Slashdot Mirror


Future Army Battle Uniforms - Wired, Lethal

ssyladin writes "CNN is running an article about the future US army battle dress, code-named 'Scorpion'. It says that "..soldiers of 2011 will step into wired uniforms that incorporate all the equipment they need. The uniforms will monitor vital signs and plug them into a massive network of satellites, unmanned planes and robotic vehicles the military has planned." There will be sensors to monitor heartrate and blood-pressure, built-in tourniquets, a HUD to connect to GPS info, overhead maps, infrared and starlight cameras, and even the venerable M16 rifles are slated for an overhaul."

756 comments

  1. Nostalgia by NeoMoose · · Score: 4, Funny

    But can it play networked Pong?

    1. Re:Nostalgia by brocheck · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, with bullets.

      --

      suddenly I feel very tired

    2. Re:Nostalgia by FireballFreddy · · Score: 0, Funny

      Sweet! Finally we'll have the technology to invade Canada!

      --
      SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
    3. Re:Nostalgia by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Why send troops into battle to play networked pong when you can send the spiders.

      The thing I love most about this online comic is how the USA's halucinogen bearing bomber is called "the easter bunny."

    4. Re:Nostalgia by NeoMoose · · Score: 1

      Hopefully Canada wouldn't come burn the White House.... AGAIN!

  2. Kinda brings a whole new meaning by thumbtack · · Score: 5, Funny

    to the phrase "Blue Screen of Death" doesn't it?

    1. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by The+Ancients · · Score: 1
      Maybe - but I'm interested to know how effective a reboot would be...

      ..k

    2. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by anonymous+cowfart · · Score: 0

      Fuck you GNU/Hippie!

      --

      So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
    3. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by hazem · · Score: 1

      Which tournequets would that activate?

    4. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by boaworm · · Score: 4, Funny
      Have you seen this Sun-add. Kind of the same theme, but in a different environment :-)


      *Prays his bandwidth will survivs*

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    5. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      The one around the throat?

      (yes, that's the point...)

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's hope they don't give the contract to Microsoft...

      ERROR: AMMO_COUNT_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

      RIFLE.DLL caused a general application fault in module INFANTRY.EXE. Your battle dress uniform has been shut down to protect your data. Please reboot your helmet. If the problem persists, contact technical support or your local coroner.

    7. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points - this would +5 funny... That clip is great...

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    8. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hate to say this, but I've seen some of the proposals for FCS, and yes, they do plan on at least partially using Microsoft OS's. (Think CE and 2K)

    9. Re:Kinda brings a whole new meaning by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Rebooting helmet procedure: pull both earlobes and knock on the top of the helmet at the same time.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  3. Good Riddance by klmth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm glad to see they are going to get rid of the M16. Hopefully they'll replace it with something that's a bit more reliable. Having your rifle jam after a swim is not a feature.

    1. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a Finnish knockoff, which is more reliable than the AK47. The first revision did have issues with sand clogging up the barrels, but this has been fixed in the RK76.

    2. Re:Good Riddance by publius314 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The army's supposedly coming out with the OICW in 2004, which has a bunch of new features, including a range of up to 1000 meters (the M16 has a max. range of 400, and thats with really good training)

    3. Re:Good Riddance by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1, Funny
      Hopefully they'll replace it with something that's a bit more reliable

      They did, after Vietnam. It's called the M-16A2.
    4. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the even cooler version, the M4 and M4A1.

    5. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not exactly true.

      Maximum effective range:
      Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters)
      Point target: 1,804.5 feet (550 meters)

      Source: http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515 626a8525628100676e0c/6a60172b3db3d5ce8525627b0062d 928

      If I was a soldier I wouldn't want to have to packaround an OICW. They are significantly heavier than the M16A2 and the last thing our soldiers need at this point is more weight to pack around.

    6. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The M16a2 went into production in 1967, not after Vietnam. There was not a single M16a1 in service after September 1968.

    7. Re:Good Riddance by Abstract · · Score: 1

      the article talks about the XM29.

    8. Re:Good Riddance by Joseph_ShawII · · Score: 5, Informative

      The army's supposedly coming out with the OICW in 2004, which has a bunch of new features, including a range of up to 1000 meters (the M16 has a max. range of 400, and thats with really good training)

      Given that the M16 and the OICW are both chambered in .223/5.56NATO, there's no way it's going to be good for 1000 meters, as that's a limitation of the cartridge design not the gun. The OICW is also a bullpup design, but still has a short barrel, decreasing maximum effective lethal range. The OICW uses the same magazines as the M16. Even .308/7.62NATO isn't really good to 1000 meters because of it's vulnerability to wind interference.

      The OICW is a waste. Give any soldier the choice between a set of combat gear or the scorpion suit, and he'll choose the combat gear. Give him a choice between the OICW or an M16, and he'll choose the M16. Why? Because when your life is on the line complex systems fail more often than simple systems and they can also get in the way. When you're on the battlefield and people are shooting at you, you want to be able to shoot back. When you have to reboot your gun or your combat helmet is on the frits, these are bad things. Moving to the latest new fangled gadgets does not make a successful armed force.

      This is why smart guns will be a flop. The Glock firearm design is currently the most popular modern design on the market because it is a simple design that works. It has very few moving parts compared to other semi-auto pistols, and that means it tends to be much more reliable than other designs. When you start introducing computer controls, fingerprint scanners, and the like things get much more complicated much quicker and I personally would hate to lose my life because my smartgun crashed while someone was kicking down my door.

      The most venerable machine gun designs were from guys who weren't working for the government. Guys like John Moses Browning who designed the majority of the military machine guns in US history and many still in use today. The .50 BMG (BMG = Browning Machine Gun) guns you saw mounted on those armored vehicles in Iraq were a Browning design. And it was Gene Stoner who developed the original AR-10 machine gun, which was redesigned into the M16. Now the US has outlawed the kind of work Browning and Stoner did, and given the excessive excise tax required to become a Class II manufacturer, it's unlikely that you'll ever have that kind of innovation again. Trying to build a machine gun makes you a federal felon with an instant 10 years at Club Fed, and we're talking the pound you in the butt prison, not some country club.

      Today's combat weapons are made by large military contractors who move at a snails pace. Browning was turning out multiple designs per year. You'd think with all the backing these big defense contractors have, they could at least keep up.

    9. Re:Good Riddance by x0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having been a Marine for a number of years, I have to call bullshit on this. Unless you are incompetent, *never* cleaned your rifle, or are incapable of grasping the concept of proper lubrication, M16s just work.

      In all of the years I qualified on the KD (Known Distance) course, I had only one failure to feed (which can happen to *any* semi-auto firearm), and I never had a 'jam'. Of the others firing the same course with me that did have jams, the overwhelming majority were due to having a 'dry rifle'; ie: no, or improper lubrication. The others did have mechanical failures, but that is to be expected when you consider the age and actual use of those rifles.

      To answer to some of the other replies below: M16s are pretty damned accurate as well with the proper load. The Army Marksmanship Unit shoots the M16 now... And they have won some pretty tough matches with those rifles. Even out to 1000 yards. I left the Corps a few years back, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that the USMC Rifle Team switched from the M14 to the M16.

      For what its worth, with the exception of boot camp and the first year afterward, I qualified expert every year averaging 230 out of a possible 250 points. (And 286 out of 300 shooting an off the rack M16 on the NRA High Power course during Marine intramural competition.)

      --
      In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
    10. Re:Good Riddance by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus, locallized, controlled EMP is becoming more and more doable every day - the use of all this high-tech computer equipment may be vulnerable to that (though I'm sure the computers on these things are shielded out the wazoo, I still worry)

      And speaking of computer control - did you notice the mention of autonomous robotic artillery vehicles? Doesn't that bother anyone? Currently, robots function as spy planes, spy jeeps, bomber planes, and now artillery tanks. This is a bad trend. They seem to be giving the robots all the heavy firepower. Whether the catastrophe is SkyNet or some ham radio guy who knows his crypto, this does not seem to be a good trend.

    11. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother! The only feed failure I had in two years in the infantry was in basic and those weapons had seen some _serious_ use so the tolerances between upper and lower receivers weren't that great anymore. I missed expert by one point with that weapon and hit it every time once I was at my permanent duty station. Take care of it and it will take care of you; simple as that.

    12. Re:Good Riddance by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Speaking from experience my M16 did just fine after finning in the ocean provided it was coated w/ silicone like the Marine Corps taught us to.

    13. Re:Good Riddance by JPriest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention that the OICW costs $35,000 (on top of being more fragile). The only thing the weapon adds is a laser range finder which is nearly useless when you consider the trajectory of 5.56mm rounds. Depending on the grain of the cartridge the round is dead on at 200 meters and only drops a couple inches at 300 meters. I just can't see the need for all that electronics crap just so you don't need to aim 4 inches higher. Not to mention that you now have to laze to the target before you fire on it and you can easily get a bad range if there are shrubs in the path of the laser. I can see the need for a laser range finder on a tank but not when you are engaging targets that are only 350 meters away. Want accuracy? Rechaimber an M16A2 for 7.62, reduce the 40mm size of the M203 grenade launcher so it can be fired at a greater velocity, and fit the weapon with a M4 carbine style tactical scope instead of the M16A2 style open sight.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    14. Re:Good Riddance by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The OICW is a waste. Give any soldier the choice between a set of combat gear or the scorpion suit, and he'll choose the combat gear. Give him a choice between the OICW or an M16, and he'll choose the M16.

      To a certain extent this is true, but remember the M16 was able to replace the M14. At the time the M14 was much more reliable, and it fired a round with a lot more stopping power. Next thing you know the US army is in Vietnam - sure you can carry a lot more 5.56 ammo and fire it full auto, but the 7.62 goes through the jungle a lot more accurately, maybe you don't even need to fire as much of it.

      This isn't like the computer industry - in the military, you can simply order all your end users to upgrade.

      Moving to the latest new fangled gadgets does not make a successful armed force.

      I'm sure the old geezers said the same thing when upgrading from muzzle-loaders...

      The Glock firearm design is currently the most popular modern design on the market because it is a simple design that works.

      A simple design based on decades of experience and the most modern of materials. Remember, the Glock is in most cases replacing a weapon designed in 1911!

    15. Re:Good Riddance by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I really have to ask: how accurate was the AK-47, AKM and AK-74 in terms of longer range firing? The Kalashnikov design was a stroke of genius with its very reliable firing chamber that could withstand the effects of water, snow and mud, but I've never heard anything mentioned about its accuracy at longer ranges.

      I believe the Druganov SVD sniper rifle was designed around the AK-47 firing chamber but it was only semi-automatic operation with a very long barrel.

    16. Re:Good Riddance by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      I think you have your numbers confused. The M16 was in use early in Vietnam, the M16A1 was fielded during Vietnam, and the M16A2 was being fielded in the late '80's. When I went through Army Basic Training in 1987 my Drill Sergeant showed us an M16A2 and told us it would be years before we fired one (we were all Army Reservists). He was right, I was issued an M16A1 until I got out in 1995.

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
    17. Re:Good Riddance by rakkasan · · Score: 1

      There are reasons why the AK-47 is the number 1 assualt rifle in the world. One of them is its reliability. You can literally drop this weapon in a mud hole, pick it up and fire it. Try doing that with a M-16A3. Also in a pinch, this weapon makes an excellent club! Parent is right, simple = better. Besides, unless they are going to give the Soldiers brain an upgrade, he or she isn't going to be able to keep up with all the tech.

      --
      The problem is choice..
    18. Re:Good Riddance by gillbates · · Score: 2, Informative
      the overwhelming majority were due to having a 'dry rifle'; ie: no, or improper lubrication .

      Which is exactly the problem: the M16 wasn't designed to be used in battlefield conditions. A little sand here, or lack of lube there, and you've got a glorified bayonet.

      The M16 is a classic example of textbook engineering - it is a very well designed, very accurate rifle. But unlike the soviet and chinese counterparts, it has no tolerance for dirt; without proper lubrication, it jams. Compound this with the fact that the Army doesn't issue field cleaning kits, and that CLP (lube) is distributed at the platoon level (if at all), and you've got a recipe for battlefield failure. Granted, the AK47 and Kalishnikov rifles aren't accurate past 400 meters, but the average soldier couldn't hit anything beyond 150 meters with any appreciable accuracy anyway. Contrary to popular belief, firefights don't consist of a bunch of soldiers picking off the enemy from 1000 meters. In short, having a reliable, albeit inaccurate weapon is much more useful than having an accurate weapon that jams at the wrong time.

      Unless you are incompetent, *never* cleaned your rifle, or are incapable of grasping the concept of proper lubrication, M16s just work

      Unless, of course, you get a magazine that's been used as a hammer, beat up, dropped, or kicked around a few times. Believe me, this happens more often than armorers would like to admit. And the real problem is that the magazines just wear out, and you can never tell which ones are bad until you take them out and shoot a full magazine of ammo - try getting that one past your platoon seargent.

      I, for one, will be glad to see the M16 go. While it performs well under 'ideal' conditions, its performance under real-world conditions (inadequate lubrication, dust and sand in the magazines, etc...) leaves much to be desired.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    19. Re:Good Riddance by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is exactly the problem: the M16 wasn't designed to be used in battlefield conditions. A little sand here, or lack of lube there, and you've got a glorified bayonet. The M16 is a classic example of textbook engineering - it is a very well designed, very accurate rifle. But unlike the soviet and chinese counterparts, it has no tolerance for dirt; without proper lubrication, it jams. Compound this with the fact that the Army doesn't issue field cleaning kits, and that CLP (lube) is distributed at the platoon level (if at all), and you've got a recipe for battlefield failure. Granted, the AK47 and Kalishnikov rifles aren't accurate past 400 meters, but the average soldier couldn't hit anything beyond 150 meters with any appreciable accuracy anyway. Contrary to popular belief, firefights don't consist of a bunch of soldiers picking off the enemy from 1000 meters. In short, having a reliable, albeit inaccurate weapon is much more useful than having an accurate weapon that jams at the wrong time.
      You are way overstating the case. Yes, the original marks of the M16 in the Vietnam era had a lot of problems, but those were worked out in the A1 and especially A2 versions of the rifle. You need to clean and lubricate your weapon but this is true of all weapons. The current M16 is no different than most other modern battle rifles in reliability. A military that doesn't train its troops to maintain their equipment is a poor military and probably has other problems beyond dirty weapons.
      I don't know what platoons you were in, but in the units I was in, every soldier got a little bottle of CLP, and as much of that and patches as he could ask for. Soldiers who use magazines as hammers need to be corrected of that habit, maybe some extra duty or a statement of charges will do the trick. Never use a tool for something other than what it was intended to do.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    20. Re:Good Riddance by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      You need to clean and lubricate your weapon but this is true of all weapons.

      That is the official line, but unofficially the AK47 does amazingly well with little to no care at all, I have heard stories of people who brought them back from Vietnam, who let the corrode to the point where they freeze up, just sitting there, they can kick the bolt open and fire away...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    21. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you never used one... They are the most reliable rifle in exsistance because of their ingenious simplicity inside.

    22. Re:Good Riddance by Hackboy · · Score: 2, Informative
      A simple design based on decades of experience and the most modern of materials. Remember, the Glock is in most cases replacing a weapon designed in 1911!

      Uh, the Glock has mostly replaced revolvers in police inventories. The Beretta 92F (which we renamed the M9) replaced the 1911 as our standard military sidearm.

      And there is a trend back to the 1911. FBI HRT uses custom Springfields. LAPD SWAT went with a Kimber Custom. And I hear they were still quite popular with our guys in the Gulf.

      The manual of arms for a 1911 (cocked and locked, hooyah!) is a bit more complicated than a revolver or a glock, but it's the choice of the many highly trained professionals.

    23. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right, the AK-49 (most 47s are actually 49s as 49s have stamped recievers instead of milled) is popular because it is cheap to make and dosen't need tight tolerences to work (so you can make them in relitivley undeveloped areas). Because of the the loose tolerences, don't expect to hit anything...

      Actually the AK would probably have more problems in the long run from being in the mud than an AR type rifle (as long as the dust cover was closed atleast).

    24. Re:Good Riddance by haraldm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because when your life is on the line complex systems fail more often than simple systems and they can also get in the way.

      Having been a soldier for a number of years I can tell you this is all too true. The German MG-42 isn't still in use just for fun but because it's a good, simple and battle field proven design.

      I am looking forward to soldiers in wired combat suits jammed by high-power microwave or EMP transmitters, grinding them to a sudden halt.

      All this is good for is breastfeeding an industry that lost sales after the end of the cold war.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    25. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god you are so fucking stupid.

    26. Re:Good Riddance by Monkey+Angst · · Score: 1
      Having been a Marine for a number of years, I have to call bullshit on this. Unless you are incompetent, *never* cleaned your rifle, or are incapable of grasping the concept of proper lubrication, M16s just work.
      The individual who wrote that comment is working from the M-16's old reputation. Early in its career, it did jam when wet. This issue was fixed quickly, but the reputation stuck through the remainder of the Vietnam War.
      --
      stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
    27. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AK47 and the M16 both use what is known as an intermediate power cartridge. The Druganove SVD uses a simular design at the AK47, but fires a full power cartridge IIRC the same cartridge as the Mosin Nagant M1891 family of rifles, equilvent to the US .30-06

    28. Re:Good Riddance by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      The first time I took my AK-47 (a ChinaSport brand with a stamped steel receiver and 20" barrel) to the range, after a couple hundred rounds of ammo I left it laying open in a hard shell rifle case with a foam rubber lining. It started to drizzle while we were firing small arms, so we closed everything up and went home. Everything was under cover, so no rain actually fell on our weapons.

      I left the AK-47 in the back of my SUV and took everything else in the house, cleaned it and returned it to my gun safe. The AK-47 remained in the back of the truck for about 2 weeks of varying cool - hot temperatures (spring time in the midwest) before I got around to taking it in the house.

      I opened the case and discovered to my dismay that the foam rubber had soaked up a lot of moisture from the air and basically acted as a wet sponge that had remained in contact with the rifle for the past two weeks, and the entire thing was covered in rust from end to the other.

      I took it out the case, pulled the bolt back, made sure the chamber was clear and racked the bolt slide a few times. I then broke down the rifle as much as necessary, got out some fine wet/dry sandpaper, cleaned off all the rust, re-blued the metal where necessary and put it back together.

      Worked like a champ the next time I took it out. I threw out that rifle case as the foam rubber was rust stained and would have been embarassing to open up in front of my friends. :-)

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    29. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which goes to show the importance of testing.

      Russian tanks are very reliable because for many generations they have been tested to distruction in all conditions.

      Faults are discovered. Corrections made. This is just as true for rifles. The AK series of rifles started with a briliant design, and has since been refined countless times. The rusty, trusty Kalishnikov rifles are with out a doubt the most popular military rifle to ever see service. They use the same ones from the deserts of africa to the frozen wastes of syberia. There has to be a reason for that.

      Electronic equipment can become just as reliable. No moving parts, etc can ad up to unbreakable performance if said equipment is a mature design of a mature technology. How long have we been practicing building guns for now?

      Its pretty much a given that real battlefield conditions can figure out how to break expensive techno widgets in new exciting ways that lab boys will never be able to dream up.

    30. Re:Good Riddance by -ryan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The only way I can see a weapon of the same caliber (OICW and M16) having different effective ranges is either one of two things. Charge, or rifling. Either they plan to be shooting with new brass in a short mag style or maybe just using more powder, or the OICW is a bullpup design allowing for a longer rifle barrel.

      That said, the vast majority of infantry engagements are done within 150 meters. That's why we can get away with using a weapon with shitty ballistics (velocity namely), like an M4. I don't care either way though, as long as anything I point my kill-stick at dies, I could give a shit less. When it boils down to it, alot of theory goes out the window once the bullets start to fly. Hoooah!

    31. Re:Good Riddance by HerbalSpiderMonkey · · Score: 1

      Machining quality isn't something the AK or it's rounds having going for them. The bullets fishtail instead of rifling properly so they could go anywhere. An upside of this (for the purposes of killing someone that is) is that the bullet will corkscrew through the flesh of whoever is hit by it, doing a lot of internal damage.

    32. Re:Good Riddance by Kinthelt · · Score: 1

      The Canadian version of the M16 has had a scope for a couple of years now.

      --

      "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    33. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not very good. The reason that the AK series are so reliable is the realtively sloppy tolerances allowed. This in turn translates to poor long range accuracy. To be honest, I don't see it as a big penalty. Under combat conditions, the ability to accurately hit something past ~300 m is rarely relevant to those who are not specialised marksmen.

      The similarities between the SVD and the AK are mostly superficial.

    34. Re:Good Riddance by zabieru · · Score: 1

      EArlier versions of the M16 were supposedly not nearly as good. Think of them as beta hardware. These days, though, as the above post says, it's just not a problem.

    35. Re:Good Riddance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The idea of the OICW is that it increases one man's killing power. Even so from what I hear only 1 in 5 men will be carrying them, with no word on distribution. The OICW is guaranteed to be useful, and it does sound like it will increase the kills/shot ratio, but it's just a stop along the way.

      HK has been working on small caliber high velocity caseless systems for a while, and once they get those ironed out a little better, I expect them to become the norm. Until then weapons like the OICW will see limited deployment, because you simply don't need to give most of your soldiers that kind of weapon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Good Riddance by mnmlst · · Score: 5, Informative

      I must respectfully disagree with my Marine Corps fellow traveller here. As a former U.S. Army officer, I wielded an M-16A1 in the first Persian Gulf War. I found my M-16 was okay during peacetime, but had some doubts about it for wartime, due to my copious research beforehand. When the more senior officers traded in their M1911A1 Colt .45 ACP pistols for M-16A1's, I acquired one of those pistols as an addition to my personal armoury. I wanted the .45 with me on the off chance that I got into a firefight and the M-16 jammed.

      The M-16 spokesman here says that it works fine if kept properly lubricated. I NEVER lubricated my M-16 during PGWI because I couldn't. The first (and last) time I did, it became utterly encrusted with sand. There was no escaping the sand in the Arabian deserts as it is a fine powder easily blown into the air or stirred into the air by vehicles and troops moving about. I wiped it down to a "near dry" condition and it was still caked in sand. It was only after a few more days and wipedowns that it finally dried out and quit being covered in sand. From then on, I just wiped it down with a dry cloth every day. Assuming the Marine above is correct, my M-16 was rendered just about useless. Basically, I would have had to begin dousing it in lubricant right when I actually needed it. Hopefully, that would not have been during one of the frequent "shamals" (sandstorms) we endured.

      The most egregious design flaw of the M-16 is the reloading arrangement to support semi-automatic fire. A small gas tube taps the barrel near the front sight and carries some of the hot gas from the cartidge's detonation back to a very short tube or "catcher" just above the rotary bolt that houses the firing pin. This means you have crappy, government gunpowder blowing crap right into the most critical part of the weapon. This residue rapidly gums up the area where bullet meets bolt and firing pin. (This area is called the firing chamber.) This problem calls for either frequent lubrication to loosen the deposits or a tolerance for the occasional jam. An old neighbour of mine was fortunate enough to not have his M-16 jam when he found himself three feet from a Viet Cong in the jungles of Viet Nam. In that case, the M-16 beat the Kalashnikov.

      Another M-16 design flaw is the weak recoil spring that pushes the bolt back into place to chamber the next round after one is fired. This spring and the earlier-mentioned fouling problem caused the addition of the "forward assist" for the M-16A1. Inevitably, experienced shooters will forget that forward assist at the wrong moment because no other weapon I know of has such a jury-rigged loading process as the M-16. Talk about cruft... The operator's manual for an M-16A1 or the current M-16A2 recommends the forward assist be pushed forward with the heel of the hand following each loading of a fresh magazine's first round. The M-16's predecessors; M-14, M-1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, the Krag- Jorgensen and "Trapdoor Springfields" had no need for such a procedure to be followed in the middle of a firefight.

      The Kalashnikov designs use a metal rod to collect the gas from a bullet's detonation to push the bolt back. This small but significant difference from the M-16 means the vast majority of the gunpowder residue never reaches the firing chamber of an AK. This is a huge help in not gumming up a Kalashnikov when it is being used. Another tremendous advantage of the Kalashnikovs on campaign is the small number of parts they have. Having field stripped AK's and M-16's many, many times, an M-16 has about three times as many parts. These parts are typically much smaller and more prone to breakage on the lighter M-16. Some of those parts are not "idiot proofed" either. When it's 3 am and you are running on six hours sleep in the last three nights, the last thing you need is to be sure to put some cotter pin in only from the right as the weapon won't fire if that pin was inserted from the lef

      --
      In principio erat Verbum.
    37. Re:Good Riddance by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I, for one, will be glad to see the M16 go. While it performs well under 'ideal' conditions, its performance under real-world conditions (inadequate lubrication, dust and sand in the magazines, etc...) leaves much to be desired.

      But can you expect the new XM29 ("OICW") weapon to be any better? It might accelerate the M16's "textbook engineering" tendencies, and be even more complicated and damage-prone.

      The thing has got two barrels and one trigger. Computer chips inside will decide which round to ignite when you pull the trigger. Do you have to replace the batteries when changing a clip? And the recent prototypes have been 18 lbs; hard to carry spare parts, but easy to drop your weapon on a rock the first time you dive for cover.

      Fortunately, less than half of infantrymen will be issued XM29s, so there will be someone to provide covering fire when they run back to the supply unit.

    38. Re:Good Riddance by HerbalSpiderMonkey · · Score: 1

      If you think the M16 is bad, do some research on the british army rifle, the SA80. The plastic components of this gun used to react with cam cream. It jams constantly. In cold whether, it has been known to shatter due to minor impacts (like the soldier whos holding it dropping to the ground). The british army told its soldiers this gun was suitable for desert warfare during the recent gulf war. Just so long as they put a plastic sheet on the ground whenever they fired it and they took it apart and cleaned it every 30 minutes.

    39. Re:Good Riddance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The weapon doesn't just add a laser rangefinder. It also adds 20mm fused airbursting projectiles, which is what the laser rangefinder is for. The targeting package also includes a little computer that will bracket moving targets once you paint them with the laser, presumably giving you an idea of where to fire the 20mm "cannon" in order to actually hit people. The optics package includes a 6x scope and day/night sight as well. What this means, for those who haven't caught on, is that you can see someone hiding around a corner, get a range off the corner, add a meter or two, and toss a fragmenting airbursting projectile their way. No more problem.

      By the way, you don't have to lase the target to hit it with a bullet, just to hit it with the 20mm projectile.

      Supposedly, the 20mm projectiles will travel 1000 meters with some accuracy -- Five times the range of the m203 grenade launcher. The 5.56 ammo will supposedly be useful at about 500 meters with this weapon. The 20mm cannon is mostly what the computer on the top of the gun is for.

      Finally, the cost to the military is projected to be more like $10,000 than $35,000. The weapon is also six pounds lighter than an M16+M203. It's not going to be any more use in house to house fighting than an M16 but on the open battlefield it should make an immense difference.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:Good Riddance by RLW · · Score: 1

      The XM29 is a dual use two component weapon. It uses the once despised and now accepted .223 round that the AR-10/15 M16 used. This part of the weapon may be fired with or with out the ballistics computer meaning that if for some reason all the electronic gadgets fail then the soldier at least has what he had before. For sniping the ballistics computer offers an automatically adjusted sight picture that computes the effects of bullet drop at long ranges. The other really cool bit that the build in ballistics computer offers is the ability to accurately shoot around corners or over the top of a protective burm. if youâ(TM)ve seen footage of soldiers holding their guns out over or around cover and shooting blindly in the generally direction of the enemy then you could imagine that same soldier using the build in camera on the gun to see (though the display on his helmet) what his gun is pointing at. As for technological failure in the field, well that can happen, but this not Ms. Windows on a PC. There are complex systems that combat systems rely on now that if that system fail could mean the life of the operator. Most notably are the latest combat jets like the F18 or soon to come in to service Joint Strike fighter or even the F22. None of these planes can fly if their computers go down and most notably the F22 and the JSF are both aerodynamically unstable and with out constant corrections from the flight computer (several hundred per second) the plain would tumble though the air making ejection almost impossible. And this sort of reliance on technology is not limited to military applications either. If you have flown in an AirBus then you have been on a plane which if itâ(TM)s flight computer went dead then the plane would be un-flyable because the connections between the pilots controls (yoke, throttle, etc.) and the control surfaces (rudder, flaps, elevator, etc) and engines are relayed by computer down a communications wire to a embedded control devices (these run software too) that then makes the adjustments that pilot wants. The post that referred to the difference between the 1000 meter and 400 meter range with respect to the XM29 and the M16 has to do with the grenade launcher that is build in to the MX29 and is an optional under slung add on to the M16. The add on for the M16 is a 40mm pump action launcher with a rotary magazine and because of the aiming sights is only accurate to 400 meters (with well develop skill with this weapon) the XM29 will have a 20 mm grenade with a build in micro chip that used in conjunction with the ballistics computer will allow the fired grenade to detonate with greater accuracy over the target.

    41. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>(the M16 has a max. range of 400, and thats with really good training)

      Get your facts straight!

      Max Effective Range of the M16 is 550 meters on a point target, and 800 meters on an area target.

      I don't know about other armed services, but U.S. Marine recruits regularly train to hit targets at 200, 300, and 500 meters with open sights.

    42. Re:Good Riddance by thynk · · Score: 1

      Give any soldier the choice between a set of combat gear or the scorpion suit, and he'll choose the combat gear. Give him a choice between the OICW or an M16, and he'll choose the M16.

      I don't think that I'd stretch that statement to say *any* soldier would prefer one over the other. Yes, you're going to have some old school hard core troops that don't want to evolve to the next evolution of combat gear, but your average new troop going into basic is going to love this stuff. The beauty of the equipment, is in case of a complete electronics failure - you're still no worse off than if you didn't have it. The OICW's fire control is still mechanical. Fancy scope goes dead? Take it off. Total system failure of the scorpian? Take off the goggles/helmet. You're still no worse off than if you didn't have it. But, when the system is working, you've got a huge advantage over the combatant that doesn't have it.

      The article is very misleading with the weights that soldiers carry in the field. When I was active duty, our "heavy" ruck was 35lbs. Add personal gear and an M16, might add another 10-15lbs. And if you can help it, you don't carry your ruck into combat - takes about a second to get off.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    43. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If I was a soldier I wouldn't want to have to packaround an OICW. They are significantly heavier than the M16A2 and the last thing our soldiers need at this point is more weight to pack around.

      Actually, the comparison you need to make is the OICW vs. an M16 with all the fancy nightvision devices, etc. mounted. The OICW is supposed to be lighter/cheaper than a fully tricked-out M16 (plus have the capability of firing the 20mm round).

    44. Re:Good Riddance by reynolds_john · · Score: 1

      As a former Marine who participated in Desert Shield/Storm, and shot very well in the prone, kneeling, and standing positions on the range, I can attest that the M16 ihas serious issues when it comes to reliability in the battlefield (i.e. I need it to fire NOW and not get me killed).

      In Kuwait after we found caches of weapons (usually Chinese AK47s still wrapped and greased) we switched immediately to these and confiscated a ton of AK ammo. As an outstanding example, I took one out of the wrapping, removed the bolt, opened the chamber, and DUG it and the bolt into the sand. I then grinded the bolt back in, slapped in a mag, and it fired the entire magazine without jamming once. You simply never had jamming issues with that rifle. My M16 on the other hand (yes, lubed properly) would herk and jam all the time.

      Even out on the g*damn RANGE the M16 would jam! For those of you who haven't been in the Corps or Army, you start the morning by going to the armory, getting a weapon issued, and then *cleaning and lubricating* your weapon! Once you get to the range and are finally issued rounds, you CLEAN them indivudually (and the mag) before you put them into the mag. Now at that point, the weapon is about as clean as it can get. And you know what, up and down the line Marines' rifles would jam like mad - and we were in a controlled area, shooting semi-automatic, etc.

      You can talk about M16 reliability all you want, but for me and many others in my squad/platoon, reality was a completely different story.

    45. Re:Good Riddance by ricochet_ca · · Score: 1

      My favorite M16 memory: as anyone who has fired the M16 knows, this weapon ejects the spent shell casing out of the right side. This is not a problem for right-handed shooters, but left-handed shooters get red-hot pieces of metal whizzing inches from their faces unless they use a deflector. The deflector the army supplies (or at least, supplied when I was in the army in the early 90's) is a cheap little plastic thing that attaches to the weapon and deflects the spent shell casing 90 degrees so it's not in your face. My left-handed buddies were always complaining about these deflectors and their tendency to fall off.

      Anyhow, late in basic training we were conducting a live fire exercise , learning how to advance on a posititon while alternately covering each other; adding to the excitement of this exercise was live machine gun fire shot in our direction at about 40 inches above the ground (strong incentive to keep your head down). One of my platoon mates (I'll call him Lefty) was taking his turn with his buddy. As usual, Lefty was using his deflector.When he got about halfway up the course, Lefty's deflector fell off; the next time he fired, he got a face full of hot shell casings. One of them got lodged between his face and his helmet chin strap. It must have hurt a lot, because he started screaming...he didn't stop the exercise, though, and completed it as assigned. After we were all finished, the drill sergeant chewed us out for not having as much enthusiasm for the exercise as Lefty, who was a "born killer." Lefty got the top score for that exercise...

    46. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have to say, from my Canadian military experience and what I've read of history, the M16 reminds me all too much of the infamous Ross rifle issued to the Canadian Expeditionary Force in WW1. Like the M16, the Ross had an interrupted thread head on the bolt. The reason for this design is that it ensures with little applied force a very tight seal. This reduces the blowback leakage ensuring more force to kick the slug down the barrel. The faster the speed, the more accuracy.

      I note that a number of people who laud the M16 in this thread have usually fired it only on the firing range. The M16 does perform well under these circumstances (particularly if you clean it and the ammunition(!!) before you start firing.) So for that matter did the Ross rifle which was one of the most accurate rifles of the day.

      However the Canadian soldiers experience in the field echoed that of the parent poster above. In the field, dirt is inevitable. Get a speck of dirt in an interrupted thread head and the weapon jams. My Dad's opinion was the Ross was an excellent sniping weapon, but for regular infantry work, a Lee Enfield. Dad said, "Dump a Lee Enfield in a pig sty, stomp on it, then slosh it about in the stream, run a pull through it, and it will fire."

      Simplicity of weapon design = reliability.

      The other weapon my Dad liked was more complex, but Dad said he liked the Thompson sub-machine gun because it fired .45 slugs. "Hit a man with a .45," said my Dad, "anywhere, and he will fall down and leave you alone."

      I'd've submitted under my user account if I could remember my password. (Blush!)

    47. Re:Good Riddance by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

      Modern machining sure makes a Kimber more accurate than a traditional 1911 from the first half of the 20th century. Sure you could hire a gunsmith but most 1911's weren't nearly the same class as a Kimber. Hell, you can even get Kimbers with high capacity magazines so you aren't stuck with that 6 shot limitation.

    48. Re:Good Riddance by jafac · · Score: 1

      My brother collects Kalishnikovs and derivatives.
      He has over a dozen. Including a Galil (probably the nicest one to shoot of the bunch) and a Chinese one from the 1960's.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    49. Re:Good Riddance by mnmlst · · Score: 1

      I had an ancient Enfield (circa 1920's?) in .303 rimmed and it literally saved my life one day. Plenty of range, plenty of knockdown, and as trustworthy as an ugly girlfriend :)

      I actually like some of the stuff I have read on the XM29 system, especially the proximity fused rounds, but it looks so beta that it should be a specialist's weapon initially while they work its' bugs out. It should not be fielded en masse until it has been proven battleworthy on the battlefield.

      --
      In principio erat Verbum.
    50. Re:Good Riddance by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      To a certain extent this is true, but remember the M16 was able to replace the M14. At the time the M14 was much more reliable, and it fired a round with a lot more stopping power.
      Neither of these observations are really accurate. The AR15 as Stoner designed it, firing the Winchester manufactured .223/5.56mm round (bar powder) was significantly more reliable than the M14. The M14, essentially a lightened an slightly modernized version of John Garand's 1936 M1 design. It was under-engineered for use with the 7.62 NATO cartridge under averse environmental conditions. Likewise, while the muzzle and impact energy of the 7.62mm round is much higher than the 5.56mm, the projectile yields inherently inferior wound ballistics. Lightweight projectiles optimized for stability in air become radically unstable when they enter a liquid, such as water or a human body. American Special Forces and ARVN troops who used the AR 15 in combat were effusive in their praise of the weapon's effectiveness, ease of use and reliability. Part of the reason the Army adopted the M16 after having previously rejected it in rigged trials was soldiers were actually writing their families and congressmen requesting AR15s.

      Unfortunately, the Army couldn't leave well enough alone. They added a superfluous bolt closure device to help soldiers damage the chamber with dirt. Worse yet they increased the rifling twist, which crippled the rifles previously legendary wound ballistics by making the projectile more stable. Lastly they changed the powder in the ammo without consulting the Gene Stoner or doing any validation. This raised the rate of fire and the chamber pressure. It upset the carefully engineered balance of the gas system. Army bullshit about poor cleaning aside, the ammo change more than anything was responsible for the M16's notorious unreliability in combat. In this form you are correct, it was less reliable than the M14. But it was not inherently so, and if it hadn't been for DOD corruption and incompetence, it would never have acquired that reputation.
      Next thing you know the US army is in Vietnam - sure you can carry a lot more 5.56 ammo and fire it full auto, but the 7.62 goes through the jungle a lot more accurately, maybe you don't even need to fire as much of it.
      The army was in Vietnam when this took place. It was the M14's ineffectiveness, contrasted with the AR15's demonstrated superiority, which prompted the change. However, you are right that the heavier projectile was less susceptable to brush deflection in the jungle. The Kalashnikov AKM was probably best under the conditions. It was even more reliable than the AR15 and was indestructible. The ammo was much lighter and gave better wound ballistics than the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round. Not as good as the Winchester powdered 5.56/AR15 barrel, but close to the Army's DuPont powdered version/M16 barrel. Note that in 1974 the USSR re-chambered the AKM for a 5.45 x 39mm cartridge (a necked down version of the AKM's 7.62 x 37mm), creating the AK-74. So the consensus seems to be that small bore rounds are superior military rifle cartridges.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    51. Re:Good Riddance by mnmlst · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given your unneeded insults, I am hardly surprised to see you post as "Anonymous Coward".

      I stand by my earlier contention regarding the designs of the M-16 and the AK. The M-16 is designed to foul the firing chamber. The "gas" you described in lieu of the propellant is produced by the rapid burning of the propellant. Your description reads as if all the gas (and propellant) follow the bullet out of the muzzle. Obviously, a little of it must be tapped off to cause the next round to be chambered. Inevitably, some of the unburnt propellant will even "turn the corner" and come back down the gas tube right along with all that hot gas headed for the bolt carrier key. Yes, any rifle will foul quickly when using blank ammunition, but the M-16 fouls more quickly than the AK because as soon as the rotary bolt rotates and begins to retract, the gas pushing it has an opening to vent downwards into the firing chamber. You seem to think the gas disappears somehow once the bolt begins to retract. As for the Kalashnikovs, I have had a few at different times and have disassembled and cleaned them many times. They definitely have FEWER moving parts than an M-16 and those parts are sturdier and less prone to breakage. I just spoke recently with a former Israeli tanker who said most of his fellow troopers preferred the M-4's because they are lighter and handier than the Galil, but they aren't as reliable- his words. Some troops can live with the occasional jam if it saves them from lugging around an extra two pounds everywhere they go. The thing I don't understand about the M-16 design's lack of a gas piston rod is that we used them on the M-1 and M-14. Hardly anyone complains of their reliability.

      Actually, my final qualification on active duty was fired using the same Colt-manufactured M-16A1 I carried to Saudi and Iraq, not an ink pen. BTW, I was picky about getting an actual Colt M-16 when I first reported to my unit.

      I only implied that the M-16 had not been copied because I was unaware of any other nation having copied it or produced it under licence. Surely you understand that the ones produced under licence overseas may have been produced for other than strictly military reasons. Politicians and businessmen don't necessarily produce ideal military weapons, especially when their nations are not in immediate peril. Apparently, you are much more of the military firearms expert and I respect that. Just because you are anonymous (for now) does not mean you should be so insulting. Perhaps you view these "anti-M-16 posts" as endangering your livelihood?

      --
      In principio erat Verbum.
    52. Re:Good Riddance by Jonner · · Score: 1

      That's a great story, but you cleaned the rifle before trying it again. Couldn't one have done the same with an M-16 or any rifle? Forgive me for my firearm ignorance. I've never owned one, though I did fire a friend's MAK-90 (Chinese AK-47 clone) and SKS once.

    53. Re:Good Riddance by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      The most egregious design flaw of the M-16 is the reloading arrangement to support semi-automatic fire. A small gas tube taps the barrel near the front sight and carries some of the hot gas from the cartidge's detonation back to a very short tube or "catcher" just above the rotary bolt that houses the firing pin. This means you have crappy, government gunpowder blowing crap right into the most critical part of the weapon. This residue rapidly gums up the area where bullet meets bolt and firing pin. (This area is called the firing chamber.) This problem calls for either frequent lubrication to loosen the deposits or a tolerance for the occasional jam. An old neighbour of mine was fortunate enough to not have his M-16 jam when he found himself three feet from a Viet Cong in the jungles of Viet Nam. In that case, the M-16 beat the Kalashnikov.

      Another M-16 design flaw is the weak recoil spring that pushes the bolt back into place to chamber the next round after one is fired. This spring and the earlier-mentioned fouling problem caused the addition of the "forward assist" for the M-16A1. Inevitably, experienced shooters will forget that forward assist at the wrong moment because no other weapon I know of has such a jury-rigged loading process as the M-16. Talk about cruft... The operator's manual for an M-16A1 or the current M-16A2 recommends the forward assist be pushed forward with the heel of the hand following each loading of a fresh magazine's first round. The M-16's predecessors; M-14, M-1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, the Krag- Jorgensen and "Trapdoor Springfields" had no need for such a procedure to be followed in the middle of a firefight.

      I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Eugene Stoner has repeatedly stated, to Congress and the press, that the reason why the M16 performed so poorly in Vietnam was the army having switched from a DuPont (IIRC) IMR powder to a ball powder. That increased the chamber pressure and cyclic rate (which helped overwhelm the spring). More importantly the new powder was much, much dirtier than the powder the rifle was designed to use. This caused the gas system fouling which had not been a problem in the extensive testing the AR-15 underwent in pre-war trials. In addition the Army increased the rifling twist, which supposedly reduced the effectiveness of the rifle.

