Slashdot Mirror


Future Weapons of War in the Works

An anonymous reader writes "Who needs explosive missiles when you can just launch a 3 foot long chunk of metal at near Mach 7 speeds and get the same result? Popular Science looks at weapons the military is developing for future wars including electromagnetic railguns, space darts, superfast torpedos, laser cannons, and a gun that fires a million rounds per minute."

983 comments

  1. As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Military technology is striving to be one big Quake clone I mean, we already have aimbots, now there are railguns....next thing you know the US Army will be wallhacking.

    1. Re:As I've always said by Anhaedra · · Score: 0

      We have aimbots? I was unaware.

      --
      Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
    2. Re:As I've always said by amitk777 · · Score: 1

      Yes and more toys in hand of that guy up there. And US soldiers still killed on the ground.

    3. Re:As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, next they will invent an "Axe".

    4. Re:As I've always said by Anhaedra · · Score: 1, Informative

      next thing you know the US Army will be wallhacking.

      We already can with ifrared.

      --
      Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
    5. Re:As I've always said by pubjames · · Score: 2, Funny


      It makes you wonder if John McCormack actually influences the military with his games.

      Perhaps he could bring about world peace by making non-violent weapons?

      Coming in Doom 4... custard cannons, exploding jelly mines and balloons filled with rasberry sauce.

    6. Re:As I've always said by bluelan · · Score: 4, Funny
      They already are wall hacking, as reported on slashdot in '99.


      Real life wall hacking


      Now here's the moral delimna. If we can do it in real life, is it cheating?

      --

      I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. (wright)

    7. Re:As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Coming in Doom 4... custard cannons, exploding jelly mines and balloons filled with rasberry sauce."
      Actually I think thats kinda cool. I mean blowing people to bits has just been sooo done.
      On the other hand covering them with custard and jelli,.hahahaha now I sure would love to do that and laugh my ass off at them.
      Humour is a powerfull weapon- if only game designers would recognise it.

    8. Re:As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "... influences the military with his games."

      Surely you mean with his songs. Either that or you're talking about John Carmack.

    9. Re:As I've always said by Peldor · · Score: 3, Informative
      It makes you wonder if John McCormack actually influences the military with his games.

      John Carmack is probably a bigger influence.

      John McCormack was an Irish tenor if you believe that lying Google.

    10. Re:As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real life always follows Science fiction. There's a book - I won't say which, because it's a spoiler for the book - in which a global war was fought by dropping asteroids on each other.

    11. Re:As I've always said by Leperous · · Score: 1

      Your metal rods going at mach speeds are known as kinetic harpoons in sci-fi stories, they're usually used to bombard stationary targets such as planets/moons.

    12. Re:As I've always said by Throtex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They've jammed our radar, sir!

      Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!

    13. Re:As I've always said by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh, Spaceballs, where would we be without it!

      "May the Swartchz be with you!"

      --
      Here we go again!
    14. Re:As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If dropping asteroids is a spoiler, that implies it happens at a crucial moment and has a significant effect, such as at the end of the book. Somehow I assume it's pretty likely for that to happen near the end of a story rather than the beginning.

    15. Re:As I've always said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Soldiers always get killed. The difference is that now fewer soldiers get killed. Check your history books for how many were killed in wars we've fought.

      The United States lost more men in a four month period during WWI than were lost in the whole Viet Nam war. We lost more men in ONE day's battle in WWII than in the whole Iraq war.

      War will never be "safe", but we can lower the risks to our own troops while increasing the risk for the enemy. Think about it - would you like to take on the Marines, at night, armed only with an RPG and an AK-47? Not me; I'm not that stupid.

    16. Re:As I've always said by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's in the middle of the book. Killed many people because their government said the rock would just hit and not do anything, so there was a large crowd there to watch it. The book I'm thinking of it was moon rocks, not asteroids.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    17. Re:As I've always said by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Military technology is striving to be one big Quake clone I mean, we already have aimbots, now there are railguns....next thing you know the US Army will be wallhacking."

