think there'd be more evidence that someone could unearth, but so far as I can find, that's it.
Now there is zero evidence that the US aided them before they were thrown out of power in Cambodia. And it sounds like all of Pilger's evidence is circumstantial. You'd think there'd be more proof; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For the US to support a genocidal Communist group (with the aid of China, no less) in order to defend Thailand is a pretty extraordinary claim. Of course, those who are anti-American in the first place are going to latch on to this sort of stuff, just as those who believe in UFOs will latch on to anything and call it proof.
Do you have any other sources that aren't derived from Pilger and his research?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Hmm, it seems to me that physical protection would be better than laser defense systems if a missile was coming straight at you. (If the missile was tangential, then the laser with its faster speed would be better)
If I were in, say, a warship, I'd much rather have a solid wall of bullets to stop an incoming missile. You can't argue with a million rounds a minute :)
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
"Also, for a country supposedly lacking in education and intelligence, I think foreigners should stop and ponder the fact that the US has the best universities, is the current leader in technology, and has produced more than it's share of 20th century inventions"
As an American myself, I'd say most of us really are dumbasses. The reason we contributed more than our share of 20th century inventions is because there's 285 million people in this country and we don't need more than a few million smart people to pick up the slack and invent all this cool shit. Look here for the stats, about 1.5 million engineers, less than a million scientists.
Hand me that mirror!
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Sig vs post
Writers imply. Readers infer.
1.1 You could, of course, argue that the real crime was when the world ignored Afghanistan after '89 and left them to their war.
1.1.1 Somalia (no fun trying to stop civil war).
1.1.2. It's easy to give away other people's money (-: and, what's more important, easy to risk others popularity figures! :-).
2. The interesting thing is not WTC -- it's what bin Laden et al will bomb next!
2.1. Arguably this is the reason it's worth putting billions into stopping him. Especially if he continues destroying places I want to go to as a tourist!
2.2. This also makes it impossible to leave places like Afghanistan and Somalia to go to Hell in the future -- Hell spreads...
3. (-: If they nuke Redmond, I promise to send money to bin Laden... :-)
Just prohibit the exportation of American TV shows and movies. That's where most of our European prejudice against the inhabitants of the Trans-Atlantic colonies comes from.
;)
;) And no, I'm not German.
You are totally correct in that many of us "Yurpeens" need to take a serious look in the mirror before ventilating complaints about alledged American ignorance. Also, an entire population doesn't have to be retarded just because they misspell words like "colour" and "aluminium".
Quit spouting off ridiculous claims of inventing aeroplanes, television and so on. We all know that Germans are behind every invention made before the year 1945.
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
"Antimater"? When I was a kid, we called condoms "rubbers".
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
This is a pretty cool thing... but it's just a toy compared to this thingy.... www.airbornelaser.com .....and it's almost done..
It doesn't take a kreskin to tell that it's called the *Daily* Telegraph-- sheesh, learn to read.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
"Osama, here come those infidels in that big bird with the laser beam of death"
"Quickly Mohamed, my mirror!"
Even if some of the captured combatants might be terrorist you can't know until you've interrigated them. Therefore you must treat them according to Gen. conv. because some might be legal combatants (as the taliban soldiers, some have probably have been forced into the army by the way)...
Even IF all captured soldiers ARE ILLEGAL combatants, that is no reason, not treating them according to geneva convention.
That is a matter of treating people in a humane way.
I don't say they are treated inhumane (i don't know if they are..). But what is the reason for the US NOT to treat them as prisoners of war???
The US still have to follow the UN act of human rights, but how can the rest of the world KNOW?
Bush's forign politics clearly shows the rest of the world that US do what's best for the US, not for the world. (Take Kyoto, Cape town etc.)
In Sweden, three men have been pointed out as terrorists by the US. The US have not shown any evidence of it but the have put them on the "UN ban list". All their assets have been frozen. One of the men is actually a well-respected candidate for the election to the swedish parliament.
example dialouge.....
The US says:
- He is a terrorist, punish him!
answer:
- Ok, but then, show us some evidence!
US:
- We don't have to! He is a terrorist.
answer:
- We can't punish someone without a trial and evidence.