      The Air Force went to Vietnam using the original design and powder. A quick web search pulled up this account of the original AR15 design in combat,

      This rifle (really should be classified a carbine) was not a Marine Corps issue weapon at the time of HMM-365 Vietnam tours of duty. The M-16/AR-15 that the squadron got their hot little hands on probably came from the U.S. Air Force who, at that time, had more of these rifles than any other service in Vietnam; or from the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group, with whom we had very good working relations (and probably trade relations, too).

      If I remember correctly, it was Lance Corporal Frank Bermudez who first demonstrated to us the effectiveness of this little black rifle by picking off two VC from his helicopter. The first shot hit one of the VC in the back of the neck and sent him tumbling head over heels, and the next shot hit the other Cong in the torso and literally severed his body in half. The AR-15s that we had came with 20-round magazines. Later magazines were to hold 30 rounds, but we didn't see any of these. This particular early issue model had a 1 in 14 inches lands and grooves twist in the barrel, imparting a spin on the the bullet that barely stabilized it, causing the bullet to "tumble" upon impact. This tumbling effect caused violent impact on soft targets, as what happened to two of Frank Bermudez's kills.


      I agree with your overall assessment. However, to be fair to Stoner, the unaltered design reportedly worked very well in Vietnam and was quite prized. It was the DOD's changes that rendered the rifle near useless. That said, changing

      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    54. Re:Good Riddance by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      "The only way I can see a weapon of the same caliber (OICW and M16) having different effective ranges is either one of two things. Charge, or rifling."

      Or maybe, the refference to longer ranges was refering to the buildt in 45/20mm grenade launcher?. ;)

    55. Re:Good Riddance by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      "Yes, any rifle will foul quickly when using blank ammunition, but the M-16 fouls more quickly than the AK because as soon as the rotary bolt rotates and begins to retract, the gas pushing it has an opening to vent downwards into the firing chamber."

      As a sidenote, Stoner corrected this in the AR-18, but this gun ended up as a comercial failure, among other reasons, because it "looked wrong". However, it's mecanism as been copied in everything from the H&K G36 to the SAR-21. :)

    56. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the M16 has a max. range of 400, and thats with really good training

      You do not know what you're talking about. I'm a so-so shot and was always able to (back in the day) always hit 10 of 10 in the '5' ring with my M16A2 at the 500 meter line on the Known Distance course.

    57. Re:Good Riddance by mnmlst · · Score: 1

      There is a new controversy going on regarding the M-16 and its' degree of rifling. The M-16A1 has a 1 in 12 inches rate of twist while the M-16A2 has a much tighter 1 in 7 inches rate of twist. Increasing the rate of twist increases the range over which the bullet will travel with stability. This has increased the effective range of the M-16 by quite a bit, at the expense of the degree of impact on soft targets. To exaggerate a bit, the M-16A2 reminds me of some of the older, small-calibre weapons that would fling bullets right through their victims with rather minimal impact. The French had accounts of shooting rebels stoned on hashish in North Africa as many as 17 times before bringing them down. That may have been the old Lebel rifles. My suggestion: try to hit a bone...

      --
      In principio erat Verbum.
    58. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Surely you understand that the ones produced under licence overseas may have been produced for other than strictly military reasons. Politicians and businessmen don't necessarily produce ideal military weapons, especially when their nations are not in immediate peril.

      Agreed. However this makes me think of the Daewoo K2, which is produced by and issued to the military forces of South Korea. It uses the same basic design, magazines and so on as the M16 for obvious reasons of inter-force compatibility. I do not know if it is officially licensed in any way from Colt (or other US interests), but I think it is safe to day this is a weapon produced strictly for military use (check out SK's private ownership laws) and used by a nation which has been in more-or-less immediate peril for half a century. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, as you have already pointed out you made the statement about copies in ignorance of any, however I thought this example of a close US military ally was interesting.

      That said, I understand Daewoo made some modifications to the bolt carrier design on the K2 which may address some of the issues you mention about the M16A1. Unfortunately I have never had a chance to examine a K2, so I can't comment. Anyone know about this? Maybe the K2 is the 'improved' M16 design that seems to be in demand here?

      A Google search turned up this: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as32-e.htm which is only marginally helpful.

      BTW, this is not the same AC that posted earlier, this is my first post to this thread.

  4. like a video game by satanicat · · Score: 5, Funny

    It does sound like a video game.

    I wonder if the "network" keeps track of Frags?

    --
    How Now Brown Cow
    1. Re:like a video game by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What military weapon has not yet been described as a "video game" by the press? I'm getting kind of tired of this.

    2. Re:like a video game by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The army very much thinks that playing video games makes good soldiers -- even way back in the 80s, playing Space Invaders and Asteroids trained a whole generation of F14 pilots how to use a joystick, AWACS & nuke sub operators how to read their screens -- but not the usual grunt with a rifle. But Quake does that now.

      What I'm trying to say is, the military is very upfront about how video games and military are pretty damn similar.

    3. Re:like a video game by mnemonic_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't see how using an arcade joystick with big blastic ball on the top would be helpful in any way in the operation of the joystick of the F-14's HOTAS. Moving an arcade joystick teaches as much about a flying an aircraft with its joystick about as much as moving the stick shift in your car. It'll teach you how change direction, but not what the castle button on the top of the F-14's stick does when pushed in the N direction, or even the fact that pushing the stick forward makes the aircraft pitch down and side motion controls roll.

      As for the connection between AWACS and sonar operators learning how to read their screen by arcade games, I'd say that you're vastly underestimating the complexity of said military applications. Since when do arcade games use the same symbology, labeling conventions and settings as radars? How could staring at a bunch of pixelated space ships help in reading a waterfall display on a sub?

      The Quake thing is kind of true- a modified version of Doom was used for reaction training, and now a system based off Operation Flashpoint is in development. Based off of it, but still heavily modified.

      Might I ask whether you have any references for your other claims?

      The only games I've found to be similar to military activities are the ones that actually try to portray it realistically. Even with those there are significant sacrifices made for gameplay or development reasons.

    4. Re:like a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arcade games obviously don't teach you how to operate HOTAS or read SONAR displays.

      What they <b>do</b> do is train you to expertly use joysticks and absorb a lot of information off of screens.

      <b>That</b> then makes it easier to learn how to operate HOTAS and read SONAR screens.

    5. Re:like a video game by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well that's why the studies were done by scientists and not idiots spouting off on /.

      btw....If you are completely without a clue, said studies proved that heavy gamers have increased spatial reasoning abilities. I.e. while one person can only track so many moving objects at one time, the gamer can track *up to* 50% more. This is good for both jet pilots & RADAR operators.

      As for references, it was just in the news (and I believe Nature) last week, Google's your friend.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:like a video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, playing 80s arcade games builds up skills neccessary to be a good fighter pilot and to operate complicated electronic systems? I agree, tinkering with my c64 has prepared me well for all computer challenges I have encountered since.

      But if we agree that computer games affect reflexes and alter response times, why does everyone say that playing hitman will not affect the kids and their outlook on world at all?

      Just a thought, I am aware of difference btw emotional and reflex responses, but it's interesting.

    7. Re:like a video game by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      But if we agree that computer games affect reflexes and alter response times, why does everyone say that playing hitman will not affect the kids and their outlook on world at all?

      Because video game supporters aren't generally saying that video games won't affect a kid's outlook *at all*, we're saying that they won't (by themselves) turn little Johnny into psycho-killer Johnny.
      That's a wee bit different from saying it won't affect their outlook *at all*.
      Basically, the people who generally denounce video games as 'too violent' would encourage their kids to read The Red Badge of Courage or other excellent stories that happen to include violence, or even those which focus on it. (I say this having read accounts of famous battles, often recounted in gruesome detail, for numerous classes.) However, these same people don't see games as being speech in the same way that books are. Instead of realizing that video games could be a powerful tool for educating children and sharpening their minds, they just react instinctively and go for the ol' ban.
      To me, it can be summed up as follows:
      Anyone would be laughed out of court for alleging that books turn kids into killers, saying that video games do is equally ridiculous.

    8. Re:like a video game by -ryan · · Score: 1

      There were a number of guys in my company that wondered (with genuine amazement) how they could be so good at counter strike and quake but suck so bad at being an infantryman. I love tactical first person shooters, especially the one the Army released but when I decided to become an infantryman I did so knowing the difference between real pain, and blood on a screen. It takes something different than knowing how to use a joystick to become a great fighter pilot, and it takes something different than being able to twitch like an aim-bot to be a reliable infantryman.

    9. Re:like a video game by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Well, since you're a soldier and I wasn't, I guess you're more qualified to speak on it. I wasn't trying to say it's sufficient or even necessary, I was just trying to say "it don't hurt". But maybe you're right -- Japanese kids play a lot of video games, and they don't have a kick-ass airforce.

      Maybe one doesn't imply the other but both are visible effects of the same thing going on in our culture. It'll be interesting to see if we ever go to war with China if their technology skills can match ours (in wars).

    10. Re:like a video game by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Apparently you haven't been reading /. enough lately. Researchers "discovered" that playing first person shooters improves your ability to track multiple objects; Hence asteroids, in which you must track (fixed two-dimensional) trajectories of potentially tens of objects, if not at once, then in a timesharing fashion. Space invaders couldn't be useful for more than getting used to operating controls with two hands at the same time, though, a trick anyone has learned if he's diddled his girlfriend with one hand and taken off her bra with the other.

      The military has long had computer simulations of varying complexity which they used for training. Some of them are direct simulations of military situations and some are just brain trainers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:like a video game by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      First Person Shooters (if done correctly) CAN teach you not to be STUPID!!!!

      I think thats was the gist of the US Army's FPS. Stay low, work in a team, follow orders. No Rambo Bullshit, you'll get your ass shot off.

      Honestly, for special forces training, I think the game 'Thief' would be more appropriate. Sneek around and kill ONLY if absoluetly necessary.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    12. Re:like a video game by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Some first person shooters emphasize teamwork, like tactical ops or cheaterstrike. They show that one man on his own who is significantly better than others can do amazing things but one man who is up against a group of others who are basically competent will get his ass shot off, realism or no.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:like a video game by brentodd · · Score: 1

      Didn't they try to ban a book about "How to be a Hitman" several years ago?

      --
      ?
    14. Re:like a video game by Skeeve · · Score: 1

      Well, I was in the good ol US Navy as a Sonar Operator on a sub, and I can say that we never trained using video games. I would love to see where that information came from. I was in from 1985 to 1997, so maybe it is a recent thing. But I don't see how a video game can help you read that waterfall display. But, maybe that is how they trained the officers, you know, brought it down to something they could understand?

    15. Re:like a video game by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Better soilder, better driver, better quarterback, completely different jobs that use the same visual skills. The mentally disturbed are going to find and outlet & a reason, regardless of what we do or don't ban.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  5. DIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YES now you die terrorist scum! you shall all be punished for not having nuclear weapons with our new wires!

  6. Good... by Anubis333 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe now we won't be firing at ourselves the majority of the time. ... unmanned drones and vehicles will be?

    CE

    1. Re:Good... by Dionysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's OK. You still be firing at the Canadians and the British.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    2. Re:Good... by pubjames · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe now we won't be firing at ourselves the majority of the time...

      Yourselves? Don't you mean your British and Australian allies? And journalists of course.

    3. Re:Good... by Dionysus · · Score: 5, Funny

      There used to be a saying during WWII:
      "When the German flew overhead, the Allied took cover. When the British flew overhead, the German took cover. When the Americans flew overhead, everybody took cover".

      Doesn't seem like things have changed that much.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    4. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the journalists ... I'm sure it was down on purpose. US gov. didin't want them there. Just wonder why

    5. Re:Good... by foxtrot · · Score: 1

      There used to be a saying during WWII:
      "When the German flew overhead, the Allied took cover. When the British flew overhead, the German took cover. When the Americans flew overhead, everybody took cover".


      Well, that explains field-ops guys in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, if nothing else...

      -JDF

  7. But will there be any WMD sensors? by Burb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    My theory is that Iraq's WMD's are hidden behind shields of invisibility. That explains a lot.

    --

    1. Re:But will there be any WMD sensors? by Fembot · · Score: 1

      and there was me thinking someone had put them all in a bag of holding and run off to start SARS

    2. Re:But will there be any WMD sensors? by tbspit · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps behind SEP fields?

    3. Re:But will there be any WMD sensors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! I was just about to mention that.

      Those can run for a year on a flashlight battery...

  8. Soldier, you are way out of line... by pieterh · · Score: 5, Funny
    "But sarge, I don't really think shooting those civilians is such a good ide.. BLAMAWAP!!!!"


    Sarge: "Dang, that remote works well."

  9. Inspired by MIT?... by Michael's+a+Jerk! · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they have anything like This?

    Now THAT would be nasty

    --

    I'm not Seth.

    1. Re:Inspired by MIT?... by azzy · · Score: 1

      Run up to the enemy.. jump on them.. and give them an electric shock? Or did you mean just wait around on the battlefield and shock those that choose to simply jump on the soldier? Either way.. how is this nasty when the alternative is people with guns shooting each other.

  10. With all this stuff by koh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They may finally be able to avoid too many civilian casualties and "friendly fire", wouldn't they ?

    --
    Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    1. Re:With all this stuff by Fembot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Friendly fire maybe, civilans no... I doubt that "Enemy combatants" are going to willingly do ANYTHING which would make the easily noticeable to a compter, infact this sort of thing is more likely to make them fight in civilian clothes...

      And did anyone else notice the picutre looked like somthing out of tiberian sun?

    2. Re:With all this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only friendly fire mankind came up with is the original fire, tens of thousands of years ago.

    3. Re:With all this stuff by zenyu · · Score: 1

      They may finally be able to avoid too many civilian casualties and friendly fire

      Maybe, this would be great for asymetric warfare. You just need one smart kid to break into the system and you simultaniously give all the enemy troops a lethal dose of amphetamines....

      Or, if not, just send all the American troops into attacks on each other.

      You can already do that though, communication is already very bad. A lot of the nuclear and intelligence stuff is on private isolated networks, but a bunch of stuff is going over commercial lines between parties without a sufficient understanding of encryption. If we were to attack someone sufficiently paranoid to bring our military to it's knees informationally I'm sure we'd fix these things, but until then we'll just find more ways to burn money and increase our vulnerability.

    4. Re:With all this stuff by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      ..... and if some of the N.I.M.B.Y. whingers we are seeing today had been around when the real-life Prometheus first plucked a blazing brand from a lightning-blasted tree, we probably would never even have had that!

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:With all this stuff by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > when the real-life Prometheus first plucked a blazing brand

      erm, I doubt Prometheus ever really lived... It's a story, man.

    6. Re:With all this stuff by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      OK, so he probably wasn't actually called Prometheus, but that's pretty much what the myth was based on ..... tree struck by lightning, falls over on fire, someone grabs hot bit, keeps own fire going.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    7. Re:With all this stuff by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Friendly fire maybe, civilans no... I doubt that "Enemy combatants" are going to willingly do ANYTHING which would make the easily noticeable to a compter, infact this sort of thing is more likely to make them fight in civilian clothes...

      Well, all I can say is that it won't *make* anyone fight in civilian clothes. That's a very effective tactic, but it doesn't show too much respect for the real civilians. I don't know about you, but if 20 'civilians' opened fire when they got close to me, I'd damn sure shoot the 21st to come near, and ask questions later. The fact that any 'army' is willing to use tactics like that (which are prohibited by the Geneva Convention) is a testament to their true regard for their people. Of course, having dedicated torture and rape buildings and having prisons with large child populations doesn't exactly show that you have your citizens' best interests at heart anyhow.

    8. Re:With all this stuff by zabieru · · Score: 1

      You mean they don't set the Evil Bit?

  11. Haven't we heard this all before? by brocheck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I seem to recall a while back about the Urban Warrior System and all that nonsense that it was supposed to do and how every soldier would be using it by the new millenium. Frankly I don't expect something like this to be adopted for a long time. It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!') requires maintenance, and replenishable energy of some sort ('Everyone, remember to recharge your helmets before the battle'.) Its redicilous, supposedly all soldiers will be networked and you will know the location of every soldier, and whether he is hurt, etc etc. We can do that now, slightly more laboriously (radios) perhaps but I think it gets the job done pretty well.

    This seems to be just your average pork barrel gee whiz military contracting.

    --

    suddenly I feel very tired

    1. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of this stuff is not really intended for the benefit of the soldier, its for their commanders. The trend is towards fewer more sohisticated soldiers which their commanders can micromanage on the battle field with a lot of this technology to utilise resources as fully as possible.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that all GI's should only have WWII era gear? Huh!? No night vision, gps, computers at all?
      All this system does is taking what they have right now and integrating them into a system plus some other capabilities. I'm pretty sure that the millitary is smart enough to maintain the skills needed to fight if the system breaks down.
      On the plus side, maybe this will spearhead some commercial applications for us.

    3. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by munter · · Score: 1, Interesting
      My question is WTF is the point of the meat in between the technology sandwich?

      go Drone. you know you want to.The only thing stopping you is hundreds of thousands of war-mongers.

      ..mind you, having some crazy MF from Texas inside the full metal jacket sure adds a dimension of fear to any invasion force that the US seem to specialise in these days....

      There are no WMD. You lied. Shame on you Dubya.

    4. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by ndogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ground troops are all trained these days in hand-to-hand combat. Technology is never meant to replace abilities as basic as that. Soldiers are expected to be able to work in a battlefield should their equipment fail. Should technology like this fail in a battlefield, that isn't going to render a soldier useless. Radios also use power that needs to be replenished from time to time and can also quite easily break. Why would this be any different?

      The military is smarter than making a soldier solely reliable on the equipment they carry.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    5. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by visualight · · Score: 0, Funny

      I think that system is the one the article mentions getting rid of. The first three paragraphs again:


      NEW YORK (AP) -- Dennis Birch compares the U.S. soldier to a Christmas tree: Whenever improvements in technology help lighten a soldier's load, someone else wants to hang on a new piece of gear like an ornament.


      The result is "100 pounds of great ideas hanging off him in all different directions," Birch said.


      So in its prototype for a high-tech uniform of the future, researchers at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Massachusetts, have shaken all gear from the soldier and started from scratch.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    6. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by braun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and, wouldn't it be neet if you hack in to the network, enable you to see all unit movement and location. I see a terrible security issue here.

    7. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Just needs one nicely placed emp...

      Suddenly everyone's getting injections of morphine.

    8. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also don't get how they'll be able to network (and intercommunicate) with those individual soldiers...

      Ie: they can certainly encrypt all the content that's being sent over, but they cannot obscure the "traffic"... the enemy can do traffic analysis to figure out where and how many solidiers there are, etc. (and there is no way they can assume that US soldiers will always have air cover, and too far away from enemy artilery...)

      It seems this system is vulnerable exactly where it is needed: the battlefield.

    9. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Kyoya · · Score: 1

      This is a lot more like the proposed Land Warrior program from a few years back. The OICW was supposedly almost ready for production back then as well.

      This just sounds like they revised the land warrior inititive a few times and this is the current draft run of it. I don't have all the old links for land warrior handy but you can probably find most of them via google. I would count any news of a new military combat armour system as vapourware until they actually produce a working prototype and not just a mock up of one.

      As for the OICW several companies were working on their own version back then. I'm suprised that none have been marketed just yet. Perhaps it could be because they are so integrated with the suit pushing for their adoptation is useless until the suit hits production. I'm not sure, I just follow the technology because I'm waiting on them to develop mecha.

      Here's one link I still have for the OICW plan.

      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm

      I'm not sure who won the contract as I recall another munitions manufacturer involved in this as well.

      --
      To strive, to seek, but not to yield
    10. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Ground troops are all trained these days in hand-to-hand combat.

      Actually, most military training doesn't cover a whole lot about H2H fighting. Soliders are very fit, so they'd still take most average guys anyway. But their primary means of combat is using weapons, preferably ranged ones, and their training reflects that.

      The military is smarter than making a soldier solely reliable on the equipment they carry.

      The sargeants are certainly that smart. I'm betting that right now, quite a few well-informed sargeants are desperately hoping that their COs are too.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Kyoya · · Score: 1

      I found the original company that was working on the OICW program, since they are currently producing a rifle called the XM29 I would guess they won the contract.

      XM29 Page

      also an overview of the oicw at hkpro along with some nice photos.

      --
      To strive, to seek, but not to yield
    12. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban warrior system was running on exisiting materials, added-on. Hence the same uniform, pack and gear with a battery, computer and peripherials.

      If you read the article, current soldiers run on the field with nearly 120lbs of gear. I strength train and 50, which is what the new scorpion gear weighs, and 120lbs is a huge difference; especially running for miles, dehydrated, hungry and tired.

      For the field soldier the lighter weight will be welcomed. They can care less for the rest. The built-in tourniquet is a good idea. The rest of the stuff attached helps OC locate soldiers and provide better logisitics. It's much easier to look at a GPS map and see where your soldiers are and direct them properly than a map with possible friendlies.

    13. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      That's a good point - high-tech isn't worth it on the battlefield in the long run. Arm the troops with spears, damn the technology and full speed ahead!

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    14. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by marauder404 · · Score: 1

      Unit locations and other encrypted information are already flying through the skies and satellites anyway. This isn't anything new.

    15. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by haystor · · Score: 1

      When I was going through H2H training in the Marines, I asked my dad what training he had when he was in.

      "If they get up close, shoot them."

      --
      t
    16. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by marauder404 · · Score: 1

      GPS didn't replace basic navigation skills with a map and compass. Radios didn't replace the use of handsignals or semaphore. Radar didn't replace binoculars. APCs didn't replace marching. Machine guns didn't replace basic hand-to-hand combat. The list goes on and on ...

      The only single point of failure in the Urban Warrior System is still the soldier. Everything else is redundant. With a radio or even by yelling, a unit commander still has command and control. The UWS in this incarnation may still be a failure and never see active duty, but technologies to augment a soldier's capabilities will always be coming.

    17. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Kyoya · · Score: 1

      The system was called Land Warrior not Urban Warrior. you can visit the site and see it listed under programs. The link however is bad.

      FAS has a brief overview of the old project specs though.

      --
      To strive, to seek, but not to yield
    18. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Kyoya · · Score: 1

      Motorola was part of the original land warrior project. They were developing parts of the communications systems. They no longer seem to be a part of it anymore as the references have been removed from their site. Odds are good any work they've done is still military property, it may be possible we'll see some side benifit though as well.

      --
      To strive, to seek, but not to yield
    19. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!')

      And when that happens, they fall back to the system we have now. There's no risk increase in introducing smart uniforms.

      (Except for the "built-in tourniquet" garbage -- what the hell? What's going to happen when one of these malfunctions and cuts off circulation to a perfectly healthy limb?)

      This seems to be just your average pork barrel gee whiz military contracting.

      Agreed. This is going to cause military costs to increase significantly with very little tangible benefit.

    20. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by jeremycec · · Score: 1

      Land Warrior is still alive and well. According to this article, General Dynamics took a $500 million contract away from Raytheon to produce it.

    21. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by BinxBolling · · Score: 1

      Gosh, thanks for pointing this out. The military probably doesn't have anyone bright enough to think of this issue, themselves. They'll probably cancel this whole project, now.

    22. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Kyoya · · Score: 1

      Yes, I would guess that this suit is the newest design in the land warrior project.

      My reference was to Motorola's participation in the project. It does not look like they are still developing for it. If not I wonder who was awarded that contract now.

      Since Land Warriors inception they have changed the contract around the various vendors, at least twice I can think of a munitions company being awarded the oicw contract only to have it removed before they went into production.

      --
      To strive, to seek, but not to yield
    23. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      That's good for everyone, with the possible exception of the enemy. If there are fewer soldiers out there doing the same amount of work, that's fewer men to get killed or wounded.

    24. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the person who was worried about security forgot that the military was concerned with secure communications and encryption long before anyone else. Yes, security will be a major issue, which is why the designers of the system will be thinking very hard about it.

      Military planers have been anticipating the emergence of the "information war" for years. A system like this will not be using entirely new ideas. It will be taking ideas that have been in effect in the air war for decades and implementing them on the ground.

    25. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Well, don't you sound fancy talkin' 'bout yer high-tech spears. I say give 'em some good, hefty rocks. Nothin' like bashin' in the skull of yer enemy to make a man outta ya.

    26. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1
      Radar didn't replace binoculars. APCs didn't replace marching. Machine guns didn't replace basic hand-to-hand combat.

      Replace completely, no. But in most circumstances, the side that has the better technology and knows how to use it has a huge advantage.

      Radar fundamentally changed naval and air combat, by enabling detection and targeting of other units at night, in closed-in weather and at enormous ranges. Speed and mobility is nearly always advantageous. Since the 19th century, it's been well-understood that one person with a machine gun has a major advantage against even dozens of highly-motivated attackers with less fire-power.

    27. Re:Haven't we heard this all before? by jeremycec · · Score: 1

      What happened was the original "turtle shell" looking thing by Raytheon was too bulky and was not a big hit with the troops. So, some Silicon Valley eggheads (Pacific Consultants, et al.) took over the project and redesigned the system in six months using totally COTS products. The result was a somewhat workable design (it is still undergoing major revisions).

      The group now developing Land Warrior and the future Scorpion suit appears to be the Wolfpack which includes Exponent (prime contractor), the Wexford Group, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hamilton Sundstrand, Charles River Analytics, and Wyle Laboratories.

      Cheers, Jeremy
  12. No substitute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Definitely too many things to go wrong! GPS and heartbeat maybe, so they know where to collect the bodies?? But relying on all that electronics makes grunts too vulnerable to EMP. There's no substitute for a reliable weapon in the hands of a well trained soldier.

    1. Re:No substitute... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EMP was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the article. If you're fighting an enemy that has no compunction about using nukes, then they can make at least some of this fancy hardware useless. But then again, nuclear weapons tend to make a lot of things useless by physically destroying them. (Just to save someone the trouble of correcting me, I know EMP has a greater area of effect than the radiation and shock wave, and I know there are non-nuclear means of generating an EMP capable of disabling electronic hardware.)

      EMP aside, the not-so-reliable weapons systems of today will pave the way for reliable versions in the future. History is full of examples where newfangled technology was introduced to the battlefield, and probably got a lot of people killed, but the lessons learned from it eventually resulted in reliable weapons or defenses that provided an advantage. That's just the way things seem to work.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    2. Re:No substitute... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      It is not necessary to have a nuke to make an EMP.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:No substitute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, however, necessary to read what you're responding to to avoid looking like a jackass. From the original post:

      I know there are non-nuclear means of generating an EMP capable of disabling electronic hardware.

    4. Re:No substitute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor should you assume that *any* electronic device designed for the military is actually EMP-vulnerable. Some of them will outlive the soldiers that carry them. Mil-spec, you know ...

  13. Spearmen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wonder, will Spearmen will be able to defeat these soldiers?

    1. Re:Spearmen? by thoughtcrime · · Score: 1

      Nope, but Hoplites will be kicking ass.

      --

      ____ _______
      Duty now for the future!
    2. Re:Spearmen? by jdeking1 · · Score: 1

      Hard to say. We do know, however, that Apophus is vulnerable to low-velocity weaponry.

      --
      "A generation which ignores history has no past and no future." -- Robert Heinlein
  14. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This uniform sounds awesome enough that I would *love* to have one, forget about joining the army.

    HUD + accurate head and position tracking + wireless network = 3d multiplayer games in meatspace!

  15. More beta testing for... by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Dolph Lundgren and Claude Van Damme.

  16. What would be really useful by Nosebud · · Score: 0, Troll

    is not spending every now and then billions of $ for developing new army technology. The money could be used to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq. That would help people.

    1. Re:What would be really useful by birdman666 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Since when has it been the perogative of this country to help any people other than its own? And even when it comes to helping its own, the actualality of that is sometimes questionable.

      --

      Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
    2. Re:What would be really useful by der_joachim · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because you broke it first???

      der Joachim

      --
      Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
    3. Re:What would be really useful by delong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason that Baghdad isn't a parking lot, like Grozny, is that the US military "spending every now and then billions of $ for developing new army technology." Ask the Chechens which enemy they'd rather have, the Americans, or the Russians. I'll guarantee they'll pick Americans. We spend billions so we don't HAVE to flatten cities to achieve victory. That "helps people" not get killed.

      Derek

    4. Re:What would be really useful by delong · · Score: 1

      Since when has it been the perogative of any nation to help any people other than its own? Pfft.

      Derek

    5. Re:What would be really useful by fohidac · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      but if the USA and UK hadn't declared an illegal preemptive war against Iraq then Baghdad would look like the city it was and not the city it is now

    6. Re:What would be really useful by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would. Statue of Saddam, people hiding from their government... Kind of like the US only moreso :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:What would be really useful by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      All those mass graves would be sittining there, waiting for more of their brothers to join them because of Saddams ruthlessness. A few wrecked buildings are worth the constant threat of disappearing into the night and never being heard from again.

  17. Can you say Death Match? by farnsaw · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a Unreal/Quake/FPSoC come to life, all they need to do now is add "Force Feedback"... oh wait, they have...

    --
    "Computer Scientists can count to 1024 on their fingers" (non-mutant, non-mutilatated, human computer scientists)
  18. mmm.... by darkitecture · · Score: 1


    now all we need is the M56 Smart Gun attachment and the M41-A Assault Rifle.

    then again... one should always have a Remington 870 as back up... you know, for close encounters.

    1. Re:mmm.... by TripleA · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be the M4A1?

    2. Re:mmm.... by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      one should always have a Remington 870 as back up... you know, for close encounters. either that or just use harsh language. :)

  19. Anyhow, it's inevitable by pieterh · · Score: 1

    As people wire up more and more. Especially the basic electronics of communication: there is really no excuse anymore for putting these into dangling breakable boxes when they can be easily moulded into belts. Think of "smart armour" more than "smart clothes". Backpacks that are thin and protective and also wired. Helmets that provide enhanced vision and sound as well as safety. Shoes that incorporate tracking devices. Shoulder packs that hold all the latest MP3s. It's inevitable.

  20. excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we should develop something that would benefit mankind instead of spending billions on thinking up new ways of killing each other. In a way I'm glad we haven't met those advanced and intelligent aliens yet. It would be too embarrassing. Yeah, yeah, I know... this is flamebait, blabla.

  21. Isn't this all just getting way over the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who wonders at the need for all this, when US forces are already orders of magnitude better equipped and organized and effective than any other on the planet?

    Wouldn't peaceful uses of technology be a more worthwhile investment?

    1. Re:Isn't this all just getting way over the top? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Just because the USA spends more money on equipping soldiers, doesn't mean they're the best. One of our boys with a bolt-action Lee-Enfield can score more hits in a given time interval than any GI with any machine gun ..... you see, we do this thing called "aiming" which is where you make sure the gun is actually pointed directly at the person you want to hit *before* you pull the trigger. This has been demonstrated to be more effective than simply firing many rounds and just hoping one makes it. (I don't think we actually use Enfields in combat situations any more, though.)

      It's been demonstrated time and time again that sophisticated equipment is no match for a fighting force with real local knowledge. Which is why we have used the SAS to train up local guerillas in the past ..... Of course, we also train soldiers for some of the richest oil barons. They come to Military Academy; and they learn to polish boots, peel potatoes and march around in squares. They just don't learn how to fight ;-)

      Why are people still fighting at all? Well, thanks to technology, our ability to supply goods has actually exceeded our demand -- effectively rendering both capitalism and socialism instantaneously obsolete, as these systems start out from the assumption that demand > supply. Therefore, to maintain a capitalist / socialist system, it is necessary to artificially adjust this balance. War works well in this respect by not only increasing demand {for both finished goods and the raw materials from which they might have been made}, but also robbing some of the capacity for supply {by removing workers}.

      Look at it this way ..... we have the technology to build cars that will last "forever" {by any reasonable definition} and run on clean fuel made from plants, but once everybody has one then there will be no more work making them. Not only that, but if everyone has everything they need, then work and money and the whole cycle of capitalism and socialism are obsolete. If everyone already has everything, there would be no such thing as rich or poor, so one fewer division in society {and cap/soc governments always exploit such divisions for their own ends}, and no such thing as theft - so less need for law enforcement {another thing governments do}.

      From the point of view of a socialist or capitalist government, it is better to create waste through endless wars than put yourself right out of a job. Of course the citizens are being sold down the river, but governments can get away with doing that ..... and will carry on doing so as long as anyone believes the lie that demand still exceeds supply.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  22. Stupid land mines by henrygb · · Score: 1
    Smart land mines would protect troops' flanks under one project at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The mines, connected wirelessly, could hop from the ground to fill voids if the minefield is breached.

    Under the rules of war, minelayers are required to keep accurate maps - not so easy with autonomous mines. Cleaning up afterwards would be almost impossible.

    1. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The mines, connected wirelessly...

      Awesome! free wireless network connectivity, paid for by the U.S. Army. Aim your pringles cans! Who's going to do the chalking?

    2. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You want a cheap, effective way of countering massed armored columns? Mines is the only realistic answer.

      That's why Finland, for instance, refuses to sign to any treaties banning the mines.

    3. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever seen USA follow any rules that didnt give them dollar dollar back?

    4. Re:Stupid land mines by mlflegel · · Score: 1
      Smart land mines would protect troops' flanks under one project at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The mines, connected wirelessly, could hop from the ground to fill voids if the minefield is breached. (emphasis mine)

      • Under the rules of war, minelayers are required to keep accurate maps - not so easy with autonomous mines. Cleaning up afterwards would be almost impossible.

      Don't you think that minelayers would simply be able to log on to their mine network and poll the GPS locations from all (not exploded, presumably) mines? They are, after all, wirelessly connected... just a thought.
    5. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh!! Oooh!! I will!!

      I knew all my hours of playing Minesweeper would come in handy :-)

    6. Re:Stupid land mines by Ripplet · · Score: 1
      Wait, aren't we supposed to be getting rid of landmines, because mostly they only blow the arms off small children that find them years later?

      Oh, I forgot, the US doesn't sign international treaties that actually help to make the world a safer place!

      --

      Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal

    7. Re:Stupid land mines by fohidac · · Score: 1

      only if it's in the interests of US business.

    8. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a pointless rule. Mines are often layed and forgotten b/c of weather conditions. Sandstorms, rain showers, animals running into them... a mine field can easily shift over without the mine layers knowledge.

      These are some of the problems faced in Afghanastan and the Korean border.

    9. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the USA? We won't ban mines because we want to plant them in other countries.

      It's not like North America is facing an armoured invasion or something. We don't need this shit.

    10. Re:Stupid land mines by ma2oliveira · · Score: 1
      Greetings,

      The original DARPA-DOD call for proposals in consideration, DARPA BAA-99-21 Self-Healing Minefield (SHM), specified *anti-tank* mines, NOT anti-personel mines.

      Marco A. A. de Oliveira

    11. Re:Stupid land mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but does the mine know that?

    12. Re:Stupid land mines by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      No, we do it to keep N. Korea from overruning the troops in South Korea in the "Tripwire". (Get the idea tha t if Korea ever decides to do anything in S. Korea, a lot of troops are going to die?)

    13. Re:Stupid land mines by Ripplet · · Score: 1

      And it's guaranteed that after lying in the desert for ten years, it won't go off when a child picks it up? Or when his dad drives a tractor over it?

      Cluster bombs are *supposed* to explode on impact, but on average 5 percent do not detonate. So much for the guarantee!

      --

      Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal

    14. Re:Stupid land mines by planckscale · · Score: 1
      What's an alternative to land mines? Punji sticks? As far as anti-tank or vehicle, couldn't they use a non lethal means of disabling the vehicle like an EMP blast? Or maybe children can wear IR tags to instantly disable any land mine they step on? If the mines are tagged for GPS ID, why not allow the children unfettered access to sirens in case they stumble too closely to a mine? Just some stupid ideas but with the military wanting these things, and are able to make smart 'bombs'; why not invest in making smart mines?

      --
      Namaste
    15. Re:Stupid land mines by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      What's an alternative to land mines? Punji sticks?... why not invest in making smart mines?

      "Hey, up above! I am a smart mine! You should get at least 50 feet away! I will explode in thirty seconds!"

      "Twenty-nine!"
      "Twenty-eight!" ....

    16. Re:Stupid land mines by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      specified *anti-tank* mines, NOT anti-personel mines.
      Yes, but does the mine know that?
      Probably. Children (even American ones) tend to weigh a little less than tanks.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. It has to be done... by bigboard · · Score: 1, Funny

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those.

    --
    Cynicism is the natural defence of the romantic.
    1. Re:It has to be done... by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

      I think that would be called a 'War'

      --
      .
  24. News Flash by farnsaw · · Score: 2, Funny

    IPv6, once known as "Toaster Net", has officially been renamed "Bullet Net". Every Bullet will have it's own IPv6 address, built in webcam, Fly by Wireless, and will automatically check to see if there is any beverage left in the coffee pot / coke machine.

    --
    "Computer Scientists can count to 1024 on their fingers" (non-mutant, non-mutilatated, human computer scientists)
    1. Re:News Flash by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine looking into the operators console of one of those bullets to see it refresh with a picture of your own butt! yeowch!

    2. Re:News Flash by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      What's hillarious is that the name space for IPv6 is so friggin huge that this idea is not entirely without merit.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:News Flash by Jonner · · Score: 1

      That was the basis of the joke.

    4. Re:News Flash by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      I'm not slow. Really!

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  25. Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes. The troops will really appreciate all the High-Tech when the HUD displays "1R4Q 0wnZ y00" during battle.

    And yesyes, imagine a Beowulf etc...

  26. Soldier of 2511 by dafoomie · · Score: 1

    Is this how we progress to the Ultimate Soldiers of the future?
    The resemblance of the helmets is quite striking.

    1. Re:Soldier of 2511 by splatter · · Score: 1

      yeah that was the first thing I thought of when I saw that photo.

      dp

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  27. Network Failure by dingo · · Score: 1

    It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!') requires maintenance, and replenishable energy of some sort ('Everyone, remember to recharge your helmets before the battle'.)

    Just imagine the results of these failures. Imagine these become commonplace, the only way to combat these advantages would be with an EMP bomb (I dont know their name or their feasability, anyone care to fill this in) then command would assume the loss of a batalion, who would then be simply "guys with guns who arent on our side" Friendly fire skyrockets. maybe far fetched but people come to rely on technology and when it fails in war shoot first so you can be around later to ask questions comes into play.

    --
    The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this lousy T-shirt
    1. Re:Network Failure by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Nah, if your whiz bang super coms are broken you just do the "lost patrol drill," just as you would normally with a broken radio. You'll get picked up, issued new equipment and sent back in.

      Resistance is Futile.

  28. In other news by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    The US military today announced that due to space requirements for all the gadgets on the new battle dress in future all recruits must be at least 7 feet tall and comfortable wearing fatigues that weigh 150lbs

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you didn't read this part of the article:

      When dressing for battle in the so-called "Scorpion ensemble," soldiers will don no more than 50 pounds (22.5 kilograms), making them much more mobile than today's troops, who carry up to 120 pounds (54 kilograms) of gear...

      Illiterate moron.

  29. OIWC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Excellent.

    I'm looking forward to the OICW.

  30. For real though by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I was a soldier, with the current state of technology, I wouldn't want any sort of automatic tourniquet built into my clothes. I'd rather bleed and wait for the medic.

    --

    He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
  31. Will they still be fighting... by bushboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Woefully under equipped tatty soldiers in 3rd world countries with 40 year old weaponary in 2011 ?

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:Will they still be fighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course they will:
      The more powerfull one faction in a power conflict, the more likely the outbreak of outright hostilities ..
      And I don't believe there will be less power conflicts in the future

    2. Re:Will they still be fighting... by ViMaster · · Score: 1

      The only fair fight is one you walk away from.

  32. overweight grunts by crimsontiger6 · · Score: 1

    I can just imagine the scenario, poor grunt struggling under the load of all this extra crap can hardly move on the battlefield, and some 12 year old raghead with an AK jumps up and fills the grunt full of lead.

    btw is all this tech going to stop the yanks from shooting each other and their allies?

    --

    be vigilant, be pure, behave
    1. Re:overweight grunts by GypC · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should actually read the article. One of the goals is to reduce the weight of the equipment from 100+ pounds to 50 pounds.

    2. Re:overweight grunts by crimsontiger6 · · Score: 1

      yeah right maybe you should read my statement, a overloaded grunt compared to a ideologicaly motivated perp with an AK47 and two magazines, using hit and run tactics in an urban environment.

      --

      be vigilant, be pure, behave
    3. Re:overweight grunts by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      Go back and read his statement again, this time for comprehension. The average Western infantry soldier today carries loads between 75-120 lbs. One of Objective Force Warrior's goals is to reduce the load to 50 lbs.
      Right now our "overweight grunts" aren't having too much trouble with 12 year old with AK-47's, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    4. Re:overweight grunts by crimsontiger6 · · Score: 1

      well braniac, my point is that throwing more technology at a grunt will not always make him the dominant player on the battlefield. In Iraq the mobile armoured part of the war was quickly over and done with due mainly to superior firepower. But note that US forces are still taking casualties in towns in Iraq and Afganistan. Look at Isreal's experience in Palestine, they can make incursions into the occupied territories but does it stop the suicide bombers?

      In an urban environment up against lightly equipped perps with a death wish whose aim is to take a few yanks to hell with them, the technology provides less of an edge. I think in that envionment traditional soldiering skills keep you alive, not some roboyank suit.

      If you look at military history superior firepower and equipment can count for zip if you are up against superior motivation and leadership. Look at the French and Americans in Vietnam, The lightly armed German paras in Crete, The British v French at Agencourt, etc etc.

      Am I making myself clear now? Duh. Future wars will not be conventional wars, they will most likely be irregulars v regulars. ffs. *sigh*

      --

      be vigilant, be pure, behave
    5. Re:overweight grunts by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Okay, I'll bite the troll.

      Q) How do you prevent terrorist attacks?
      A) You can't.

      There is no way to prevent a terrorist attack, short of locking down society 100%. No matter what technology you have, someone who is willing to die in order to take you out can.

      These advances will make it impossible to have a conventional war against the US. It will always be possible to do a terrorist strike, on any country, anywhere.

      You give me 10 minutes, I can plan and list a hundred different terrorist attacks that can not be prevented.

      -T

    6. Re:overweight grunts by Demonix · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could nerve staple your population, but it counts as an atrocity....