      Heh. Everybody calling each other a faggot camper whenever they fire the railgun.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    18. Re:As I've always said by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Surely you mean with his songs."

      Thought that was a Bill and Ted reference for a moment there.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    19. Re:As I've always said by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      The KH-12 was the radar-based reconsat used for finding Soviet missile silos, if I remember correctly. It could see through the ground.

      What would you choose:
      -A high sensitivity far IR camera: see through walls
      -SS-18 Mod 4: 25 Megaton Ground Burst

  2. US Army by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So there will be new, more powerful, more accurate weapons. Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:US Army by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft's Digital Rifle Management?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...

      I guess the easiest way to prevent that would be just not to fire the fucking things.

    3. Re:US Army by next1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as we have seen in iraq, we also need a way to stop them aiming the accurate weapons at the *right* things.

      the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity.

    4. Re:US Army by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...

      Such as not shooting your allies, for example.

      From the article in today's BBC News:
      The US military at first insisted that there was a fault with the RAF Tornado's 'friend-foe' recognition system but later admitted they were having problems with the Patriot missile system's software.

    5. Re:US Army by vandan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think it's entirely fitting that US flag is displayed alongside this topic. The only things missing are maybe an Israeli flag and a picture of the greenback. It helps to show how things are related...

      The hypocracy of the US manufacturing these Weapons of Mass Destruction is probably lost on most Americans. I'm sure they were screaming and wollowing in self-pity when they saw the video of the US citizen being beheaded. But they conveniently sweep under the carpet the fact that while that incident was carried out by a small group of desperate people trying to protect their countries from a brutal occupying force, it is standard procedure for US soldiers to carry out torture, rape and executions of Iraqi civilians. The handful of soldiers in the shit over it at the moment are all claiming that they were following orders of their superior officer, and that they were in turn following orders from CIA officers. The guy in charge of the prison where all the action has been uncovered was removed from control of a US prison in the 70s for doing exactly the same thing to prisoners back then.

      The whole thing stinks of war crimes to me.

      But as I said, this will be lost on most Americans, who will be cheering that they are developing even better Weapons of Mass Destruction to protect themselves ( and of course to hand to the fucking Israelis - so they can protect themselves too ).

      And you wonder what causes terrorism!

    6. Re:US Army by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...

      I believe the correct US Army term for that is 'GI proofing' the weapon. Of course that comment came from a US Marine so ...

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    7. Re:US Army by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Generally anything you aim a weapon at is the wrong thing.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    8. Re:US Army by cyb97 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You mean MS DRM?

    9. Re:US Army by tealover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Friendly fire always happens in every war. Regardless of what you think from playing SOCOM, war is chaotic and mistakes do happen.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    10. Re:US Army by basingwerk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you be sure that this is not due to substandard training? In Britain, people are tired of hearing this excuse when the US blast British tanks and planes instead of the enemy.

      --
      I stole this .sig
    11. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a significant difference between WMDs like chemical weapons, small tactical nuclear weapons, and biological weapons and WMDs like strategic thermonuclear weapons. The latter is the only WMDs that the US currently works on (though we want to work on tactical nukes again). The reason they are different is that the previous are meant to be used in a war and the latter is meant to be created to never be used (Mutual Assured Destruction). If you doubt the effectiveness of MAD, note that no world 'power' has gone directly to war with another since WW2. 60 years without world powers at war is a precedent that has never been set before in world history. This is exactly the reason that peaceful scientists and engineers worked on the Manhattan project (and why there is no hypocricy when they immediately signed a letter urging the government to never use their creation). These weapons don't fall into your simple WMDs are evil because the US possesses them criterion.

    12. Re:US Army by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity

      Because of course Saddam was just hanging out and mingling with the little people, and the restaurant wasn't cleared and secured by his security detail first.

    13. Re:US Army by tha_mink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Britain, people are tired of hearing this excuse when the US blast British tanks and planes instead of the enemy.

      What excuse are they not tired of when they have their ownfriendly fire incedents?