US: - He is a terrorist, no trial is neccessary.
Makes one scared, doesn't it?
How can we trust the US when they act without trust?
/Tobias Lindblom, Sweden
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
Note: we didn't really carpet bomb anything in Afghanistan. Carpet bombing is done by squadron of planes with hundreds (or thousands) of bombs dropped. What we saw was "dropping a long stick" (I think). This is a single plane blowing up a line of ground. Carpet bombing is blowing up closer to a km^2.
The only thing that matters is what people actually do, not what they are supposed to do. Most of us here aren't military so understanding the context may be difficult. In combat, the boss isn't always around to say "No, legal wouldn't like that," either because he's busy, hiding, or incapacitated. If circumstances presented themselves where a soldier had no means to defend himself or accomplish a vital part of a mission other than by using an "unlwaful" weapon, he's going to do it and there will be no one around to stop him.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
> These Muslims are simple folk who believe that
> if you kill in the name of your god, and win,
> that proves your god is more powerful.
Arthur: Brother Maynard! Bring up the Holy Robot Plane Laser Remote Control of Antioch.
Maynard: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one.
Second Brother: And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the cheeseburgers and taquitos and toasted pop tarts and untoasted pop tarts and dorito three dees, even though they be a bit icky, and corn dogs and cheese stuffed crust pizza and pepperoni stuffed crust pizza and cheese and pepperoni st
Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother.
Second Brother: First thou shall insert the Radio Shack 9 volt into the controller. Then shalt thou twizzle the joystick. Thou shalt not twist the joystick, nor turn it, nor shalt thou wiggle it, excepting as to begin the twizzling. Once the twizzling is reached, then pilotist thou they Holy Robot Plane Laser Remote Control of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
All: Amen
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
That American soldier just punched that German concentration camp guard after viewing thousands of starving prisoners and seeing the extermination chambers. Those evil Americans!
Bush was very gracious to extend the Convention to the captured Taliban who, though not wearing uniforms, were nevertheless official government troops.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Terminator: Hasta la vista, winner.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Yes.
The intellectually embarassing parent grandparent post shows how irrational arguments will be to support irrational, indefensible viewpoints.
The US is evil, so we must create arguments that "group by nonessentials" in order to conjure up an invalid association.
Japan, a militaristic dictatorship without freedoms, broke some treaties and things were Bad.
Germany, a militaristic dictatorship without freedoms, broke some treaties and things were Bad.
Therefore, the US, who hasn't broken treaties, and even saying they bent some is stretching it, therefore will become a militaristic dictatorship without freedoms.
Uhhhhh, Ok, Mr. Blame America First.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Oh you don't have to go back to the Romans - other great examples of actual use of this tactic since then would be Hitler and Stalin for example.
All of them had to realize that it won't work this way
Thank God that you're just a stupid moron on /. and not someone with the power to really do what you propagate
jm2
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
With the recent actions of Bush (ignoring the Geneva conventions), I'm not sure this is a good thing..
I haven't seen or heard of any acts by the US which violate the Geneva Convention, could you cite some examples?
The future of Europe was a decision between the US and the USSR. As a BBC show about the superpowers 10 years ago said, "when the future of Europe is discussed, the US talks directly to the USSR, superpower to superpower."
Regarding the attitude, since most European countries have multi-kiloyear histories of a strong central government telling everyone how to behave, it's natural they should, once democratized, use that ruthless control in the form of heavy handed socialism, it's the People's Turn to Tell Everyone How To Live.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Switzerland hunkered down and said "we won't get involved against you" to the Germans. Why conquor when you don't have to? Belgium tried staying out, but they were in the path of going around the Maginot line, oh well.
Iceland is small and out of the way and a battleship could take out their stuff at leisure, armed or not. It its strategic position as a stopping point were needed...