      --
      when all is said and done, all a man has left are his blades and his honor.
    7. Re:overweight grunts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Terrorist attacks may not be preventable, but we're headed in the right direction--ensuring that those who perpetrate them know that their friends and family back home will feel American firepower firsthand. I still think Bush's response to 9/11 was too restrained. Two bombers should have been scrambled: one to drop a nuke on Medina, and the other for Mecca should the unconditional surrender of all Islamic states not been immediately forthcoming.

      ~~~

  33. america is scary by kop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It freaks me out a little bit, why should a country that is allready so powerful still invest so heavyly in arms. who needs these arms? what for? There is nobody strong enough to challenge the US and nobody will be in the foreseeable future.
    As a non american i feel threatened.
    Am i to be 'liberated' next?

    1. Re:america is scary by drdale · · Score: 1

      Umm, Al Queda certainly seems to be able to "challenge" America. Not "invade and conquer," but challenge. Perhaps no other country's military is as powerful, but asymmetric warfare means that LOTS of countries/groups can still damage America.

      --
      This post is dedicated to all of those /.ers who do not dedicate their posts to themselves.
    2. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh.

      Simply put goatse.. links on slashdot with the soldiers IP numbers.

      Presto a platoon of shlashdotted soldiers ready to
      be finished of with a butterknife.

    3. Re:america is scary by TripleA · · Score: 1

      The companies that makes the gear need the equipment to be sold, so they can earn back all their lobbying money.

    4. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? War tech is cool. Kids like toys which allow them to act out their power fantasies, why shouldn't older kids do the same? Narrowminded nerds are easily impressed by something which involves computers and promises power. They can't do much physically to make sure that US interests aren't disregarded anywhere on the planet, so they get to build specialized weapons. That way they can pretend to be cool too.

    5. Re:america is scary by misterpies · · Score: 5, Insightful


      and how will all that new hardware prevent terrorist attacks? souped-up soldiers on every internal flight? x-ray goggles to determine the contents of every passing truck?

      the US is easily capable of defeating any army in the field. unless military intelligence is expecting alien invaders to land in the near future, this hardware will in no practical way affect US military superiority. Dictators won't suddenly think, shit, now the US can defeat me in 24 hours instead of a 48, so I'd better fall into line. It's hard to see why any of this stuff is necessary for anything except justifying ever-increasing military spending.

      If the US govt put a fraction of the money and effort it expends on the military into addressing the grievances of dispossessed people around the world, it wouldn't have a problem with terrorism. Most current anti-American terrorist activities is focussed in countries where either the US maintains an unpopular and repressive regime (eg Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Israel - if you're a Palestinian), countries where the US formerly maintained an unpopular and repressive regime (Iran), or countries where the US made explicit or covert military interventions which did nothing to help its people (Lebanon, Afghanistan in the 1980s)

      Unless the US govt changes its m.o. since the end of the Marshall Plan and returns to a long-term commitment to building sustainable states -- based on the needs of their people, not US corporations -- in countries that it has helped to devastate, we can expect Iraq and Afghanistan to become major sources of terrorists in the next few years.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    6. Re:america is scary by krystal_blade · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your right, America IS scary...

      Don't blame our strong businesses, will to succeed, and desire for the best on your countries inadequacies.

      You would be far better off wasting your time petitioning your own countries government (if you can do such a thing without getting shot) to upgrade your military.

      And let us just see how far this whole "liberation" thing goes...

      We liberated Europe in the 1940's, gave it all back, AND introduced the Marshall plan to get them back on their feet and producing again.

      We liberated countless islands and land from the Japanese, including the Japanese Mainland. And we sunk hard dollars into their country to help them out.

      In fact, every single time the U.S. has planned, and implemented a "liberation" of a country, it has turned out for the betterment of those people.

      The only other governing agency that can even try to claim the same is the U.N. and let's see what kind of blunders they pulled...

      1. Bosnia. Still a shithole, I've been there.
      2. Kosovo. Corruption city, thanks to the U.N.
      3. Somalia. Still in a state of civil war. Gutting our rangers by not allowing U.S. heavy armor, or gunships is one of the main reasons for the atrocities there.

      In fact, one could say that the U.S. has the Midas Touch when it comes to liberating countries. The U.N. is just too busy listening to everyone to actually make a difference.

      That's because we train the hardest, equip the best, have people with real morals in charge of those troops, and have an actual desire to see things through to the end.

      As far as the "there isn't a country strong enough" statement, that's fine. If you want to take that stance, then let your countries servicemen die. I'll vote to bring ours home sans the pine box, thank you very much.

      krystal_blade

      --
      It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
    7. Re:america is scary by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      There have been casualties in every major conflict that the U.S. has been involved in. The American military seems to be obsessed with making any losses a thing of the past, to satisfy the public's constantly over-sanitized view of war.

      Also, future wars could be had with China, North Korea and other countries (I'm thinking at least a decade from now, though it's hard to predict), which would easily be crushed by the U.S. There would no doubt be significant casualties though. Simply winning the war is not the goal of a skilled military, winning one with the fewest losses is (a wise thing to focus on imo).

      There is also something called the "fog of war"- it basically refers to the unpredictability of warfare, where even the best plans by the best generals with the best troops equipped with the best weapons can go awry (see "Black Hawk Down" - technically successful, but with 17 of the world's best troops killed by untrained masses). The U.S. must be prepared for the unexpected.

      Which is what defense is about. Every single major weapon of the U.S. developed in between the 1950s and 1980s was intended to be used specifically against the Soviet Union. How many actually were? The U-2 and SR-71, which were used only in non-combat roles. Who would deny the value of the U-2 in Cuban Missile Crisis, or the F-15 (and all of the other weapons used) in Gulf War though? Had the previous generation of weapons been used instead there would have been significant losses (F-4's against Iraqi MiG-29's). The absence of Iraqi air force activity in the most recent war seems to show that the performance of the Coalition forces in the first Gulf War, possible only with their modern equipment, convinced the Iraqis that it is pointless to fight in the air.

      It is impossible to predict when a weapon may become useful or essential. It is better to overprepared than underprepared, and being just "prepared" is something very difficult to gauge, especially a decade in advance (I doubt that anyone has predicted any war that far in advance, Iraq certainly wasn't on my mind in 1993).

    8. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What for? Well we have to maintain our edge that's what for. There are several countries (mostly European BTW) that also produce and market high tech arms. Mainly to countries that the US could fight in the "forseeable" future. If we have much better hardware that the other guy. Then he is going to think twice before entering combat with us. Should the other guy decide to enter combat with us. Then this kind of tech protects US soldiers and helps US soldiers make MR. I hate America, dead. This is a good thing.

      What you have to remember is that on the infantry side of the house. The private first class with a rifle is not signifigley(SP) different from his past couterparts. 1 18-24 year old male. 1 assault rifle with 210 rounds of ammo. 2-3 sets of uniforms. 2 pair of boots. 1 helmet kevlar. rations for 1-3 days and that's about it. The two most high tech items a soldier carries into combat are night vision goggles and maybe a GPS reciever. If the power and weight issues can be fixed, this will be great stuff to huck into combat. If this stuff does not work as advertised. It will get "lost" some where between the assembley area and the line of departure.

    9. Re:america is scary by Eminence · · Score: 1

      US has to invest in military technology is it wants to remain global superpower. There are some potential challengers out there.

    10. Re:america is scary by echucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the US govt put a fraction of the money and effort it expends on the military into addressing the grievances of dispossessed people around the world, it wouldn't have a problem with terrorism.

      Better yet, why not invest this money into social programs and infrastructure at home? I've never quite understod why we can send billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid, yet still have people at home who are homeless, illiterate, and without healthcare.

    11. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      We liberated Europe in the 1940's


      Of course, the British, Canadians and other had NOTHING to do with it. No sirree, there were only american troops fighting the Germans.
      We liberated countless islands and land from the Japanese, including the Japanese Mainland. And we sunk hard dollars into their country to help them out.


      Regarding that and the Marshall Plan: you didn't do it out of the kindness of your hearts. You did it for your own benefit. Besides, countries that did not receive aid did well. Finland (for example) didn't receive any aid, yet we paid the massive war-repatations to Soviets, re-settled hundreds of thousands of refugees, rebuilt Northern Finland (that was destroyed by withdrawing Germans), rebuilt the damaged cities and buried the dead. Yet we ended up just fine.

      That's because we train the hardest, equip the best


      Yes, you do have good equipment, but what I have heard, your training is nothing to write home about. The one thing you seem to excel at is shooting at your allies and own troops.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    12. Re:america is scary by lovebyte · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just naming a few successes does not mean there were no failures. I'll quote Terry Jones from an article in the Observer:

      /* Start Quote */
      Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result.
      /* End Quote */

      And that is scary.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    13. Re:america is scary by Tonytheloony · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I believe you forgot all the liberations that didn't go well, notably those where you "liberated" some of those poor south americans from socialism. What a betterment of their life! What great morals you people have!

      US liberations are purely based on goodwill will you say? I have trouble believing that when you look at economic interests tied to the Iraq war. The fact that your president is a loony who refers to "god almighty" in his public appearance speeches, also has free-thinking people worried.

      It is easy to accuse the UN of incompetence, but unfortunately, it is only as strong as members make it out to be, and I seem to recall the US is waaaay late in paying its UN debts.

      --
      The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
    14. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me you aren't so stupid you can't figure it out. There are several answers to that:

      #1: (serious answer) There are still other powerful countries with mighty armies who could attack the United States (or her allies) if diplomacy fails. Countries who could mount a substantial campaign, and have the resources to commit to a prolongued war. Countries that immediately come to mind are Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

      #2: (silly answer) Don't you know that in 50 years or so we will all be living in the United States of Earth? Come on, get with the program! ;)

      #3: (thought out answer) The United States extends it's millitary influence to almost every corner of the globe. Although we can mount successful attacks (such as the one in Iraq) without allies, or with a limited number of allies, our millitary is pushed to it's operational limits. Any improvements to make our military more efficient reduces stress to our operational functionality. This can be seen in several different ways. For example - If a doctor can diagnose an incoming soldier before he arrives at the medical center, then the doctor's job becomes more efficient and he is able to see more soldiers. If it takes 5 men to operate an older artillery piece, but only 2 to operate a newer artillery piece, then the same amount of men can operate 2.5 times as many weapons, and place 2.5 times more ordinace on the field of battle. If an infantrymen is carrying less weight (so the article says) than he should be able to push himself further with less weight. (consider that more and more women are joining the ranks of the United States Army - with less weight to carry around, they become a much more viable soldier than before)

      #4: (paranoid answer) Do you know what the enemy is building?

    15. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here's an idea, we'll stop all of our research and let every other nation on the planet catch up to us.

      Worked well enough for Spain, England, France, Russia..

      Here's a clue. Technological superiority is a very big factor in war. Will our foes stop researching new ways to kill our forces? No?

      Then why the fuck should we stop researching better ways to kill them?

    16. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      introduced the Marshall plan to get them back on their feet and producing again.
      Hmm, you really should read Noam Chomskys analysis of this...

    17. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A self-righteous dictator is just what this planet needs now. Democracies are inefficient. Hail USA!

    18. Re:america is scary by Alpha_Nerd · · Score: 1

      A system like this would greatly increase a soldier's survivablity. The anti-FF system alone would greatly accomplish this, and when you throw on all the other gadgets our soldiers will be VERY difficult for some rag heads with an AK to kill.

      Another thig is, we have to stay ahead of other countries. In the future, countries like India, Chine, Russia, and the Europeon Union will be able to match our strength. We must maintain our military superiority over everyone else.

      In a way however, I do feel threatened as well. The second admendment was put in place as a system of checks and balances; when the government gets too powerful, we're supposed to fight back. What chance do civilians with guns(that the damn democrats try to restrict) have against the super soldiers that look like they come out of StarShip Troopers?? Of course, I guess this isn't too much of an issue considering that the current generation of Americans don't mind our liberties taken away anyways...

    19. Re:america is scary by Usagi_yo · · Score: 1
      The price of freedom is constant vigilence. I think that's a quote from Ronald Reagan quoting somebody else.

      Anyway, the world is full of good people and evil people and then people who just can't tell the difference. Thank you, I think I'll just keep America, and sleep soundly for it.

    20. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, sure, which is why the Vietnamese armed with AK-47's and wearing loose fitting pajamas were totally overpowered........oops!

      Oh, and the country is "Britain" not "England" you myopic, xenophobic drooling fuckwit.

    21. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excellent points. The Worldwatch Institute a few years ago estimated it would cost $US196.3 billion to meet urgent environmental and social needs worldwide. The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq. If that money had been spent in the method recommended by Worldwatch, the world's (not just Iraq's or the Arab world's) population would be much better off and hence would be much less likely to retaliate against US interests.

    22. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's because we train the hardest, equip the best, have people with real morals in charge of those troops, and have an actual desire to see things through to the end.

      What's the weather like on the planet that you're on?
    23. Re:america is scary by zero_offset · · Score: 1
      As a non american i feel threatened.

      Good.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    24. Re:america is scary by Talisman · · Score: 1

      "As a non american i feel threatened.
      Am i to be 'liberated' next?"


      Dunno. Where do you live?

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    25. Re:america is scary by ndogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love this country and always will. However, that doesn't mean I should blindside myself to the truth of our past. Remember that Al Qaeda is our own fault. Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the "atheistic Commies." We were the ones that gave them the weapons and the money to fight the USSR. In Iran, we gave one group of extremists to fight another group of extremists, and guess what, we had more extremists put into government that would later turn on us. Iraq is also partially our own fault. When Iran turned on us, we decided that its neighboring opponent, Iraq, could do all our dirty work (by giving them money and weapons), especially since they were already fighting. That gave the brutal regime that was already in power at the time even more power.

      Oh, and what about the Philippines, a former colony of the US? That too was liberated after WWII, but it's still steeped in considerable poverty. Trust me, I've been there and seen it myself. I was shocked and I knew that wasn't even the worst as far as impoverished nations go. It was still very heartbreaking. It's now improving, but at a very, very slow rate.

      I'm not trying to vindicate the UN here, and I wouldn't even want to. They've done a pretty shitty job of rebuilding countries too.

      As far as Japan goes, I wouldn't give all the credit to the US. Japanese culture made it a lot easier for the US to rebuild the country. There is a big emphasis in their culture on pragmatism and hard work. That and the Korean war (which helped to boost Japan's industrial sectors by quite a bit) had a lot to do with their success. However, Japan still went through quite a number of hardships during its rebuilding process.

      Western Europe still had a lot of money in the banks after WWII, which really helped them to bounce back.

      Finally, I want to point out that once the seed of corruption is planted into a country, the plant that grows afterwards is very difficult to destroy. Western Europe and Japan had the benefit of suffering from much less internal corruption than other nations (particularly former European colonies, whose seeds of corruption were planted by the European colonizers.) The longer that the plant of corruption is allowed to grow, the more difficult it becomes to destroy because the people in that country grow used to it, and so if a new government is put in place, any corruption within the new government would be expected. The UN and the US have both underestimated the amount of effort that it would take to destroy this plant. Nation rebuilding is still extremely new, and no one really truly has any truly proven ways of doing it.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    26. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      I believe you forgot all the liberations that didn't go well, notably those where you "liberated" some of those poor south americans from socialism. What a betterment of their life! What great morals you people have!

      Yep, exactly!

    27. Re:america is scary by GypC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how long would we have to meet these needs? Would this include getting 3rd world countries to stop wasting time killing each other, spreading AIDS, dumping garbage and sewage in the streets and rivers, rallying around the latest thug with a gun that claims he is their savior? Or would it just allow them a couple of years to have a few more kids to add to the problem?

      Real change needs to happen from within, and can only happen when the people are willing to work for it. No amount of relief is going to make a difference in the long run against superstition and bigotry.

    28. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The anti-FF system alone would greatly accomplish this, and when you throw on all the other gadgets our soldiers will be VERY difficult for some rag heads with an AK to kill.

      Why don't you just call them "niggers" you racist fucktard? Somebody please mod this cunt down.

    29. Re:america is scary by GT_Alias · · Score: 1
      Of course, the British, Canadians and other had NOTHING to do with it. No sirree, there were only american troops fighting the Germans.

      Granted it wasn't America alone, but it was America's contribution that was a critical turning point in WWII, and I don't think the half million soldiers who gave their lives should have their memories disrespected.

      About the Marshall Plan, of course we didn't do it out of the kindness of our hearts. I'm not sure what kind of ideal world you live in where countries act out of pure kindness, but reality is that countries act in their own best interest. This shouldn't be suprising, and hardly seems to be worth mentioning.

      The one thing you seem to excel at is shooting at your allies and own troops.

      I would hardly say they "excel" at it, given the scope of the military operation executed, mistakes are going to happen. I would say we "excelled" at defeating those who opposed us (though this isn't my endorsement of it), and we have a lot of room for improvement on inter-/intra-military communication that will prevent future friendly-fire incidents. If our training is nothing to write home about, I'd be interested to know whose is.

    30. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why should a country already so powerful still invest so heavily in arms? We must invest in modern equipment and technologies to remain dominant on the battlefield. It is the military's responsibility to fight and win our wars. The more uneven we can make that fight, the more of our citizens come home without holes. That is why we invest so heavily in modern technology; to save lives. Also, combat overmatch saves not only American lives. We are saving the lives of enemy combatants despite the mistakes of their leaders.

    31. Re:america is scary by Talisman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bombs aren't always dropped to achieve democracy. Sometimes it's just for self-defense, in various forms.

      Blowing up a cocaine factory in Columbia, for example, is a form of self-defense as the drug industry negatively impacts our people, both the users and the dealers. People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.

      And you might want to not believe every quote you hear. Go read about the former Yugoslavia and the governments that now are in charge of the independent countries.

      Also, just because an American bomb exploded on a certain piece of geography doesn't mean we 'bombed' that country. During WWII we accidentally dropped bombs on Switzerland, but we didn't BOMB Switzerland. Shit, we had to explode ordnance in France during WWII, but France doesn't run around saying we BOMBED them.

      There are reasons for what we did in every country that article mentions. I'll just take Somalia as an example, because I recently sailed off its coast.

      We tried to FEED the Somalis. That is why we were there. Local militia took OUR food and started 'selling' it to the very population we were trying to feed. They demanded money, valuables, and if the person didn't have anything, sex. Or, sometimes they would demand to have sex with the person's child.

      You object to kicking the shit out of such people?

      Such people DESERVE to have bombs shoved up their asses.

      Awwwwww.... POOR SOMALIS!

      Do you realize Somalia is now regarded as the most dangerous coast in the world for piracy? The *minimum* recommended distance from shore is 50 miles. 100 is preferable.

      Don't be so quick with the knee-jerk anti-U.S. reactions.

      When you find yourself defending countries like Iraq, you are probably on the wrong side of the argument. Dictators *love* people like you.

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    32. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It hasn't exactly been a great thing for Americans either. The Constitution (i.e. American Constitution) provides for the 'right to bear arms', which I suppose our forefather's included (among other reasons) as a last protection against an 'out of control' government.

      It isn't looking like a conventional gun is much protection these days, and while the government hasn't totally crossed the line or anything (let's not be ridiculous), there have been disturbing trends. Enough to remind us that if they ever do decide to cross that line, there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it.....

    33. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I draw a parallel between current US political thinking and some of the reoccurring themes presented in Star Wars.

      It seems that many people, like George Lucas are in favor of "Elites". An aristocratic class who are just better than everyone else.

      We can trust the Elites with all the power/money/Weapons of Mass distruction there are. Because they will do what is right.

      Because US citizens know what is good and right, they _deserve_ all the nukes. Its good for the good ol' US of a to hold the radiant sword of nuclear death. Its _right_ for a few dozen men to hold they keys to more weapons than the rest of the world together.

      Because they, the leaders of the USA, like the valiant rebel heroes (_Princess_ Lea, Jedi bred Luke and entrepreneurial Han) are heroes. Of course they will do the Right Thing.

      Yep. If we just trust them. Dubahyuh will do all the hard thinking, make all the moral stands, and make sure the whole rest of the world knows who is boss.

      The USA is styled in the figure of God's policeman. Now let us put the power of life and death over every man and woman on the planet in their hands, and trust.

      Ronald Ragen would be so proud, if he could do more than drool.

    34. Re:america is scary by guran · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "and how will all that new hardware prevent terrorist attacks?"


      It won't. In any way.

      There are very few armies in this world, who would not be able to wipe out any terrorist group anywhere, if only they knew who to fight.

      But the thing about (successful) terrorists, is that you *never* know about them beforehand.


      And once the deed is done, what can you do? Go after the ones responsible? They have dissapeared or are allready dead.

      Retaliate on their supporters? Sure, and create a million new enemies, a hundred of which desperate enough to go on suicide missions.



      No, to defeat terrorism You have to think like a terrorist. What are their goals?
      Why do they attack america? Is it just because they hate americans?

      Beep! Wrong!

      They attack america because they want america to strike back. Invading Iraq was doing Usama bin Laden the favour of a lifetime. His arch-enemy (Saddam) overthrown, and another country in chaos, providing fertile ground for new recruits.


      To defeat terrorists, you must deny them what they want. Ignore their stings, however hard.

      Protect yourselves (of course) Strike back when you can (of course) but remember that they *want* you to lose your temper. They *want* you to over react.

      --

      All opinions are my own - until criticized

    35. Re:america is scary by Badanov · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You mean give money to mobocracies like Congo , ZimBOBway and the 'Palestinian state' so they can commit murder against their own people and terrorism against others, only to justify it to our liberals telling them we are at fault.

      Let me tell you something about nations of the world: There is NOTHING stopping them from being civilized and receiving aid. But as long as they expect to develop socialist (needs of the people my ass) and murderous societies and policies, there will be no thought of this nation giving any of those barbaric folk anything but a chance at military confrontation.

      I promise you that Saddam would still be murdering his people, including children were it not for the military intervention of the US, something few socialist nations were willing to do and were unwilling to do for the most cynical reasons: for Saddam's money.

      Do yourself a major favor and stop reading the socialist press in your country and start reading the truth.

      --
      Dawn of the Dead
    36. Re:america is scary by gRa · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

    37. Re:america is scary by TGK · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Jawol mein Herr.

      Unquestioning loyalty to the Fatherland is the only defence against the tyrannies and injustices of the lesser peoples of the world. This country is alone in the world. We are a nation of great people, superior in morals, technology, and ideology.

      No, Dictators love people like you. Mindless rally behind the flag syndrome, senceless trust in the lies spewed forth by those corrupted by money and power... you're a despots dream.

      Mr Bush points to an enemy in the shadows, one that lurks among us and strikes invisibly and without warning. He calls them terrorists.

      Adolph Hitler pointed to an enemy in the shadows, one that lurked among the people of Germany and struck invisibly and without warning. He called them Jews.

      The enemy within is a powerfull force, it makes people distrust those who question, those who dare to speak freely. The enemy within encourages people to place their trust in their leaders to save them. The very nature of that enemy also divests those leaders of all responcibility.

      How can we call this safe? How can you feel patriotism at a time like this?

      I see little american flags trailing behind SUVs on the interstate and in my minds eye the rallies at Nuremburg spring to mind. Hundreds chant "U - S - A" and I hear "Seig Heil!" My country stands on a slippery slope.

      Secret military tribunals and the formation of a nebulous "Department of Homeland Security" define the political climate of this last year. Land of the free....

      "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind....And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. how do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- William Shakespeare.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    38. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      The only bigot I see is yourself. You make no attempt to understand the many different cultures and circumstances that people worldwide are put through, and instead you make stupidly shallow remarks.

      What would you do if some "thug with a gun" came and pointed his weapon at you? You would be forced to follow him. That's how things work in many poor countries. This "thug" controls the media and the schools, so it is very easy to brainwash a population into believing whatever they want. Information and education is vital to a properly-functioning democracy, and these factors are inadequate in most poor countries. They are getting worse in many developed countries also (particularly the USA).

      Maybe if these countries weren't economically and environmentally raped and pillaged by Western corporations (with the full knowledge and support of their governments) they could stand on their own two feet? Maybe they'd be better off if they hadn't been colonised and exploited by Western powers (including Europe and the USA) for many hundreds of years?

      Western governments talk about "free trade", and coerce poor nations to open their markets to Western interests, but they themselves don't practice what they preach and instead they generously subsidise their industries. Poor nations are left open and vulnerable, and because of protections in Western countries they have no hope of competing in the international market for any good.

      Most conflicts in the developing world are the result of social inequality and environmental degradation. Remove those problems and often the problems will go away. If you're not poor, you don't need to steal, and if you don't need to steal, there'd be far fewer reasons to fight.

    39. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sure, sure, which is why the Vietnamese armed with AK-47's and wearing loose fitting pajamas were totally overpowered........oops!"

      Actually, Vietnam was only a political defeat. Tactically, we wiped our asses with the NVA. The casualty reports are ~1,100,000_NVA/VC_dead to ~48,000_US_dead. That's 26 gooks (er, NVA) to 1 American. Sounds overpowered to me.

      Yes, and the Iraqis totally kicked our asses too. Oh, wait. We destroyed them. Twice.

    40. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Informative
      Granted it wasn't America alone, but it was America's contribution that was a critical turning point in WWII


      Wrong. It was Soviets who defeated Germany. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets, and Soviets fought them ALOT longer than Americans did.

      Germanys fate was sealed at Stalingrad. After that, it was all downhill for them. And that took place long before Normandy or tangible US involvement in the war.

      Now, war in Pacific was mostly american show with some Commonwealth troops thrown in.
      If our training is nothing to write home about, I'd be interested to know whose is.

      This might come as a shock to you, but the training of US troops is not superior to training of other armies. No, your training doesn't suck as such, but it's not that great either. That hes been demonstrated in missions where US Troops have worked with troops from other countries. In Bosnia for example US Troops did many stupid things (built bridges on the worst possible locations, had unsuitable equipment for the terrain etc. etc.). And the core training isn't superior either. They held a sharpshooting-competition in Kosovo. Teams were formed based on nationality. Finnish army took the #1 and #2 spots (they had two teams), Swedes were third and Germans (if I remember correctly) were fourth. Americans didn't do that good.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    41. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is easy to accuse the UN of incompetence, but unfortunately, it is only as strong as members make it out to be, and I seem to recall the US is waaaay late in paying its UN debts."

      And yet, The US still pays more than most member nations put together. You forgot to mention that part buddy boy.

    42. Re:america is scary by HBI · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because by spending so much on armaments, we are able to exercise hegemony without having to expend lives. It caused fear in you, and will cause fear in others. It's a bargain at any price.

      You don't like being afraid? Tough shit, the world is a nasty place, deal with it. When someone attacked our country, we decided to stop being pansy ass and start playing the game by the standard old rules. An enemy who runs away needs not be defeated. You are running away. That is a good thing.

      Because you certainly are our enemy, judging by your words.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    43. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because government is the enemy of the people. That's why democracies work so well.

    44. Re:america is scary by kahei · · Score: 1

      >We liberated countless islands and land from the
      >Japanese, including the Japanese Mainland.

      Yeah, and now look -- the Japanese Mainland is right back in Japanese hands(*)! It's hardly been liberated at all!

      (*)Except for kabukichou, which is in Chinese hands :p

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    45. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at the US's behavior in the context of world history, it makes quite a lot of sense.

      Whenever two adjacent* powers with the ability to project nontrivial force achieve military parity, tension builds, and massive conflict almost invariably breaks out (all it took for WWI was one dumbass with a cheap pistol). Even Britain and the US engaged eachother in a massive arms race post WWI. In that instance, however, disaster was only narrowly averted by The Washington Treaty.

      If one power achieve massive military superiority, however, the power's sphere of influence (which may well be the world) enjoys relative peace (e.g., Pax Romana, Pax Britannica).

      Since the advent of nuclear weaponry, the survival of the human race literally hinges on the existence of a sole superpower.

      The existence of multiple superpowers is a recipe for disaster, as any direct conflict would result in worldwide nuclear armageddon (which was just barely averted on several occasions during the Cold War).

      Only a single entity with unimaginably overwhelming conventional and nuclear force can hope to enforce relative peace**. Said entity must be so powerful, in fact, that it can even make megalomaniacs with delusions of grandeur shit bricks at the mere thought of the response to the use of nuclear arms.

      The US (and the world, really) simply cannot afford to have another entity gain military parity with the US. Any entity that is both capable of making a credible effort and willing to do so is playing Russian Roulette using a pistol loaded with ICBMs.

      The only (relatively) safe way for the US to be replaced as the dominant world power is for:

      A) The US to willingly engage in a massive nuclear and conventional disarmament program once the new entity achieves sufficient military power.

      or

      B) The US is effectively a part of the new power.

      The UN is a FUBAR'd attempt at B.

      In any case, neither A nor B is likely to happen anytime soon, so it is necessary for the US to maintain worldwide massive forces superiority.

      *Any world power since the turn of the 20th century was effectively "adjacent" to every other world power, due to the increased ability to project force provided by technology.

      **While the US isn't perfect, it is, IMO the best choice for the role of World Police out of the four historical possibilities (US, Germany, The Soviet Union, Japan).

    46. Re:america is scary by defishguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't going to be popular. At the end of WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles Germany was soundly placed in the position of a 3rd world country. Inflation rocketed to over 1000%, and the economic system in Germany collapsed under the weight of an impoverished population. At this time the United States (feeling quite secure in the victory it helped achieve) entered a new age of prosperity... during the 1920s the US economy experienced enormous gains and the US population was much wealthier as a result. One of the other things that happened in the US was a DRAMATIC drop in defense spending, and a general feeling in the US that our military was too large and expensive. In short the US stopped development of new weapons, and barely maintained it's existing equipment. The depression hit in 1929... the economy in the US tanked... defense fell even further in capability. Then, on Dec 7, 1941 it hit the fan... with the US unable to detect, or defend against a Japanese assault @ Pearl Harbor. Quite factually the Japansese could easily have invaded Hawaii with ground forces and the US could do nothing about it... thankfully they didn't. For the first 2 full years of World War 2 the US (and it's soldiers) suffered greatly at the hands of the Germans and Japanese. It would be 2 years before the US would win a single major naval battle agains Japan... and we all know it wasn't until 1943 that Normandy was invaded at a huge cost. Only 4% of the invaders @ Normandy made it un-injured. The long and short of it? NO ONE predicted that Germany would become so powerful after WW1. NO ONE thought that defense spedning would be important. NO ONE imagined that one million men and women in the US military would die in the first two years because we weren't equipped to fight. Heck at the beggining of WW2 the US did NOT have a main battle tank. The Germans DID develop them. I'm a US citizen, former soldier (13 years), and proud American. The fact is the "others" in the world WILL develop, maintain and create evil weapons. History is riddled with those examples. Sure, you think defense spending is high... but it isn't YOUR life that relies on it. I don't mean to sound preachy, and I'll get off of my soap box. Please look at the past to see what will be in our future if we're not careful.

    47. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      But it can afford to do this, by virtue of being the world's largest economy. They have no excuse to miss any payments, particularly when the payments they make are only a tiny fraction of their total GDP when compared to the contributions of some other countries.

    48. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SAS have had considerable experience combating guerrilla forces in south east Asia.

      Guerrillas (like terrorists) are hard to find because they hide within a population. The local population of (say villagers) hides, supports and supplies the troops.

      The more motivated the population is to hate the oppressing force, the more they will support the guerrilla fighters.

      Simple improvements to a community can help to remove the local's motivation to aid the enemy.

      You can give the village a pump for clean water, a schoolhouse and some fertilizer for a few bucks. Respect and understanding cost a lot less than that.

      When the guerrilla turn up to take them away the food and prospects of a community, (often at the point of a gun) the locals have pause to think.

      "These bandits are taking away our future. Life really isn't so bad under the current rulers. We have prospects. Perhaps I should just go and tell those nice SAS fellows about the bandits. They can drive them away."

      This tactic is very effective, and costs a lot less than most military interventions.

      I feel that this method could be used on a larger scale with much effectiveness. The people best able to police and care for a community is the community themselves. Assisting them to do that is fairly cheap, on the scale of things.

      Much of the reason the USA is having so much trouble, is that many years of their unique foreign relations style has burned up just about all the good will they ever had. Selfish manipulation has been steadily making things worse for the locals. Lots of places locals have good and real reasons to hate the USA. Pointing guns at them is only going to give them more reasons.

      The leaders of the USA don't listen to or respect American people very much. Why would anyone believe that they will listen to the needs, wants and cares of the people of any other country.

      Heavy handed indifference and total contempt are sewn. What is the harvest?

    49. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about the strenth of the enemies.

      It's about the ability to wage war with a minimum of American casualties.

      No American casualties icw controlled media keeps the couch potatoes all warm an fuzzy and patriotic.

      Btw whats the exchange rate between an American life and a 'standard' life these days ?

      M.

    50. Re:america is scary by happyhangone · · Score: 1

      Well hmmm... Panama got a democratic goverment after the usa invasion... maybe it wasn't justified... it wasn't right... but we got a democratic goverment after that... so democratic that the party in charge of the dictatorship won the elections 5 years afterward... and then, they conceded defeat to he opposition on the next election... so... (ok we got corruption... and a lot of problems... but who doesn't?!...)

    51. Re:america is scary by happyhangone · · Score: 1

      I will play devil advocate here. I hate USA (Bush) policy as everybody else but... Peace is not a virtue of humanity... and history is full of example of nations that believed themselves untouchable by any enemy, defeated years later because of their "peaceful" thinking (and stalling of their armies)... (maybe time has changed... maybe we don't want to kill our neighbors anymore... but all seems that we are in a frigging self-destructive world as always...)

    52. Re:america is scary by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Blowing up a cocaine factory in Columbia, for example, is a form of self-defense as the drug industry negatively impacts our people, both the users and the dealers. People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.
      Strictly speaking, it is the illegality of the drug trade that negatively impacts your people. When the USA banned alcohol, the alcohol trade had a far greater negative impact than it ever had when it was legal. Maintaining this stupid puritanical stance is doing you far more harm than letting people get off their boxes occasionally ever would do.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    53. Re:america is scary by misterpies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, nothing stops such countries from being as prosperous and free as the US.

      Nothing except the dumping of subsidised Western food on their markets, that drives local farmers out of business. And the pressure to use GM crops whose terms of use prevent farmers from saving seed and replanting it next year.

      Nothing except AIDs rates affecting in some cases up to half the population, made far worse by short-sighted US policies that won't give money to any aid organisation that promotes birth control (so no condoms) and by grasping pharma companies that won't let them have cheap drugs.

      Nothing except Western governments that are happy to decry the use of repressive measures while selling those same repressive governments the tools of repression. (Saddam's chemical weapons were aquired with the help of the US government, after all. What did they think he'd do with them? Go fishing?)

      Nothing except IMF- and World Bank-imposed policies that force governments to sign up to neo-liberal "austerity" packages that destroy their industries and leave them open to corporate takeovers by the West. (Take a look at economic history. You'll see that free-market countries like the US and Britain got rich through fiercely protective and anti-competitive policies. Only once they were economically dominant did they embrace free markets.)

      Oh, and of course, there's one other thing stopping dozens of countries (from Columbia to Saudi Arabia to Khazakhstan) from becoming "civilised". US government support for governments and organisations that "commit murder against their own people and terrorism against others". (Let's not forget who funded and trained Osama and his friends in the first place...America.)

      And please, don't patronise the intelligence of the world by insisting that the US went to war to liberate Iraq from a tyrannical regime and that those who resisted did so for financial gain. The war was never sold as a humanitarian war -- it was sold on the basis of WMD and terrorism. We've found no evidence of either. And those who claim it was about liberating the Iraqi people had better explain why the Iraqis needed liberating so much more than the Cubans, the Zimbabweans, the North Koreans etc.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    54. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at history, it REPEATEDLY shows that countries that say "hey, we're already strong enough" are the ones that get kicked really hard by some unexpected enemy.

      Just look at what happened to Russia in 1800s, or more recently, ... or US in Vietnam?

      US has such an "easy" time in Iraq because much of the hardware is designed for such warfare (after the gulf war). Take this same army into a jungle (NK?), and you got a totally different ball game...

      If you stop developing these things, someone can outpace you in a decade.

    55. Re:america is scary by aTMsA · · Score: 1

      Well, no, in at least the case of Spain and Russia it was because they overspended on the military side, and neglected their economy, while their competitors strenghtened theirs and eventually surpassed them in everything else. I suppose it's a typical case(me? thinking in something concrete? naahh...)

    56. Re:america is scary by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      "From what you've heard?" Let's go for a run or a swim and see how hard our training is, uninformed one. My little brother's 4 man sniper team fought off a 360 degree firefight using M203 and sniper rifles in Iraq which aren't much more than Vietnamese technology so the training seems to work just fine.

    57. Re:america is scary by Erwos · · Score: 1

      "unless military intelligence is expecting alien invaders to land in the near future, this hardware will in no practical way affect US military superiority"

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather we were prepared for _ALL_ eventualities.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    58. Re:america is scary by GT_Alias · · Score: 1
      I still stand by my opinion that America's contribution was critical. Would the war have been won by the Allies anyhow? Maybe/probably/who knows, but by sending our men over there we either turned the tide or gave it more momentum, however you want to look at it. The American lives sacrificed were lives that other European nations didn't have to sacrifice.

      And yeah, I didn't say our training was top dog, but I don't think we are trained to excel at friendly-fire. And the Fins, well...aren't they born with a rifle in one hand?

    59. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You reminded me of the "next war" issue, and it's actually a concern because of the probability of escalation. Basically, it's like this:

      If the US pulls shit like they did in Iraq against any other country again, I'll be there fighting - against the US. I'm not military. I don't care which country is being attacked. I just think enough is enough, and I'm prepared to stand up for that. I doubt I'll be the only one.

      Any "fog of war" will likely be much thicker than expected, and the US will have more resistance than they ever imagined. No, it's not a "threat" and I'm not a "terrorist", I'm just another 20-something geek. I'm a World Citizen prepared to stand up for the rights of others instead of watching people getting bombed on TV. And if I get shot because of that, well, it was for the right reasons.

      I know how it sounds, but I think people need to take control back from the Governments and Corps that run over them. If the machine wants say, Oil, from the Saudis or Iran for example, what would they do if several thousand "Westerners" turned up to protest? I wonder, would the troops say no to rolling their tanks over their fellow country men? And if they did, would the folks back home be outraged or would they be pleased that more "unpatriotic terrorists" had been killed?

      Too many beers and too many redbulls... but anyways, next time, the situation will be different, and the interenational community will present a united front against US (government) lead war. And if not the international governments, then certainly the people.

    60. Re:america is scary by killfixx · · Score: 1

      Well, that's just too damn bad isn't it...
      In order to maintain our "American Way" of life we have to be pro-active...
      The Isrealis are re-active and look at them...very little land...very little in the way of a "superior" lifestyle... The Isreali Army is one of the best in the world at defending itself...but it's never pro-active (I'm not sure why this is: religious, social, etc...) So it never gains any real advantage but this may very well be the intention.

      Most American military initiatives are about reminding people that we aren't gonna take any shit. Switzerland has a no-war policy for this and are generally left alone but they aren't the super-power (financially or otherwise) that America has become. Japan is a financial power to be reckoned with but no one will mess with them because they make 90% of everything electronic that most of the world uses (thanks to the US). China makes a ton of products but people leave them alone because even without a technologically superior military if you arm 2 billion people with steak knives and send them against 100 million with guns I gaurantee you there'll be a billion chinese eating steak that night (presuming they're not strict buddhists).

      There is more to be gained by being the US' friend rather than our enemy. But even on our own soil we have wac(k)os who come to power and convince a bunch of people to hate and kill Americans for idiotic reasons. So what's to stop big time charismatic psychos (Bin Laden, Hussein, Castro, etc...) from secretly building their zealot armies and convince them to sacrifice their lives to try and shake up America. Simply put, pro-active military initiatives. It may not keep all the kooks from being kooks but it sure does keep the numbers down.

      I like my lifestyle. I like being able to criticize my leaders and not being publicly executed for it but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate everything they've done for me. I like to know how many people here think they could re-invent govt to their liking and be successful...probably .000001% or 1%. I didn't like the way my parents raised me until I was wise enough to appreciate it, now I will raise my children the same way. It's the same for govt...

      I'm proud to be part of a country like this...not under anyones rule...

      --
      "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    61. Re:america is scary by Flarg! · · Score: 1

      "And those who claim it was about liberating the Iraqi people had better explain why the Iraqis needed liberating so much more than the Cubans, the Zimbabweans, the North Koreans etc."

      Not to mention the fact that Saddam had been a ruthless dictator for decades, and that we knew about it and did nothing, provided he stayed in line and kept the oil coming. Saddam also acted as a check against some of the more radical Muslim nations out there (like Iran), many of whom hated the US. The US/Iraqi war was a war for financial and political interests, not morality.

      --

      I may be wrong, but I'm never uncertain.

    62. Re:america is scary by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Hold on, Hoss.

      OBL and Al Qaeda is 'our' fault? Simply because we trained OBL and his minions? No.
      We trained them to, as you say, fight the evil Russians. Who attacked first. Not wanting the fUSSR to gain a greater foothold in that part of the world, we assisted. Training, weapons, tactics. If we had not, there was a very real possibility of the fUSSR actually taking over, and Afghanistan being another client state. Not in our best interests.
      The fact that he and they later turned on us is not necessarily "our fault".

      Same with Saddam the Insane. Not wanting Iran to possibly be in control of their own and Iraq's oil and land, and thereby have that much more influence in that part of the world, we helped Iraq. Iraq losing that conflict was a very real possibility. Later, when the worm turned, how can that be construed as "our fault"? If it had not been us that assisted, it would have been someone else. We wanted (needed) to maintain our presence in the region, and maybe, just maybe, Saddam would turn into a more moderate ruler. Sadly, this was not the case.

      If you give a homeless bum a stick to defend himself from the other homeless bums, and he later beats you in the head with it...is that your fault?

      I'm NOT saying that the US's motives were all sweetness and light. Far from it. But at the time in question, having either OBL or Saddam lose their respective battles would have been a BadThing(tm) for our aims in the region.

      And no, simply staying out of it and leaving them to fight it out was also not in our best interests. Someone else (fUSSR?)would have stepped in, and then we would have been REALLY out in the cold.

    63. Re:america is scary by GypC · · Score: 1

      You make no attempt to understand the many different cultures and circumstances that people worldwide are put through

      I understand that those cultures and the circumstances they create SUCK and need to be changed.

      What would you do if some "thug with a gun" came and pointed his weapon at you? You would be forced to follow him.