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    14. Re:US Army by timmy+the+large · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually he wasn't there at all. That is why all the assasination attempts failed. He was never there, just a bunch of bystanders.

      Smart weapons are great and I think they have made great strides in cutting back civilian casulties, but the Iraq war is by no means without them.

    15. Re:US Army by next1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iraqi rescue workers using a bulldozer to search the rubble said that three bodies had been recovered -- those of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man -- and that the death toll could be as high as 14. The woman's head had been severed from her torso.

      ( http://www.boston.com/news/daily/08/war_leadership _strike.htm )

      Rescuers said up to 14 people may have been killed in the blast, which reduced four houses to dust and blew out windows and doors of houses as far as 300 m away. The remains of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man were pulled from the rubble.


      ( http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4 395,182123,00.html )

    16. Re:US Army by AndyElf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wouldn't for that then the easiest be not to have any of these fuckers?

      That whole article made me, actually, feel quite disgusted -- such a bravado of "Look -- these are the cool toys for all our trigger-happy generals." How aout a Doom's Day Device, then?

      It's intersting that one of the ideas that seemed to be threaded throught he first part of the article was "there's just one problem -- we're not sure who the enemy is." Unfortunately, the tendency at times to then invent one.

      --

      --AP
    17. Re:US Army by zhenlin · · Score: 1

      Evidently they're not accurate enough. If they were more accurate, it would not have caused so much 'collateral damage' (bystander deaths).

      We don't need weapons of mass destruction. We have enough already. We need weapons of targeted minimal destruction. (What's wrong with a sharpshooter and a shotgun? Seems quite effective for human targets)

    18. Re:US Army by cosmo7 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The US Army is world-famous for its ability to shoot down its allies and its own forces. It even invented the phrases "friendly fire" and "blue on blue" to describe it. I mean, what army needs two euphemisms for trigger-happiness?

      Case in point: during D-Day all allied planes were marked with thick black and white stripes in the hope of reducing the level of fratricide.

    19. Re:US Army by bcmm · · Score: 1

      People seem to have misunderstood this.

      My point wasn't that they will shoot at their allies as usual, I was trying to say that they will still use them to shoot at their enemies.

      I was kind of assuming that people where "The wrong things".

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    20. Re:US Army by bonhomme_de_neige · · Score: 1
      Now we just need a way to stop humans aiming the accurate weapons at the wrong things...
      Such as not shooting your allies, for example.

      It already exists! 2 team kills and you get banned . . .

      --
      "Why are you watching the washing machine?"
      "I love entertainment, as long as it's clean"
    21. Re:US Army by operagost · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's really insightful. I suppose suicide bombers are still ok, since they don't actually aim at anything.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:US Army by goodviking · · Score: 1

      the accurate weapons at the *right* things

      Seriously. You would think that with all we can and have achieved technologically, we could come up with something to do with it other than kill each other. It's like the Simpsons episode with the cursed monkey paw:

      "You can put things into orbit."
      "That's good."
      "They will be used to kill people."
      "That's bad." ...

    23. Re:US Army by lysium · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Yes, but now the world is safe from a tyrant that fantasized about launching missiles at innocent peop......oh.

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    24. Re:US Army by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      You are of-course, one of the exceptions to the general.

      Suicide bombers to aim,

      'Main Entry: 1aim
      Pronunciation: 'Am
      Function: verb
      Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French aesmer & esmer; Middle French aesmer, from Old French, from a- (from Latin ad-) + esmer to estimate, from Latin aestimare
      intransitive senses
      1 : to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object
      2 : ASPIRE, INTEND
      transitive senses
      1 obsolete : GUESS, CONJECTURE
      2 a : POINT b : to direct to or toward a specified object or goal '

      'to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object',

      I always though that suicide bombers aimed themselfs at there enemy.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    25. Re:US Army by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      From your very own link:

      Col Vernon said an investigation was under way into the accident, the first in recent years in which British forces have been killed in error. It will centre on why the tank's sophisticated new identification technology failed to prevent the attack.