Ireland is like Canada. No Rooskies would be allowed to invade there whether Canada wanted them or not.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
BTW, I'd hardly consider Switzerland's neutrality a "peaceful behavior" and honorable. Understandable, certainly, but it's like saying "I was peaceful" as you stood by and watched someone stab someone else for fear of getting stabbed yourself. That kind of "peace" is not particularly honorable, which is the opposite of the point the original poster was making.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
You should probably call yourself the "Grammar and Spelling Nazi" rather than use a slash between Grammar and Spelling. The use of a slash to mean and-or (or and/or, so to speak) is considered tacky and is deprecated. So is and/or for that matter.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
I wouldn't have put it so strongly but you got all
the points across.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Would someone tell me how destroying the government of a country that supported attacking us in a world-record lack of death of civilians is us behaving irrationally? It also serves the dual purpose of showing other countries they should not support, or especially even allow, terrorist groups to train and attack from there.
When the word "No" was given by the Afghanistan government, the only thing left was military. The Taliban supposed standard international no-no-ism to military action would suffice and the US wouldn't do anything because snooty people would frown upon it.
The US taught them, and the rest of the world, otherwise.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
My dad got 5 of 6 once playing birthdays. The payout, based on number of winners, was at an all time low per person for 5 of 6 and 6 of 6. This is because a ton of people play birthdays. Combinations of numbers all 31 or less are well covered by the population.
If 123456 won, you'd probably get $1.98 as a jackpot.
"All representatives are busy. The estimated hold time is one..hundred..sixty..four..minutes." Detroit Edison, 02/01/02
Lasers have a lot of other good warfare qualities, but the most important thing is that they're cheap. This was well explained in a Technology Review article last july (now only avalable for purchase).
Compare the use of a patriot missle to intercept rocket attacks with the use of a laser. The patriot will cost about $1 million per firing (if memory serves)! A laser could be used for much less, all that needs to be paid for each firing is the energy.
This will be most beneficial to peaceful, democratic countries like Israel threatened by terrorists. It doesn't make sense to try to stop every homemade quassam2 rocket with a million dollar patriot, but a cheap laser firing does.
The United States must always adhere to the Geneva Convention, even with people who never signed it, or we will never be trusted to adhere to the Geneva Convention.
This statement is a paradox. Geneva convention only applies between signatory countries. The whole point is that it represents a quid pro quo. It is very likely that the results of extending the benefits of the convention to terrorists, or non-signatory nations would actually be detrimental. If waring parties know that they will get the benefits of the Convention without signing, what is the incentive to sign?
Without a mutual agreement, it would be like saying, "We don't care if you tourture your POWs, but we are going to be nice to ours.
The Bush administration is absolutly correct. Extending Geneva protections to non-covered groups is a Bad Idea. We can still treat them humanely, but we shouldn't do it under the Convention.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
The journalists and the Christian missionaries captured in Kabul were treated quite well, all things considered. Just bringing a tiny piece of balance into the equation, folks.
BTW - It is interesting that nations that cannot afford to dress their soldiers up in proper military insignia cannot be at war, but must be harboring unlawful combatants.
And you would also admit that the enemy is allowed to torture your CIA undercover operatives by extending your argument to its logical conclusion. They don't wear insignia, they may not answer to a chain of command, and they may target civilians (unlawful combatants are civilians, though bad ones).
So - let's rather discuss a nice piece of thought experiment. If you were the enemy of the United States, who would be your best ally? That would be the Republicans, sir. By making sure the republicans go apeshit, they have also exposed not very flattering aspects of the current administration. The Al Qaeida could be winning the war as we speak.
American unilateralism has weakened popular support for continued partnership between America and its allies. The foreign governments are making sharper and sharper comments day by day concerning American unilateral interpretation of international law, and American willingness. You don't know where Osama bin Laden is, and none of your heightened states of alert have shown predictive power.
While Bush and Musharraf were shaking hands, Muslem extremeists were unhindered in plotting to attack the Indian parliament. Only after extended outrage and threat of war did Musharraf crack down on domestic extremism. Are you certain he is on your side in the war on terror? Could he be hiding the Taliban? Why or why not?
I think that's enough for today.
Stop the brainwash
Moderators, please do your duty. How long will it take to recognize, that posting above really is "funny"?
It's a nice theory, but it's unworkable. When hit with the kind of energy we're discussing here, the water would vaporize explosively, very possibly blowing a hole in the tank and parboiling the occupants. At the very least, the explosive rupture of the water tank would remove it from the target point. You'd get an effect, but nothing near the stopping power you'd need.