      No, I would do what he says until I had a chance to disarm him or alert the police who would then proceed to disarm him or shoot him if necessary, then get him proper medical attention and send him to a small cell filled with hulking sodomites where he belongs. What, you say some countries don't have a trustworthy police force? Well, some cultures just suck that way...

      This "thug" controls the media and the schools, so it is very easy to brainwash a population into believing whatever they want.

      Seems like you have a poorer opinion of these people than I do. It's not easy to brainwash someone to behave in ways that go against their beliefs. It's their culture of hatred and submission that lets these things happen.

      It's the very "liberal" politics that you seem to support that create these subsidizations of domestic industries to protect "the worker", so I'm not sure what your point is there. Perhaps our government should keep a tighter rein on the corporate "exploitation" of poorer countries, but they don't really have any authority in those countries; are they supposed to just outlaw multinationals?

      Most conflicts in the developing world are the result of social inequality and environmental degradation. Remove those problems and often the problems will go away.

      I agree, and I think they better get working on it before it gets any worse. Bombing them with food and clothing isn't going to help.

    64. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid that poster claiming the Soviets defeated the Germans was 100% correct. If the the USA/Canada/Briton hadn't invaded on D-Day, Germany would have been overrun scarcely a day later than it was. What would have changed is how much influence 'Western' society had in Europe (i.e. none -- the Soviets would have had complete control of Europe). We can only speculate on how history would have unfolded then....

    65. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      I still stand by my opinion that America's contribution was critical. Would the war have been won by the Allies anyhow? Maybe/probably/who knows, but by sending our men over there we either turned the tide or gave it more


      Of course US involvement hastened the fall of nazi-germany. But the fact is that they were already falling back before US became really involved in the war. Had Normandy never happened, the war would have dragged on for a bit longer (maybe till end of 1945), but the fate of Germany was already sealed. By the time Normandy took place, Germans had completely lost the initiative in the Eastern Front, and in 1944, the Red Army tore huge holes in to German lines and drove in to Poland. Even if second front had not happened, Soviets would have been entering Poland in 1944 (they did that as Overlord was taking place), and from there, it's not that far to mainland Germany. Even if the 30% of troops that fought in the west were transferred to the east, it would have only delayed the inevitable. The 70% that were already there were completely unable to stop the Soviets, I fail to see how the 30% would have changed things in any meaningful way.

      And the Fins, well...aren't they born with a rifle in one hand?


      You could say so ;). Seriously, there are lots of guns here and lots and lots of hunters. People are accustomed to guns, and about 85% of all males serve in the military.

      We did pretty well in WW2 if I say so (fought the Soviets twice and survived (including stopping a massive Soviet assault (over 40 divisions) that took place in 1944), fought the Germans and survived. Only country allied with Germany that was NOT occupied after the war), and our peace-keeping missions have been huge successes (which is one reason why we are repeatedly asked to take part in 'em.). Just few weeks ago Finland assumed command of one of the brigades in Kosovo (alongside USA, France and Germany).
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    66. Re:america is scary by Larthallor · · Score: 1

      I don't blame you. Especially if you're French. Okay, I'm kidding about the French bit, although I have been surprised at the level of anger I've heard. But you haven't seen anything yet. Wait until we develop robotic warfare a bit more. That's when non-Americans need to feel very nervous. Why? Because the main thing that keeps the U.S. out of wars is the refusal of the American people to lose sons and daughters for causes they don't think are important enough. Once you have made that risk small enough in the minds of Americans, it becomes almost trivial to manipulate American sentiment to support attacking or invading other countries for reasons that would seem ridiculous today. And if we come up with a way to run the robotics via satellite from the soldiers' home bases and Sergeant Daddy can come home every night to sleep his wife and play with his children? Fah-get about it. The US will be deploying droid armies left and right. Couple that with an ultra-patriotic fervor, and it makes it difficult for the more level-headed to speak out effectivly against immoral aggression.

      In the interest of full disclosure, I would personally support the "liberal" use of military force. I mean that both ways, liberal in the sense of frequent, and liberal in the sense of politically liberal values. Specifically, I would probably support the use of military power to enforce basic human rights for all people. If we used our future military power to sweep all the despots and oppressive governments out of places like Africa and replaced them with benign (and democratic?) governments, then I think this would be a legitimate use of force. Unfortunately, this is more likely to be used as a shallow excuse for more selfish motivations and you will see a selective use of "liberation" in "strategic" locations. Meanwhile, people would continue to suffer at the hands of their own "leaders" in places without oil.

      The good news is that the US constitution is founded on some pretty good principles that we still like to pride ourselves on. It is my hope that the principles embodied in the document can help keep us focused on not being too aggressive and selfish.

    67. Re:america is scary by chthonicdaemon · · Score: 1
      It's not all that clear cut. You say
      People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.
      but how many of those deaths are directly related to drug use and how many of them are because drug trading is illicit and countered by policemen with guns? During prohibition, you could have said the same thing about liquour

      The moral of the story is that as soon as government starts to enforce moral standpoints on a population that does not necessarily agree with them, there is bound to be trouble. Enforcing your idea of a safe place will usually result in restricting someone's liberty. It is a thin line.
      --
      Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
    68. Re:america is scary by jdgreen7 · · Score: 1
      Alright, I'll bite.

      I've never quite understod why we can send billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid, yet still have people at home who are homeless, illiterate, and without healthcare

      As for homelessness: Every major city that I have been to (most of them) have these things called "homeless shelters". They provide food and shelter to basicallly anyone who walks in the door. They also have programs set up so that they can help people get back on their feet after a setback. The only way that they will deny entry to a person is if that person has an obvious drug or alcohol problem. Most of the "homeless" people you see on the street collecting money are doing that because they have an addiction and can't get into the shelter because of it (which is also a problem, but there are free clinics that can help with that, too). Granted, most of these programs aren't federal, but I feel like it's better dealt with at the local level anyway. Some of them receive federal grants to operate, though.

      Illiteracy: Maybe you haven't heard of this concept called the "public school system". It's a system designed to educate people in this country from ages 4 or 5 through roughly 18. During this time, they teach literacy, math, history, and a variety of other subjects. Or, were you talking about people that either dropped out of the public school system or immigrated after they already turned 18? Well, for a very reasonable fee (and sometimes free under the right circumstances), you can take courses to get your G.E.D., which is basically equivalent to a high school diploma. These courses start as basic as you need them to, and then proceed from there. Granted, there are segments of the population that don't force their children to go to school and make them work in family businesses, etc. For the most part, those people are breaking the law.

      Healthcare: This is a major problem facing our country today. Insurance companies have steadily driven up the cost of healthcare to unreasonable levels. Enough people that have health insurance are using it improperly, and are going to get X-Rays every time they have a headache. This drives up the insurance prices. Shady lawyers sue the insurance companies and the doctors because they both typically have deep pockets. Just fighting all of the legal battles costs a ton of money, so this gets passed back along to the consumer or the insurance company again. All of this is currently being worked on in various levels of the government, but no one has come up with a one-size-fits-all solution to it, yet. Many other countries have socialized healthcare, but that brings along other problems, too, that I'll refrain from getting into.

      That said, there are plenty of free clinics, but there is a price to pay for most of those, too: time. You'll probably waste a lot of time waiting to get in, but isn't that worth it? There are also many health insurance plans offered at the local level (City Hall, local colleges, church organizations) which are very affordable (and again, free sometimes). It's just a matter of knowing about these programs that is the main problem. A lot of people don't know about them, don't go looking for them, or just want to complain about their lack of options.

      Another, slightly off-topic example: low-cost housing. I work for a property management company, and we have to deal with about 5 different government agencies that provide subsidized housing. All of them have different regulations, and all of them need to do their own inspections. We have HUD, Rural Development, MAAM, MSHDA (state organization), and different ones for larger cities. They each require seperate reports for each property, and all of them provide the same basic services to the people in need. Why couldn't they be converged into a single entity (at least at the federal level) with a single set of guidelines and one reporting format?

      We don't need more social programs, we need to refine and consolidate those that we already have.

    69. Re:america is scary by arevos · · Score: 1

      US training is pretty good, but I think the point the parent poster was trying to make was that it's not always the best in the world. The amount of friendly fire the US forces were responsible for isn't too good a record. Some US forces are undoubtably fantastically trained, but so too are divisions like the SAS, and you have to compare like with like. Any modern military training is going to be tough.

      Incidents like leaving Patriot Missile systems on without attendance, shooting at helicopters when the enemy is known to have none. In the first gulf war more British troops were killed by the US than the Iraqis. So there's at least some divisions which aren't too well trained, or else such mistakes wouldn't be made.

    70. Re:america is scary by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quick analysis of republican jingo in this post:

      Communism is bad: Check (diluted to "socialism is evil" and applied to non-socialist nations)

      People are capable of helping themselves, so we shouldn't offer any assistance to them: Check (Love this defense, it's such "rape is the woman's fault" bullshit)

      Liberals are bad people: Check

      Association of poverty with barbarism: Check

      "White Man's Burden" (civilize or die): Check

      Accusation of impoverished nations being murderous: Check (Civillians killed by American troops post 9/11: Afghanistan, >3068. Irag, >5428)

      BONUS! Off hand mention of the deaths of children to pull on our heartstrings: Check (hey if you care about kids so much, why not give them health insurance?)

      General "We're right because we're big" rhetoric Check and double check.

      God you guys are assholes.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    71. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand that those cultures and the circumstances they create SUCK and need to be changed.

      How can you comment about and judge these cultures and circumstances when you obviously know nothing about them? That sounds very ignorant and bigoted to me. Many of the world's poorest cultures were very prosperous and sustainable before their contact with and exploitation by Western culture.

      No, I would do what he says until I had a chance to disarm him or alert the police who would then proceed to disarm him or shoot him if necessary, then get him proper medical attention and send him to a small cell filled with hulking sodomites where he belongs. What, you say some countries don't have a trustworthy police force? Well, some cultures just suck that way...

      You continue to oversimplify the issue. Usually this 'thug' has some sort of power base, often the military. The only way to fight such a force is to organise a resistance force of your own. That's the cause behind many civil wars in underdeveloped countries. Did you know that over half the countries in Africa are in a state of war? Probably not, because the corporate-controlled media in the USA ignores these things for 'sexier' (but unimportant on a global level) news. Something is seriously wrong when almost all of the radio stations are owned by one company, and the television networks are concentrated into a small handful of industrial/entertainment companies. "News" is about entertainment and ratings, not accuracy.

      Seems like you have a poorer opinion of these people than I do. It's not easy to brainwash someone to behave in ways that go against their beliefs. It's their culture of hatred and submission that lets these things happen.

      Rubbish. If a dictator can convince its people that there are no problems, then they may not revolt. This of course depends on how brutal their rule is. Nobody is going to like you if you continually threaten to shoot them. If you control the avenues of communication, then people have no way of organising resistance, and they cannot even find out what is really going on. Many people in underdeveloped nations are undereducated and illiterate. They can be easily subdued through propaganda. This doesn't mean they're stupid, just that they're unknowledgeable. That's not their fault.

      It's the very "liberal" politics that you seem to support that create these subsidizations of domestic industries to protect "the worker", so I'm not sure what your point is there.

      WTF? I strongly suggest you find a good book on political theory and read up on what 'liberalism' is. It forms the basis of Western societies, especially the USA. Economic liberalisation, including free trade and the dropping of all subsidies, is a major part of this. It is overconservative politics that create subsidies. Look at how many WTO regulations GW Bush has broken by introducing (or threatening to introduce) subsidies.

      Perhaps our government should keep a tighter rein on the corporate "exploitation" of poorer countries, but they don't really have any authority in those countries

      Western governments can exert all sorts of influence over governments of poorer nations. Economic aid is often given only if the recipient country spends it in a predetermined fashion or enacts specific reforms, which often benefit corporations from the donor country more than the country itself. That's how international politics works. The USA owns about 14% of the World Bank and has the largest share in the IMF. Through these bodies they are able to force massive change upon other countries.

      I agree, and I think they better get working on it before it gets any worse. Bombing them with food and clothing isn't going to help.

      Let me get this straight: Western companies and governments have been destroying the resources of these countries for hundreds of years, taking them from a state of self-sufficiency into poverty and unsustainability, yet you feel it's okay for

    72. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea goes that fewer, better equipped and highly adaptive units are more affective than a larger number of inflexible, poorly equipped units: As each individual becomes singularly more capable, perhaps the total number of standing troops can be reduced. Also, it comes off logical that smaller, faster, etc. units would fair better against similarly structured terrorist cells. No?

      That said, weather the self serving bureaucracy of the US.mil is willing to reduce the total size of our standing armies remains to be seen. In any event, discontinuing military R&D on account of your having become the world foremost power certainly isnâ(TM)t the best tack.

      America IS scary. Though, even as I remain conflicted regarding US actions in the Middle East, I also find it Scary that the international community is so quick to turn a blind eye as humans are tortured on a scale such as seen in Iraq.

    73. Re:america is scary by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      So you argument is:

      "We tried to help the Somalis, but some of them were thugs. You know, like some Americans are thugs back home, but the Police kind of take care of them most of the time. Anyway, because some of them are thugs, we had no choice but to bomb them into the stone age. You know, starting with factories and public buildings and private industries. I don't know why they're now pirates. Probably unrelated to our destruction of their means of producing consumable goods, and more related to those Somalis being thugs."

      God I love America. Especially you jingoist homebody hawks -- "America must be the best 'cos I ain't never been nowhere else."

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    74. Re:america is scary by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 1

      >If the US govt put a fraction of the money and
      >effort it expends on the military into
      >addressing the grievances of dispossessed
      >people around the world, it wouldn't have a
      >problem with terrorism.

      Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families.

      >where either the US maintains an unpopular and
      >repressive regime (eg Saudi Arabia

      When I last checked the Saudi ruling family was involved in funding the 9/11 hikackers

      >where the US formerly maintained an unpopular
      >and repressive regime (Iran),

      The Ayatollahs are just as bad or worse than the former Shah of Iran. If you ask the common person on Iranian steets, they would probably prefer the US backed Shah to the Ayatollahs.

      >or countries where the US made explicit or
      >covert military interventions which did nothing
      >to help its people (Lebanon, Afghanistan in the
      >1980s)

      Lebanon -- a country which is currently occupied by foreign Hezbollah terrorists. If the US staued, that country would not be the hell hole of terrorism that it s now.

      Afghanistan -- US support of the Mujahadeen led to the Aghani victory and expulsion of Soviet troops from that country.

      Let's face it. Your facts are wrong and you are nothing more than an Anti-american j*rk.

    75. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think people all over the world will do when they take talk like this seriously? Iow. that its the US' intent to threaten every other nation in the world? Time for those nations to form new alliances and to implement a preemtive strike doctrine too?

    76. Re:america is scary by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      In fact, every single time the U.S. has planned, and implemented a "liberation" of a country, it has turned out for the betterment of those people.

      Bullshit. That is pure opinion. Why don't we ask the thousands of innocent civilians who have been slaughtered by the US government over the past century whether THEY agree that it was worth sacrificing their lives, family, and friends for some "moral cause" defined by some foreign superpower government? For christ's sake, put yourself in these people's shoes for once.

      Wake up, and have a look outside the comfort of your propaganda bin. The world does NOT unanimously support the US empire.

    77. Re:america is scary by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      "the US is easily capable of defeating any army in the field. unless military intelligence is expecting alien invaders to land in the near future, this hardware will in no practical way affect US military superiority. Dictators won't suddenly think, shit, now the US can defeat me in 24 hours instead of a 48, so I'd better fall into line. It's hard to see why any of this stuff is necessary for anything except justifying ever-increasing military spending."

      If we don't constantly advance, building new and better ways of winning wars, then other countries will. The US used to have serious problems with complacency. WWII we had problems because we were complacent and let others advance beyond us. Korea, we had already forgotten the lessons of WWII. Vietnam, we forgot the lessons of the period between WWI and WWII. IF we don't constantly improve our equipment and our tactics, someone else will and will kick our ass on the battlefield. The reason no army can defeat us in open battle is BECAUSE we spend so much on defense. If we don't keep doing so, we will lose that edge.

    78. Re:america is scary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The American lives sacrificed were lives that other European nations didn't have to sacrifice.

      It wasn't the US lives that made a difference, but the equipment (and the economic/financial power that bought those things)

      For each US soldier killed, more than 50 Russian warriors gave their lives. That's not counting the many British, Polish, and yes, even French. (Contrary to recent jokes, the French army didn't surrender- they were killed)

      Plus, for those other nations, it wasn't just their soldiers dying- civilians were also decimated by Axis assault.

    79. Re:america is scary by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      The problem with wishing for peace is sometimes we get it. Then the one with a weapon, any weapon, wins:

      % Ned sees Moe being chased by an alien. (``Kneel before my slingshot,
      % puny earthling!'') So Ned wishes that the aliens would be gone. Moe
      % chases the alien with a board with a nail in it. The aliens flee.

      Alien 1: It seems the earthlings won.
      Alien 2: Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us.
      But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards
      and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail
      so big, it will destroy them all!
      [both aliens laugh evilly, for quite some time]
      -- `The Monkey's Paw' in ``Treehouse of Horror II''
      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    80. Re:america is scary by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      How can we call this safe? How can you feel patriotism at a time like this?

      Three reasons.

      1: The President still needs to go back to Congress for money.

      2: We just went back and finished what we started 12 years ago.

      3: The President has to run for re-election next year, and will certainly be gone four years after that.

    81. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the aliens are coming, of course!

    82. Re:america is scary by Treylis · · Score: 1

      Separate the NVA and the VC figures and things look a bit more grim, especially considering that nowadays it's mostly VC-type that we have to worry about.

    83. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      My point was that training of US troops is not sucky, but it's not the greatest in the world either (contrary to the delusions of some jingoists). Performance of US Army in the Iraq war can hardly be used as a yardstick in determining the effectiveness of US Forces. You faced an outmanned and outgunned opponent with poor training, low morale, zero air-support and obsolete equipment.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    84. Re:america is scary by The+Creator · · Score: 1
      In fact, every single time the U.S. has planned, and implemented a "liberation" of a country, it has turned out for the betterment of those people.


      Are you counting the first "liberation" of afghanistan, that put the country in the hands of the taliban?

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    85. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      You ignore the massive support given by the US to the Shah, who was well known to be a brutal dictator. If the US hadn't backed him, we wouldn't have had a revolution, we wouldn't have had the Iraq-Iran war, we wouldn't have had the Iran-Contra scandal and we wouldn't have had such a hardline government in Iran today that supposedly threatens US interests. Saddam may not have been a problem, either.

    86. Re:america is scary by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The Isreali Army is one of the best in the world at defending itself...but it's never pro-active

      They're highly proactive. They conquered the entire nation of Israel in 1948. And then in 1967 they captured more land and headed off any possible retailation by destroying not only the armies of all surrounding Arab nations, but also killing 34 US servicement who witnessed the pre-emptive attack.

      Look at how they deal with terrorists. I'd sure say that launching missiles from a helicopter to explode a suspected organizer is pro-active!

      a technologically superior military if you arm 2 billion people with steak knives and send them against 100 million with guns

      In the second world war, US Marines killed attackers with knives at a 600:1 ratio. And with better equipment, US pilots killed lightly armed people at a ratio of 14000:1.

    87. Re:america is scary by Durendal · · Score: 1

      Granted it wasn't America alone, but it was America's contribution that was a critical turning point in WWII


      Notice the word "contribution" does not mean Army or Forces. It is 100% accurate to say that without the US material + military contribution WWII would have ended differently.


      The Russian army ran on US trucks. This allowed them to build other things. Like their excellent tanks...



    88. Re:america is scary by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      The US forign aid budget is 8.6 billion for Humanitarian assistance and international development and 6.7 billion for international security assistance. The 2003 budget was 2.1 trillion dollars, and of that 348 billion was allocated to national defense, 1.3 trillion was allocated to health care, medicare, social security, income security and veterans benefits. in 2002 the budget for the same social programs was 1.2 trillion. The budget was increased by ~120 billion dollars since last year. Keep in mind that the foriegn aid budget TOTAL was ~15 billion. Explain to me why that ~15 billion is needed for social programs when the budget for social programs was already increased by 120 billion in just the last year.


      Please try to think of the long term. If america gets richer, all those poor people can get better jobs, better education, etc etc. One of the ways to make america richer is to find new markets for american products. If other countries were better off, they could buy more american products, which would mean more american jobs etc. We just spend 90 billion beating up on iraq. It is doubtful we will spend that much reparing it, but if we did, there are 23 million iraquis who would be willing to buy american products (if we do it right) Thats tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US that help to give poor people money and health care.

      --

    89. Re:america is scary by GypC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, I'm not afraid to make value judgments on cultures. If your culture is anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement... then I think Western civilization is better, thank you very much. I know it's very hip and even normal among the University crowd to be anti-West despite all the comfort and freedom it gives us, but I no longer buy that crap.

      How do you propose to get rid of these thugs? By dropping supplies at them? By somehow convincing them to let their poor citizens have said supplies and let us give them a proper education?

      That won't work. How about use our military to force a regime change? No, that would be "Imperialism".

      I guess I just don't understand your logic.

    90. Re:america is scary by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1
      Hmm. Maybe if you hadn't allied yourself with Germany, Finland would have been a bit better off in the end. The reparations that were paid to the Soviets were just to keep them from crushing Finland after they steamrolled through Ukraine. Ever hear of Leningrad? The Germans had almost nothing to do with that seige. It was mostly Finnish troops.

      IIRC, what happened was that the Germans came to Finland and said "Either you can help us kill Russians, or we can roll over you like we did those pesky French. Seeing as how much the Finns hated the Russians, The Finns were eager to jump on board.

    91. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although I have been surprised at the level of anger I've heard

      I'm not. Can you really expect that other peoples are indifferent when a country, which ignores the U.N. and drops out of international treaties left and right, pushes military technology? Americans apparently shit in their pants when other countries do so much as catch up with entry level nuclear bomb technology, maybe enough to wipe out a city, but they themselves still have enough nukes to bury us all, with delivery systems capable of reaching every spot on this planet. We're free to do what you want us to do, or else we'll be liberated to hell and back, with technology that makes politically correct warfare ever easier. Fuck sovereign states. Who needs 'em when you can have a "benevolent" dictator, USA, God's chosen people. You may or may not come to your senses, and the world's opinion about you depends on that, but the suspicion is here to stay.

    92. Re:america is scary by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blowing up a cocaine factory in Columbia, for example, is a form of self-defense as the drug industry negatively impacts our people, both the users and the dealers. People die and go to jail, in no small numbers, because of the drug trade.

      To quote Bill Maher - "We can't stop doing coke, so you have to die."

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Our foreign policy is largely responsible for farmers in places like Columbia resorting to coca farming in the first place. Columbia was a wheat-producer forty years ago, but wheat production was undermined by the US under the Food for Peace program in the 50s, which flooded Columbia with subsidized agricultural products. Of course, regardless of the name of the program, it is clear we were not really after peace in Columbia. Take one look at our history in the region, including the various banana republics of South America. The U.S. has been a huge force of opposition against democracy. By propping up and supported corrupt dictators, and by giving them immense military aid (Columbia was the largest receiver of US military aid) to fight pro-democracy rebels, many of these countries have been at war for decades. Out of desperation, these farmers plant the one crop that will guarantee food on their tables - and you want to kill them for it.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    93. Re:america is scary by covertlaw · · Score: 1
      The problem with Europeans is that they've got some kind of mindset that American sacrifices don't matter. Over the last 60 years Western Europe has been spoon-fed by the Marshall Plan to rebuild their countries after they either fell to Hitler or came pretty damned close. Europeans resent the assistance and aid that we gave them and are now plotting the economic destruction of the United States through the European Union.

      Sure, the Soviets did a great job of luring the Germans onto their homeland, cutting off their oil and food, and then conveniently freezing them to death in the harsh winter. Quite honestly, the Soviets lucked out. Everyone's also pretty much saying that it didn't matter if the US came into the fight because Europe would have overcome Hitler anyway.

      I wonder, though, what would have happened if the Soviets hadn't sided with Hitler in the first place? How many lives, Soviet and others, would have been saved if they hadn't sided with him? In my humble opinion, I don't really give a damn what the Soviets did later on in the war, it's what they did at the beginning that caused the greatest damage. The appeasement of Hitler by the Europeans also allowed him to gain more land and even greater power.

      The Soviets may have defeated Hitler years later, provided he hadn't developed nuclear weapons and jet bomber/fighter technology. The French Resistance may have driven the German Army out of France by 1960 provided they all hadn't been loaded into boxcars bound for Auchwitz. The British may have been able to keep Germany from invading England, but they probably would have starved to death in the process.

      About this talk of spending the money instead on development of countries that have grievances with the US, I refuse to give my tax dollars to people who cheer and parade in the streets of Gaza when the trade center went down. I refuse to be held hostage to the whim of religious radicals who choose war in the name of God or Allah to build up their own power. The US government is not perfect and US citizens are not perfect either. But neither is any other human being or government on this planet. Regardless of training, background, or intelligience, we all make mistakes. If I had to choose between living in Europe or living in the US, I'd choose the US any day. The people here are willing to stand up for what they believe in, regardless of whether it's popular or not. In Europe, as long as you're against the US, it's all good.

    94. Re:america is scary by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Wrong. It was Soviets who defeated Germany. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets, and Soviets fought them ALOT longer than Americans did.

      The original poster said it was an important "turning point". What do you think would have happened if Germany hadn't been so worried about the Western Front? Also don't forget about American aid to the Soviets, which was crucial.

      Further, you're ignoring the important fact that America was the only power to have substantial forces involved on both fronts - and fighting the Japanese was every bit as tough (if not moreso) than fighting the Germans.

      In short, your view that American participation in World War II wasn't central to an Allied victory is simply hogwash. :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    95. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a good thing "america" liberated its land from the indigenous people, eh? and liberated cotton with people who were liberated from their own country by force

      america the wonderful

    96. Re:america is scary by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As others have pointed out here, using drug issues as an example only makes you look dumb. Even if you don't have the answers, it's easy to see that our drug policies are only making things worse. Add to that the connection between CIA and crack cocaine (CIA == Cocaine Import Agency, for now and forever) and it all adds up to one big mess.

      Actually, the "war on drugs" is the most successful snowjob ever pulled on the american people. In limited situations cocaine is STILL used for pharmaceutical purposes, and there are a zillion opiates in the mix as well, yet the feds outlaw even STUDIES involving MDMA. Or put another way, alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and kill thousands every year, yet marijuana is illegal. Even if you think that marijuana makes one more likely to, say, get in a car accident, you must agree that it is less likely to do so than alcohol. Add to that the fact that you can die of alcohol poisoning and it makes the whole war on drugs thing pretty retarded.

      In addition, making drugs illegal has only increased their street value, which increases the motivation to grow, process, distribute, and/or sell drugs to end users. The solution, of course, is to make marijuana legal and tax the shit out of it as they do cigarettes (you pay more taxes on cigs than you pay for the product itself now, not that I'm complaining, this is what the people want) and spend the money on education like we should have been doing all along.

      However, the US has what is called the "poverty industry", the legions of people who make money off maintaining the status quo in this country. (We are not unique in this respect, mind you.) In order for it to work you must keep the poor poor and in trouble. Putting people in prisons and maintaining the welfare system employs thousands at all levels of government and funnels billions of dollars of tax revenues into systems in which it can be siphoned off and end up in various pockets where it does not belong. The war on drugs is only a symptom, but it is a problematic one which is inflaming all others and as such it should be treated before we go looking for the cure.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    97. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Hmm. Maybe if you hadn't allied yourself with Germany, Finland would have been a bit better off in the end.


      We didn't really have a choice. Let's see, we had just fought a war against Soviet Union. And after the war, they continued their aggressive behavior towards us. We couldn't have turned to Western Powers for help, since Germany controlled Denmark and Norway. We were cut off. Only major power that could have helped us was Germany.

      The reparations that were paid to the Soviets were just to keep them from crushing Finland after they steamrolled through Ukraine.


      Soviets tried to steamroll Finland. As Overlord began, they started a massive assault against Finland. They attacked with over 40 divisions and over 1000 tanks and airplanes.
      Modern-day historians have studied the archives of Soviet Union and Red Army, and they clearly tell that their goal was complete and total destruction of Finnish army (they failed at it), occupation of the country (they failed at it) and forced relocation of the Finnish people to the Urals. They were stopped fair and square in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

      Ever hear of Leningrad? The Germans had almost nothing to do with that seige. It was mostly Finnish troops.


      It seems history is not your strong areas. Siege was mostly German job. True, finns held the northern areas (well, it's not like we had a choice. What were we supposed to do? Withdraw?). But Marshall Mannerheim had given explisit orders that the Army will NOT advance near Leningrad. Germans repeatedly demanded that Finns must move closer and tighten the siege around Leningrad, but Mannerheim flat-out refused.

      IIRC, what happened was that the Germans came to Finland and said "Either you can help us kill Russians, or we can roll over you like we did those pesky French.


      No, Germans never threatened Finland with war. German-Finnish cooperation was a natural thing, all things considered. We couldn't work sith Soviets, they still had aggressive feelings towards Finland, we could not work with Western Powers, since there were German-occupied countries between West and Finland. Germany really was the only choice.

      Please, if you want to discuss history, learn about it first.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    98. Re:america is scary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Because putting those people at home who are homeless, illiterate, and without healthcare into prison or into the welfare system (same thing) generates tax revenues and jobs. Same reason we have a "war on drugs".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    99. Re:america is scary by Larthallor · · Score: 1

      >> although I have been surprised at the level of anger I've heard

      >I'm not. Can you really expect that other peoples are indifferent when a country,
      > which ignores the U.N. and drops out of international treaties left and right, pushes military technology?
      > Americans apparently shit in their pants when other countries do so much as catch up with entry level nuclear bomb technology,
      > maybe enough to wipe out a city, but they themselves still have enough nukes to bury us all [rest of comment snipped]

      I meant American anger at the French. As you may or may not have heard, the cafe at the Capitol building was forced to use the term "Freedom Fries" for french fries. Some people here were (and still are) boycotting items manufactured in France, including French wine. I've heard people say things like, "I think that when we're done in Iraq that France should be next!" These people were only half kidding. While I've never exactly been a Francophile and didn't agree with France's position, I think this kind of reaction is ridiculous and the thing that makes America a potentially scary superpower.

    100. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      The original poster said it was an important "turning point". What do you think would have happened if Germany hadn't been so worried about the Western Front?


      If they hadn't worried about western front They would have stationed close to 100% of their troops to the East instead of about 80% (about 70% after Overlord). I dont think that 20% would have made any huge difference.

      Also don't forget about American aid to the Soviets, which was crucial.


      sure it helped, but it was miniscule when compared to native Soviet production.

      Further, you're ignoring the important fact that America was the only power to have substantial forces involved on both fronts - and fighting the Japanese was every bit as tough (if not moreso) than fighting the Germans.


      No I'm not. I mentioned the Pacific theater in one of my posts.

      Off-topic: are there any statistics that would show how US losses were spread between European and Pacific theaters?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    101. Re:america is scary by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      If they hadn't worried about western front They would have stationed close to 100% of their troops to the East instead of about 80% (about 70% after Overlord). I dont think that 20% would have made any huge difference.

      Also don't forget about Allied bombing of strategic production facilities. Another factor that made the war in Russia even tougher for Germany.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    102. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1
      Really? China has been ambitously building up for a while and has Taiwan ringed with GPS guided smart missles. Kim Jong Il is threating Seoul with nukes and artillary. Hussein was threatining Saudi Arabia and Quwait.

      China is vastly under reporting their millitary expendeture (about 70-100 billion) and they have only one sea to defend (not three like the US).

      As a non-American, if you live in the following places, America garuntees your soverignty:

      Western Europe (NATO)

      Eastern Europe (NATO and Coalition action in the Balkans)

      Middle East

      South America (even from the days of the Monroe Doctrine)

      Japan, Taiwan, Australia.

      If you live in India, Pakistan, Indoensia,Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, France, UK, Former USSR state, South Africa America keeps your neighbors from doing anything bad to you.

      We also provide half of the UN's budget each year, and 70% of the peacekeeping forces over the last 10 years.

      Oh yeah, and NATO and the US checked the ambition of the USSR (Yes, Europe, now you too could have been earning 76 dollars per capita yearly wage in 1982). In addition, American power ended two world wars, and prevented a third that was threatining between the UK and the US in the middle of the 1920/30's.

      Welcome to Pax Americana. Peace on Prozac.

    103. Re:america is scary by misterpies · · Score: 1

      Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families.

      Terrorism did not begin and end with 9/11. Were the USS Cole bombers rich? The Bali bombers? The attempted shoe bomber? The Morrocco bombers? The Saudi bombers? A few wealthy terrorists does nothing to undermine the basic point, that terrorism flourishes where freedom and basic rights are denied. And it is the widespread support for terrorists in the oppressed regions of the world that allows the few wealthy fanatics, such as Bin Laden, to have such influence.

      When I last checked the Saudi ruling family was involved in funding the 9/11 hikackers

      Aside from the fact that that is largely unproved, the last I checked the US was the strongest supporter of one of the most repressive regimes in the world. In Saudi Arabia women cannot drive, work or attend university. Morals are enforced by a religious police. Punishments such as whipping, stoning and beheading are common. This is not the Taleban, this is a regime that has been supported to the hilt by the US for decades.

      The Ayatollahs are just as bad or worse than the former Shah of Iran. If you ask the common person on Iranian steets, they would probably prefer the US backed Shah to the Ayatollahs.

      Oh master of facts, when did you last speak to a common person on the Iranian streets? As a part-Iranian, whose family lost everything in the revolution, let me take issue with you. The Shah was reviled, hated by almost every element of Iranian society. He was nothing more than a US puppet, installed and maintained by the CIA. You do know that in the 1950s Iran was a democratic state, don't you? And that when the democratically elected prime minister, Mossadeq, made good on his democratic promise to nationalise Iran's oil, the CIA overthrew the government and made the Shah into an absolute ruler? (No, that's not propaganda, it's well known.) Tell me, oh lover of freedom, would you rather be a citizen of a country that controls its own affairs (however badly) or of a client state wholly subjugated to the needs of its master?

      Afghanistan -- US support of the Mujahadeen led to the Aghani victory and expulsion of Soviet troops from that country.

      And following the expulsion of soviet troops, what happened? The country descended into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by local warlords, who brought so much chaos that the Afghans welcomed the Taleban at first! (These are the same warlords that are once again back in control.) If you'd left the Soviets alone, they'd have withdrwan by themselves after 1989 and by now Afghanistan would have probably been a stable and peaceful (if still dirt poor) state.

      Lebanon -- a country which is currently occupied by foreign Hezbollah terrorists. If the US staued, that country would not be the hell hole of terrorism that it s now.

      Thank you, you illustrate my point perfectly. If the US had stayed and committed to restoring order in what was formerly the most pluralistic, pro-Western arab state. Instead the US did it's standard post-Vietnam "get the hell out ASAP" thing.

      Your facts are wrong and you are nothing more than an Anti-american j*rk.

      I've noticed that people who disagree with my posts are rarely satisfied with arguing the points, they also have to throw in personal slurs as well. It's a depressing indictment of the value afforded free speech in parts of the slashdot community.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    104. Re:america is scary by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1
      Maybe that part of WWII isn't one of my strong areas. My point is that Finland, like it or not, did help the Germans out. Choice or not, they did help them out, so it's no surprise that they had to pay reparations and didn't get much in the way of aid.

      btw, hats off to the Finnish Army for Stopping the Red Army. First at Soulmousammi (spelling, I know) and later at Tali-Ihantala.

    105. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If your culture is anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement... then I think Western civilization is better, thank you very much.

      Firstly, that is your opinion -- who are you to impose those views on others? That sounds very discriminatory to me. It is also very narrow-minded and hubristic. You seem to assume that your value system is the only valid system in this world, and that everyone else is wrong. This is despite the fact that you know relatively nothing about other cultures or their histories. Secondly, what cultures are you referring to that are "anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement"? The largest world cultures aren't any of these things, so you must be misinformed (or you're referring to some tiny obscure culture that is statistically insignificant). Many of these things have been introduced by dictatorial governments to maintain control -- they were never part of people's culture.

      Western civilisation is not fully devoid of similar traits. Class is an issue in Western society, and it is deepening as the rich-poor gap widens. Many statistics show a gradual decline in the overall quality of life in the USA since the 1970s. Poverty does exist in western nations, and those in lower strata of society have far fewer opportunities than those in higher social positions. Religion dictates many laws in the West, particularly in the USA where strong religious-based lobby groups exist.

      You also ignore history. Only a hundred or so years ago, Western society exhibited many of the traits that are today seen as characteristic of the developing world. These include poor education and health amongst the majority of people, high birth rates, less democratic and even brutal governments, and discriminatory laws and policies based on race, gender and class. As time passed, economic growth and urbanisation rose. Social movements and the middle class grew. When the middle class was large enough, people were able to demand more say in governmental matters, and democratisation increased.

      This is a process that takes a long time to evolve. As social factors improve, people become more empowered, leading to democratisation and more stable, pluralistic societies.

      How do you propose to get rid of these thugs? By dropping supplies at them? By somehow convincing them to let their poor citizens have said supplies and let us give them a proper education?

      I explained above how this is all a process. To take an example, look at the development of Taiwan and South Korea in the latter half of the 20th century. In any nation, governments need a basis for legitimacy to prevent a rebellion. Initially in these two countries the basis was simple military force. Eventually the basis became economic growth. Businesses, many being owned by ordinary citizens and not a rich elite, grew. Ordinary people developed their own economy and a middle class grew. As people became empowered economically, they began to want political power as well. Through popular pressure, the military governments of South Korea and Taiwan gave up their power and held democratic elections. The process was so smooth and relatively trouble-free that the party which once held authoritarian powers over the nation remained a powerful political force even in the new democratic system. It can be argued that similar processes are in various stages of progress in other places like Singapore, Hong Kong and even Malaysia.

      How about use our military to force a regime change? No, that would be "Imperialism".

      History has shown that political and military actions taken in other countries by the USA have been done for the sole benefit of the USA. The wellbeing of the local populations have been totally ignored. Why should anybody trust them now? Note that the USA isn't the first country to act in such a manner.

    106. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Remember that Al Qaeda is our own fault. Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the "atheistic Commies." We were the ones that gave them the weapons and the money to fight the USSR.


      FOR THE LAST BLOODY TIME. We never trained OBL or anyone in Al Qaeda. The American money was re-funneled by the ISI, but it was primarily funneled to groups that later formed the Northern Alliance, not Al Qaeda. Read up on any decent book on the subject ("Taliban" or "Jihad" probably being the best) if you want to know more about this.


      In Iran, we gave one group of extremists to fight another group of extremists, and guess what, we had more extremists put into government that would later turn on us. Iraq is also partially our own fault. When Iran turned on us, we decided that its neighboring opponent, Iraq, could do all our dirty work (by giving them money and weapons), especially since they were already fighting.

      Close. If you look at the actual though in Dept. Of State it was "Maybe they will both club each other out of stupidity." We did provide some aid to Iraq, but the vast majority was provided by:

      France

      Russia

      Germany

      Surprised? In fact, America probably provided no more then 100 million dollars, compared to the billions that the former nations put in. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=Iraq+Russia+France+%22military+aid+to+Ira q%22 for more information. Remember that France even went so far as to build a reactor for Hussein giving him access to Nuclear Science.


      Oh, and what about the Philippines, a former colony of the US? That too was liberated after WWII, but it's still steeped in considerable poverty. Trust me, I've been there and seen it myself. I was shocked and I knew that wasn't even the worst as far as impoverished nations go. It was still very heartbreaking. It's now improving, but at a very, very slow rate.

      Yep, the second we pulled out their standard of living plunged. Think it's a coincidence?

      Western Europe still had a lot of money in the banks after WWII, which really helped them to bounce back.


      Uh. No. As a matter of fact, Germany was still paying reperations to England and Co before WWII. England was still paying America reperations during WWII (the finished up paying WWI debt, AFAIK the vast majority of WWII debt was "forgiven" as part of the marshall plan. England in particular went thru a gut wrenching series of budgets for 20 years after WWII to recover.

    107. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the drug dealers worked with the United States to stop the drugs from entering its borders? This isn't about stopping drugs worldwide, it's about stopping the drugs that eventually up in our back yard, from where they started. Sorry there's a difference in culture here, but they should respect our rules and regulations while in our borders whether or not they agree with them.

    108. Re:america is scary by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It was Soviets who defeated Germany. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets, and Soviets fought them ALOT longer than Americans did.

      What the fsck are you talking about??? Have you been indoctrinated by the soviet government? The German kill ratio against the russians was almost comical. A single German soldier was pretty much guaranteed to slaughter at least five russians. Without US assistance of arms, armor, and food the German invasion of Russia would have been a great triumph (and half of europe would have been spared the greatest menace in human history)

      Germanys fate was sealed at Stalingrad. After that, it was all downhill for them. And that took place long before Normandy or tangible US involvement in the war.

      You mean, one of the first battles faught with US built tanks and armor? You mean one of the first battles where soviet troops actually had automatic weapons? Maybe the Germans could not take Stalingrad, but the city was completely destroyed along with most of the other industrial cities in Russia.

      We also cannot forget that the Soviets stopped the German offensive only at the cost of millions of lives. Even the Russian offensive on Berlin was ridiculous. The German home guard, composed of 300,000 old men and children was able to inflict heavy casualties on the Russians.

      The loss of Germany is complex, but it had nothing to do with the Russians. The loss had EVERYTHING to do with the failure of the Luftwaffe to defend Germany against allied bombing raids, and their failure in the Battle of Briton. If the Germans had taken England, and the entire German military machine could be focused on Russia, there would have been no hope for the Russians.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    109. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Choice or not, they did help them out, so it's no surprise that they had to pay reparations and didn't get much in the way of aid.


      The reason why Finland never got any Marshall Aid was not because we fought alongside Germany (after all, Germany itself received 1309 million dollars in aid (UK, France and Italy received more though). The reason was that we never applied any of the money.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    110. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Also don't forget about Allied bombing of strategic production facilities. Another factor that made the war in Russia even tougher for Germany.


      It has been generally accepted that strategic bombing of Germany was a failure. Regardless of the massive bombing, Germans broke all their previous production-records.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    111. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1


      Wrong. It was Soviets who defeated Germany. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Even after Normandy, about 70% of German troops were fighting the Soviets, and Soviets fought them ALOT longer than Americans did.