      The first in recent years... We have friendly fire accidents in training and it seems like in the last couple conflicts (but possibly not this one as it draws out) we lost more people due to FF than anything else. And I don't mean final fantasy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:US Army by Kyro · · Score: 1

      I don't know what version of SOCOM you were playing but that fscker "Boomer" often shoots me in the back!

      --
      save the GNUs!
    27. Re:US Army by b-baggins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertion of better men than himself.

      - John Stuart Mill

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    28. Re:US Army by trentblase · · Score: 1

      "Can I go now?"

    29. Re:US Army by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct US Army term for that is 'GI proofing' the weapon.

      "GI proofing" is more about protecting the weapon itself (and it's operator), than other people.

      For example, in the original Gulf War, the biggest losses of Abrams tanks was not due to enemy fire, not to friendly fire, but to ammunition detonation after someone had parked and left the heater on.

    30. Re:US Army by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gosh, I wonder why that is. Do battle with an under-equipped enemy whose weapons barely scratch your tanks and they're less likely to kill you.

      You of course fire just as many shots as before, so your friendly-fire numbers aren't going to change much.

      Less kills by enemies, the same by friendlies, and you have an increasing percentage of friendly fire kills.

      Do you have any indication that there are more FF kills, per soldier, than in previous wars? (Leaving out static battles like trench-to-trench sniping.)

    31. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are two extremes. One extreme says no war is worth it. Jesus takes this extreme and John Stuart Mills rails against this in your quote.

      Another extreme to reach for war as your first and primary tool when you want to control the natural resources of another country. George Bush takes this extreme.

      So in a nutshell.

      Jesus on one extreme, George Bush on the other.

      Most people are in the middle.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    32. Re:US Army by basingwerk · · Score: 1

      You seem very sure of yourself, even proud. I suppose it takes all kinds.

      --
      I stole this .sig
    33. Re:US Army by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      One extreme says no war is worth it. Jesus takes this extreme

      No, He doesn't.

      Our lord and savior promised to wage holy vengance and be quite voilent when he comes back. And he secured the Roman Empire by endorsing one side for ruler.

    34. Re:US Army by Nodatadj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not "anti-war" because I think it will make me safer, I'm anti-war because I think it will make the people in the area safer.

    35. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said, I couldn't agree more.

    36. Re:US Army by swingkid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a large difference between protesting a war unilaterally begun under obviously false pretenses, and not being willing to fight for anything at all.
      And while we're quoting:
      "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
      - Samuel Johnson

    37. Re:US Army by Rostin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jesus takes this extreme

      Jesus takes the extreme of telling individuals not to retaliate when insulted. He says nothing about war. In his encounters with professional soldiers, he doesn't make their job an issue. He quotes the Old Testament and speaks highly of the scriptures (verses the traditions cobbled on by the Pharisees) in which a not inconsiderable amount of war and killing is mandated by Yahweh.

      It's possible to interpret the sayings of Jesus recorded as the Sermon on the Mount as a promotion of absolute pacifism, but this view doesn't really stand up very well under scrutiny and is probably too simplistic.

      Ghandi would probably make a much better example of this "extreme."

    38. Re:US Army by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      "a defective heater in an M992 ammunition carrier loaded with 155mm artillery shells caught on fire". Nobody "left the heater on", it malfunctioned.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    39. Re:US Army by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Who confirmed this information? Who were these people? Remember, many terrorist people will hide within the confines of their family. Their family knows this and acts as shields for them. If you want to act as a shield, then you take the risk of getting hurt. The fact that a child was there is not the fault of the child (depending on the age) but it is also not the fault of the soldiers. It is the fault of the parents who forced them to be around a high profile person who is in the middile of a war.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    40. Re:US Army by wattersa · · Score: 4, Funny

      "It looks like you are trying to fire your weapon. Would you like to:
      - Learn more about ballistics
      - See a maintenance diagram
      - Find help on the internet
      - Run the Rifle Setup Wizard?"