Virg
Two points: first, tanks have far more than a half-inch of armor. Second, reflective armor is tough to build, because anything that wouldn't vaporize under the level of laser power we're discussing would provide very little protection against more conventional weapons, and would be mighty heavy for missiles.
Virg
From where I sit (.au) there are only a very small proportion of actual terrorists; the rest are genuine POWs.
From where you sit perhaps you might also notice that there are only a few hundred (if that) prisoners at gitmo out of many thousands taken. I suspect we only asked our allies on the ground to give us those that were either terrorists or fairly high up in the command structure which incorporated terrorists (a significant percentage of the Talibans armed forces was made up of foreign Al Queada fighters).
Most of the Taliban did not themselves wear uniforms and many did not carry their weapons openly - and so even in Afghanistan many were unlawful combatants. As it is we have in fact accorded Taliban fighters a different legal status than Al Queada fighters, though as a practical matter it is a distinction without a differnce.
Oh, I forgot. You're American and you make the rules. And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...)
Actually in this case the rules were made by an international convention in Geneva which pretty clearly defines the status of fighters dressed as civilians ("unlawful combatants" and when captured "war criminals" and NOT "POW's").
I suppose you could say that unfairly the western powers made the rules and there is certainly some truth to that. But I somehow doubt the rules would have been any more humanitarian if we had deferred to non-western standards. There are reports that Al-Quada prisoners are desperate to go to gitmo and be "abused" by western standards than stay in Afghanistan and be "treated well" by central asian standards.
Speaking of those our dislike of those who "stand up" to America. It's ironic that all of this concern is being focussed on the Al-Queada prisoners who are among the best treated prisoners in Cuba. We should make a deal with Castro to have the Cuban authorities take over administration of our prisoners. The prisoners would probably object (being opposed to torture when they are the object of it) but liberals around the world wouldn't (being opposed to torture except when a socialist is perpetrating it).
Who modded that warmongering diatribe up? Only an "anti-American troll" thinks that we should adhere to the Geneva Convention? Only an anti-American troll thinks it's in America's best interests to conduct the War on Terrorism without alienating our liberal coalition partners in Europe?
You are right that many throughout the world ignore the Geneva Convention. So I guess we'll ignore it too. I'm sure when you were a child, you were asked "If all the other kids were jumping off a bridge, does that mean you would too?"
War is not fought in a vacuum, and there will be ramifications. By not conferring Geneva Convention status to the Guantanamo prisoners we pour gaosile on the fire of Anti-American sentiment (the real kind, not the kind you claim I have) as people around the globe react in horror to the orange-jumpsuited detainees at Guantanamo.
*My love for my country is strong, not blind. I nurture her like a child. I speak out when she has done something wrong, that she may learn from her mistakes*
It also clearly defines a due process for determining that status. Which is not being followed.
Nonsense. Not only is it questionable who's eing better or worse treated, but the accused Al-Queada (and I emphasized "accused") prisoners are being held by the American government in the name of the American people; even in these undemocratic times, we Americans might hope to have some small influence on the process. We have several orders of magnitude less influence over how political prisoners are treated in Cuba.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This comment has been removed since it was clearly in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871 (Threats Against The President) and / or Section 875 (Interstate Communications: Extortions / Threats). You can Read More Here. We're sorry to have to do this, and while we don't necessarily agree with this, it is still the law. When the Secret Service gets involved, we don't have many options. We appreciate your understanding in the matter. Please call (202) 406-5000 if you have any questions.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
LOL If this was FreeRepublic all we'd see is "Nuke them A-Rabs" posts...RimJob has banned most of the Libertarians from that site--it's basically a bunch of Bushbots now.
Actually in this case the rules were made by an international convention in Geneva which pretty clearly defines the status of fighters dressed as civilians...
It also clearly defines a due process for determining that status. Which is not being followed.
I'll give you that. A lot hinges on "shall any doubt arise" The status of Al Queada members is not in doubt as they manifestly fail to meet the requirments of Article 4. The closest they come is article 4.2 but fail to meet conditions b. (having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance) and c. (That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.) That being said I think the US should dot it's i's and cross it's t's and have a tribunal rule on the status of individual detainee's.