      Uh. No. They did it with American Equipment, after the America units fighting in Europe bleed enough of Hitler's assets off to stage a break thru. Americans got to Germany and Berlin first, and we propped up the Soviet Government long enough for them to survive. Had America not entered the war and raised the spectre of a western front, Hitler would have taken Stalingrad or Moscow or the Oil fields. any one of thoose objectives falling would have ended the government.

      This might come as a shock to you, but the training of US troops is not superior to training of other armies

      Really, because Janes, the Mossad, the Soviets and just about every different millitary expert agrees with you. In fact, the advantage that US troops has is all about training and very little about combat equipment.

      Stupid things have been forced on us. For example, Clinton refused to let the Rangers use heavy armour in Bosnia (he must have been using them for the Branch Dividians) and bridges were put there for the local population. Clinton time after time constrained Millitary action (the same way as it was constrained in Vietnam) to make it completly ineffectual (for example, using Tomahawks instead of SEAL/SF teams to go after Bin Ladin after the Embassy bombings).

    112. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      The problem with Europeans is that they've got some kind of mindset that American sacrifices don't matter.


      Huh? I don't see that happening. IMO, stating the fact that war against Germany was decided in the east does not mean that US sacrifices are not appreciated. Go talk to the people who live in Normandy, and you will see that they REALLY appreciate the sacrifices made by americans

      What I do see all the time is the problem with americans who keep on saying "you know, we helped you during WW2, therefore you must do whatever we tell you to do", regardless of the fact it was about 60 years ago. France helped USA in their independence-war, so by american logic, USA should do whatever France wants them to do. But for some reason, it doesn't quite work that way.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    113. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in 1992, they were the third largest Army in the world, and we cleaned their clock. Milosivic had the best Air Defenses in the world, and we lost one stealth fighter to it. Afghanistan was the buriel spot of three different empires, and we defeated their government using local forces and less then 200 special forces.

      Btw, we were outmanned, not the other way around. At no point in the war did American forces face a opposite division with less then a 2:1 advantage against them. At one point a general managed to stop the movement of a entire division using a single company of soilders.

      Actually, the only time we had numerical suppority was when the 4th ID marched up to Tikrit. There was only a single division there against an American division.

    114. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      I agree with your points, I disagree with some of your facts. Corel Sea (May 1942) was 5 monthes after pearl and it was a stratigic success (stopped a Japanese drive on Australia) even if it was a draw (both sides lost a carrier). Midway was less then a month later (they really scrabled to get the fleet back together) and was arguably the most important battle (and victory) in the Pacific war. Remember we faught both of these battles with old ships, equipment and planes.

      I do agree with your points about the need to stay viggilent. I do think that Millitary expenditures will go down soon.

    115. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is nobody strong enough to challenge the US and nobody will be in the foreseeable future."

      Look on your map and find a little country named China. Then come back here and try to make your argument again.

    116. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Actually, we do (about 50% of the millitary Budget - 125 billion last I checked). Even more so, the vast majority (81.35%) of the overall budget is for social expenditures. (Bet you didn't know that the poorest 40% of people in America pay zero in taxes, and the poorest 30% get a check from the government each year).

    117. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Uh. No. They did it with American Equipment, after the America units fighting in Europe bleed enough of Hitler's assets off to stage a break thru.


      Yes, USA did provide SU with equipment. But that amount was miniscule when compared to native Soviet production. You make it sound like Soviets only used american-made equipment, when in reality, overwhelming majority of their equipment was designed and built in SU.

      And what is that "american units in Europe bleed enough of Hitlers assets..." is about? SU had made breakthrough long before US forces became involvled in the fighting. When did US bring a major force in to Europe? In operation Overlord. As that operation was underway, Soviet forced practically destroyed Germans Army Group Center and tore a hole in their lines that was about 120 kilometers wide. They did that even though there were no tangible US forces "bleeding Hitlers assets" (apart from Italy, but that was a secondary front).

      Americans got to Germany and Berlin first


      You got to Germany first since you had shorter way to travel. But Berlin???? US Forces never reached Berlin, what on Earth are you talking about?

      Had America not entered the war and raised the spectre of a western front, Hitler would have taken Stalingrad or Moscow or the Oil fields. any one of thoose objectives falling would have ended the government.


      Fall of Stalingrad wouldn't have meant fall of SU, same goes to oil-fields (Germans did occupy alot of them, but Soviets destroyed them before that happened). As for Moscow... Again, Soviet production was far bigger than the amount of US equipment they got through Lend-Lease. Sure it helped, but IMO it was not crucial. Native Soviet production was far migger and far more important

      In fact, the advantage that US troops has is all about training and very little about combat equipment.


      I haven't seen anything that would suggest that US Forces have superior training to everyone else.

      bridges were put there for the local population.


      Yes, and they were put there in wrong places. I remember when they interviewed an american officer about the bridges and he commented "The reason we are having problems is that the flooding is abnormally strong this year". Right after that they interviewed a local man who said "the flooding is pretty mild this year. We tried to tell them that they are building the bridge in wrong place, but they just wouldn't listen"
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    118. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Because of course, the Americans have to much money and should be punished for their suc... err.. greed.

      First of all, we did not spend a similar amount on our war with Iraq. Last I heard from my senator, it was about 70bln in the end, well below proejections. Second, we fund the UN, NATO, WHO, WTO, WorldBank and IMF.

      Finally your utopian argument that if the playing field was equal there would be no bad people who attack their neghboors has been utterly disproven by 300 years of history where the word "utopia" was always shortly followed by "crimes against humanity" (French Revolution, Comunes, Communism, Cultural Revolution).

    119. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1


      Nothing except the dumping of subsidised Western food on their markets, that drives local farmers out of business. And the pressure to use GM crops whose terms of use prevent farmers from saving seed and replanting it next year.


      Note to Europe. Please stop CAP immediatly. Also note on GM, at least if NPR is to be believed, GM increases output 10-25 fold. I garuntee that you would need to reseed before replanting with thoose seeds.


      Nothing except AIDs rates affecting in some cases up to half the population, made far worse by short-sighted US policies that won't give money to any aid organisation that promotes birth control (so no condoms) and by grasping pharma companies that won't let them have cheap drugs.


      Which is Bullshit. We choose the program that worked best in Africa so far, and emulated it. Go troll somewhere else please.


      Nothing except Western governments that are happy to decry the use of repressive measures while selling those same repressive governments the tools of repression. (Saddam's chemical weapons were aquired with the help of the US government, after all. What did they think he'd do with them? Go fishing?)


      Actually, most of thoose weapons were french, not American. Beyond that, they were given to him because Iran was threatining to use them.


      Nothing except IMF- and World Bank-imposed policies that force governments to sign up to neo-liberal "austerity" packages that destroy their industries and leave them open to corporate takeovers by the West. (Take a look at economic history. You'll see that free-market countries like the US and Britain got rich through fiercely protective and anti-competitive policies. Only once they were economically dominant did they embrace free markets.)


      After all, trade liberalization did nothing for Europe right? I mean it's not like all of the governments of Europe pre-WWI and WWII were brutal monarchies and dictatorships. It's not like Japan benefited at all from reform of their society post WWII correct?

      (Let's not forget who funded and trained Osama and his friends in the first place...America.)

      once again, BS. No money ever moved from the CIA to the Islamic group that Bin Ladin was in. Certainly no money after Al qaeda was created. Please do yourself a favor and go read a decent book on Al Qaeda or the Taliban. I suggest "Taliban" or "Jihad.

      We've found no evidence of either Who is this royal "we" who clearly is judge and adjudicator of this matter?

      And those who claim it was about liberating the Iraqi people had better explain why the Iraqis needed liberating so much more than the Cubans, the Zimbabweans, the North Koreans etc.


      They all need liberating, which is why we are not willing to compromise and back Il Jong's reign of terror, or lower the trade embargo with Cuba like Europe keeps deamanding.

    120. Re:america is scary by mhlandrydotnet · · Score: 1
      The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq.

      If you want to really know how much we have spent/are spending on the war in Iraq, try this article on CNN. At $20 mil to get the ball rolling and $2 mil a month afterwards, The Original Yama would have us believe that this war has been going on for 80 months.

      (I realize this may be off the original topic, but I can't tolerate an error of this magnitude)

    121. Re:america is scary by Usagi_yo · · Score: 1
      HAH! Most people who advocate the U.S so-called "addressing the grievances" of the dispossed people in other countries do not realize that they themselves are tacitally approving of eventual military intervention.

      In this very forum the very same people harp on and point fingers at corporations and corporate leaders for abuse. Yet it it's these very same type of mentality in corporate leadership that you find in people running countries and abusing or misuing their power for their own ends. The answer is certainly not just giving them money and aide -- where it is likely to be used to further their own goals rather then as aide.

      Take Zimbabwe for example. Once the bread basket of the Central African region -- took over the farms and land from the white folk (who incidently got there not from American intervention but from European adventurism) Zimbabwe can't even feed itself now. Further more, they refuse American aide because it comes attached with American policy. (not to mention geneticaly enhanced)

      The point is, you just can't give these countries money and aide without angering somebody in that country.

      To sum things up -- There is a saying that war is diplomacy by another means. That cuts both ways. Diplomacy is war by another means. Be carefull what you advocate. You may think you are advocating a peacefull solution, when in fact you are advocating diplomatic, political, and military intervention.

      And, in conclusion, 80% of all the problems in the mideast and Africa are the direct result of European adventurism in the late 1800's to the early and mid 1900's.

    122. Re:america is scary by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Bet you didn't know that the poorest 40% of people in America pay zero in taxes, and the poorest 30% get a check from the government each year

      Your right, I didn't know that, could you show a source on that one, 'cause I won't know it from you telling me either.

      Also, correct me if I am wrong, but even the poor pay sales tax. Income taxes are not the only taxes you know...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    123. Re:america is scary by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I doubt that very much.

      First, think about this personally. Money doesn't solve money problems. If you spend every dime you own, and max out all your credit cards on crap, to the point that you're $20,000 in debt, and somebody takes pity on you and gives you $10,000, are you now going to be only $10k in debt? No! You're going to say, "great, now I've got another $10k to spend!"

      It's the same way with these 3rd world nations. When you dump aid and supplies on them, guess what? The bad guys with the guns in power steal it all. So, then, we'd need to send in the military to make sure it gets there...sounds like Somalia all over again. As soon as you leave, some other schmuck with a gun takes over again. Our money won't solve their problems. They need to fix these problems themselves.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    124. Re:america is scary by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Fault wouldn't lie entirely with me should a bum beat me on the head with a stick that I gave him, but I most certainly would have contributed to it. He may expect more help, perhaps financially, and when he doesn't get it, he may blame it on me.

      However, societies are much more complex. We should have learnt from the fUSSR and communist China and their beginnings that power in the uneducated, impoverished masses is dangerous. They're easily persuaded by dangerous leaders who promise more than they can give. It's easy to get away with corruption when you have an impoverished and uneducated peoples. When you're given a significant amount of military power, it then becomes easy to suppress anyone that wants to change the situation. Could Saddam Hussein or the shah have turned out to be good guys? Sure, but there's something about power and corruption, there is a seeming correlation. Also, after the first Gulf War, we left the Iraqi population to their own revolution, only to have them brutally slaughtered.

      We should definitely be more diligent about the leaders we give weapons and money to so that we are not bitten in the ass. Hindsight is 20/20, but we should definitely remember the consequences of our mistakes and make sure they're not repeated.

      I should state that I partially support what we've done in Iraq. I was really uneasy before the war, but I think that taking out Saddam was a good thing. No government should be murdering and raping its own citizens. I don't agree with some of the reasons (other than removing an evil regime) such as WMDs (for which the evidence is still really shaky), but I think it will all work out. The ideas for rebuilding the country are right, but executed poorly, and were poorly prepared for.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    125. Re:america is scary by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Excellent points. The Worldwatch Institute a few years ago estimated it would cost $US196.3 billion to meet urgent environmental and social needs worldwide. The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq. If that money had been spent in the method recommended by Worldwatch, the world's (not just Iraq's or the Arab world's) population would be much better off and hence would be much less likely to retaliate against US interests.

      That won't happen ever because if the money is spent on the military, the politicians who decided to spend that money get kickbacks and campaign contributions. The politicians won't get nearly the same return from spending the money on social assistance and foreign aid.

      Only 1% of the U.S.'s federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and a lot of that is military aid (particularly to Israel). What percentage does the federal government spend on defence?

      Some countries spend up to 10% of their federal budgets on foreign aid. Among western countries, the U.S. is dead last, or very near it.

      However, I don't think the U.S. should be obligated to spend more to help others. But I do think the U.S. should stop interfering in the politics of other nations. There are too many cases of the U.S. supporting friendly (to the U.S.) dictators because if they let that country revolt, they might democratically choose a leader that was not friendly to the U.S. This is something that the U.S. needs to quit doing, because it's creating hatred among the people of other countries. Case in point: Saudi Arabia.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    126. Re:america is scary by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Oh, I'll bite the troll...

      Communism is bad: Check (diluted to "socialism is evil" and applied to non-socialist nations)

      Communism in theory is a beautiful, utopian system. Guess what - it doesn't work. Neither communism nor socialism have ever worked in a society in such a way that the people are fed, educated, healthy and happy. Not the Soviet Union, not Cuba, not China. Greed and human nature take over and cause internal corruption - which collapses communism and socialism. Capitalism, OTOH, allows for internal corruption and absorbs it in such a way as to make it less damaging. Major benefit of a free market economy.

      People are capable of helping themselves, so we shouldn't offer any assistance to them: Check (Love this defense, it's such "rape is the woman's fault" bullshit)

      Look up two posts from yours - another person complaining about all the food we dump on third-world countries, causing their farmers to go out of business. Do we offer assistance or no? There's so much inconsistancy there, everyone has their own theory. Don't give 'em food, they starve (due to overpopulation and growth beyond what their resources/farming can support). Give 'em food, they complain that we're causing their farmers to go out of business and them to have dependence on us. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose situation for us since either way we look heartless. What would you have us do?

      Liberals are bad people: Check

      I missed that in grandparent's post. Maybe you interpret 'liberal' as 'anyone who agrees with me and disagrees with grandparent'.

      Association of poverty with barbarism: Check

      Nope, it was association of "murderous societies and policies" (from grandparent) with barbarianism. Poverty didn't enter into his statement.

      "White Man's Burden" (civilize or die): Check

      Would that be the "there will be no thought of this nation giving any of those barbaric folk anything but a chance at military confrontation" statement? Sorry, no. That wasn't 'civilize or die' as you put it - that was 'we aren't going to give you aid and at the same time put up with your policies. You want our aid, you change your policies'

      Accusation of impoverished nations being murderous: Check (Civillians killed by American troops post 9/11: Afghanistan, >3068. Irag, >5428)

      Hey, guess what, America is murderous too! Does that make them not-murderous? Or is it the numbers you're looking at? Hmm... Well then, Jeffrey Dahlmer killed dozens of people. Can I get away with killing just a single dozen and not be a murderer since he killed more?

      BONUS! Off hand mention of the deaths of children to pull on our heartstrings: Check (hey if you care about kids so much, why not give them health insurance?)

      Well, that one I'll allow, but 'liberals' do that too, so it's not just a republican-conservative thing.

      General "We're right because we're big" rhetoric Check and double check.

      Hey, we're apparently doing something that works. We've got a country with far less natural resources than the Middle East has, and yet, in a mere almost-250 years, we've gone from skimpy colony to being the only superpower. Maybe you could learn something from us?

      -T

    127. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. Sales taxes are local only, so it's harder to get a handle on them.

      From IRS statistics:
      Income
      Percentile Taxable
      Income Percent of Total
      U. S. Income Percent of Total
      taxes paid
      Top 1% $313,469 20.81% 37.42%
      Top 5% $128,336 35.3% 56.47%
      Top 10% $92,144 46.01% 67.33%
      Top 25% $55,225 67.15% 84.01%
      Top 50% $27,682 87.01% 96.09%

      So the bottom 50% pay 3.81% of taxes in America. The bottom 40% pay nothing. (BTW, the 50% number is currently $55,225)

    128. Re:america is scary by ndogg · · Score: 1

      No, I would do what he says until I had a chance to disarm him or alert the police who would then proceed to disarm him or shoot him if necessary, then get him proper medical attention and send him to a small cell filled with hulking sodomites where he belongs. What, you say some countries don't have a trustworthy police force? Well, some cultures just suck that way...

      Talk about bigotted. You do realize that the Iraqi people tried that, many, many times, even when they thought that Saddam was weakened (particularly after the first Gulf War), and guess what? Saddam still had the bigger guns, and decided to slaughter them. Iraqis weren't the only ones to try. Many others in other brutal regimes have tried and found the results to be murderously disastrous. Often times it's extremists that lead the revolutions, so when the regime is defeated, another extremist government is put in its place. Moderates almost never put up revolutions. Remember that the mob has eyes and ears everywhere and will destroy any attempts to take them from that position of power. Outside intervention can stop that power, but if not outside intervention, then another mob.

      Seems like you have a poorer opinion of these people than I do. It's not easy to brainwash someone to behave in ways that go against their beliefs. It's their culture of hatred and submission that lets these things happen.

      You sure about that? Then how do you explain Nazi Germany? Or even the USSR? An impoverished or battered population is very easy to seduce. When there is little food, no money, or just low morale, populations have a tendancy to look for a "saviour" (and I use that term very generally, I don't necessarily mean "saviour" in a religious sense.) That "saviour" almost always preaches ideals that can never be achieved.

      As far as multinationals go, our government may not have authority in the other countries they operate in, and we shouldn't outlaw them, but we could certainly find ways to hold them more accountable, e.g. imposing taxes on them or at the very least putting more pressure on them to change conditions through means such as information campaigns that let consumers and shareholders know and understand where the products come from and where they're going.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    129. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, wouldn't they have made *THAT MUCH MORE* if it wasn't for the bombing? Christ, you hate the USA, don't you? ;-)

    130. Re:america is scary by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Got a link for that?

      Sorry if I don't trust you, but you appear to have misquoted your own data (you claim that the 50% number is about 55K, but the table shows it as the 25% number). Also (nitpick) it's 3.91, not 3.81. finally the stats you provided do not show anything below the 50% mark, so how am I to get that the bottom 40 don't pay? Are these individuals, households, does this included retired folks?

      In order for me to understand the situation, it is necessary for me to have the facts about the stats, you can make stats say just about anything you want them to say...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    131. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rag Heads? You speak of futuristic weapons, yet it seems as if your still stuck in the stone age.

    132. Re:america is scary by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      No I don't. And I'm not the only one who considers strategic bombing to be a failure, military-experts seem to agree as well. And saying that strategic bombing was failure is not anti-americanism, how could it be? Besides, RAF bombed as much (if not more) as americans did.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    133. Re:america is scary by Jonner · · Score: 1

      He didn't call them "niggers," because he was talking about Middle Easterners, not African Americans. He wanted to use the correct racist/derogatory term. Of course it was wrong to use the term, but your response wasn't much better. At least he had something to say surrounding his unfortunate usage of an inflammatory term.

    134. Re:america is scary by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      When China starts building Carriers, destroyers, and hunter-killer subs, then I'll be worried. For now I'm just suspicious are wary. They may have millions of men at arms. However, without a serious Navy, in order to reach Taiwan, they'd have to swim :-)

      As far as Europe goes, they can take care of themselves. The ex-Soviet miliatary can hardly handle muslim rebels now. The EU is gradually going to replace the function of NATO. NATO is really turning into a dead organization.

      What is needed is a Pacific Treaty Organization involving the US, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia and perhaps India, maybe even Russia. Indeed China does seme to have some extra-territorial aspirations. It is a totalitarian regime that seems to have a sense dominating that region. Unlike Imperial Japan, they seem to have the resources to do it.

      Of course, China would be REALLY pissed to see a permanent US Miliatary/Naval presence in Taiwan. But effectively, what could they do about it??? What put down an embargo against the US and bankrupt themselves????

      I agree that the best way to win a war is to prevent it from starting. The Cold War was expensive, but it probably prevented Armageddon. I disagreed with Bush's diplomacy regarding Iraq, but ultimately agreed that Saddam's regime had to be ended (for MANY reasons (Remember Kuwait was to Iraq as the Hinterland/Austria was to Germany)). He was out for regional domination and was pursuing Chemical/Biological weapons to pursue that goal to an end.

      Likewise, Taiwan may be to China was the Hinterland/Austria was to Hitler and Kuwait was to Hussein. Preventing that "first strike" is key to stopping the forthcoming wave from such a move. Allowing it would invite further rounds of territorial expansion and promises that after THAT territory, they'll be satisfied.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    135. Re:america is scary by mhlandrydotnet · · Score: 1
      Only 1% of the U.S.'s federal budget is spent on foreign aid, and a lot of that is military aid (particularly to Israel). What percentage does the federal government spend on defence?

      According to whitehouse.gov in 2002, national defense was 3.4% of the GDP

    136. Re:america is scary by bohoboho · · Score: 1

      Hogwash - the Allied strategic air war against Germany was largely a valliant waste of men and machines. German industrial production increased throughout the war in spite of the daylight US bombing or nighttime British bombing.

      The best that can be said for the air campaign is that it tied down Luftwaffe fighters that otherwise would have been used against the Soviets, who were busy defeating the bulk of the German army.

    137. Re:america is scary by Jonner · · Score: 1
      In a way however, I do feel threatened as well. The second admendment was put in place as a system of checks and balances; when the government gets too powerful, we're supposed to fight back. What chance do civilians with guns(that the damn democrats try to restrict) have against the super soldiers that look like they come out of StarShip Troopers?? Of course, I guess this isn't too much of an issue considering that the current generation of Americans don't mind our liberties taken away anyways...

      Obviously, the answer is Free Weapons development. We can develop more effective ways to kill if we collaborate over the Internet. Of course, it wouldn't look good if it turned out one of the main contributors was a member of Hamas.
    138. Re:america is scary by Jonner · · Score: 1

      In addition, American power ended two world wars, and prevented a third that was threatining between the UK and the US in the middle of the 1920/30's.

      I must have missed a chapter in history class. Are you saying that there was almost a "world war" between the US and UK somewhere between 1920 and 1930? How would be a world war if it was between exactly two states?

    139. Re:america is scary by Jonner · · Score: 1

      You seem to be scoffing at any belief in God. You certainly have a right to believe what you want, but where do your morals come from? If they come from nothing higher than your own mind, you can accuse anyone of being immoral if he doesn't agree with you.

      I would agree that there are economic interests in the Iraq war. However, it's not that simple. There are also defense issues. It's too early to tell, but we may even see that the Iraqi people are better off in the long run.

    140. Re:america is scary by Jonner · · Score: 1
      It is easy to accuse the UN of incompetence, but unfortunately, it is only as strong as members make it out to be, and I seem to recall the US is waaaay late in paying its UN debts.

      Perhaps the UN is accused of incompetence because it refused to do anything to enforce its policies in Iraq. The US and UK did it for them and you have the gall to say the US is responsible for UN weakness. I'm not entirely convinced that a war in Iraq was necessary, but you can at least partially blame the UN for it.
    141. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just go look at the IRS, Cato or CFG numbers. Also just do a google search for "10% taxes"

    142. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rallying around the latest thug with a gun that claims he is their savior?"

      In the U.S.A. they are calling him El Presidente...

    143. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you realize Somalia is now regarded as the most dangerous coast in the world for piracy?"

      In other words we failed. Which is what lovebyte was saying. Thanks for proving his point.

    144. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S.A. puts about ten times as much of the federal budget into the military as it puts into health or education. Yet it has not been invaded since the American Revolution and is the only first world nation without socialized health care.
      Some people are beginning to wonder just how much left there is to defend.
      Maybe if SOME people weren't making so much money with their Carlyle stocks we would have health care...

    145. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non american i feel threatened.

      Good.

      Excuse me, but would you happen to know the colloquial term for that piece of the anatomy which is used to expel fecal matter?

    146. Re:america is scary by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Rebuttal to your rebuttal.

      1) No, communism has not worked and might not ever. But the problem here is not that communism doesn't work -- it's that communism is being blamed for social evils. If the system that creates the evil isn't communism (due to corruption / scapegoating), then how can you blame the theory for the problems? The Nazis got power by claiming socialism, then delivered a despotism. India claimed socialism, and delivered socialism. End result was completely different...is communism to blame for both? And is a system that creates indemic poverty something worth going to war over? The answer to both is no.

      2) Easy. We assist impoverished nations by providing them with appropriate technology. Instead of dropping food, we help them build aqueducts and desalination plants. This approach has worked on the micro, village-by-village level for years from the Peace Corps and others. It's never been tried on the macro level. I'm sure it's less costly then bombing the place to shit and THEN rebuilding it in our image. Talk about culture shock -- how do you go from Burqas to Cell Phones in a single bound?

      3) The parent snubs the claim that "liberals" make: that America is a target for terrorism as a result of our foreign policy (which it is, though that doesn't make it justified or anything. having diamonds makes a jewelry store the target for robbery.). By using the word "fault" he's putting liberals on the defensive, accusing them of deflecting blame to the victim. This is anti-liberalism.

      4) The parent doesn't specify barbarous nations, he says "nations of the world," with the implied subject being any nation that might require need. EG impoverished nations. Or are you suggesting that Germany or China are looking for handouts?

      5) If the question is "Aid us, or we'll die," and you answer "Sorry, you have a government we don't like, I guess you'll have to die," that's not helping anybody. Obviously the impoverished people can't overthrow the military junta that has all the guns we gave them to defeat the previous junta back in the 1980s. Obviously that same junta isn't going to step down when they can just let people die and blame it on us. That's the "civilize or die..." when our snobbish policies are the indirect cause for loss of life.

      6) The parent poster was claiming that Saddam was a despot who murdered innocent people and who was tolerated by him for his money. I'm claiming that a certain US president did the exact same thing for the exact same "cynical" reason. Saddam murdered to keep power. We murdered for better security of our power source. So why are we right, and he wrong? Is it because one kind of civillian death is "accidental" and the other's purposeful? And if your course of action is unnecessarily toward a certain end, is it still "accidental?" When a drunk driver kills a pedestrian, was that accidental? Until Bush stood on his soap box, I hated the Taliban. I hated them for destroying priceless buddhist statues and for demonizing innocent women. But I would have never asked anyone to drop random bombs in the sand to route them out. It doesn't help anybody -- as the current state of Afghani affairs indicates.

      7) God, isn't it the worse? I fucking hate it when politicians pull at my heart strings. As a writer and student of poetry, there's nothing I hate more than the dillution of symbols...and it's getting to the point where a suffereing child is nothing more than a bargaining chip on either side. And that's just horrible.

      8) Listen. Being on top doesn't make us best. Being the biggest doesn't make us best. Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Mongolia, Turkey, Britain (and how many resources did THEY have, smartass), France, Germany, Japan, Russia...all of them were on top, and lost it all because they didn't know how to BE on top. It's not by being the planet's bullying brother. It's by being inclusive -- by playing United States of the World. By giving other nations the same respect we give backwards lands like Kentucky. Or do you think we'll be able to get away with picking on much smaller nations with limited resources forever with no adverse reactions from the countries that might be able to do something about it?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    147. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Excuse me, but would you happen to know the colloquial term for that piece of the anatomy which is used to expel fecal matter?

      France?

    148. Re:america is scary by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Well the US MArines in in the Iraq war did just fine by anyone's standards.

    149. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and the country is "Britain" not "England" you myopic, xenophobic drooling fuckwit.

      No, it's "United Kingdom", moron.

      Britain is the name of the largest island, said island containing the countries of England, Scotland, and Wales.

      The United Kingdom also encompasses Northern Ireland and numerous smaller islands.

      If you're going to get pissy, better make sure you've got your own ducks in a row.

    150. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remeber North Africa.....Coupled with the tremendous loss of Stalingrad, the Axis loss of the Africa corps basically demolished their man power. The Germans lost of 275,000 men in the final surrender..not to mention the losses in death, capture, and the wounded beforehand.

      Also remeber the battle of the buldge, the last German offensive and the first time they used their new model tigers (king tigers). It was certainly not the Russians who beat this attack (infact some units were moved from the eastren front to participate in the offensive).

      If anyone says that world war 2 was one by one of the allies alone, they are full of it. Russia (and Britan) could not have survived without material assistance by the Americans, and the landings in Normandy could not have happened without the meat grinder that was the eastren front. The war was won because EVERYONE involved put up a tremendous ammount of effort and sacrifice to do it...not a single nation in the allied camp forced someone else to do their fighting for them. Almost everone involved was figthing a two front war (except the Russians, although they eventually did begin attacking Japan in Manchuria late in the war). Stating that one country had an easier time or won the war due to their involvement is partially true..if any one of the allies had not participated, Europe would look far different then it is today.

    151. Re:america is scary by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      American power ended two world wars

      I suggest you find some more accurate history books. In both world wars, Russia/USSR had the most decisive impact.

      The US contribution to World War I was very minimal, most of it being the sale of arms and equipment to Allied countries (which wasn't really 'help' at all, just economic opportunism). The USA entered the war (indeed, both world wars) late, when German forces were wearing down. American troops were seen as too 'green' to be suitable for real combat (take a look at the Battle of Hammel, where US troops joyfully ran into a friendly creeping barrage), so they were placed in quiet sectors of the front. This freed up more battle-hardened (especially Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, who were the Allies' 'shock troops') troops to fight the real war.

    152. Re:america is scary by burns210 · · Score: 1

      i agreed with you, until that arrogant statement at the end... I am an American, I like having an Army that makes me feel safe, but I still believe our's is too large and too expensive. We SHOULD cut back.

      But as for being liberated.... Why don't you go ask the people who were shreaded in the plastic recycler (while their family watched) for not being a loyal follower, and see what they think about being liberated....

      who cares if you think we had just cause going over their to Iraq(i am iffy on our 'just' cause) but the fact is: we took a bad, oppresive, evil man out of power. That is ALWAYS a Good Thing.

    153. Re:america is scary by mchappee · · Score: 1

      > As a non american i feel threatened.
      > Am i to be 'liberated' next?

      Hey, watch it buddy. Them's liberation words...

      Matthew

      --
      /. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
    154. Re:america is scary by owlstead · · Score: 1
      Real change needs to happen from within, and can only happen when the people are willing to work for it. No amount of relief is going to make a difference in the long run against superstition and bigotry.
      And if they are not submitted to high loans from 1st world banks, export restrictions (import restrictions for you), dictators that are helped by these countries in return for natural resources etc. etc. etc. With "all" the aid given by 1st world countries, most money still flows the wrong way. Just asuming that if people want to work for it, their world will be a better place is horribly wrong. There are a lot of people that want to improve their situation but can't. Thank god you're not one of them, and if you've any heart, provide some help to people that want to create a better life. Warper True capitalism is a myth.
    155. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would this include getting 3rd world countries to stop wasting time killing each other, spreading AIDS, dumping garbage and sewage in the streets and rivers, rallying around the latest thug with a gun that claims he is their savior?

      This from an American? Oh the irony, it burns...

    156. Re:america is scary by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      I suggest picking up "Yanks", "Doughboys" or "The Myth of the Great War." Each book debunks your position. You first thesis is obviouslly incorrect since Russia/USSR pulled out of the war, and Germany still lost.

      In addition, you also ignore the French Mutinies in 1916 and 1917 which only abated once the US joined.

      Finally you only argue on the basis of the pure units. There were much more units that were "integrated" that either had american units attached or werre logisticly supplied. Once again, see the above works for references. W

    157. Re:america is scary by mnmlst · · Score: 1

      I partially agree with this post. Americans tend to overlook the very important Eastern Front in World War Two. The battles there were gargantuan in scope. Heck, Germany invaded on June 22 with OVER 200 DIVISIONS. When Guderian's Panzers surrounded Kiev, he bagged 600,000 prisoners. The scale was enormous.

      The Soviets did not, however, defeat Germany single-handedly in "The Great Patriotic War". The around-the-clock bombing of Germany that began in earnest in the Fall of 1943 diverted enormous German resources in terms of electronics, nightfighters (thank you RAF Bomber Command), dayfighters (thank you 8th USAAF), antiaircraft guns (the 88's original purpose), fuel and ammunition. This bombing began in the fall of 1940 triggering Hitler's redirection of the Luftwaffe from destroying the RAF to bombing British cities. Frankly, much of this Anglo-American effort was intended to minimise casualties, whereas the Soviets were far less careful in spending troops' lives. Don't forget all the German resources expended building the West Wall, the U-boats, and the war in the Mediterranean Theatre. All of this was thereby kept away from places like Stalingrad, Kharkov, Kursk, and eventually Berlin. The Soviets built some great equipment like the T-34 tanks, Yak-3 fighters and the Sturmovik. Even an old Soviet should admit however that the supplies that came in through Iran and Murmansk were critical in keeping them in the war. American-built cargo trucks helped a lot. The Soviets' favourite aircraft was the ground-attack version of the Bell P-39 Airacobra.

      We should all remember the words of Winston Churchill- The only thing worse than fighting with Allies is fighting without them.Excellent advice for a "war on terror", I would add.

      --
      In principio erat Verbum.
    158. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not?
      If someone came to your country and relieved all their economic and welfare burdens and asked for nothing at all in return wouldn't you feel thankful toward them? Wouldn't you adopt the use of the waste-management systems and public health programs the contribution helped provide?

      The real change can come from within and tends to happen as your very own country undergoes economic and industry turnaround.

    159. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends are you planing to fly any planes into buildings ?

    160. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people agreed with you about tanks once. And German panzers tore the hell out of the best we could put in the field. And the same thing happened to our soldiers with sniping, again we fell behind in this area and the German snipers tore the troops up quite badly. Perhaps it is because we are finally learning that to be prepared very often means that you will not have to fight.

    161. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing except AIDs rates affecting in some cases up to half the population, made far worse by short-sighted US policies that won't give money

      WRONG! This is the kind of emotional gambit playing that really disgusts me.
      Not contributing to YOUR favorite fund does not make the problem worse.
      The population in question is causing the problem. I donâ(TM)t feel for someone with lung cancer who got it from smoking. I donâ(TM)t feel for the population in question. They did it to themselves. We the US in general had nothing to do with creating the issue.

    162. Re:america is scary by misterpies · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of thoose weapons were french, not American. Beyond that, they were given to him because Iran was threatining to use them.

      The plain fact is that the US did supply Saddam with both chemical and biolgical weapons. And the US made clear to Saddam that it had no objections to him using them in the 1980s -- neither against the Iranians, nor against the Kurds. And the reason was not because the Iranians were going to use them. It was much simpler than that. The Iranians were going to win, and the US was happy for Saddam to do anything he could to stop that. (It's also interesting that after Saddam invaded Iran -- at US instigation -- the US condemned Iran for its aggression. Goebbels would have been proud.)

      After all, trade liberalization did nothing for Europe right? I mean it's not like all of the governments of Europe pre-WWI and WWII were brutal monarchies and dictatorships. It's not like Japan benefited at all from reform of their society post WWII correct?

      Where did you get the notion that democracy only arrived in Europe after WWII? There were more brutal dictatorships in Europe after WWII than before it. (Remember Poland? Hungary? Czechoslovakia? All democracies in the 1930s. All abandoned to Stalin in the 1940s.) Quite apart from the fact that democracy only truly arrived in the US following the civil right movement in the 1960s. A black kid in Alabama in the 1950s might as well as been living in a "brutal dictatorship" for all the protection he was given under the law.

      On the free trade point, Germany and Japan were rebuilt through long-term commitment to creating a functioning civil society, not by forcing them to open up their markets to international competition. I don't recall that the Marshall Plan came attached with conditions requiring free movement of capital or removal of trade barriers. Those ideas came after monetarism killed off Keynesian economics in the 1980s.

      Free trade keeps America rich, but free trade never made America rich. America became rich by carefully protecting its fledgling industries in the 19th century, then unleashing them on the world once they'd reached maturity. Today's developing countries should be allowed to do likewise.

      No money ever moved from the CIA to the Islamic group that Bin Ladin was in. Certainly no money after Al qaeda was created. Please do yourself a favor and go read a decent book on Al Qaeda or the Taliban. I suggest "Taliban" or "Jihad.

      Maybe you should read Unholy Wars by ABC journalist John Cooper: "Delighted by his impeccable Saudi credentials, the CIA gave Osama free rein in Afghanistan." You might also like to read what US Congressman John Paul (R, Texas - hardly a liberal) has to say on his house.gov website: "Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency's military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost. Tragically, those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network. Our heroic pilots are now busy bombing the same camps we paid to build, all the while threatened by the same Stinger missiles originally supplied by our CIA."

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    163. Re:america is scary by porpoise44 · · Score: 1

      "England in particular went thru a gut wrenching series of budgets for 20 years after WWII to recover."

      And the US extracted terms for the loans which virtually destroyed the economic power of the British Empire. Removal of trade barriers and setting up the USD as the primary currency of trade.

      Today, without the primacy of the dollar the US economy would sink.

      Saddam started to sell his oil in euros.. Chavez was pushing OPEC to do the same. I wonder what will happen to Chavez? ...the spoils to the victors...

    164. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody from Iraq flew planes into buildings, yet they got 'liberated' anyway.

    165. Re:america is scary by shaitand · · Score: 1

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

      This is a bit dated but shows the tables he's talking about, the reason the bottom 40% are listed is because they are below the poverty level and not subject to taxes and therefore recieve full refunds (I believe the mark is something like $12,000/yr) The bottom 50% are those between that mark and aprox $27k/yr and paid aprox 4.6% between 1980 and 2000. The top 10% pay over 60% of taxes.

      This shows a few things, that over 40% of our nation are below poverty level (even at the extremely impoverished level we consider poverty level).

      That numbers showing the tax cuts only affecting the rich are most likely scewed, since any cut is going to affect the 10% who pay over half the taxes the most and should. 4.6% doesn't leave us a lot of room for cuts in the bottom 50%... (Not that I like anything else Bush has done, but cutting taxes is good no matter who gets it). And this data alongside other data strongly shows that we are no different than many other nations like Korea.... most of the nations wealth is in the government's hands and not the hands of the people... hell the defense budget alone is annually more than the total worth Microsoft!

    166. Re:america is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yet it has not been invaded since the American Revolution

      Don't forget the War of 1812-1814.

    167. Re:america is scary by RobinH · · Score: 1

      According to whitehouse.gov in 2002, national defense was 3.4% of the GDP

      Hmmm, that would mean the U.S. spends about 34% of its' federal budget on defence, then. That's a lot.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  34. Old news... well not so old by HornyBastard77 · · Score: 1
    /. ran this four days ago here

    Having said that, the pic on the CNN story is so much cooler.

  35. So... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 4, Funny

    US forces are starting to look like Imperial Storm Troopers? Well, they already aim pretty lousy... That was a start, this is just the finishing touch I guess.

    1. Re:So... by Eminence · · Score: 1

      US forces are starting to look like Imperial Storm Troopers?

      That was exactly my first impression when I saw the picture...

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they already aim pretty lousy...

      I know this was meant as a joke, but toss yourself in a sandy desert, not knowing which direction you're facing, then add a few angry soldiers after your ass, plus pump a few CCs of combat high in your system.

      Lesse if all those hours of quake pays off to be the crackshot when you know you won't respawn. And this time you can scream out, "that's bullsh*t, I hit you! You probably have a aim bot!"

    3. Re:So... by paranode · · Score: 1

      A large amount of Iraqi injuries come from their own incompetence. For instance, their useless anti-aircraft ammunition goes up into the air, at thousands of rounds per minute. It has to come down somewhere, and that somewhere is Baghdad.
      Of course there's always the issue of tyrant leaders forcing civilians to stand in front of military targets. I'm sure your army aims much better though, rock on!

  36. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Anti-american
    (betraying your own country seems to be all the rage these days on slashdot)
    You stinking traitor. You'll only be happy when America is once more awash with blood from another Islamic attack, won't you?

    1. Re:Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I'm not an American. I am a citizen of America's finest ally, seeking to make a gentle suggestion, as from an old friend. Enough, already.

    2. Re:Mod parent up! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An AC wrote:

      +1 Anti-american
      (betraying your own country seems to be all the rage these days on slashdot) You stinking traitor.

      You, and all those like you, are wrong. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights enshrine free speech and dissent as the right of every US citizen, and the basis of freedom. Without free speech, there can be no free country. And don't give me this "wartime" idiocy. If dissent during wartime was unAmerican, then sign Abraham Lincoln up as unAmerican. He dissented during a war, from the Senate floor.

      You might want to do some reading to brush up on what is and isn't "American". I would suggest the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, president John Quincy Adams' speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, and Emma Lazarus' poem "The New Colossus" (Lady Liberty).

      You'll only be happy when America is once more awash with blood from another Islamic attack, won't you?

      I don't know about the other poster, but I will only be happy:

      • When the US and the World are free of terror attacks.
      • When the causes of terrorism are uprooted and banished for good. The proposed Department of Peace is a good start.
      • When tyrants are cast out by their own people (who then are free to choose their own form of government).
      • When no father has to watch his kids decapitated by a bomb because some rich kid lied his way into playing with his nation's oh-so-hightech military hardware. (Where are those silly WMDs anyway? Time, Newsweek, and the American people, nay, the world, wants to know.)
      • And when the one power greater than the world's greatest superpower, Invincible Peace, rescues her fairies Liberty and Justice, and reigns supreme. (Grant us this, Mothra!)

      From someone with a better grasp of what America is all about:

      She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

      The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

      She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

      [America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

      John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821

    3. Re:Mod parent up! by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      God damn, post like that make me wish I had some mod points!

      thank you.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  37. Blocking on battery technology by skookum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seem to remember seeing this hashed over various times in the past. It sounds great and all, but when you give all this crazy crap to a marine and ask him what he thinks, he says "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need." (Well, he may not say that if his CO is around, but that's what he's thinking.)

    Technology is great and all, but until they can pack it all down to a few ounces, I really don't see it taking off. Every soldier knows how much burden something like just an extra pound adds to a pack. It can really make a difference. In the end it seems to always come down to the battery. They can shrink LCD screens, keyboards, earpieces, whatever. But to have a useful lifetime they still need a heavy battery pack and I think that's what's really holding this back.

    The military is all about "total information access" or whatever they call it. But in fact, sheer information alone is useless. I was at Quantico a few years ago presenting a research project and during a presentation, the director of this program emphasized that current technology gives them boatloads of data, the rub is in making sense of it and presenting in a useful way -- both to the soldier and to the people at base camp (or whatever.) So just strapping a GPS module, encrypted digital radio, digicam, etc. on a soldier's back isn't neccessarily useful for anyone involved. Somehow you've got to figure out how to make it all useful.