      [troop inserts loaded magazine]
      "Windows has detected new hardware, would you like to look for a driver on the internet now?"

      [it jams]
      "An unrecoverable error has occurred in RIFL4512.dll.
      (A)bort, (R)etry, (C)ontinue?"

      Yeah, I think I'll pass on this DRM also!

    41. Re:US Army by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      How about a sharpshooter and a rifle instead? more accurate and better range.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    42. Re:US Army by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Informative
      There's a large difference between protesting a war unilaterally begun under obviously false pretenses, and not being willing to fight for anything at all.
      1. No U.N. does not equal unilateral.
      2. WMD was not the only reason given for the attack on Iraq (read the actual transcript of the State of the Union address instead of your DNC talking points).
      3. Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror.
      4. Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.
      5. The patriotism Mill describes is the degraded patriotism of the man who cries out that it is the patriotic duty not to fight, no matter the cause.
      6. It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. -Winston Churchill
      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    43. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. I bet you know quite a few of these pompous quotes. 'xuse me, think I have to puke.

    44. Re:US Army by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      The heater left itself on. Are you trying to tell me the heater isn't a sentient being?

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    45. Re:US Army by next1 · · Score: 1

      i don't really see how that relates to my post you replied to.

      the main point i was making in the above posts is that there's no such thing as a safe bomb. no matter how "smart" and accurate it is, it's still a bomb that is going to indiscriminantly destroy anything in the surrounding area, not just it's target. the people killed in the houses surrounding that restaurant were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      and the restaurant example is just one example. thousands of guided missiles were sent into iraqi cities. it was just complete disregard for iraqi civilian lives. what would happen if thousands of missiles were sent into an american city? thousands of innocent people would die! that's what would happen.

    46. Re:US Army by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      Jesus was speaking against revenge, the notion of an eye for an eye, not against defending yourself.

      However blowing up a building, an attack that would be called terrorist if carried out by say Al-Quaida against George Bush, cannot by any stretch be called self-defense and is certainly cowardly.

    47. Re:US Army by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Nobody "left the heater on", it malfunctioned.

      The full story is that 3 guys were driving around in the M992 when the heater started up and wouldn't stop. So they brought it in to the motor pool for repairs, parked it next to some tanks, and went away to wait for mechanics. Some time later the fires and explosions started, which so totally destroyed the M992 that we'll never know just what the malfunction was.

      The human errors inherent in that diaster should be obvious.

    48. Re:US Army by next1 · · Score: 1

      it was a residential area.

    49. Re:US Army by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to see the context of this often used, and used out of context quote, its from "The Contest in America":

      http://www.gutenberg.net/etext04/conam10h.htm

      It is a justification of the North's position in the civil war, speaks out against slavery and assaults England for backing the South in the war.

      For some odd reason you see this quote all over and its usually misquoted by people seeking to justify war. In particular they leave out this antiwar part:

      "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."

      I'm assuming you are using the quote to justify the war in Iraq on the grounds the U.S. is freeing the Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam as Mill was praising the North for freeing the slaves from tyranny.

      Unfortunately the war in Iraq could as easily fall under the category of "when a people are used...for the selfish purposes of a master".

      The U.S. pretty clearly had some mixed motives in invading Iraq to the point no one can actually tell you why the Bush administration really did it. Freeing the Iraqi's from tyranny was way down on the list when it started if you recall, it was preceded by WMD's, none of which were found and by some kind of revenge for 9/11 though Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 despite the propaganda to the contrary. The unspoken selfish rationale's could as easily be control of the oil rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia, installing military bases in the region, potentially as a precursor for taking down Iran and Syria, or reshaping the Middle East in an American mold and in particular opening it up to exploitation by American corporations.

      If you look at the state of things today the U.S. seems to be inflicting a lot of tyranny of its own on Iraq these days so its pretty hard to make the case that the U.S. is bringing freedom and democracy to Iraqis though we can all hope that, by some miracle, that does happen someday.