As for Taliban fighters they HAVE been legally granted POW status under the Geneva convention even though most of them also fail to meet the conditions in Article 4. And even the Al Queada prisoners are being accorded many of the rights granted to POW's - most importantly the right to be monitored by the IRC.
Nonsense. Not only is it questionable who's being better or worse treated,
Reports by Human Rights Watch, and the International Society for Human Rights sugget that it is not really all that questionable. The cells that the Al Queada prisoners are in are not as cramped as the reported 3x3 meters with 15 prisoners, they do have access to medical treatment, they are not being held in solitary indefinitely, they are not being held incommunicado, they are being monitored by the IRC and since they are being monitored I assume their guards aren't beating them.
We have several orders of magnitude less influence over how political prisoners are treated in Cuba.
I was responding to a Swede with about as much influence on either country who brought up Cuba as a nation we "don't like" just because they "successfully stood up to us." That statement and the coincidence of the detainees being held in Cuba caused me to muse on those critics of the US who's commitment to human rights goes out the window when the perpetrator of the abuses is fashionably left-wing. The hysterical tone from the left internationally about the prisoners of the US military in Guantanamo contrasts unflatteringly with the dead silence from the same quarter when the subject is political prisoners just over the fence.
Actually, the good thing about laser weaponry would probably be a) no ballistics and b) no physical evidence on the victim or the killer. Gunpower weapons leave marks that indicate distance of the shot, as well as putting powder marks on the shooter. A laser, though, well, all you could guess was a power/distance ratio. I'll also point out that most rifles kill through hyperkinetic shock, not by the damage the actual bullet does. A laser shot would pretty much need to hit an instant kill area; brain, spine or heart. Otherwise, you're just burning (possibly self-cauterizing) holes through people.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If the government and state militia of Texas were hiding and protecting him, HELL YES.
Fucking idiot.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
If you wait until there have been a few rollovers, the expected return per dollar of investment will eventually be positive-- assuming you are the only winner; you still want to keep from having to share it with others...
So when I play Powerball, once or twice a year when there is a huge jackpot, I play consecutive runs of numbers > 31. Nobody would EVER deliberately pick 35-36-37-38-39-40, and it's as likely as any other combination.
But what do I know? I've never won more than $40.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Homophobic. You're not doing your country any good at all posting messages that make you look like such a redneck.
Okay, think of it this way: is it easier to reflect sunlight using a mirror onto a moving target, use a rifle or pilot a radio controlled aircraft to that target?
If the target is moving fast and erratically, the mirror is the easiest option as the beam focus can move much faster than a bullet or aircraft.
Now the only problems are power and dissipation, and it sounds like they've been licked.
Cool!
I know this should go down in the relevent thread, but i didn't think anyone would read it. Someone said i made slashdot history by being the first user with a comment removed, can anyone verify this? also they said the secret service was involved (i find this hard to belive) can any check this too? i know this whole comment is way off-topic, but DUDE! i got a comment removed from slashdot! FREE SPEECH.. yeah
So how does it feel knowing you could be the first? - Well, we're still checking that, but if i am, obviously i will feel mighty proud, i might even auction my (low UID) account on eBay like Everquest etc...
Will the CIA catch you? - I would love to know if i have a warrent in America, "Oh, no, sorry i can't go to the US, i have a warrent out for my arrest lol)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I don't have a copy/mirror but basically, there were 3 comments that were removed (You can see the removal notice). In one, i joked that the laser could be used to kill someone without leaving any evidence. Then i said something about bush. People said it was illigal to threaten the president in America so for added fun, i replied with a formal declaration of presidential threatency (I was going to PGP sign it but i've forgotten my key.. lol). I want to put something on my website about this involving lots of colourful graphics :) but my host is in America and their T&C are a little restrictive... i see some creative 3-step hyper-linking coming on.. ;)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
No, your a looser, and your president is a fool.
I am going to **** George W Bush using a high powered rifle and silver bullets. Censor THAT.
hmmm... kinda catchy as a new sig..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.