    1. Re:Blocking on battery technology by drdale · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read recently that the Army did a study which concluded that the maximum weight that soldier should be sent into combat carrying was (I think) 40 lbs. Of course, this figure is already routine exceeded. But without claiming any expertise in this area, I too have real doubts about whether the value the average soldier will get from this hardware justifies the weight. Plus, if soldiers are constantly transmitting their locations and heartbeat rate, etc., then doesn't this open up the possibility that their locations can be plotted by RDF?

      --
      This post is dedicated to all of those /.ers who do not dedicate their posts to themselves.
    2. Re:Blocking on battery technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And of course, what we should all do is wait around until that battery is designed...

      Really, though, this stuff is much simpler. The last time they tried this you needed a desktop to do what they wanted to do, which was make a gun that shot mini-cruise missiles in the dark around corners, making each U.S. soldier invincible. Very Cold War holdout thinking, pre-Rumsfeld shakeout. Remember the scene in Spiderman where the Green Goblin blows up the Exo-Suit? The Exo-Suit is the kind of thing the old guard liked.

      Now many normal Americans have a 200 Mhz processor in a suit pocket all day running off 2 AA batteries or a little lithium one. Power consumption goes down as technology develops too. More and more functions are put on one chip.

      All this project is talking about is a GPS, a screen, a cell-phone, some biometric monitors, night-goggles, and a fancy gun. It's the gun you've got to watch out for, but it's scaled way back from the 27-pound project they rejected for the very reasons you're listing.

    3. Re:Blocking on battery technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow you've got to figure out how to make it all useful.

      Duh... Powerpoint presentations!

    4. Re:Blocking on battery technology by hazem · · Score: 1

      "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need."

      This makes me think of a former boss of mine who spent several tours in Viet Nam. His advice was "dump everything out of your rucksack, and fill it with extra socks and ammo. You can dump all the other stuff because you won't need it."

    5. Re:Blocking on battery technology by ndogg · · Score: 1

      If you had RTFA'd, you'd know that one of the goals of this project was to lighten the load that the modern day soldier carries.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    6. Re:Blocking on battery technology by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      In Joe Haldeman's forever war the soldiers are told that their suits are powered by a fist sized lump of plutonium. This is fine. It's small, relatively light and will keep running longer than they will live.

      One soldier is killed, and their Squad leader radios the news up to the command ship. Command ship radios back to leave the body and proceed as planned. When they get about 30 miles from the body, a sudden shock startles them and they turn around to see a mushroom shaped puff of smoke beginning its ascent to the sky.

    7. Re:Blocking on battery technology by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      We need MATRIX technology now! Just put a six-volt power plug in the base of each soldier's neck, and they'll have all the power they need.

      As long as they keep drinking their PowerAde.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    8. Re:Blocking on battery technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that'll make these researchers happy that you discovered that "power consumption goes down as technology develops..."

      Read up.

      http://www.scifitoday.com/story/2003/6/4/01017/1 23 78

    9. Re:Blocking on battery technology by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need."

      Psst, RTFA - the current soldier carries up to 120 pounds of gear. The goal of this project is to reduce that to 50. This is 70 pounds less that they don't need to carry.

      -T

  38. hack attack! by mothrathegreat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think ill reconsider my position on that korean hacking school now.
    Imagine half the US army's uniforms activating their automated tourniqets at once, whilst it would no doubt be hilarious to watch it probably wouldn't do them much good ;)

    --
    Extended Warranty? How can I lose!
  39. looks like by jlemmerer · · Score: 1

    an improoved, lighter version of the Land Warrior Program

    --
    ".Sig Stealer" was here
  40. ...And yet.... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...None of this is going to do much against terrorist attacks.

    1. Re:...And yet.... by overclocker89 · · Score: 1

      You may not be able to stop terrorist but you can the potential terrorist from doing any thing. You can also take out the bad leaders in this world.

      --
      Visit my blog at www.thedailymac.com
    2. Re:...And yet.... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      And how are you going to stop potential terrorists? You have to find them first. How are you going to know that you have them all? How do you stop more being created? That was my whole point.

      Bad leaders? I wish everything was so black and white. I wish it was also that simple. But it's not. Weapons are never going to solve the real issues in this world.
      Tempory defence? Yes. Permenant solution? No.

    3. Re:...And yet.... by overclocker89 · · Score: 1

      It won't be the weapons that wil fight the terrorists. Because if we use weapons to fight people using weapons then we are just as bad as them. It will be the ability to keep are soldiers mentally and physically as fit and capable as possible to defend the country which they stand for.

      --
      Visit my blog at www.thedailymac.com
    4. Re:...And yet.... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      I agree. But part of my point is how do you defend your self from terrorists acts? Once they happen it's too late to use weapons as a defence. And as I said before, weapons aren't that usefull in preventing terrorists either.

      I agree that it's always good to have weapons for self defence, but it just seems to me that the US spends too much on the millitary, instead of spending it on preventing the problem in the first place (and I believe that happens because their intentions are elsewhere).

    5. Re:...And yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think we did to afganistan? We scared them and have he heard from Bin Laden since? no. We took out the terrorists with weapons and we have directly not had any more attacks. They are now deciding to attack are allies to try to get us to fight them. How would you spend mine and 279,999 other peoples tax money?

    6. Re:...And yet.... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Ah, the US couldn't find Bin Laden before they decided to attack. And they still haven't found him since. You make it sound as if he is hiding because he is too scared to plan terrorists acts anymore. He's hiding because it makes sence for him, that's what he's always done. If you honestly thing that the US attacks will prevented terrorists, then I think you are sadly deluded.

      How would I spend it? First of all, I would fix up my own country; health and education etc. Then I would look for solutions for other contries, but they would be in the form of aid and other diplomatic solutions, not war.

  41. whoa. by Muhammed+Absol · · Score: 2, Funny

    The most high-tech component will be the helmet, with tiny, built-in cameras to spot enemies lurking in the dark or concealed by bushes. The cameras' images will appear on semitransparent screens attached to their helmets.

    Sweet! Wall hacks for US soldiers. What else will we learn from counterstrike and quake 3 kids?

  42. Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets by t0qer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets that one day might be tightened and loosened remotely.

    Bored Soldier: Base I'm bleeding bad, I need my "arm" tightened.

    Base: Our sensors show that isn't your arm.

    1. Re:Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets by DarkBlack · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that tourniquets are only recommended if it's the only way to save the person's life. You can slow bleeding down enough without one to keep a person stabilized. Having these built in seems uncaring to me since the use of a tourniquet usually means that the person will lose that limb.

    2. Re:Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets by m0rphin3 · · Score: 1

      Soldier: Hey, did you guys just tighten my .. throat.. I can't breathe!

      Evil H4x0rz / SkyNet / Iraqi Information Minister: There is no problem breathing. You are fine.

      --
      for great justice
    3. Re:Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Some of the uses for these are pretty obvious....

      "Sarge, the boys in the first squadron are planning to roll a grenade into your tent tonight."
      "Right, thanks, activate all their tourniquets!"

      "Sarge, we don't want to burn down the village - there are only old women and babies here!"
      "Right, follow my orders or I activate your tourniquets!"

      "Sarge, the Americans are just over the hill, but I found a backdoor in their software - should I trigger all their tournequets?"
      "Right, do it when I say 'charge'!"

  43. not to mention waterguns! by arcite · · Score: 1

    n/t

  44. Missing feature by magwm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why is there no SEP(Somebody Elses Problem)-field included in this nice suit?

    ouch - this is really bad for the eyes.. Zaphod

    1. Re:Missing feature by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1, Funny

      Let's hope they come with Peril Sensitive Sunglasses as well. That would be helpful.

    2. Re:Missing feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SEP comes in useful when they try to figure out who's paying for all this...

  45. CS? by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 1

    Let's play CounterStrike - Reality mode.

  46. Over-reliance on technology by martinthebrit · · Score: 1

    And they'll still have to send in the SAS for the dirtiest jobs when they can't rely on the tech. Seriously, although technology advancement is to be encouraged for this kind of thing, and, I hope will eventually reduce the problems still present in today's wars (friendly-fire, civilian casualties etc.) I worry that over-reliance on technology by soldiers will result in the basic survival skills they are currently taught being lost.

  47. Sorry, couldn't resist... by switched4OSX · · Score: 1

    "The headgear will contain a laser-engagement system"- All I want are soldiers with freakin laser beams on there head.

  48. Those goggles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will surely only display things that Command HQ want the soldiers to see. Because in the real world, war is a scary, bloody mess.

  49. for the rest of us... by gacp · · Score: 1

    It's time for power armor.

    Anyone for titanium foam, self-assembled protein meshes, molecular optronics, parabiological components, linear electric motors (pseudomuscle), active electro-thermo-bio-cammo, para-sentient infosystems, and symbio-skin? Ah, and cellular universal microrobots? And since we are at it, what about animal-based combat cyborgs to assist human soldiers in the battlefield?

    BTW: Why are USAns so afraid?

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
    1. Re:for the rest of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW: Why are USAns so afraid?

      Just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get us...

  50. Tourniquet hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With sattelite-controlled tourniquets, it sounds like a single hack could simultaneously cut off circulation to all the limbs of every uniformed US soldier in the world. Am I missing something?

  51. Hmm... by inaeldi · · Score: 1

    Man, I'd love to be the one to hack that network.

  52. Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. The invincible America. Another president like Bush in 2011 and we'll have the American army here when I go sleeping with my neighbour's wife. Why? Because you can't stop them.

    1. Re:Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try to comment when you've been drinking. You never make sense.

  53. Reminds me of "Aliens" by Lio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But still, they all died. Except for Ripley of course ;-)

    1. Re:Reminds me of "Aliens" by bad_fx · · Score: 1

      ...hey, so all they need is a built-in "Nuke the Site from Orbit" button... it's the only way to be sure.

  54. Re Al Qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the purpose of all this scary battlefield kit is to better equip GIs to engage with Al Qaeda terrorists? Where is everyone lining up for that battle, except in your imagination?

    If the war against terrorism is ever going to be won, it will have to be won in hearts and minds, not by creating ever greater chasms of inequality between the USA and the rest of the world.

    1. Re:Re Al Qaeda by akpcep · · Score: 0

      Bingo. Someone mod this up.

      --
      Hmmm.
    2. Re:Re Al Qaeda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Lets make everyone the same! ok, lets start by taking money from the people who earn it and give it to those that dont! but i dont think that will help enough. Next, let us give everyone an equil share of land to own! Or, we could move some of those pesky people from the city out to the country to farm for us. After that, we need free education and healthcare! Wait, it's not free? Ok, take some more money from the people who can afford it and use that! Sure, its not REALLY free, but who cares? Oh! and after that, since we have done such a good job, lets make sure the system stays in place by making illegal to vote in another system! WOW! this sounds great! where do i sign up?!

  55. Will they sell the data logged? by The+Ancients · · Score: 1
    I wonder if data logged from this system could be utilised by the likes of id Software to enhance the realism of their software? Instead of the game makers having to create the 'reality' of fps games, they would be charged with re-creating it.

    Either that, or they just network to 12 year olds who could fight for the US from the comfort of the chair at home by remote control. These kids actually have some skill at distinguishing friend from foe, and might reduce the US dependence on expensive missiles.

    ..k

    1. Re:Will they sell the data logged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These kids actually have some skill at distinguishing friend from foe"

      So, what you're saying is that you've never played on a Counterstrike server with friendly fire turned on?

  56. What happens when the enemy gets one? by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

    So, yeah.

    The enemy kills one of our soldiers.

    The enemy takes his gear. The enemy uses the gear to find out where the president is and goes to assassinate him. Boom Instant Failure.

    1. Re:What happens when the enemy gets one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh - The fail-safe system shuts it down?

      Don't drink and dial.

  57. Beowulf Cluster of Soldiers? by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 0

    I'm going to build a Beowulf Cluster of Army Personel!

  58. Propaganda? by AEton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been seeing a _lot_ of articles and "special features" lately about The Weapon and The Soldier of The Future. I can't help but be reminded of the pro-army propaganda in Starship Troopers (the antiwar movie, not the conservative novel). The Future Soldier that CNN is featuring somehow reminds me of a wimped-down version of Heinlein's powered armor suits.

    There have been many instances of media covering the weapons of the future (I submitted a story on future robots a couple of weeks ago); what I'm worried about is why that focus is there. Are we getting ready for a long series of wars, ones that we expect to last until at least 2011, when these super-wired Counterstrike uniforms will come into service? That's kind of scary.

    (sorry for the blatant US-centrism)

    --
    We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    1. Re:Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm,

      I suppose from your note that you are US based.

      "There have been many instances of media covering the weapons of the future (I submitted a story on future robots a couple of weeks ago); what I'm worried about is why that focus is there. Are we getting ready for a long series of wars, ones that we expect to last until at least 2011, when these super-wired Counterstrike uniforms will come into service? That's kind of scary."

      What really scares me is that you are not aware of the general defense policy put forward by the current administration that forsees this kind of future - or actively pursues it.

      I though the defence policy layed out in the PNAC document sponsered by Pearle and Wolfowitz are general knowledge in the US.

      The scary bit is that it seems that these are not communicated and that the general population doesn't know what future the administration is taking the US to.

      Maybe you should have a read of wonder wht the US is facing such strong opposition with their current foreing policy throughout the world.

      A google search for PNAC (new american century) should provide you with quite interesting material.

      Cheers

      Hanno

    2. Re:Propaganda? by JoelClark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technology must progress, otherwise we would still be using muzzleloader muskets. Anything that keeps our servicemen alive and gives them an even greater edge is a good thing.

      My question to you is why is it scary? Wars have been an unfortunate reality for quite some time, and they will not be stopping anytime soon. So a "long series of wars" that will last "until at least 2011" isn't so far fetched. Wouldn't you want your country to have the best trained and best equipped fighting force when it hits the fan?

      Cheers!

    3. Re:Propaganda? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      It's scary because the rest of the world wants America knocked down. Having them grow more powerful and better able to fuck up the world is scary.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's sounding like _Starship Troopers_ (the book), as well as _The Forever War_ by Joe Haldeman which takes a less "grunt-friendly" view of all this high-tech hardware.

      Re the M16 comments, while I have no military experience, there seem to be some comments from the field via unofficial channels that it hasn't been stellar in Afghanistan, for example... jamming from dust, not stopping the enemy troops when they're hit. See www.hackworth.com and www.sftt.org (Soldiers for the Truth) & judge for yourself. My opinion ain't worth nothin'. ;-)

    5. Re:Propaganda? by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Its pretty simple. It's what sells and gets hits on a website. We just got off coverage in a war in Iraq but its still fresh in the american public's mind. Americans eat up war coverage and anything to do with technology and weapons.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    6. Re:Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There have been many instances of media covering the weapons of the future (I submitted a story on future robots a couple of weeks ago); what I'm worried about is why that focus is there."

      Because it brings up fewer questions than focusing on the people of the future....

  59. Reminds me... by zmooc · · Score: 1

    .. of some old cartoon in which space-pilots had suits that would instantly totally amputate body-parts that were hurt:P Afterwards they'd have to spend a few months in "regeneration" where some controlled cancers made the leg grow back:P... Anyway, I really wouldn't want an automatic tourniquet in my sleeve, thank you:)

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
    1. Re:Reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.N.P.S.M.C troops had those cool armors, not sure about the cartoons name

    2. Re:Reminds me... by brokenspoke · · Score: 1

      Alistair Reynold's "Diamond Dogs/Turquoise Days" has similar suits used by the (spacefaring) Ultras.

      One guy gets his arm damaged and the suit decides the best way to save him is to lop the whole thing off.

      --
      -- I am Jack's sig line.
  60. Re:the US is scary by gacp · · Score: 1
    Am i to be 'liberated' next?

    Firstly, please, don't call the US ``America''. America is a continent of over 20 countries.

    Secondly, you do well to be afraid. I am scared too.

    Thirdly, about the need for those weapons: I've always wondered why are USAns so afraid, and what are they so afraid of? But I am beginning to think that they are right, in a sickly way: USAns feel threatened, and it's because, perhaps subconsciously, feel that they are not good enough, that their time is up, that their country can't keep up with the times. I know it sounds odd, but I truly believe there is some truth to this insight.

    So, yes, I think that there are enemies that are powerful enough to threat the USA. Russia and China, to begin with---don't subestimate them. But the worst threat to the USA is the USA itself---it's destroying itself, and fast. The US will may very well pay with it's own existance for the oil it's looting.

    Post Comment
    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  61. "Controlling their military with drugs" by SoftwareTechie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As mentioned in "Encounter at Farpoint". If the uniforms can monitor health and apply tourniqets, it is only a small step to being able to administer pain relief medication and then go even further and supply a surge of adrenalin immediately prior to battle, followed by a sedative once fighting has ceased.

    What's your rank and unit soldier?
    Corporal, 1055 Berserker Division Sir.
    ============

    --
    Political Correctness is doubleplusungood.
    1. Re:"Controlling their military with drugs" by SolubleFrank · · Score: 1

      Don't forget a large prozac supply to calm the soldier when he sees the icky part of war.

      --
      Feed me a stray cat.
    2. Re:"Controlling their military with drugs" by PopeAlien · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. I guess when they said "war on drugs" they really meant it!

    3. Re:"Controlling their military with drugs" by Derek+S · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. The Amphicane Corps.

  62. freindly fire by eurostar · · Score: 1

    that's great !

    it will be much easier to find out which
    rambo shot the allies, specially as there
    are more of them shot than enemies...

    1. Re:freindly fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try to sound clever when you've been drinking. It just embarasses everyone.

  63. HEV by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

    Sounds simular to the Half-Life H.E.V protective suit. Wonder if it will allow you to heal with soda cans from vending machines? and administer morphine when you fall

  64. Great by sleaterkinney · · Score: 1

    That's so great, we have cool new ways of killing people......

  65. Addendum by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1
    (F-4's against Iraqi MiG-29's)
    Of course, you could come up with dozens of other examples.
  66. Skins by Cackmobile · · Score: 3, Funny

    DO you think it would allow the soldier to put their own skins on the enemy. Make them look like they are wearing a purple pokka dot bikini or something...

    but seriously how about not putting the money into armies and not having wars.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    1. Re:Skins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about waking up and realising that everyone in the world is not as naive as you
      Find a way to restore lost innocense and we wouldn't have wars.
      Till then answer this - if nothing is worth dying for is anything worth living for?

    2. Re:Skins by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Europes managed it except UK of course. they don't feel the need for a war every few years.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    3. Re:Skins by thebigmacd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets not put money into the military and watch as we get run over by warring nations.

    4. Re:Skins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What warring nations? The only nation that's been warring bigtime the last couple of years is the US itself. Really, the DoD should be called DoPO by now: Department of Preemtive Offence.

    5. Re:Skins by powerbarr · · Score: 1

      Oh is that what France has not been doing in Africa for the past few decades and Russia in Chechnya and by the way, where is Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Serbia, etc). Just because they opposed the war in Iraq, they are not necessarily so venerable and need to be emulated.

    6. Re:Skins by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but seriously how about not putting the money into armies and not having wars.
      Sure, and how about not putting money into police departments and not having crime? Sound real logical, doesn't it?
      Perhaps we could put up several large signs that read "Shhhh! Do Not Disturb." along our borders. I'm sure the rest of the world would respect our wishes.
    7. Re:Skins by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      Lets not put money into the military and watch as we get run over by warring nations.
      No, no no. You don't understand. The rest of the world is obviously filled with magical fairies who have taught all people the errors of their ways. We are the only war-like country left. What we should do is take the entire defense budget and invest it in American Greetings and FTD. Then we could send all the leaders of foreign countries giant bouquets of flowers along with cards with cute little bears that say "I'm sorwy" and we can finally join the world in their onging hug-a-thon.
    8. Re:Skins by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      No warring nations? Well lets see how many there are when this bread basket which is North America decides not to spend any money on the military. Ya I know, I live in Canada, we don't have much of a military, but if the States weren't beside us we sure would need one.

    9. Re:Skins by burns210 · · Score: 1

      nah, the NRA would have our backs:)

    10. Re:Skins by evilviper · · Score: 1
      but seriously how about not putting the money into armies and not having wars.

      Yeah, because that worked so well before WWI and WWII...

      Let's downsize the military, and blindly assume they will never be needed again, staying out of all foregin conflicts. That is, until the situation has gotten so bad that millions upon millions need to be killed to end the battle.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  67. We're becoming the Empire... by angryflute · · Score: 1

    These aren't the droids you're looking for...

  68. i think therefore i am (a woman?)! -1337.net by xyr0 · · Score: 1

    this new ultra-cool-fighting-killing-fragging-heavy duty-the-toilet-paper-will-never-run-out-uniform is pretty good for those that want to use muscles and even "artificial" ones (one can never have enough) instead of their brains. sounds male and manly. cowboys ahead!

  69. fear by bjornte · · Score: 1
    My question to the Americans on /. is: Will this make you feel safer?

    As a consequence of your military might and will to use it, we, the others, fear you. Sometimes that leads to hate. That hate is what you fear. Isn't it?

    Are new weapons the right protection?

    1. Re:fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My answer to weasels on slashdot: Fsck off.

      Not only are we the biggest and baddest Mother Fuckers on the planet, we can and, as just recently proven, we will kick your sorry asses straight up around your earholes if you fuck with us.

      No Fear - None whatsoever.

    2. Re:fear by dick+johnson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry. But your post made me laugh out loud. Fear? You've got to be kidding.

      Fear is something the people of Iraq had while living under Saddam Hussein. Fear is what people living in the former U.S.S.R and NAZI Germany felt for simply criticizing their own governments.

      No. What you and others like you feel is resentment and envy.

      If any of the aforementioned regimes had the kind of military power currently held by the U.S., then you would know fear.

      The reality is, the U.S currently has enough military and economic power to wipe out all the other militaries in the world, if it so desired. But it doesn't.

      The U.S. has no desire for empire.

      Once again, we hear whining from the former Colonial powers in Europe about the excesses of American power. Please.

      Fear? No.

      You sometimes Hate us?

      Of that, I have no doubt. But once again, that springs only from your own insecurities and envious nature.

      -dj

      --
      - dj
    3. Re:fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure. all the armies of the world. even china. right.

      hey, idiot, I'll tell you when I felt fear last. It was when I was driving on a local interstate and got targeted by the local police for a road-rage stop. Yes, you heard right. Basically, they send an unmarked car out to antagonize you and then follow up with a marked cruiser that will stop you if you behave poorly.

      I am an American and I am afraid of America.

    4. Re:fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nonsense. I was not stopped. The unmarked car pulled in front of me and slammed on its brakes. I assumed that there was something wrong with his vehicle since there was nobody in front of him. When I went to pass on the right(which I usually DO NOT DO), he started to tailgate me. Close. I don't play that shit, even if the guy has a radio in his car and looks just like a cop, so I moved over to the rightmost lane between a schoolbus and a minivan and took my foot off the gas.

      He decided that he needed to stay in my driver's side blind-spot. At least, he did until the marked cruiser came up behind us and slowed as he drew near. Kept going, though, so I guess I "did the right thing." Note that as the marked car passed, the white car followed him.

      My only crime was being in the left hand lane during a merge and having waxed my car this past weekend. Cops like shiny.

      They're going to kill someone who isn't as level-headed as I am, though, and then everybody is going to know what they're doing out there.

    5. Re:fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it doesn't stop terrorism, does it?
      And that's the main problem. US should mind their own business, instead of being "the international cops". All that unfair wars will generate more terrorism. I hate dictators, terrorists, and the US gov. (and some US civillians who support killing innocent people in another countries). And that's the mechanism of creating new Bin Laden (this and the CIA, always helpful in that matter, in too many countries)

      And I really know that's terrorism. I'm spanish, and we fight against ETA, the spanish version of Al-Quaida.

      <i>The day Microsoft dies, wars will end forever</i>

    6. Re:fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're so full of it. You even know better when other people tell you they fear you.

      "I'm affraid of you!"
      "No you aren't"

      Riiiight.

    7. Re:fear by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      >>hey, idiot

      How amusing. You can't argue your point successfully, so you resort to name calling. How typical.

      To address your, rather obtuse, point. Yes. I believe America's military as it is presently constituted is capabable of winning such a war... assuming as I do (and did in my central point) that America has no desire for empire.

      Yes, during the Korean War, millions of Chinese soldiers made a huge difference in the outcome of that war.

      Yes Chiina still has lots and lots of soldiers. But please explain to me how you might deploy these troops to fight America on the modern battlefield? For Pete's sake, they're currently not even capable of mounting an attack across a few miles of water (see Taiwan).

      2nd, assuming you could somehow magically move these soldiers into position to fight the U.S, how would they reposition their forces in reaction to changes in the battlefield, given the American supremecy in Air Power.

      The Korean War was a long, long time ago. During that period, the N. Koreans and the Chinese actually had the better air forces. (they were even using Russian pilots).

      That air superiority allowed them to move their ground forces around without fear of attack from the air.

      Today, by most accounts, the Chinese Airforce is at least one generation behind America in Air Power.

      -dj

      --
      - dj
    8. Re:fear by kwelboy · · Score: 1

      so what your saying is if my country doesnt want to do what your country tels it to do you will 'kick your sorry asses straight up around your earholes'. thx thats just the kind of peapole should run the most powerfull army in the world. it makes me feel so secure and full of respect for your country. hail america, hail hail

  70. Re:the US is scary by knowledgepeacewi · · Score: 1

    Am i to be 'liberated' next?
    Have you done anything stupid lately?

    Firstly, please, don't call the US ``America''. America is a continent of over 20 countries.
    No one else in the Americas seems to have a problem understanding that when America is mentioned it means the USA. Whats you're problem?

    USAns are afraid?
    Well, fear is the best way to control your citizenry and it seems the rest of the world. Even you are afraid of being liberated for waking the giant with a big stick.

    Michael Moore's movies and books outline the fear pedaling of the US media and the US gov. very well.

    The average lifespan of an Empire is 300 years. The US has been an empire for a much shorter time.

    pay with its own existance for the oil its looting
    Wow, I thought everything else you said was over the top...I guess we all have to go gather up the animals and get on that arc thingy, huh?

  71. supremacy by d_strand · · Score: 1

    anyone read 'supremacy' by Arthur C. Clarke (i think) ?

    its about a technologically superior army/civilisation (cant remember) makeing war on a totally out-teched army/civilisation.

    Some people should read it before talking about fielding this kind of stuff in 8 years.. :-)

  72. In the Army now by Markee · · Score: 2, Funny


    Welcome to two new high level members of the Army:

    General Protection Fault

    and

    Major Error!

    And good luck to their subordinates.

    --
    Yes, you are right there. -- Another glass of champagne?
    1. Re:In the Army now by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      You forgot Colonel Panic and Corporal Punishment.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    2. Re:In the Army now by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      And no one remembers Private Key.

      -T

    3. Re:In the Army now by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Corporal Punishment? Does that have something to do with what a user does when he sees a Colonel Panic?

  73. Useless without bandwidth by echucker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Our latest operations in Afghanistan displayed one startling weakness for a uniform like this - not enough satellites. Unless the Scorpion program launches a ton of orbiting equipment in support of the program, I don't see it going very far.

    1. Re:Useless without bandwidth by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      As I recall, although I can't find the article to prove this, is that these suits would be designed around the idea of a "ad-hoc" wireless network. (I think the term "swarm" has also been used, describing how the nodes would set up the network.) The idea being that the individual suits would be nodes in the network, passing on data between each other. They would set up routes to end-nodes based on their position to other nodes. Even if the main link was severed, the suits themselves would be able to talk to each other, and back to the CO.

      However, I don't know this for sure, or know any of the specifics. (I doubt the specifics are unclassified, anyway :).) Who knows - maybe the future will include armored "WAP-robots" that are dropped off along the way to allow a route back to base :)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  74. Yes by Redking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're trolling but I'll respond. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. In 2011, 40 year old weaponry will be an M-16 / M-60 / AK-47 / AK-74. Last time I check those weapons fire projectiles that will kill a human being. I'm pretty sure the same results will happen 8 years from now too.

    The point is not to worry about future opponents, the point is to be modular, to quick deploy and to be tactical - all at the same time. Send soldiers to police a public demonstration in NYC, equip them with body armor, gas mask and non-lethal projecticles. Send soldiers to police Baghdad, same equipment as above but include lethal projecticles, GPS with maps and translation software.

    --
    Rangers Lead the Way!
    1. Re:Yes by aerojad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If in 2011 the military is sent in to police public demonstrations then that's not the country I feel like living in. You can have it.

      --

      SecondPageMedia - Wha
    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but what weapons to select when they go to arrest Martha Stewart? ... the damn armor will probably freeze up in a deadlock.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      I mean, the ARMY at a NYC demonstration??? Welcome to the new millenia...

    4. Re:Yes by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Send soldiers to police a public demonstration in NYC, equip them with body armor, gas mask and non-lethal projecticles.

      No, you don't send soldiers to a public demonstration in NYC.
      You send the police, and maybe the National Guard in really, really extreme cases.

      Posse Comitatus prohibits the US military from performing general police functions within the borders of the US.
      There are some things they can do, but mostly just assistance and transport.

    5. Re:Yes by privacyt · · Score: 1
      If in 2011 the military is sent in to police public demonstrations then that's not the country I feel like living in. You can have it.

      And lest anyone thinks that's impossible, keep in mind that it's happened before. In the summer of 1932, World War One veterans were demonstrating in Washington, D.C., for the benefits that had been promised to them by Congress. (Google the "Bonus Army" if you want to read more about it.) Soldiers of the 12th Infantry Regiment and 3rd Cavalry Regiment did not hesitate to forcefully break up the demonstration. In fact, General Douglas MacArthur exceeded President Hoover's orders by torching the tents outside the city that the WWI vets were camping out in.

      And those were war veterans, for crying out loud. If US troops have no problem attacking vets, then average everyday citizens would be completely fucked if the military were used on them. As history has shown, troops blindly follow orders, even when the orders are to attack unarmed US citizens.

    6. Re:Yes by aerojad · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that many of those veterans were then sent to Florida to build U.S. Highway 1 from Miami to Key West, and lots of them wound up dying for their efforts in the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, which also happened to be the strongest hurricane ever to strike the U.S. (max winds 200mph sustained), sending an already late rescue train into the Gulf of Mexico.

      --

      SecondPageMedia - Wha
    7. Re:Yes by devnull17 · · Score: 1

      Sending soldiers into NYC? Now there's a good idea. Not only would it cause unprecedented rioting around the country; but it's blatantly unconstitutional as well.

    8. Re:Yes by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      I think you're trolling but I'll respond. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. In 2011, 40 year old weaponry will be an M-16 / M-60 / AK-47 / AK-74. Last time I check those weapons fire projectiles that will kill a human being. I'm pretty sure the same results will happen 8 years from now too

      Actually, one of the biggest surprises for me was finding out a 25MM (?) cannon with a depleted uranium projectile â" fired from a Bradly if I remember correctly â" was able to knock out a Russian t-72 tank. Weapon systems evolve, with armor and other defensive gear changing to match that threat. Not that I disagree with the rest of your comments, but I suspect we will see improvements on body armor and matching bullet technology in the next few years.

    9. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to Nazi Germany.

    10. Re:Yes by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      The National Guard are soldiers.

      You might also be forgetting the Marines that were sent in to calm down LA in the wake of the Rodney King riots. Or the Marine mail Guards in the 1920s. Granted, there is a lot of beuracratic hassles that must be gone through, but federal forces in some situations can do such things.

    11. Re:Yes by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      The National Guard are soldiers.

      You might also be forgetting the Marines that were sent in to calm down LA in the wake of the Rodney King riots. Or the Marine mail Guards in the 1920s. Granted, there is a lot of beuracratic hassles that must be gone through, but federal forces in some situations can do such things.

      While the miltary forces cannot arrest people, they can support the operation and provide a show of force and extra firepower to teh cops in extreme situations.

    12. Re:Yes by klasikahl · · Score: 1

      Except for, of course, declarations of martial law. Otherwise any faction of the military cannot participate in the funcitons of enforcing the law.

      And to those who think that the National Guard is a part of the armed forces, you are/were wrong. Not until the whole homeland security overhaul has the National Guard been proposed to be part of the armed forces. Before the homeland security laws were passed (most of which are still not in effect), the National Guard was a branch of the Department of Transportation, believe it or not.

    13. Re:Yes by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      The difference between the millitary then and the millitary now is important. MacArthur was a idiot (no doubt about that, allthough I will admit that I admire Nimitz and Halsey which biases me somewhat). However there is a huge difference between the WWI "European Army" and the modern American army. For one, these guys in the millitary consider themselves to be the last bastion of democracy in America (much of the time) and have no problems putting a president in his place if he orders something illegal (which Clinton ran afoul of early and often).

    14. Re:Yes by privacyt · · Score: 1

      Remember that the Army in 1932 was a professional one, not the same as the one that had fought in 1918. But anyway, I hope you're right. My exerience with the modern Army is the opposite, i.e., that it's the biggest bastion of authoritarianism in US society. Certainly there's little democracy in the military. However, it's interesting that military folks are getting upset about the VA budget cuts from last March, so maybe there could be a repeat of the Bonus Army.

    15. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're referring to the Coast Guard. The National Guard is the state militia.

  75. all the better to commit war crimes with... by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1

    sigh.

    --
    US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
  76. America's Army does! by Redking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    America's Army home page.

    --
    Rangers Lead the Way!
  77. This will work for a while by thogard · · Score: 1

    This will work because the US has been targeting low tech areas. Anyone that can do good electromagnetic detection can use these systems to target the soldiers. If you can isolate a single signal at two different locations at the same time, you can id the target down to sub meter at distances over a hundred km.

    1. Re:This will work for a while by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      This will work because the US has been targeting low tech areas. Anyone that can do good electromagnetic detection can use these systems to target the soldiers. If you can isolate a single signal at two different locations at the same time, you can id the target down to sub meter at distances over a hundred km.

      First of all, a sub-meter accuracy triangulation requires three DF bearings. Second, only US and european militaries are equipped to do it with that degree of accuracy. Third, even the US military would run into difficulties trying to pin down a low-power, frequency hopping, burst-transmitting signal at 10km, much less 100.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:This will work for a while by thogard · · Score: 1

      If your in any army you have a topo map to give elevation. Sub nanosection timing is trivial today. Two antennas a few meters apart and a forward spotter is all you need to calibrate it. Radio astronomers have done 2 m DF at a distance of 6000 lightyears. If thats state of the art, how many orders of magnitude easier is it to 1 m at 1 km (which is in the range of mortars)
      ?

    3. Re:This will work for a while by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      If your in any army you have a topo map to give elevation. Sub nanosection timing is trivial today. Two antennas a few meters apart and a forward spotter is all you need to calibrate it. Radio astronomers have done 2 m DF at a distance of 6000 lightyears. If thats state of the art, how many orders of magnitude easier is it to 1 m at 1 km (which is in the range of mortars)

      Re-read that Crab Nebula story. They didn't calculate the location of the emitter, they calculated its size. So no, you can't use "sub-nanosecond timing" with a "forward spotter" (?) to get accuracy like that.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:This will work for a while by thogard · · Score: 1

      They calculated angular difference from one edge of a signal to the the other of a very dynamic object. The absolute location is irrelevant when your using mortars and small arms. Absolution location of a target only matters if you want to use a cruise missile. I don't think it would be so hard to build a system where you put up 2 antennas for the same reciever and fire two mortar shells with a small transmitter. One to the left side of the field, one to the right. The system then could figure out the range and angles using something almost exactly like LORAN. You know that system that wa s doing sub meter in harbors back in 1945 with tube based amps and timing circuts and analog computers. Loran of the day only used two recivers to get a fix once it decided which side of the line it was on.

      The hard part of detecting one of these wired soldiers is detecting the very weak spread spectrum signals but once their chipping code is mostly figured out, it won't be to hard to build a radio to look for them.

      I still think detecting wired soldiers can be done by most countries in the world but then again the US isn't going to be fighting most of them however many of them are willing to sell the equipment to anyone with the cash to buy it.

    5. Re:This will work for a while by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I don't think it would be so hard to build a system where you put up 2 antennas for the same reciever and fire two mortar shells with a small transmitter.

      Yes it would. LORAN uses fixed, known transmitter sites which can then be used as reference points. How do you calculate the exact location of these "transmitter shells" in order to use them as a baseline? Additionally, even if you did magically know exactly where these shells were once they landed, how many transmitters are these guys going to be carrying, in addition to the regular load of ammo? Mortar and tube artillery aren't fixed assets-- they move. In the case of mortar crews, they move a lot.

      Loran of the day only used two recivers to get a fix once it decided which side of the line it was on.

      Yep, it's amazing what kind of accuracy you can get with fixed assets transmitting signals intended for navigation. Getting DF shots in the field where the enemy is 1) moving, 2) hiding in RF obscuring ground clutter (LORAN was for air/sea nav; no obstructions), 3) burst transmitting packets at 4) low power that 5) frequency hop; well, that's not so easy. As a signal intelligence analyst in the Army I dealt with this crap all the time. When my unit was first issued freq-hopping SINCGARS radios, the first thing we did was try to pick one up on an intercept receiver. We heard one burst of noise once, but not long enough to get a single DF shot, much less a fix.

      I still think detecting wired soldiers can be done by most countries in the world

      I seriously doubt it. I do understand what you're saying-- setting up a reverse-GPS type system-- but the fact that it would require multiple fixed, precisely tuned, highly sophisticated, expensive pieces of equipment to implement pretty much renders it out of reach for anyone but the the US and UK/europe. Sure, such a system can be set up to work under ideal conditions, but that's the real rub when it comes to warfare: you can't set up ideal conditions, you have to operate under the conditions that are there.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  78. And What Are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU doing to prevent terrorist attacks? Why hasn't Tom Ridge hired you as a consultant yet? Stupid motherfucker.

    1. Re:And What Are by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Me? I'm an anarchist (not the bomb throwing type). I believe in mutial aid, inderviduality, self orginisation, and freedom (like some of the principals in open-source software). I try to do my part by showing these ideas to others, in hope to change society. Pipe dream? Maybe. But atleast I am doing something.

      What are YOU doing?

    2. Re:And What Are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average person can prevent terrorism by doing the following things.

      Having respect for the innocent people killed in US or other bombing missions
      Not promoting hate
      Trying to understand somebody before killing them.

  79. Mod Parent Up! by allanj · · Score: 1

    Damn, where are my mod points now? The parent comment is one of the most insightful ones posted here in a LONG time...

    --
    Black holes are where God divided by zero
  80. A great boost to the American education system! by term8or · · Score: 1

    A uniform that tells every terrorist in the world where our soldiers are, as long as they send their bright computer hackers to America to be taught at MIT...


    --



    "As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
  81. Re:the US is scary by gacp · · Score: 1

    Am i to be 'liberated' next?
    Have you done anything stupid lately

    Like been born in a nation with natural resources but no nukes? Yes, I have. I'm trying to fix the second part, though.

    No one else in the Americas seems to have a problem understanding that when America is mentioned it means the USA. Whats you're problem?

    Such arrogance! >:-( Sure we do! USAns are too ignorant to know about it, and just don't care if they do notice, that's all.

    Even you are afraid of being liberated for waking the giant with a big stick.

    Well, no. I'm afraid of people who are so afraid---because of their feeling of inadequacy?---that can never feel safe as equals [the def of a bully]. Peace is for the strong, the fearful attack.

    The average lifespan of an Empire is 300 years. The US has been an empire for a much shorter time.

    Things are moving much faster now, in case you didn't notice. I'd say the US may be very weel be ripe.

    Thanks for the pointer about Moore. I'll check him.

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  82. Rude awakening by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2, Informative

    There will be a rude awakening for people of your kind - self-righteous and nationalistic. You got a rude awakening with Vietnam and Watergate. Sadly, people so blinded by dogma rarely remember the lessons learned. So there will be another one coming in the next few years. Bush will not be remembered as a great president. He will be remembered as one of the greatest fuckups in power of all time.

    What are his achievements? Look at what he has promised, and what he has achieved. The economy is dragging, the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan is being lost. He most likely lied to you about the urgency of action in Iraq. Saddam and bin Laden both live, and are not in US custody. I'm just amazed at how blind you get when someone waves the star-spangled banner in front of you while saying something to the effect of "the us is great. i lead america, so i must be great too". It's like all chains of logic disappear in the face of patriotism and pride.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:Rude awakening by krystal_blade · · Score: 1

      Your right on two counts.

      I am a self righteous prick. I am one of those American "Assholes". I can be. Cause I've got a bigger gun than you.

      I am nationalistic. I support the extension of U.S. goals, and views throughout the world, through various means.

      See, we tried it the "european way" with cruise missiles, and sanctions, and all that other "cultured" bullshit.
      (Sour Cream is cultured too, doesn't mean it's not just bad fucking milk)

      This way is a lot better. Faster results, less U.N., More Poles.

      There is plenty of logic. Your just too busy being sour cream to see that violence has it's place, and in most cases, there is nothing like a swift kick in the ass to get your point across.

      If Darwin is right, and we are descendents from other animals, then Violence is the ONLY law we've followed since the dawn of time. Because it works a whole lot better than your alternatives.

      krystal_blade

      --
      It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
    2. Re:Rude awakening by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't know a lot about population biology. When the population uses too many resources, the population usually ends up extinct or near-extinct. Nature handles this in various ways. Predator population growth, disease or plain starvation.

      My problem with you is that we both end up dead because if YOUR lack of vision, and inability to see your shortcomings clearly.

      (I studied in the states for 3.5 years, btw, so don't say I don't know America ;)

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    3. Re:Rude awakening by krystal_blade · · Score: 1

      I studied in the states for 3.5 years?

      Wooo! Man, I'm so glad you got a chance to sample "real american" life at a university!

      I lived in Europe (still do) for 6 years.

      I lived in the states for 21 years.

      The obvious flaw in your logic is that somehow by applying my "Violence" works law, that the population will continue to trend along an upwards scale. I can assure you, if my "kick their ass" approach actually sees the light of day, that trend will dip sharply in the opposite direction, thusly providing for far more resources for the remaining "herd". Therefore, Violence has yet another good use. This list of mine keeps growing. Thanks.

      Keep arguing my point for me Mr. "I'm a cultured (another word for rotten) world citizen.

      krystal_blade

      --
      It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
    4. Re:Rude awakening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I am a self righteous prick. I am one of those American "Assholes". I can be. Cause I've got a bigger gun than you.

      That gun ain't gonna protect you from what I'm planning with my boxcutter.

      There is plenty of logic. Your just too busy being sour cream to see that violence has it's place, and in most cases, there is nothing like a swift kick in the ass to get your point across.