      I guess I'm saying its impossible to say if the war in Iraq is really about fighting tyranny. Mill's quote could just as easily be used to condemn the U.S. and its leaders are obsessing over "personal safety" or people are being used for the "selfish purposes of a master".

      You could also just as easily use Mill's quote to advocate Americans rising against their own increasingly tyrannical government, or to justify the Iraqi insurgent's efforts to throw out a foreign occupier who is imprisoning them unjustly. The CPA itself admits 90% of the prisoners its holding aren't guilty of anything and its very likely some of those being tortured are innocent.

      --
      @de_machina
    50. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) You're right, but the war is still unilateral.
      2) Care to enlighten everyone on what those other reasons are? It doesn't really matter since in the minds of most of the country WMDs were the defining reason given for invading Iraq.
      3) Ah yeah, the "war on terror"... nothing like having a war on something that isn't even a thing, just an emotion. How do you win that exactly?
      4) Yes, what they have in common is that they hate Americans and love violence.
      5) Who's saying that? A small minority, guy, no one worth paying attention to.
      6) "Wise men make proverbs, but fools repeat them. " -Samuel Palmer

    51. Re:US Army by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      In 1994 I observed a(n unclass) meeting in which the US Army Dismounted Battle Lab commander discussed integrating frend or foe ID into scopes for the M16.

      FoF is out there, but it doesn't get that much press.

      -Peter

    52. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the left or the "liberals" keep saying "what if that happened in the US" when it did happen in the US. No one in the WTC did anything to hurt anyone, yet they were sentenced to death by muslims. I can speak more "higher than though" on the subject because my friend Brian was on one of the planes and I live in Boston where 2 of the planes took off. You can't say "9/11 was the US's fault" and then say "what if it were to happen to the US". Not that your post mentions both, but the left often does that.

    53. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain that to Zarqawi, who is Al Queda and in Iraq...wait...that seems like a link to me.

    54. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod down for obligatory microsoft error handling + 'user friendliness' joke

    55. Re:US Army by JAD+lifter · · Score: 1

      Woah! That John Stuart Mill quote is pretty screwed up. I think that there are very very few people who would actually say nothing is worth war. What I would be interested in is wether John Stuart Mill ever went to war and saw action himself and if he had if he would still be so gung-ho.

      I am reminded of how vietnam combat veteran Joe Haldeman read and was disgusted by Starship Troopers and responded to it by writing The Forever War. The only combat that Robert Heinlein ever saw was through a pair of binoculars from the deck of a ship far away from any danger and look at his macho bravado regarding war. Then look at how an actual combat veteran like Joe Haldeman views war. I think that in all likelihood John Stuart Mill was never in any actual combat, he is just way to macho about it.

    56. Re:US Army by SQL_SAM · · Score: 1

      With all this Jesus talk I guess it's a good thing that religion(s) don't advocate wars or violence since after all they are all about peace and love and brotherhood...... And another thing, if the bible is the best selling book - how come it never appears on Amazon's top 10? Hmmmm.....

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that know Binary and those who don't.
    57. Re:US Army by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Our lord and savior

      You missed the "y" in that sentence. Not everyone believes in your deity, or your deity's children.

    58. Re:US Army by HeywoodJablomi69 · · Score: 1

      You haven't read Catch-22, have you?

    59. Re:US Army by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Something's off with the continuity of your 2nd and 3rd points. If it was a part of the "war on terror" it shouldn't have even happened in Iraq. Saddam wasn't a terrorist. He was a prick to his people, sure, but some would agree that so is the President of the United States right now. There's still no evidence that Saddam is even linked to Al-Qaeda.

    60. Re:US Army by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "1. No U.N. does not equal unilateral."

      I would agree that it was not exactly unilateral since the U.S. did have allies, but so did Germany in World War II. There is a near certainty, and in fact Bush has said it, he would have invaded Iraq if he the U.S. went alone so for all practical purposes it was unilateral he just managed to scrape together a ragged coalition to make it kind of look like it wasn't. When Bush decided he was going to do it and do it alone if necessary he made it unilateral. Many of the members of the coalition were also either bribed or coerced in to participation. The chances are pretty good all the leaders who willingly participated will get voted out of office at the first opportunity, Spain already having done so and Australia may well towards the end of the year.