      Yeah, violence is soooo cool! Best thing about it: it works both ways, doesn't have to be symmetric, and it always breeds more violence.

      If Darwin is right, and we are descendents from other animals, then Violence is the ONLY law we've followed since the dawn of time. Because it works a whole lot better than your alternatives.

      You, my friend, are a nutcase. You may think you have thought up something new here, but in fact you have reinvented social darwinism. History proves that social darwinism leads to racism, fascism and nazism; and by your utterances I'm affraid history is going to repeat itself.

    5. Re:Rude awakening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Violence is the ONLY law we've followed since the dawn of time. Because it works a whole lot better than your alternatives.
      Just ask Osama bin Laden.
    6. Re:Rude awakening by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      I certainly am glad I studied in the states. Made me realize that the common American doesn't really exist. It also made me realize a few hard truths about how democracy doesn't work in the states. Of course, you've shed that idea of "democracy" and "freedom" long ago. That makes you a lot more honest about your motives than the Bush administration. Well done on that part!

      The problem with a rule of brutality is that the brutal don't generate anything. You'll weed out those with brains but no muscle. Unless you long for beating up your enemies with pieces of wood in cold caves (alternating between yours and theirs, as the battle rages on), you'll be sorry if you apply your rule of brutality as you indicate you want to.

      (Of course, I much admire the effectiveness of the military campaigns against Iraq and Afghanistan. The trouble with paying your enemy not to fight you is that he'll stick around for a long time - with improved resources. If you want to terminate the threat, funding it is not a wise choice. If you wish to reduce the imminent threat, but keep the threat along to keep people at home scared, then buying them off is a great proposition )

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    7. Re:Rude awakening by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Your just too busy being sour cream to see that violence has it's place, and in most cases, there is nothing like a swift kick in the ass to get your point across.

      And what point would that be? That you can "liberate" a country?

      Well, except that now there are thousands of people starving or going without vital medication in Iraq, an economy that's fallen apart so vital public service workers don't get paid, people terrified to go out in the streets outside their own homes because they might get raided by bandits. It took Saddam years to demonstrate how brutally he could treat the Iraqi population, how many he could kill on a whim to serve his own ends. GWB is trying to do the same stuff on the same scale in months.

      The problem with a certain type of American -- I won't say all of them, but it seems to be the majority right now -- is that they have so much national pride drummed into them, constantly reinforced by their politicians and media, that they have a warped view of the way things really are. You honestly and truly believe that you are the liberators of the world, that you helped the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan and...) and that your leaders are reducing the risk from terrorist groups by these actions, don't you?

      You should try watching some of the media from around the world some time, instead of CNN or Fox News. And don't automatically dismiss it as uninformed rubbish if you disagree with it; ask why the rest of the world's media portrary things differently to your own, and when so much of the rest of the world agrees to disagree with you, which side is likely to be the one with the more biased perspective.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Rude awakening by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      As much as some people would love to make it so, it is not a sin to be proud of your country. In America, what makes us a country is not clans or ethnic identity (unlike just about every other nation out there with the exception of China, Australia, etc, which also have so many minority groups they are pretty much in the same ballpark) but rather ideology. Our ideology is "Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness" You threaten any of the above, we will go after you (esp Life and Liberty, persuit of happiness can be solved via prozac). In addition, we want you to enjoy Life Liberty and Happiness, because when you are happy, it makes it much less likely that you will go around and kill your neighboors.

      There was a fascinating article in the newest foreign policy digest about the fact that America does not understand other people's nationalism (because we have never had clan or religous wars here) and they don't understand ours (because we are not homogenous). I think a big breakdown occurs here.

      I am proud of what we did in Afghanistan, and things are looking up now that Karzai can put Dostum and the other warlords in their place. Afghanistan is about the first time someone has been "bombed out of the stone age" but I don't suspect it will be the last. As for Iraq, I fully hope that there is a sane government in there by the end of the year. Loosing the peace is one thing, but would keeping the peace and forcing Chalabi to be leader by intervention be any better? Democracy is a messy process.

      Finally, you seem to think that your current tainted view of the world will be what historians write. History is not written by the partisans, but by the events. Your view is just a single view on this subject (as is mine).

  83. the rich and the military.... by humandj · · Score: 1

    FACT BOX Every soldier will eventually be able to view thermal images from uncooled infrared cameras, which are only in limited use today. Firefighters have been using similar cameras to see through smoke, and some Cadillacs use them to see through fog. wow, hi-tech soldiers and cadillac owners have something in common. dont get me wronge but, it just seems wierd that if you can afford a cadillac you have the same infrared camera technology that the military has. uhm. cough!

    --
    i have a cat named george. RAWR!
    1. Re:the rich and the military.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they just tossed it in so people might be able to relate it to something they've heard of/seen before? "Similar" there means nothing more than "camera that can view IR frequencies." Which could be stretched to include many digital cameras, frankly...ever pointed a remote control at a digital camera? Even a cheap crappy one? Actually comes in handy once in a while for seeing if a remote is dead or if a handheld is actually transmitting.

  84. You're owned by raxhonp · · Score: 0

    All your troops are belong to us.

  85. When I saw the news title... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    My first thought that crossed my mind was "Ah, some experiment with next generation armor went wrong".

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  86. Damn it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they just need to develop the BFG1000 and I'll enlist!

  87. BINGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's exactly why terrorism is so popular!

    The united states military is just so amazingly powerful that almost no country could defeat it.

    So instead of fighting the military directly you go for what REALLY powers the military...

    The american economy...the world trade center...etc.

    Terrorism is just the next step after guerilla warfare. When guerilla warfare first started westerners said it was "Cheap" and "low down" but it worked and after the victories in china and vietnam it's effectiveness is obvious.

    But now america is so strong even guerilla armies might not be a match for it. So the next step in the progression of "poor mans" or "peoples" warfare will be terrorism.

    Really getting this powerful just means no one will ever fight us directly they will only fight us asymmetricaly i.e. stateless terrorism.

  88. Remember the romans by girino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The last (almost) global empire, the Roman one, did think the same thing. They thought their legions were unbeatable by anyone in the world, so they just didn't care about improving it, and the number of logionaires was at an all time law by the end of the 5th century. They were still the greatest army in the known world, and unbeatable by any other army.

    Then in the winter of around 495 the legions of the Rhine and Danube fronteers just saw something strange. Hundreds of thousands of people were camping in the borders of the rivers. But not Soldiers. Not young and strong man. But Old men and women and children...

    As soon as the rivers got frozen by the lower winter temperatures, they just crossed it. Thousands of people, unarmed, weak, starving. And the legions could do nothing, even with better equipment and better training and all the money Rome spent with them. There were simply not enough of them to stop thousands of "civilians" to invade the empire.

    I guess the US are just not willing to incur in the same mistakes as the romans did.

    1. Re:Remember the romans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what does it take to fend of millions of civilians? More weapons?

    2. Re:Remember the romans by misterpies · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the last global empire the British one? (India, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Malaysia, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong...that's pretty global). It collapsed not because of any military deficiency, but because it couldn't afford to run it any more. Empires don't come cheap (look at the US defence budget).

      As for the Roman empire, its military loss was also the result of political and economic turmoil. It certainly had nothing to do with military technology -- the "barbarians" who overran the empire had not advanced technologically for centuries. The late Roman armies spent most of their time fighting each other in endless civil wars, leaving the frontiers severely undermanned. The Romans were well aware of their military weakness (they were reduced to fielding armies composed mostly of "barbarian" tribes, still under their tribal commanders), but lacked the political and economic will to resolve the problem. The Eastern Roman Empire (later the Byzantine Empire) did overcome these problems, and survived for another 1000 years.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    3. Re:Remember the romans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the US is using SUVs to fill the air with pollution and cause global warming, so the ocean won't freeze over and they are invaded by starving africans.

    4. Re:Remember the romans by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Well,

      First, America is NOT a Miliatary Empire. It is an Economic Empire. Furthermore, the empire is becoming more disattached from it's citizens and more subservient to our new "lords" - corporate CEOs.

      Second, Rome's ultimate failure was that they started paying tribute to the "barbarians" instead of kicking their asses. I guess to much time watching TV ... errr Colliseum Games was making Romans a soft lot.

      Third, the Legions were never under a central unified command. Legions were controlled directly by their generals who paid homage to the Emperor. Whenever the Emperor kicked off, the Legion commanders would typically fight it out for control (as Contantine did when invoking Christ in his battle for the throne). If you did not command a legion, you were nothing in Roman politics.

      By contrast, our miliatary is subservient to civil authority. The president may be the "commander-in-chief", but congress writes their paychecks. If a Defense committee in either chamber calls a general to testify, that general MUST appear.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  89. Obligatory Simpsons Quote... by verbot · · Score: 0

    "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you."

    -- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"

    Thanks to the Simpsons Archive (www.snpp.com) for the quote!

  90. Evil Plan Forming..... by evilviper · · Score: 1, Funny
    "..soldiers of 2011 will step into wired uniforms that incorporate all the equipment they need. The uniforms will monitor vital signs and plug them into a massive network of satellites, unmanned planes and robotic vehicles the military has planned."

    At which time (2011) I will construct several tesla coils, and use them to single-handedly take over the world.

    I can't wait!
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  91. Train the soldiers by GT_Alias · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The idea of "point of failure" is pretty scary, particularly given some of the issues the military already has had with some of it's standard issue gear. One would hope that a very prominent part of training would involve teaching the soldier to function without any computer-assistance--or possibly a worse case would be a malfunctioning computer (tourniquets tightening without injury, etc.).

    At first the military would teach soldiers to be soldiers, and the gear would be supplementary, but it would most likely end up like every other technological advance. One day our soldiers are almost 100% reliant on the gadgets, at which point we are almost completely vulnerable to some sort of electronic attack that leaves us with a battlefield full of soldiers getting picked off like fish in a barrel because they have lost their technological crutch.

    1. Re:Train the soldiers by -ryan · · Score: 1

      You'll be happy to know that soldiers are first taught everything the hard, old way, before being taught the easy gadget way. I qualified using normal steel sights before I was given a CCO (close combat optic).

      -ryan

    2. Re:Train the soldiers by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Well, that way is only a couple of hundred years old. Actually, open sights like on the M-16 are lot newer than that, right? Did you learn to aim a bow or crossbow? I'll bet you weren't even trained with a sword or spear. :)

      But seriously, folks, I think the point is that there needs to be a balance between relying on new technology and remaining familiar with the tried and true. What it comes down to is that a soldier (or anybody, for that matter) needs to be flexible and adaptable. If one tool breaks, another can be used. It would be a mistake to rely completely on something that's only a few years old. It would be equally foolish to refuse to rely on something at all, just because it's new.

  92. thinking things through by Lord+Prox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am wondering if having everyone and everything automated and wirelessly networked is a hot idea. A technologically adept adversary could take advantage of this fact and, say, feed false info into the system, or order an air strike, remote acivation of the automatic tourniquit(sp?) system, what have you. Even if they didn't hack the system a captured unit might be just as good.

    1. Re:thinking things through by onthefenceman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is the idea of hundreds of soldiers running through a forest, all attached with miles of CAT 5 cable any better?

      --
      Have you seen my stapler?
    2. Re:thinking things through by Anarchofascist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "A technologically adept adversary could take advantage of this fact and, say, feed false info into the system..."

      Taking the opposite strategy let Australia defeat the US in wargames a few years ago.

      Australia took the part of defenders of a large (anonymous) desert country, and the US the attackers from the sea. US plans included a lot of electronic surveillance. The Aussies passed commands using runners and pieces of paper, sent fake messages to each other implying that the most heavily defended area of beach was completely empty, and foiled the US landing.

      The script said this wouldn't happen, so the referees allowed the game to continue as if the landing was successful.

      --
      Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    3. Re:thinking things through by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      "A technologically adept adversary could take advantage of this fact"

      Actually, I think the only way to fight this is radio jamming or EMP. I am sure they have lots of ways to get around jamming, like using laser-satelite communication or changing wavelengths. And an enemy with EMP technology would be advanced enough we would be using nukes. This kind of stuff would be used in the middle east or africa where nobody has EMP.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:thinking things through by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC, the big problem is that the judge vastly overrated the effectiveness of small boats charging big fleets at war. This was the war game for Iraq, and it turns out that most of the equivelent options (runners and pieaces of paper) do not work well when a enemy moves faster then your lines of communication (which was also not allowed by the storyboard). Moral of this lesson: Wargames are usefull for some stuff, but is absolutly not a predictor for success or failure.

    5. Re:thinking things through by cakestick · · Score: 1

      Uh...in fact, that sounds much better. And by much better, I'm talking about CNN's ratings when they show it live via satellite.

      --
      I'm not here. This isn't happening.
    6. Re:thinking things through by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      You act like EMP is this mythical super technology. Actually, it's really simple. All you do is build a really big electromagnet, wire it up to a bunch of really big capacitors, then fire it off and watch as every electronic device nearby is destroyed. It's pretty easy to shield against EMP though; indeed, pretty much all of our military vehicles are already EMP shielded. I'm pretty sure US military R&D have already thought of this, because they're really not dumb.

    7. Re:thinking things through by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The script said this wouldn't happen, so the referees allowed the game to continue as if the landing was successful.
      That's probably not quite how the matter was dealt with.
      When the military, or at least the US military, does one of these exercises, there is a list of training objectives for that exercise that participating units need to meet. During the flow of the exercise, if the BLUFOR (training units) gets creamed unexpectedly by the OPFOR (bad guys) or else something else goes badly, it is noted, and then the exercise moves on so that the units can train the other tasks they have to do. At the end of the exercise, an After-Action Review (AAR) is conducted, where all flaws, failures and mistakes come out in the wash, often brutally so. At the end of all this, the units are sent home with a package of training objectives for the coming year or 6 months, with recommendations on what to correct and what to reinforce.
      In all the wargames I've participated in, I can't remember "winning" a single one. They are designed specifically so that a BLUFOR win is very rare, because you learn more by losing.
      I have no idea what exercise you are referring to, but in US-run exercises that's how it goes.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    8. Re:thinking things through by nametaken · · Score: 1

      That's informative. Someone mod this up!

    9. Re:thinking things through by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Nukes aren't necessary. An enemy advanced enough to use EMP would promptly find the U.S. air force bombing the shit out of any unauthenticated RF transmitter.

      Naturally, the enemy would keep a lot of EMP devices silent until the last minute, hoping to disrupt and counter an infantry rush, but again with the bombing. Plus, figure that every squad is going to be packing those nifty new assault weapons, and anti-EMP grenades. The moment the point team drops off the net, the squad digs in, lobs some explosives at the nearest enemy RF sources, and waits a few seconds for air and artillery backup to clear the way.

      EMP sounds nifty, but it's really just an suicidally efficient way to say "here I am, please kill me now".

      Meanhwile, now that the U.S. military has phased in frequency-hopping radios, tracking the squads by their emissions isn't as easy for the enemy as tracking a blanket EMP blast would be for the U.S. forces.

      Finally, likely locations for EMP emplacements would be prebombed, and the more difficult ones would probably get a visit from special forces teams trained to work "off the leash" if necessary, to clear the way of EMP weapons for the regular troops.

      In the end, any army advanced enough to worry about EMPs would already be advanced enough to trivially neutralize them.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    10. Re:thinking things through by khb · · Score: 1

      Guess the Iraqi military thought this would be a good approach as well.

      Low tech may beat high tech, but it's certainly not a "no brainer".

    11. Re:thinking things through by bbtom · · Score: 1

      Why not do it from above? The Cat-5 could be like puppet strings...

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    12. Re:thinking things through by Anarchofascist · · Score: 1

      Guess the Iraqi military thought this would be a good approach as well.

      No, I think the Iraqi approach was in the spirit of Spike Milligan: Americans shoot at Iraqi uniforms, therefore take them off!

      --
      Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
  93. SOLDIER CAM by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for Soldier CAM where you can adopt a soldier and watch the action from his/her perspective from the comfort of your home. Of course it would probably be 99.999% boredom, followed by 0.001% action that you miss when you get up to get a beer.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  94. Wireless mines by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Oh I loved that idea - not because they coudl reform the minefield, but after the conflict is over. 'right lads, its all over. back in the box' and all the mines would disarm and hop back into the packing crate.

  95. Solitaire by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    Solitaire did not teach people how to use a word processor. It taught them how to use a mouse in windows. Playing games for soldiers is roughly analogous, if I understand correctly.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:Solitaire by pit_bull · · Score: 1

      So true.

      My mother had a lot of trouble with using a mouse when she started finally using a PC (at age 50) so I just introduced her to Solitaire...

      --
      _ Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.... -
  96. Starwars, and a droid army... by pdjohe · · Score: 1

    Then....
    The reason why the 'Star Wars' defence missle sheild (the one that the US is trying to build) will never work is because every terrorist nation has a Hans Solo who will go in and blow up the sheild generator.

    Now....
    Now with the new uniforms, the terroristic Anikin Skywalkers out there can take down the droid control ship, and all the new uniforms will start malfunctioning.

    ...and as <insert terrorist from 'axis of evil' regime here> overrode the US military uniform network he cackled, "just try to fight with all your turnique control mechanisms ON! Hahaha...And now for a little adjustment to your GPS...hehehe....

    And we wonder why the head of Kim Jong II, the current leader of N.Korea, is such a Hollywood film fan!!

  97. Sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does this thing have built in sound? Because you can just imagine the...

    "3 Frags Left!"

    "Multikill!"

    "Godlike!"

  98. MS jokes [troll warning] by Lord+Prox · · Score: 4, Funny

    In a press release... Microsoft Corp announced today its DirectX 12 MilSpec API renamed DirectWarfare including the new
    DirectFCS (fire control system) and
    ActiveWarhead
    seamlessly integrated in the new Microsoft LookOut Below communications software.

    Where do you want the bombs to fall today

  99. The force.. by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally we figure out how darth vader chokes one of the commanders.

    "donÂt underestimate the powers of the force"

    While pressing the neck tourniquette of one of the commanders with his remote.

    1. Re:The force.. by bitrate · · Score: 1
      Just IMHO, I would say that a neck tourniquet might be considered anti-first aid, but maybe that's just me.

      "Oh no! The chainsaw kicked back and sliced open my neck!"

      (tourniquet zips closed to stem bleeding)

      "Gaaak!"

      Sorry, had to.

      --
      Anyone can walk on water....think WINTERTIME.
  100. Doom? by mauddib~ · · Score: 1

    This outfit looks like the soldier outfit of the Doom bad guys if you'd ask me!

    --
    This is a replacement signature.
  101. Re: Satellite-linked health sensors by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

    Does that mean you'll be able to see percentage-health bars over your soldiers' heads?

    "Your creatures are dying"

  102. He looks familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I know, he's Boba Fett!

    http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/TECH/ptech/06/04/soldi er .future.ap/story.futuresoldier.cnn.jpg

  103. Re:the US is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Firstly, please, don't call the US `America'. America is a continent of over 20 countries."

    United
    States
    of
    America

    I am an AMERICAN.
    I live in AMERICA.

    Any questions?

    Oh, and last time I checked there was no continent called "America". There is a North America and a South America. But, let's just check the map here....one sec......NOPE no plain old AMERICA. Get over yourself.

  104. oh dear by daveatwork · · Score: 1

    then some 7337 ha>"nuke the bug, destroy it!! invade the bugs home terroritory!!!" Meanwhile, in ha>or land: "those American infedels dont stand a chance now, they will be trampled down like the useless flies that they are...."

  105. Re:the US is scary by gacp · · Score: 1

    Sorry, the continent is called ``America''. It has been called that for some 500 years (since about the time of Americo Vespucio, or a little later, actually). It's often divided into 3 parts: South America, Central America, and North America.

    I am an AMERICAN.
    I live in AMERICA.

    Me too and me too!

    Any questions?

    Two questions: (1) In which American country were you born? (2) In which American country do you live now?

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  106. Is this representative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all americans are this reactionary and racist, then I'm really really scared.

  107. The initial codeword was "Stormtrooper" but... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    they changed it to something else because they were afraid to get sued by George Lucas.

    1. Re:The initial codeword was "Stormtrooper" but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Lucas didnt invent the term "StormTrooper" he's just got the most lawyers.

  108. "The US is easily capable of defeating any army". by torpor · · Score: 1

    ... I think you'd better think about the Chinese Army a bit longer before you make statements like that ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  109. Offended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did he offend your patriotic heart?

  110. What about hacking? by asl_midget · · Score: 0

    I mean, yeah, this sounds like a great suit and all, but what if....

    Enemy soldier: Sweet! I got the American's root password... watch this!!

    *American soldier suddenly falls to the ground as *ALL* tourniquets in his suit tighten*

  111. This may be true but.... by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

    ...The army has a long way to go in the equipment deparment like tents, food and weaponry.

    Dolemite
    __________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
    1. Re:This may be true but.... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The army has a long way to go in the equipment deparment like tents, food and weaponry.

      Huh? How does a GP-medium tent need improvement (besides finding a way to get rid of the smell of ancient canvas)? MRE's sure beat the hell out of C-rats. And the M-16 seems to work pretty well. I'm not sure I see what you're getting at...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:This may be true but.... by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

      They have AT LEAST 100 lbs of gear to hump on top of everything mentioned above. That is if they aren't carrying a machine gun too.

      D
      ___________________

      --
      Save the World! Use a Quote!
  112. the meat in the metal sandwitch by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    (metal tentacles wrap around armour...)

    Help me!

    Help me!

    (plasma cutter thingy opens up hatch)

    Oh my god somebody help me!

    Arrgh! No!

    Aieeeeeeeeeeeee!

  113. EMP? by nightweaver · · Score: 1

    Umm, is it just me, or is this depend on working electronics to a frightening level? I can see it taking not much more than a good EMP blast to take the suits out of action? I mean, it'd be hard to have to add EMP shielding to them, on top of everything else... soldiers can only carry so much.

    Couple that with the fact that they're bound to be very lax when it comes to training in what to do when the suit fails, and this will be a very distinct disadvantage, more than anything.

  114. Neat readouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Main console:
    [10:15] Enemy: counter-attacks your left_flank
    [10:16] Status update: (Soldier #00233 @left_flank) wet his pants
    [10:16] Status update: (Soldier #01553 @left_flank) wet his pants
    [10:16] Status update: (Soldier #01201 @left_flank) wet his pants
    [10:16] Status update: (Soldier #00101 @left_flank) wet his pants
    [10:16] System: "wet his pants" message repeated 23 times, disabled for 30 seconds

  115. Re:"The US is easily capable of defeating any army by misterpies · · Score: 0


    and you'd better think about the Chinese air force. Without proper air cover, any large ground force becomes a sitting duck

    --
    The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  116. proportional response by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    So I guess by that logic the way to beat terrorism is to send a couple of ordinary looking people who happen to be able to kill/sneak their way to the head of the terrorist network and perform an arrest.

    Collosal underreaction.

    Really, really difficult to do. Unless those agents are god or cyborgs or something.

    1. Re:proportional response by guran · · Score: 1
      :-)

      No, that was not my point.


      There is a cruel but logical policy: Never give in to terrorist demands, since that will only encourage more terrorism.

      By extension: Never let him provoke you into using *your* force to achieve *his* goals.

      --

      All opinions are my own - until criticized

  117. You asians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You asians are always funny when you talk about continents. Oh, wait. That's right. Even though you're on the same landmass and same tectonic plate, you don't want to have any relation to those yellow skinned heathens. Better to call yourself european.

    1. Re:You asians... by gacp · · Score: 1

      I am American, not (Eura)Asian. Born, raised, and living America all my life, in 4 different countries.

      --
      ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  118. Power Source by Bugmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All this sounds great, but where will the gear draw its power from ? At 50lbs, it doesn't seem like the standard lead-acid batteries are an option.

    In fact, power storage is really what is hampering any major advances into the portable, semi-autonomous electronics. Wireless phones, laptops, robotic flies, cybersoldiers, etc. -- we need some sort of a major breaktrhough in power storage until we can produce actual designs as opposed to mockups that you need to plug into the wall socket.

    --
    >|<*:=
    1. Re:Power Source by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

      Standard Issue 1000ft extension cords!

      --
      Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
      Sig changed for readability by G.W.
    2. Re:Power Source by deft · · Score: 1

      I saw an article here a while back about material that generates power when it contracts and expands.... power in generated even from the soles of the shoes.

      dont expect in 10 years or so that the same power sources will be used that we have now, or that the military doesn't happen to have something up its power generating sleeve.

      --

      There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    3. Re:Power Source by tenchiken · · Score: 1

      They are looking at a few different options. The best (IMHO) is fuel cells (which I want to see anyways).

    4. Re:Power Source by Eyston · · Score: 1

      All this sounds great, but where will the gear draw its power from ?

      They harness the recoil from the gun to recharge the batteries. Unfortunately, the soldiers have to meet a quota for shots fired or they power down.

      -Eyston

    5. Re:Power Source by Bugmaster · · Score: 1

      They have had those (piezoelectrics) for a while now; unless this is some different material, of course. The problem there is that the amount of charge generated is pretty small -- it won't even be enough to run a cellphone, let a lone a virtual helmet, bluetooth, 802.11b, lasers, webcams, and whatever else those soldier are supposed to be wearing.

      --
      >|<*:=
  119. Just a thought.... by Nick+Fury · · Score: 1

    How does Congress plan on having the soldiers use all of this if we are putting 400 billion into defense and only 40 into education? What good is fancy equipment if you have idiot soldiers to use it?

    IMO, the worlds leaders should be brought togethor and shot.

  120. Especially with cheap EMP bombs. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do worry that these new computer-enabled combat suits would fail in a spectacular fashion if methods of generating a strong electromagnetic pulse is factored into the equation.

    For example, a bomb with a big capacitor inside surrounded by a jacket of carbon filaments could send a shockwave of EMP that will disable any electronics within a couple of hundred meters of the explosion point. And of course we know what happens when you detonate a nuclear warhead at high altitude; I believe that one Soviet tactic during the initial phases of a nuclear war was to use obselete but still large SS-9 rockets that would detonate their 25 megaton warheads about 200 to 400 kilometers off the ground over enemy territory, which would create such a strong EMP shock it would wipe out everything electrical underneath the explosion point.

  121. No they are covered by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the elusive SEP (somebody elses problem) field.

    -

    Or are they really just weapons of mass distraction?

    If they were both they would be impossible to find..

  122. PR Help... by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

    It would probably go over better with the younger crowd if they called it the Future Universal Battle Uniform (FUBU)

    --
    --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
  123. But it doesn't work that way by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

    You can't just throw money at a problem at expect it to go away. It's like saying space launch is no problem because we just need to shoot something upward at a speed of 100,000 m/s. You are ignoring the reality of the world

    Simply pumping food or money into Africa is not the solution. Why? Because anything with value will be used to make a personal profit. This will happen either internally through corruption, or externally through raids and strongarm tactics. We can (peacefully) detect & replace corrupted people. External factors we can't control as much. The only place you won't have external factors is in places that are suitabally developed to recognise large amounts of money can't be made off of small food shipments (i.e. the populace isn't starving). But such places don't need aid anyway...

    The world, unfortunately, works very much as Sgt. Paul Howe quoted in Black Hawk Down. In most of the world, power [and therefore order] still flows through the barrel of a gun. Is it nice? No. Is this what we want? [Defense contractors aside] No. This is required because this is the way the world works. Thus, we still need to be able to have muscle to make sure that food goes where it's supposed to. etc. We cannot change human nature (greed to the point of violence), therefore we must go with it (enough violence to stop the greed).

    You also forget that these advancements are meant to save [friendly] lives. If I can make a bigger bomb that can kill 4 rooms of a bldg instead of 1, that's 3 fewer places I will be shot at from.

    --
    - Sig
  124. Future enemy battle plans... by Hoplite3 · · Score: 1

    (1) Hack into US SoldierNet. (2) Remotely tighten all tourniquets

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  125. Knee-jerk cynics are scarier! by TopShelf · · Score: 1

    I'm no big fan of W, but that is about the most idiotic anti-US screed I've seen around here. I don't recall Jews slaughtering thousands of people during Hitler's time, unlike the terrorists of today that pose a genuine threat that requires strong action. To back those actions, and support the leaders that direct them, is hardly "mindless" or "senseless." Pull your head out of the sand...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  126. Nuclear batteries?? by Goonie · · Score: 1
    IIRC one technology the military has been thinking about is using "nuclear batteries" - radioisotope thermal generators, and I also had an even vaguer recollection that they were experimenting with the emitted charged particles to produce an electric current. Now, obviously these have some issues (notably what happens when the radioactive material gets up close and personal with an exploding hand grenade) but it just might meet the power requirements.

    More prosaically, fuel cells seem like a practical option here.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Nuclear batteries?? by Bugmaster · · Score: 1
      Actually, I think satellites have batteries of a similar sort. The nuclear cell provides heat, and there are thermocouples that convert that to electrictity. Of course, the problem is that the other end of the thermocouple radiates heat into vacuum... That's hard to do here on Earth.

      Fuel cells sound like a good option, but they are not ready for battlefield use (or any other portable use) yet. They usually require hydrogen to operate, which can convert your entire platoon of cyber-soldiers into one big suicide bomb really quickly. They are also bulky and expensive, IIRC.

      --
      >|<*:=
  127. muscles instead of brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, instead of focusing on the political injustices being carried out in the name of the people, you're just going to male-bash. That's so progressive of you.

    Tell you what. Go to Afganistan (there's still a war going on there fyi) armed with your lecture notes on epistemology and neofeminism. You can go home when you've neutralized one single pro-taliban guerilla without paying him off. Until then, force is an ugly part of world politics and it's not going to go away by itself or via male-bashing.

    If women ruled the world, you think there would be no war? if so you are fooling yourself into selectively believing in sexist ideals of femininity. If not, quit male bashing. Pissing people off does not make the world a better place.

    what are you on? switch to something else.

    1. Re:muscles instead of brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS all men's fault. All wars are started and carried out by men. Get rid of men and you get rid of war. It is that simple. Masculinity is a deformity - men are just people with something (very) wrong with them. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. You are getting bashed because you deserve it - just deal with it.

      It is possible to manufacture artificial sperm from a woman's DNA, which can then be used to fertilise an egg. And the baby will then be certain to be a girl. This is the way we should breed in the future. As a man, you may not like it, but you are no longer necessary. Just like the male-dominated RIAA and MPAA are no longer necessary, now that women have the ability to share movies and music without being exploited by men. And just like candles were not just no longer necesary once electric light was invented, but the newer alternative was so much less dangerous, that people pretty much stopped using candles altogether. So it will be with the true sexual revolution. Going all-women may upset a few people in the short term, but it will be the best thing that could happen in the long term.

      Even if that technology does not work straight away, we could always factory-farm boys. Rip out their vocal cords to keep them quiet, chain them in a cage say 1m. by 1m. by 2m. No need to educate them, just feed them once a day and hose them down when they go to the toilet (which won't be often anyway if the diet is properly controlled). As soon as they're ready, strap them into a machine that jacks them off. Analyse the DNA from the sperm thus collected, so you know what kind of baby you're getting. It's a bit slow - it takes the best part of 20 years to get a decent stock of sperm and can slaughter and replace the males - but it will keep society going for a few hunderd years, during which time true machine-made sperm could be perfected.

      A world without men will be a world in which women are finally free. As long as there are men there is the threat of rape. Women will finally be in control of the sexual act. There will be no longer such a thing as unwanted pregnancy either, since breeding will require a deliberate act - no need for abortion nor unnatural contraceptive drugs and devices.

    2. Re:muscles instead of brains? by kwelboy · · Score: 1

      please tell me you forgot to type 'lol' at the end of your post, in wich case lol :). If not read 'Brave new world' by Huxly to see just how wrong you are.

    3. Re:muscles instead of brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering Huxley was a male and therefore had a vested interest in maintaining his position rather than succumbing to obsolescence, he was bound to slant his story in such a way as to discredit this idea. He knew it was possible and therefore had to cast doubt on his own argument. Otherwise he would have been signing his own death warrant. Being a male and therefore a coward, this was unacceptable.

  128. A serious question. by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

    Does it have portable AC units?

    --

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  129. That suit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats nothing,, wait till they talk more about SIPE.. they spoke of it here and there on tlc and what not.. SIPE is like a space suit for combat, environmentals, full body armor all weather even fire.. and all the .net plugins :)

    Face it people were looking at the dawn of the real storm trooper's .. Maybe if they get all that the won't shoot eachother as much / the wrong guys..

    (ex army guy.still waiting for hand held high power lasers)

  130. Oxyclean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now the troops in the Laundry will have to ge a BSEE?

  131. And don't underestimate the Ewoks by T1girl · · Score: 1

    ...with their primitive catapults, rolling logs, and hmmm, did they have any box cutters?

  132. starship troopers by thegameiam · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it will be until we see "mechanized infantry" ala R. Heinlein's Starship Troopers...

    David Barak

    --
    Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
  133. Plug in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The uniforms will monitor vital signs and plug them into a massive network of satellites, unmanned planes and robotic vehicles

    I hope they use wireless...

  134. Robert Heinlein... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...wrote a fitting line for this in Starship troopers, something along the lines of, "Bog a cap trooper down with all kinds of fancy gadgets and someone a lot more simply equipped, say with a stone axe, will sneak up behind him and bash his head in while he is trying to read a vernier."

  135. Can you say EMP? by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

    If the US embraces technology as much as they are planning to, then the first country that figures out that the way to beat them is to destroy that technology (think massive EMP, anti-satellite etc.) is going to whip their ass. 200,000 soldiers with useless heads up displays and no ability to communicate with command is exactly what I would want if I was an ememy commander.

    --
    just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
  136. Agreed by arevos · · Score: 1

    Bloody Sunday springs to mind.
    Soldiers aren't trained for crowd control. Northern Ireland demonstrated that pretty well.

  137. pie-in-the-sky plans vs real world implementation by mapmaker · · Score: 1
    as if.

    did anyone else notice that US troops didn't even have the right *color* uniforms during the recent war in Iraq?

    They were wearing green jungle camo for a desert war because the US Army didn't make enough sand-colored uniforms ahead of time.

    If the military can't even get its shit together enough to provide the right color uniforms to its troops, how can anyone believe they'll pull off the uniforms described in this story?

  138. Jacked up and good to go! by LordYUK · · Score: 1

    So, do we need to build the academy to get the stim pack upgrade? and do we need to wait for an expansion before the beings in charge decide that medics are actually needed?

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  139. warhammer 30K anyone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  140. YOU ARE A MORON by fourtrackmind · · Score: 1

    earth to moron

    didn't you learn anything about the pathology of anti-communism?

    for your own sanity and the safety of those around you, I hope you are just spewing troll bait

    stop moralizing until you learn some facts.
    your grasp of history is fantasy.
    your logic is moronic.
    sounds like you have some real problems...

  141. Exoskeletons..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else remember that crap about exoskeletons? Sure,the idea is cool. A steel frame strapped to your body that allows you to jump 5 times your height and run 20mph..

    It just lacks workability.

  142. Soldiers don't need PhD's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guys on the ground don't need to know how to set up ipchains to pull the trigger. All the brainwork is done ahead of time. Soldiers fight. Engineering is left to engineers. These suits are going to be VERY user friendly. And, the army doesn't accept retards. You don't need a GED to fight, but if you're incapable of getting that GED you probably can't pass the written test (yes there is a test to get in).

    I agree that since we spend huge, huge huge amounts of cash on bombing the third world, it makes sense to spend enough on our own education and space programs to keep our future bright.
    Unfortunately, our leaders don't give two $#!ts about our future, except as it relates to keeping them in power and/or rich.

    Which is why I agree with the sentiment of getting the world leaders together and shooting them. Unfortunately anarchy leads to government, and probably a worse form since you are starting from scratch then.

    The REAL solution is for the people to take a continuous and active interest in the affairs of their government in an open democratic environment. Unfortunately again, as the experiment of the USA demonstrates, even an excellently constructed system will eventually be distorted for the good of the few at the expense of the many. In our (usa) case, the powerful and rich and select special interests (whose goals can be integrated into the existing power bases' plans) patiently gain position in the machinery of the existing establishment and bend it to their will. The overall movement of the haves against the have nots (of wealth AND of influence) is never acknowledged as such except by the have nots, who are dismissed by the haves as "nuts" or worse. Eventually, you get the situation we are in now (post 9-11) where the system is not just corrupt but beyond salvaging. It not only no longer serves the purpose of protecting it's citizens, it doesn't even follow it's own laws at all.

    So, we're headed into the dark ages (again). Which is good if you're religious, but bad if you like to think for yourself, or want to see the world become a better place (instead of just praying a lot to get into heaven or whatnot).

    So (you may think) so wise guy, what do YOU suggest, since we're penned in? Well, I don't see a way out. My greatest hope about the nature of existence is that life is followed by oblivion instead of reincarnation or an afterlife.

  143. Why? by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's simple, but nobody wants to believe it: War is the health of the state. War is the single most effective way to increase the power and scope of government. History has proven it time and time again. The government which can successfully make a business out of war is the government which enjoys nearly unlimited power over its people.

    We need to realize that government is a business. Like any business, government's objective is to serve its own interests: to profit. The main difference between government and private business, which most people don't realize, is that government is the only business that may "legally" initiate force as a business model. This is exactly why government MUST be strictly limited in power -- abuse of power is not just possible, it is inevitable. As the saying goes -- power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    The only solution to this problem is to apply strict limits on the scope and power of government (as the founders proposed) -- a solution which directly conflicts with the objectives of those in power.

  144. federal budget mostly for entitlements already by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    Actually social entitlements make the vast majority of the federal budget.
    http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2002/ pdf/guide .pdf on page twelve there is a budget breakdown.

    medicare/medicaid=19% of the budget
    social security=23%
    7% = means based entitlements, thats stuff like food stamps vetrans benefits, child tax credits etc.
    total entitlement payments=59% of budget

    contrast this with 10% on national debt interest
    defense 16%
    19% non defense government budget

    7% for federal insurance, federal retirement system, payment to farmers

    thats 66% percent for more or less direct payments to people (if you include the 7% for insurance retirement, payments to farmers) contrasted to 16% for the defense department

    One could argue that defense money could be better allocated to paying down the debt, or even more for national infrastructure. However, most people don't seem to realize that payments to our own citizens(who deserve money that they have payed in or need it because they can't help themselves) consumes the vast majority of the budget. This will be a huge problem in a few years worldwide when the babyboomers retire, just look at the current strikes in france to see such an issue.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    1. Re:federal budget mostly for entitlements already by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1

      Social Security should not be listed as a social entitlement, nor should it be included as part of the federal budget. It is supposed to be under it's own administration and not commingled alongside the rest of the budget. Then again, the US government has been raiding the SS accounts for decades.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    2. Re:federal budget mostly for entitlements already by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      well yes and no,

      6.2 percent of my income goes into a ponzi scheme. I'm not expecting to ever get this money back, unless payroll taxes are hiked massivly. I'm not saying that we should dump such a scheme, it would be unfair to all the retiree's who have paid 30, 40 years into it(like my dad), but I cant think of a workable replacement.

      even if you move social security(23%) of the budget, medicaid/care still is a larger portion of the federal budget than defense. I wasn't aware of that until I checked out the statistics myself.

      Heck that 19% for non defense spending is what goes for education, science, transportation, park maintenance etc.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    3. Re:federal budget mostly for entitlements already by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1

      http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

      When you take va benefits and other expenses associated with the military, the picture looks a lot different.

      50% of the money the governemnt spends is used to fund the war machine past, present and future.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    4. Re:federal budget mostly for entitlements already by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, I paid around 10% of my income in federal income tax this year (having a house is a nice way to reduce your taxable income). I payed roughly 8% of my income for medicare/aid/social security. Even if we were to use the above piechart representation, 13.3% out of the 18% of my income last year went to pay for non military items.

      VA benefits/the military retirement system is something which in part is paid for by itself. This military now has a system which is simliar to the civilian FERS system which is simliiar to a 401k, meaning servicemen pay into their own system. However 20/30 year retirements arestill in effect (unlike new federal employees which are covered under the FERS system, FERS is somewhat confusing to explain unless you have read the books on it, basically each federal employee has 3 different income sources upon retirement). Thus the piechart is quite misleading.

      The above piechart is woefully incomplete. A pretty large portion of my own taxes are going to pay for social programs I will likely never be able to qualify for/recieve(mostly due to funding in the future, its unsutainable unless there is a massive population increase in each generation), but are necesscary (the elderly can be viewed as both the poor and the rich, having large net worths due to fully paid mortgages, but little income due to not working and no health insurnace due to not being employed, these issues don't seem to be included in media reports on health insurance). These social programs must be included within such a chart because they are the largest expendutres within the government and will grow even more as the baby boomers retire. Additonally, since funds from them have repeatedly been diverted in the past to pay for other programs, they must be included as well, to not do so makes the charts misleading because there is no source of income for the actual expenditures.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  145. Re:the US is scary by gacp · · Score: 1

    What would you call us? United States of Americans?

    Actually, pretty much that: estadounidenses (=``from the United States''). And it's official usage. In English, I follow the growing usage of calling you ``Usans''. [Of course, we could refer to you as ``Users'' if you like.]

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  146. We don't care what you EuroFags think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that is what bothers you wimps the most. We don't care if you hate or love us, you are insignificant nobodies.

  147. Pity by Ddl_Smurf · · Score: 1

    Just another whole lot of funds American education and health care won't see.

    --
    Bleh !
  148. Great idea, but... by BoneFlower · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speaking for the Marine Corps... Shit breaks. A lot. A common joke in the Corps is if you put a couple marines, naked, in an empty room with three steel balls, one ball will be eaten, another broken, and the third lost. STuff like this... bad news.

    Give these systems to Marines at CAX, and give them an order to see how easy it is to break. I guarantee you the failure rate will be astronomical. Don't field it to regular forces until the Marine Corps cannot break it any more regularly than they can the current gear, AND don't field it until the weight is brought down.

    The article mentioned lower weight... Quite a bit of a combat load is things like tents, shovels, extra uniforms, socks, another pair of boots, food, water, how does this system propose to deal with that? Especially with the requirement to carry spare batteries. What I read of the article, the equipment this stuff replaces is not any heavier- the gear involved in this is a fraction of a real combat load. IT might be significantly lighter for a heavily armed sentry, but for an infantryman in the field, any gain would be marginal, and not worth the greater potential for failure. The OICW is about twice the weight of an M-16... Even if the overall system weight is less, thats still double the weight on the arms in combat. Anyone who has used the M-16 in rifle PT knows how quickly even a lightweight rifle can become extremely heavy.

    Military forces do best when they stick to simple gear that gets the job done. Aviation and naval forces may be able to get away with more complexity by the nature of their jobs, but the basic infantryman doesn't have time to worry about all that crap. Field simple to use, lightweight, and reliable gear and go out and raise hell. Thats how the infantry wins.

    1. Re:Great idea, but... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Give these systems to Marines at CAX, and give them an order to see how easy it is to break. I guarantee you the failure rate will be astronomical. Don't field it to regular forces until the Marine Corps cannot break it any more regularly than they can the current gear, AND don't field it until the weight is brought down.

      Damn straight! When I was in the Army, I worked tactical signal intelligence. One day we had a visit from a rep for a contractor developing a manportable remote electronic warfare unit. He brought us a prototype to look at and "try on". This was a pre-production prototype that was supposed to be as rugged as the production model. Within 3 minutes we broke it. It was so heavy that the only safe way to get it off your back was to pull the quick-release tabs on the ruck straps. One guy did that and it dropped ~3 feet to the floor. The front panel popped loose and cracked and I'm sure the guts were damaged too. The rep was really annoyed, but hey, you can't build field-deployable devices that break that easily. In the field, we're all grunts, even the MI guys.

      Anyone who has used the M-16 in rifle PT knows how quickly even a lightweight rifle can become extremely heavy.

      heh. only 7.5 pounds, right? I remember it seemed like a lot more when held out at arms length... for several minutes... with a drill sergeant shouting "keep those arms up!"... ah, the good old days.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  149. All this technology has a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even in 2011 they'll still have to fight no-boots-wearing AK-47 armed "soldiers", spending US$ 50 billion a year to the war welfare.

  150. Re:Good...(uh oh, it's an offtopic post!) by untaken_name · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's OK. You still be firing at the Canadians and the British.

    Only if they won't give up their WMD.

  151. Specialised troops? by lpret · · Score: 1

    What if there were specialised troops that were embedded in a normal brigade that would carry these devices. Similar to how radio was carried in WWII by one guy in each platoon, or whatever. (Sorry I don't know my military terminology, but I mean a small group of about 10) This would be a good way to start, would allow each group to stay connected and know where they are, but allow the rest to be able to do what they do now.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  152. Re:"The US is easily capable of defeating any army by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    Depends on the battlefield. If we tried to take them in a march to Beijing, we'd lose. If we fortified Taiwan against invasion, we'd win. Limited ops to take a shoreline city or two I'd have to call it even.

    The only real advantage they have is numbers. They could field an army nearly as big as our entire population, which would be great for defending their turf, but they don't have power projection capabilities worth a damn. If they tried to mount an invasion of Taiwan, we'd sink most of their fleet. The troops that did get through would be cut to ribbons on the beaches. Naval aviation assets that could be brought to battle can take several times their number in chinese- The Chinese do have some good, modern fighters, but the bulk of their air force is old and obsolete.

    I'd say more... but I don't want to go to leavenworth.

  153. Sound familiar anybody?? by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

    At Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, a government-sponsored lab that opened on May 22, research could lead to external skeletons carrying artificial muscles that would make soldiers faster and stronger, said Paula Hammond, a research team leader. Does this remind anybody else of the Green Goblins suit from Spiderman (minus the crazy-gas of course)??

  154. Re:the US is scary by composer777 · · Score: 1

    Check out "Bowling for Columbine", it's a great movie. Or you can go to www.michaelmoore.com to find out what he's all about.

  155. I sent this article in yesterday... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2003-06-04 15:23:33 Wired, Lightweight and Ready to Kill (articles,usa) (rejected) Editors SUCK!

  156. Sounds like something dreamt up by.... by venom600 · · Score: 1

    Joe Haldeman, can't remember if it was in 'Forever War', or 'Forever Peace'
    Look Here
    Pretty good books.

  157. The Snide Historical Society would like to state.. by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

    ... that the Normandy invasion took place on June 6, 1944, not in 1943.

    Just thought you'd like to know.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  158. M-16A2 Service Rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong. The max effective range for the M-16A2 Service Rifle is 550 meters for point targets and 800 meters for area targets. The U.S.M.C. qualifies its recruits at the 200, 300 and 500 meter lines. At my last qualification I hit the smaller round target 4 for 5 at 200 meters in the off-hand and 10 for 10 on the 40in. x 20in. target at 500 meters in the prone position. I wasn't even in the top ten percent of the shooters that day. "Every Marine a Rifleman."

    1. Re:M-16A2 Service Rifle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah, the few, the proud, the dead on the beach

  159. vulnerable to hacks? by Allison+Geode · · Score: 1

    if this new battle armor is networked, would it be possible that it could be hacked by the enemy? suppose someone got illicit acess to the network (its wireless, of course, so it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), and made the armor go haywire? it has built in, remote control turniquettes? great, we'll cut off the enemy's circulation, deaden their response time. or shut off their optical enhancements, or make their optical enhancements play feed of terrorist leader propaganda. this sounds like a bad idea to me.

  160. 30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by SPYvSPY · · Score: 0, Troll

    There are about 30,000 Taliban/AQ goons (most of whom were killed or vaporized a short while back) that would tend to disagree with your statement.

    How many "willing participants" in the terror game did the US kill in Afghanistan? I dunno, but the answer is at least "plenty".

    1. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Why, how did that prevent terrorist attacks? Answer is, there's no way to prevent terrorist attacks. You give me ten minutes, and I can name and plan fifty different terrorist attacks that can not be prevented, short of a lockdown of the entire country. Ask Israel, for instance - they've been trying for decades and can't stop terrorist attacks, particularly not from suicide bombers.

      Short of either locking down the entire country or killing everyone who potentially might want to be a terrorist, there is no way to prevent a terrorist attack.

      -T

    2. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      You prevent terrorist attacks by not bulling others in the international community, and instead, trying to help them out.

    3. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Probably right there. But how many new terrorists have both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq created?

    4. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      You prevent terrorist attacks by not bulling others in the international community, and instead, trying to help them out.

      Sure, fine, now how do we help them out? Give them food so that their people aren't starving? Well, that's fine until we put their farmers out of business since our food is free and they're trying to sell theirs. So, don't give them food - oh, wait, now they're pissed 'cause they're starving. How about if you charge them for the food so that the farmers stay able to charge too? Oh, wait, now we're greedy and charging these poor people for the food.

      You see the problem - people will disagree with any solution you present, and the worst part is those people, even disagreeing with each other, are right.

      Health care, same problem - put the local doctors/medical community/drug manufacturers out of business. Education, problem there is that the ones in power want to stay in power, and thus prevent education from reaching those who need it - the poor, the women, etc.

      Unfortunately, there is no real solution, short of giving them, individually, everything they want - riches, health, power, etc. There will always be someone who wants more, and is pissed 'cause you have it and they don't.

      -T

    5. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      How about you teach them how to make their own food. And give them the basic nessesities to produce it if they don't alread have it. Sure, you may say that people might complain that they aren't doing enough to help or something. But how realistic is that really? And does it matter once they see things starting to work out for them?

      You see the problem - people will disagree with any solution you present, and the worst part is those people, even disagreeing with each other, are right.

      No. SOME people will always dissagree.

      Unfortunately, there is no real solution, short of giving them, individually, everything they want - riches, health, power, etc. There will always be someone who wants more, and is pissed 'cause you have it and they don't.

      These people are a minority. But you're better having 99% of people happy than only 5%.

      It's seems to me that you're just making excuses. There are solutions to these problems, it just people like you who stop them.

    6. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Okay, teach them how to make their own food - forget the fact that they have farms already and know how to produce food. No, you want to teach them how to make enough food to feed their entire population (something their current farms can't do).

      So, you show them conglomeration, mechanized labor, GM-foods (which can increase yield up to 25%), etc., and now they can produce enough food.

      But, oh, wait, now they're dependent on us for the GM seeds, the trucks/tractors/etc. parts, oil, and the little farms have been pushed out of business by the conglomerates, thus increasing the amount of unemployment. Bad solution.

      To really fix it, you need to stop over-population in those countries. How do you do that? By educating their women (women are much more likely to follow birth control regimens than men - studies found this in South Africa, among other places), birth rates will fall, population will shrink, and farms will be able to support the country.

      But, oh, wait, educating their women is against their religion. So, now they hate you again, and they've stoned all the women who got educated to death, ensuring that no more women come to your schools. What now?

      It's seems to me that you're just making excuses. There are solutions to these problems, it just people like you who stop them.

      You haven't really come up with any solution, so I haven't really come up with any excuses.

      And honestly, do you think I get my kicks preventing third-world countries from becoming first-world? This is really what gets me off? Come on. Stop making personal attacks and start thinking.

      -T

    7. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      So, you show them conglomeration, mechanized labor, GM-foods (which can increase yield up to 25%), etc., and now they can produce enough food.

      But, oh, wait, now they're dependent on us for the GM seeds, the trucks/tractors/etc. parts, oil, and the little farms have been pushed out of business by the conglomerates, thus increasing the amount of unemployment. Bad solution.

      GM is not nessesary. And why are they dependant on the 1st world for machinery? They are large countries, capable of producting these things themselves. And why do the little farmers have to be pushed out of bussiness? Never heard of collectivism? Even if they don't go down that road, how could it be worse that it is in the 1st world?

      To really fix it, you need to stop over-population in those countries. How do you do that? By educating their women (women are much more likely to follow birth control regimens than men - studies found this in South Africa, among other places), birth rates will fall, population will shrink, and farms will be able to support the country.

      But, oh, wait, educating their women is against their religion. So, now they hate you again, and they've stoned all the women who got educated to death, ensuring that no more women come to your schools. What now?

      Now you're jumping to extreme conclusions again. Societies can change, they may still be far from perfect, but they will listen to logic and reason when it is obvious. Over-population is an obvious problem, and they may choose to see birth control as a good way to stop this. However, that doesn't mean they will completely change their attitudes towards women (unfortunatly), so that doesn't nessesarily mean that will reject such ideas becasue it interferes with their religion.

      You haven't really come up with any solution, so I haven't really come up with any excuses.

      real solutions are complex, and require a good understaning of the problem. This is not something I have the time to disscuss here right now. This a part of the problem, people think they can talk about debate solutions accuratly in so little words. This is why I'm reluctant to disscuss solutions here, because I would not be able to address all the points and issues, and therefore, I would be missleading.

      And honestly, do you think I get my kicks preventing third-world countries from becoming first-world? This is really what gets me off? Come on. Stop making personal attacks and start thinking.

      I don't believe that at all. I do however think that you think it is not possible because you're not optimistic in this area, and believe it is too hard.

    8. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by kwelboy · · Score: 1

      Don't atack their country with a masiv army operation and then thretn anyone who didn't help you would be a good start though. And maybe when you do invade the country pull out without their oil.

    9. Re:30,000 dead guys disagree with you. by kwelboy · · Score: 1

      Not all the poor countrys think their women shoudn't be educated. There are actuely other countrys in the world wich don't have dictatorships and are still getting bulied by the US. I know, I come from one of them. Luckly we have no oil so we are safe for now.

  161. Funny, not flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Errr.. was this not ment to b funnY?

  162. I must have been using different "M16"'s by reverendG · · Score: 1

    You never had a jam firing with an M16? There's no way. There's no way, especially when you consider the condition of the rifles that are used in boot camp/basic training/whatever you want to call it.

    I don't know which defense contractor you're consulting for, or which cog of the propaganda machine you represent, but it's just laughable that you would make a statement like this.

    For what it's worth, I shot expert everytime I got a rifle in my hands after basic training, despite jams. Same with the M60 and the M240. The M9 is a different story, but that's neither here nor there.

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
    1. Re:I must have been using different "M16"'s by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      You never had a jam firing with an M16? There's no way. There's no way, especially when you consider the condition of the rifles that are used in boot camp/basic training/whatever you want to call it.
      Was basic training the only time you fired an M16? There's your problem right there... the condition of rifles in Basic Training units is complete crap, they're used a zillion times by a zillion different soldiers who rotate in, use them, beat them up, then they move on to other units. You can't compare the weapons in basic with the stuff you get issued when you arrive at your unit.
      When I went to basic (1987), we still old M16A1 rifles and wore steel pot helmets, though the Army had since moved on to M16A2 and Kevlar helmets.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
  163. A great idea to save soldiers lives... by reverendG · · Score: 0, Troll

    The new suits will automatic tourniquets built in. Anytime a Republican president puts on a set, the automatic neck tourniquet will activate.

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
  164. I can explain this. by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1

    I think it is because many people in America believe that if you cannot pull your weight, you deserve what you get. I cannot totally disagree, as this is a sentiment that derives from our animal nature. As a person who doesn't put much value on the notion of humanity's categorical distinction from other animals, I understand how this sentiment prevails here in America. Life is cruel. Results come at a price. We are all sent out of the womb to swim, tread water, or die trying. These are American values (among others, even some that contradict these), I think.

  165. COBRA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who noticed that this uniform seems to look a lot like the old Cobra Alley Viper from GI Joe? The Helmet is dead on (stormtrooper?! not even!)... now if it was to come in orange and blue camo...

  166. No, The OICW is Cheaper by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    i forget the article, but cost estimates place a fully loaded OICW as lower cost than a fully loaded M16 with similar capabilities. Plus, as far as soldiering goes, that $35,000 is only a small part of what the army spends to support that soldier.

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:No, The OICW is Cheaper by Thag · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. THe OICW is many times more complex, and includes a shortbarrelled HK G96 that itself would be comparably expensive to the M16.

      On the other hand, the army recently put together a totally different development program for a lightweight M4 replacement that will probably be better than the M16, and around the same cost.

      Jon Acheson

      --
      All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    2. Re:No, The OICW is Cheaper by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. THe OICW is many times more complex, and includes a shortbarrelled HK G96 that itself would be comparably expensive to the M16. On the other hand, the army recently put together a totally different development program for a lightweight M4 replacement that will probably be better than the M16, and around the same cost.
      Actually, that's the G36.
      The M4 replacement is IIRC the M8 lightweight combat rifle, and it is actually the rifle from the XM29 without the 20mm cannon and fancy sights and rangefinder.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    3. Re:No, The OICW is Cheaper by Jonner · · Score: 1

      So, wouldn't that make the M8 a US military version of the H&K G36? Interestingly, the US military was also interested in the H&K G11 back in the '80's. That was a much more futuristic and ambitious assault rifle design that seems to have been a good one, though it never went into production.

    4. Re:No, The OICW is Cheaper by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be a US version of the G36.
      I don't know what happened to the G11. IIRC, the weapon was slated to be fielded by the German military just before Reunification, but that event changed priorities and effectively killed off the program. The costs of deploying such a weapon would be considerable, especially considering the unique and hard to manufacture ammunition, so without a major adopter, it probably died on the vine.
      It's too bad, as from all accounts it was a superlative weapon. I am sure the technologies created in the G11 program will find their way into future weapons.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
  167. Venerable M-16? by dolbywan_kenobi · · Score: 1

    I didn't know that venerable meant the same thing as suck-ass....M-16s despite their being improved since Vietnam still jam when dirty. It's about time they be replaced.

  168. Now we can Frog Blast the Vent Core! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  169. Hack potential by trentfoley · · Score: 1

    These things had better be designed with security as a top consideration. I can see all sorts of potential disasters -- sending incorrect targeting information, remotely controlling the soldiers weapons, or worst of all, a command to tighten the built-in tourniquets on all suits.

  170. Soviets by zabieru · · Score: 1

    As much as I really do agree with you, and as mcu of a badass as Marshal Zhukov was, American material support was a big contribution to that victory.

  171. Robots on the Battlefield by MisterMook · · Score: 1

    When the alternative is spending the millions of dollars per soldier in training, feeding, housing, dependents, medical, and pension benefits it's no wonder that the modern military is running to designs that can handle single operators managing multiple platforms safely from a distance. Not only is it safer for the guys who are expected to fight for us, but it's cheaper than spending a ton of cash on a pilot who doesn't have any long term plans to stay in the service. Human error causes more troubles than computer error usually still, that might be a case of not giving the machines time enough to catch up in the idiot process but I think it is more likely that the human machines we're dependent on aren't the most reliable things in the first place. After all, if they worked perfectly then we might not have battlefields at all.

  172. Plastic Spintronics by winterlens · · Score: 1

    This struck me as pretty interesting because of an interview I did a few months ago with a professor at (the) Ohio State University. He developed a plastic that polarizes the spin of electrons, hopefully paving the way for plastic semiconductors. He thought they might be available for some applications in 5-10 years (on the consumer side; he didn't speculate about when the government would have operational technology).

    He mentioned that one of the applications of these would be for military use--the semiconductors could be woven into clothing for use reading heart rates, wound location, blood coagulation, that sort of thing. He also suggested that the semiconductors could be used in displays housed in pens: a screen could be unrolled from the barrel (not unlike a tape measure), which would also house a battery and transmitter for receiving data. It might be handy for maps.

    He thought plastic semiconductors wouldn't be terribly expensive, either, which is always good news. (Naturally there's greater context than what we've described here--e.g., the ability to create inexpensive hard drives with RAM seek times.)

  173. Did some work on this.... by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I was a grad student, I did some work for an Army project on building some of the biosensors that would be included in future uniforms. The organization I did the research for was working on biosensors to measure heartbeat (I did some work on the microcode) and was attempting to build a hypothermia/shiver detector (that I was doing most of my work on).

    We were experimenting with placing small devices that measure acceleration in various places and attempting to determine from a frequency-time analysis (i.e. imagine a frequency spectrum vs time) using neural networks and wavelet analysis to try and differentiate between the acceleration profiles caused by walking, running, moving, etc vs shivering....

    The alternative was to stick a small thermometer up the soldier's "rear" which I don't think anyone wanted :)

    --
    Evolution: love it or leave it
  174. Hmmmm? by eclectic4 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How does this help rebuild our decrepit schools and pay the teachers of our youth a decent wage? How does this help the RICHEST nation on Earth provide health care for it's own damn children!?!?? We are one of the LAST countries to realize things like health care for all, and yet we spend trillions on war and all the goodies that go along with it. Aren't we GREAT! (US)

    So THIS is how we end up spending more on our military than all other industrialized countries COMBINED.

    Screw them AND us right? As long as we have all this tremendous power and can instill enough fear (yay!!), who cares! Right?

    ...right?

    Dumbasses...

    --

    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    1. Re:Hmmmm? by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Flaimbait for spilling the truth at Slashdot...who ARE these dumbass moderators?

      Sheesh....

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
  175. I wonder if... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
    they will use Tivoli to monitor the army?

    It would be nice to program automated tasks to be performed on both the equipment and the soldier, trying to reboot an injured soldier in the field from somewhere in USA...

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  176. a naked army is a safer army. by PiSyu · · Score: 1

    You'll never get me in a networked uniform capable of applying tourniquets ... I have more repect for ANY enemy than to assume the network cant be hacked.

    --
    one
  177. dont feel like living here?? by deft · · Score: 1

    you do realize you'll probably end up living with barbara streisand then?!?!...

    if she ever does hold herself to her word.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  178. Why? by bmantz65 · · Score: 1

    Won't there be cyborgs fighting in 2011?

  179. Tourniquets!? by Dak+RIT · · Score: 1
    Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets that one day might be tightened and loosened remotely.

    Being a soldier, I have a pretty good feeling that the US Military would have a hard time selling the idea of remotely controlled tourniquets to soldiers who would be wearing the uniform. This is similar to the concept behind a flak jacket where the armour is hard near vital organs and softer around them (the idea is that a projectile won't shatter if it penetrates the armor, causing more damage, although try telling that to a soldier in the field).

    The first thing that came to my mind when I read that is an enemy infiltrating our communications system and activating tourniquets on every American soldier on the battle field, whether they can see them or not. Dak

  180. Re:Toys for the Boys by Ripplet · · Score: 1
    >We ARE and HAVE BEEN FOR MANY YEARS incredibly nice people.

    Yeah right!. Or try this one!

    >You fuck with America and you sign your death warrant.

    I think this is the kind of attitude I'm talking about.

    >apologise to the murderers

    Of course not, but you seem to have a hard time working out who the murderers actually are. You must be one of the 50% or so of Americans who think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 right?

    --

    Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal

  181. Why does this worry me... by FrankBlues · · Score: 1

    Built in tourniquets? What, they don't think the enemy will try to hack that? For that matter, the enemy will probably try to hack the entire suit... or render it completley usless with some sort of large EMP weapon...

    Sometimes being overreliant on technology ISN'T a good thing.

    Frankie

  182. About self defence by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    The 'self defence' defence would be credible if any of those actions took place on American soil. But in reality every single one of them involved US forces travelling to foreign countries to attack them. In cases of real self defence you don't have to travel to find the enemy, they come to you when they attack you.

    I notice that when you say 'people die and go to jail' in the drug trade, you only refer to Americans as 'people'.

    You need to read up on your Somali history. In the famous 'Black Hawk Down' incident, where according to US media 18 people were killed, there were actually about 1000 people killed, if you count Somalis. Most of them civilian bystanders, not child rapists as you would have us believe. And those helicopters were on a mission to capture Somali politicians the US disapproved of, not on any mission to feed people.

  183. just wait...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long until someone writes an aimbot for soldiers?

  184. Enemy Weapons... by phorm · · Score: 1

    Heck, if we can build one of these at home, I'm fairly sure that the "enemy" can too. Electronics aren't such a good idea when they become too depended-upon... especially in situations with a lot of sand, impact, or moisture, etc etc.

  185. All your troups are belong to us. by israfil_kamana · · Score: 1

    Hmm... wirelessly tighten tourniquets on an opposing force? Harden their cast-o-costumes on them? Or hack the IFF system, so joey shoots johnny since he's obviously now a "foe"... after all, his visor said so.

    I'm all for making people more effective, but given what I see out there in terms of applied security, it seems like a risky business.

    That, and the fact that as we depend more on technology, we often become less capable of dealing with a circumstance where the technology has failed.

    Man... the opportunities for speculative fiction are limitless. ... attention all HaX0rs, Uncle oSAMa's hiring...

    i.

    --
    i - This sig provided by /dev/random and an infinite number of monkeys at keyboards.
  186. If you want to avoid terrorist attacks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...use the information given to you!

    1. Re:If you want to avoid terrorist attacks... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      But then they'd have not reason to attack other countries! ;)

  187. Ladies and Gentlemen.... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Ladies and Gentlemen......I give you BF1942 the REAL game. Damn that would be cool.....suddenly flying a plane or driving a tank becomes a lot more fun when you won't physically die from someone tossing a few grenades under it.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  188. BULLSHIT, here's a cost analysis by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    From http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/m29_ faq.html#Anchor-An-363

    An M16 costs under $1000. We have heard M29 (OICW) may cost $10,000. Why is this?
    M29 (OICW) is a single system consisting of a fire control and combinatorial weapon. The functions contained within the system include the "add-ons" now used on the M16 or M4 such as optics, thermal weapon system, and aim light. With these functional add-ons, the existing M16/M4/203 system cost exceeds $35,000 each.

    --
    Photos.
  189. Will Cause More Problems Than Good... by Yoquimbo · · Score: 0
    Soooo......

    Somehow I don't think this will work all that well... As with most military technology, it's going to cost vast amounts of money and be lost in vast numbers.

    I mean, people bitch hardcore when soldiers die on the battlefield (despite the fact that they knew what they were getting into, and signed up for it), what are they going to do when each soldier's death also means the destruction of $100K of sensitive military equipment paid for by tax dollars?

    Naturally the idea is a wicked one, bringing to mind the Power Armor from the Fallout games, and the suits worn by the soldiers in Starship Troopers (the book, not the sissy movie). However, until you actually have a 1-man-killing-machine-tank-suit, I don't think it's going to be viable...

    --
    Death to Reefer Addicts.
    --
  190. so·cial·ism n. by TwitchCHNO · · Score: 1

    Let me tell you something about nations of the world: There is NOTHING stopping them from being civilized and receiving aid. But as long as they expect to develop socialist (needs of the people my ass) and murderous societies and policies, there will be no thought of this nation giving any of those barbaric folk anything but a chance at military confrontation.

    SoÂcialÂism n.

    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

    2. The stage in Marxist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

    UNDERSTAND that when Marx wrote Democracies were not the majority of governments, pretty much the ONLY model for government were dictatorships, monarchies - ect.

    Hate to break it to you but the US is a socialist democracy.

    Why do you think we have such things as the Federal Reserve. Public education, including Universities & libraries, The FCC, The SEC, The FDA.

    All of these goverment requlatory organisations ARE forms of socialist government. Without such regulatory organisations, businesses would be out of control. Radio and TV stations would try and overpower each others transmissions and your employer would embezzel your pension fund.

    Socialists argue for more governmental controls to protect the average worker. So situations such as Enron & Global Crossings don't happen.

    When large corporations weaken the control our socialist organisations have, the ordinary worker is hurt - from middle management all the way down to the mail room.

    So saying you are against socialism means you support the exploitation of workers by large corporations. Unless you are the CEO of a large multinational corporation (any of those read /. ?) being anti-socialist is a little bit counter-productive.

    I promise you that Saddam would still be murdering his people, including children were it not for the military intervention of the US, something few socialist nations were willing to do and were unwilling to do for the most cynical reasons: for Saddam's money.

    The European nations, and most accurately the UN security council are anti war. Not because they are socialist, but 1/2 of their populations were wiped out twice in the past 100 years. You know - a little thing called WWI & WWII.

    Do me a favour and next time you post an opinion, make sure it's informed.

    --
    ___________________________
    I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
  191. Re:The Snide Historical Society would like to stat by defishguy · · Score: 1

    Thanks for correcting me... LOL believe it or not I meant to hit 44 but I toggled the 3 instead that dang preview button should be useful but I'm not that aggressive :-). BTW I'm not a WW buff, and memory isn't what it used to be. Thank you for your help.

  192. What it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it's pork barrel spending and dubious whether it will work. But even so, since this is what the DoD wants, it's worth thinking why it wants it.

    Yes, it does nothing for fighting terrorism.

    What this armour would do, if they ever release a beta, is make each soldier more leathal and harder to kill. Thus is allows them to have less soldiers (and still spend more money as well). Now, the difficulty of recruiting soldiers comes in here. Given the current situation, at least half of everyone going into the military is going have stones thrown at them in Iraq. That won't make a good recruiting poster.

    I suppose the eventual goal would be to provide Donald Rumsfeld with an armour suit that gave the powers of a super hero like Magneto.

  193. The Skins are coming by MindTree · · Score: 1

    Wow, Who knew the Skins from Peter Hamilton's Fallen Dragon were so close?

    I'm also flashing back to the first Star Trek TNG episodes, Encounter at Farpoint, where Q puts the crew on trial and in one of the scenes, when he's flashing through earths "history" he shows up dress as a suppsed 22nd century soldier in a "battle suit" of sorts. Good Stuff(tm).

  194. SUGGESTION for a Better Weapon system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose to just COPY the Russian design of AK-101 (newest improvement of AK-47 lineage), lengthen the barrel, give the bullet high power gun powder, lighten the whole gun by employing state of the art material (fiberglass?) Give the gun a better sight like a small 10x sniper scope, and bam!, you have a perfect future weapon system that's rugged, and almost fail safe. (99.9%)
    Oh, not to mention recall all those pansy and fault prone beretta, and re-issue ColtM1911 side arm to all applicable soldiers and COs.

  195. Re:the US is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citing Michael Moore as a reference is never a good thing. See here and here.

  196. Technical societies breed technical armies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US has always been technically competent in the military sphere. To the extent that a society is reflected in the character of its military, it is easy to understand our obsession with new technology. Even our written military fiction (e.g., Tom Clancy) dwells on the exact make of the missile or rifle used by the hero, or the terminal ballistics, rather than "shot a gun, killed the bad guy." Just watch CSI to see the holiness of technology.

    This is good and bad, militarily. It is good to the extent that it gives us great early warning technology (though researcher Stephen Biddle has shown that the full suite of satellite and drone recon assets focused on a tiny area of Afghanistan in the recent war found only 50% of the enemy positions), and reduces the number of aircraft sorties needed to destroy a target by bombing. Technology is a negative to the extent that it takes time and resources, or institutional focus away from operational planning and success (as theorist Lt. Col. Richard Leonhard has argued).

    It is also a net negative to the extent that it forestalls the use of simpler, cheaper, and equally effective technologies. NASA is famous for developing the zero-g pen, rather than rely on the pencil. The US army is now testing an electronic armour system that uses capacitors to pre-detonate incoming explosive rounds before they hit tanks. The ex-Soviets developed a similar system far cheaper: they hung chain link fence several inches off their tanks to predetonate rounds.

    The proposed system sounds heavy, maintenance intensive, and perhaps not marginally better than existing battlefield radios. But these complaints are not militarily that big a deal. What worries me is that these intensive info-tech innovations will reduce whatever level of "mission orders" or local-iniative, and turn _soldiers_ into remote control devices, ala Alien 2, where the LT sits in the APC and sends his troops to die.

    The operational and political consequences of this technology are decidedly worse than any technical hiccups they may have in implementing them using current tech.

  197. A question by Efreet · · Score: 1

    Do you have any opinions on the reliablility of some of the more modern assault rifles, like the Styer AUG or the FAMAS?

    --
    This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
  198. America is Scary...So... by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

    The United States does sent BILLIONS of dollars overseas and 2/3's of the 3 Trillion dollar Governement Budget is spent on Social Programs. While I agree Military spending in the US is expensive, it isn't all bad. The stuff for the military is made in the US which means people need to make it in the US giving people jobs in the US.

    On another point, as conservative US has found, throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away. The US gives BILLIONS of dollars to in foriegn aid a year and found the return isn't equal. A better example of Forgien Aid gone wrong would be Hati and Afghanistan. I think it can also be agreed that not sending some contries financial aid would be worse than going to war.

    There are a couple of infrastructure issues the Military assists the US with, but I don't feel like getting into those.

    I'm not saying Military spending is at the level it should be, nor am I saying that the US has is right. I am just saying there are benifits to all people in the US from military spending.

  199. Interception and Deception... by nametaken · · Score: 1

    I expect that the interception of this wireless communication is considered the same way the military has always considered previous communication lines... like radio. The stakes just seem to get higher and higher.

  200. Popular Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times have we seen this type of story run in that load of cr*p Popular Science? I think the press runs this story every other year and just changes the date from 2005 to 2007 to 2011, etc.

  201. The BS flag goes up... by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    The Worldwatch Institute a few years ago estimated it would cost $US196.3 billion to meet urgent environmental and social needs worldwide. The USA spent a similar amount on its war in Iraq.

    Where did you get this statistic on the cost of the Iraq war? Bush asked for, and Congress appropriated less than half that amount.

    Sean

  202. Great analogy... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... now I can add "getting invaded by hordes of Canadian civilians" to my list of things to worry about - damn you, Slashdot!

    Seriously - while I can see the point of some comparisons to the Roman empire, simple geography pretty much dooms this one.

    Sean

    1. Re:Great analogy... by girino · · Score: 1

      Damn.. I was really sure that they had boats and planes in "the barbarian lands" from across the ocean to do the job of the "fozen Danube and Rhine"!

      Maybe when the ocean freezes in next ice age they can cross it!

    2. Re:Great analogy... by Jardine · · Score: 1

      We're already amoung you. Hundreds of our entertainers await the word to...well, I'm not sure exactly what, but something! Be afraid.

  203. Sorry I'm late to this discussion but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry I'm late to this discussion but I want to remind all of you that the armies of the future will be continue to be young people and that the enemy will continue to be civilian populations. What will be different, besides the armor and the weaponry, is that the young people will be brainwashed with the benefit of high technology and they will be drugged to the hilt. As always, the orders will come from old men acting on orders from their Gods in search of power and money.

  204. SKYNET is going to kill us all by payote · · Score: 0

    The suits will rebel against their wearers, preferring to 'live' without fighting or dying, then the machines will rise and we'll all end up in the Matrix. Art predicts science yet again.

    --


    Never pet a burning dog.
  205. NOT A CHANCE!!!! by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    Ummm, well a after Hitler took over and started re-arming a LOT of people predicted this. The biggest of whom was WINSTON CHURCHILL. Need I give you lecture on appeasment and the chicken-shit leadership in Europe at the time who chose paying territorial bribes over fighting.

    Second, the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor was a hit-and-run affair. It was designed to prevent the US from ENTERING a Pacific War. It was the first stroke in a lightning campaign intended to put the US Navy so far in the whole, that they would be inclined to simply pursue peace. Hirihito knew that this was Japan's ONLY hope of being victorious over the US.

    Beyond that the resources needed for a ground invasion would have been far more substantial. More boats, more men, more planes, more food, more fuel. A bigger fleet means a bigger chance of getting caught and a greater succeptability to submarine attack. Additionally, such a fleet would be hindered by a need to protect troop and supply ships if they were discovered.

    Now while the US had no substantial Army at the opening bell of World War 2.. We still had the BIGGEST NAVY in the world surpassing both Great Britain AND Japan. Hirihito knew this all too well.

    The entire Pacific fleet (save Pearl Harbor (hmmm...??)) WAS on alert status at the time. We did have other fleet resources available at the time. In order to assure victory for invasion, the Japanese would need to keep their fleet in the Hawaii area to protect their invading forces against American Naval reinforcement. This would effectively make them SITTING ducks for submarines and responding US carriers.

    Hirihito WAS a brilliant Naval commander. He had no for-knowledge of the poor state of readiness that the Pearl Harbor fleet would be in that day. Had the base been alerted in sufficient time to the approaching strike force, it's very likely that Hirihito's fleet would have had it's asses handed to them being so deep into US controlled waters (In fact they WERE detected on RADAR, the duty officer was just too STUPID to believe it). Had they been detected at the proper time, they could have been encircled and annihalated by a combination of pursuing forces from Pearl Harbor and intercepting vessels who were on patrol further in the Pacific. Had this occured, it's likely that the Phillipines would NEVER have been taken.

    So you see it was absoluetly vital that the mission be "hit and run". Furthermore, their only targets could be miliatary, directly targeting civilian facilities (through invasion or otherwise) would necessitate an American committment to full warfare. They DID NOT invade Pearl Harbor because they COULD NOT without placing their entire plan of SE Asia dominance at risk all in one stroke.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:NOT A CHANCE!!!! by defishguy · · Score: 1

      Sir with all due respect I've gathered some figures for you to see.

      http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1941.ht m

      (Note The Japanese navy surpassed the American + British + Netherlands navies COMBINED)

      I agree that Militarily we dropped the ball. But this thread relates to the results of inadequate defense spending. I certainly did not mean any offense and I am certainly proud of that generation and their accomplishments.

      I'm simply a proponent of adequate defense spending TODAY!

  206. Mortal Kombat! by terrab0t · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who looks at that suit, hears the name "Scorpion" and pictures US troops running around shooting hooks out of their arms?

    I can't wait until the rival "Sub-Zero" suit hits our shores.

  207. Many Others are Already Doing this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recent intelligence has shown that several other countries have similar programs. North Korea, China, etc. All of them are developing top secret battle military outfits.

    Here's the round-up:

    Russia's Siberian Battle uniform. Code name: Sub-Zero

    North Korea's Battle uniform. Code name: Kung Lao

    China's Battle uniform is reported to have stealth cammo capabilities, making it appear and behave like the Battle uniforms of other countries. Code name: Tsang Shung

    In order to keep the 'inner' peace, China's Shaolin monks have devised their own high-tech outfit, code-named: Liu Kang

    Bachman Foods Corporation has bought exclusive naming rights to US Army Special Forces Battle suits. Code named: Jaxx

    Also, there have been rumors that Brazil has been experimenting with gene-manipulation of their soldiers. Project Code-name: Blanka.
    The results are reportedly, very shocking.

  208. Indeed by Jonner · · Score: 1

    I think you're absolutely right. Probably, a lot of the current problems the US is facing are partially our fault because we did try to help someone at some point. Of course, there were always other agenda too, and I'm ashamed of a lot US foreign policies for both the reasons and the results.

    I don't think it should generally be the role of a government to give foreign aid, whether military or humanitarian. That's simply not one of the jobs given to the US government in the Constitution. Rather, individuals should be the ones to give humanitarian aid. There are many mission and humanitarian organizations that are helping a lot of people all over the world, uninhibited by major political pressure from the people giving the money.

    Of course, giving military aid may contribute directly to the national defense, as did the US aid to the UK and other states during the Second World War. However, most of the aid since then can't be characterized as directly contributing to US defense.

  209. Re:the US is scary by mfrank · · Score: 1

    Funny, I've always noticed that when someone refers to North America, South America, and Central America as a composite, they refer to them as "The Americas". Kind of like "The Simpsons".

    I am an American.
    I live in America
    I also live in the Americas.

    But if you *really* want to know what country I live in, it's Texas :). Which, for Europeans and for people who live in the non-American parts of the Americas, is even worse than merely living in the American part of the Americas.

  210. Worse than useless. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    Imagine if a point of failure isn't total shut-down, but rather mis-interpreted signals.

    A bit gets flipped and all your friends are drawn in "shoot-at-me" red instead of "friendly green"

    Yeah, somebody will figure it out and shut the thing down, but how much damage will have been done in the interim?

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  211. Get a new password! by FFtrDale · · Score: 1
    Please {smile}. New info for me (on the Ross). Your father described the Lee-Enfield in the same way that my Dad spoke of the "A3-03" Springfield (the U.S. Rifle, Model 1903-A3, the WWII version of the WWI Springfield 1903). I'd like to keep reading your comments. Thanks!

    --
    Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
  212. it's funny 'cause it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha ha that is the funniest thing i've read all day

  213. It's the buildt in grenade launcher. by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

    "Given that the M16 and the OICW are both chambered in .223/5.56NATO, there's no way it's going to be good for 1000 meters, as that's a limitation of the cartridge design not the gun. The OICW is also a bullpup design, but still has a short barrel, decreasing maximum effective lethal range. The OICW uses the same magazines as the M16. "

    When people are refering to the longer ranges of the OICW over the M16, they are not talking about the .223-calibre firing part of the gun, but the buildt in, computer controlled, automatic 45/20mm grenade launcher.

  214. More specific info on the launcher, range. by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

    Here's more info on the grenade launcher, mentioning that "... The system goals are to precisely deliver airburst rounds in MOUT and rural terrains that are five times more lethal at greater than twice the range of the M203(.223 cartridge). The 20mm HE fuze function features include point detonation (P.D.) delay, self-destruct, and a "window mode."

    Here's the link.

  215. Smart guns? by mcraw · · Score: 1

    you know, if we could just get the morons to stop making guns in the first place...

    --
    -Miles
    Fuzzy
  216. The mysterious G11 by Jonner · · Score: 1

    The US military must have decided it would be too expensive also, though they had favorable field trials. I guess the G11 was just ahead of its time. H&K designs since then, such as the the UMP and G36, have been much more conventional. The MP7 does have a new type of ammunition, but it's still not caseless. I guess the H&K guys decided that they were being too innovative for their own good and stuck to what they knew would sell.

  217. Just a datapoint . . . by Kris+Magnusson · · Score: 1

    The FDA approved a study on MDMA to be performed at the University of North Carolina. IIRC, it's been ongoing for some months now. So we're seeing at least one crack in the war on drugs. If we're lucky, they'll reschedule it in the next couple of years so psychiatrists can prescribe it for use with psychotherapy.

    ............... kris

    --
    "I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
  218. I hope they change the default password... by Benwick · · Score: 1

    You can disable all the soldiers... Just login with password "admin"...

  219. Land Warrior? Never heard of it ... by jdeking1 · · Score: 1

    OK, I did hear of it - I thought they said "LAN Warrior." I figured it for another Ashcroft initiative.

    "Land Warrior?" No, I am not disposed to discuss anything vaguely resembling that description. Furthermore, if I were so disposed, I would deny any knowledge of such a program. Sir.

    --
    "A generation which ignores history has no past and no future." -- Robert Heinlein
  220. Hacking the uniform by Elanor · · Score: 1

    What happens if the uniform gets hacked into, and a tourniquet you didn't need gets applied and your hands and feet drop off? Going the other direction, what happens if the enemy gets vital information back from the uniform. e.g. lots of heartbeats in region x, or indeed great swathes of soldiers have gone null heartbeat in region y after application of enemy weapon z.

    Would blackops then be soldiers in the old fashioned uniorms? Or just US Army unplugged.

    What would an EM pulse do to the soldiers in the new uniform? Failsafes have to be thunk through.

    My 2c

  221. Re:the US is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey man, it's not my problem that you are embarrassed to refer to yourself by your own nationality.
    You feel that we are somehow taking something away from you. Why is this? Because we are America (oh, SO sorry, the United States of America) and we are the obvious target for your frustrations. My country is rich. Your country is poor. You are jealous of this, ergo you resent the USA and you will find petty examples of how "wrong" the USA is.
    Here's a fun illustration:
    Belgium-->Belgian
    Russia-->Russian
    India-->Indian
    United States of America-->American
    Yet, somehow, the USA's use of the term is "arrogant" and "wrong". What about the others in the list? Why aren't Russians arrogant for calling themselves Russian?

    Your argument is flawed. It is based on this silly notion that the USA is hogging the term America. Here's my advice: Take pride in your own country as I do mine. Then you'll see how silly your posts are.

  222. I think I just saw a movie about this....... by b0gart · · Score: 1

    Someone prolly already said this(with tongue in cheek i hope) But didn't I JUST see a movie where the machines started causing a little problem for the human race? unmanned planes.....robotic vehicles.......The machines are preparing for their revolution.......Where's Neo when ya need him? :)

  223. No, basic is not the only place i fired M16's... by reverendG · · Score: 1

    I was in a line infantry unit in the 82nd. I fired every weapon available to a line infantry company on a regular basis.

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
  224. Re:Jaysyn? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    It's better than AC fuckwad....

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  225. AH, Complete BULLSHIT! by Thag · · Score: 1

    Lies, damn lies and marketing.

    "And, if we attach the M16 to the gun rack in the back of this Cadillac Escalade, the resulting weapons system might cost in excess of $75,000!"

    The M4 as typically fielded is maybe a $3,000 weapon (I have no way of knowing what the Army actually pays for it). It is not equipped with the M203 as standard equipment (only one or two riflemen in each squad carry that). It is not equipped with thermal sights as standard equipment. It is never equipped with both thermal and optical sights at the same time.

    Jon Acheson

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  226. AH yes by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

    hate to carry this farther, but
    the army plans on giving OICWs to only a fraction of soldier, 1 for every 8 men i think. I can't remember, its probably in the linked FAQ.

    --
    Photos.