      A better description of Iraq is "aggressive warfare". That is when you preemptively attack someone who is not posing an immediate threat to your nation. It is against international law. The backing of the U.N. is desirable precisely because it gives a war international legitimacy. Iraq engaged in aggressive warfare when it attacked Kuwait, thats why the U.N. and the world backed the first gulf war. The U.S. and U.N. should have taken down Saddam then when they had justification. To come back more than a decade later and do it with no real provacation, and at enormous expense($200 billion and counting, nearly 800 dead and counting, and thousands wounded) was just unwise.

      "Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional."

      Al Quaeda's presence in Iraq NOW is a product of the U.S. invasion. Its simply irrational to point to the fact they are there now and say "See I told you so" when they weren't there before the war. The only part of Iraq Al Quaeda was known to be in before the war wasn't under Saddam's control. Saddam was a socialist, and Muslim only when convenient. Fundamentalists like those in Al Quaeda despised him as a result.

      "2. WMD was not the only reason given for the attack on Iraq (read the actual transcript of the State of the Union address instead of your DNC talking points)."

      It was the ONLY reason the Bush administration had that they could use to sucker Congress and the American people in to backing the war. Cheney in particular constantly invoked the prospect of a nuclear cloud of an American city if we didn't invade Iraq immediately. It was shameful in its deceit. Even recently Cheney was still trying to claim some vans seized could be used to produce biological weapons when no expert will back him.

      Number 2 on the list was this bizarre assertion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when there is NO evidence of that whatsoever. 9/11 was perpetrated by Saudi's. If you were going to invade some nation besides Afghanistan over it the next country most responsible was Saudi Arabia. Thats why the Bush Administration had to censor huge tracts about Saudi Arabia in the congressional report on 9/11.

      Number 3 was to bring "Freedom and Democracy". I'll give you that one when there is real "Freedom and Democracy" in Iraq. Not an American puppet state or a repressive Shia dominated Islamic republic which would be the near certain outcome the day there is a fair election in Iraq.

      "3. Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror."

      Iraq is a huge distraction from the war on terrorism. The fact the Bush administration did a half assed job in Afghanistan where the real war should have been fought was because they were in a rush to attack Iraq for no good readson. In fact invading Iraq wass pouring gasoline on the war on terror. The massive humiliation the U.S. is heaping on the Arab and Muslim world is driving moderate Arabs in to the hands of Al Quaeda and is a recruiting poster for a new army of suicide bombers. When Bush recently expressed unabashed support for Sharon and Israel and took it upon himself to make unilate

      --
      @de_machina
    61. Re:US Army by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Something's off with the continuity of your 2nd and 3rd points.

      See the first part of point 4.

      There's still no evidence that Saddam is even linked to Al-Qaeda.

      See the second part of point 4.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    62. Re:US Army by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Please explain that to Zarqawi, who is Al Queda and in Iraq...wait...that seems like a link to me."

      Please explain to my how Zarqawi's presence in Iraq today, when Saddam is no longer in power, proves a link between Al Quaeda and Saddam before the war. The logic of your argument, like all your arguments, b-baggins is deeply flawed.

      The Al Quaeda link was claimed by the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion and was based on deeply flawed intelligence, like most of their case for war, in particular there was one, I repeat one, supposed meeting in Eastern Europe between Al Quaeda and Iraqi intelligence which has since been debunked or at least there is no evidence it ever happened, just like there is no creditable evidence Saddam was trying to by yellowcake in Niger other than really badly forged documents.

      All indications are Zarqawi moved in to Iraq after the U.S. invasion when the country was in chaos. Islamic fundamentalists have been streaming in to Iraq to fight the U.S. invasion just like they streamed in to Afghanistan and Chechnya when the Russians invaded them. This roving Muslim army has existed since the CIA and Pakistan intelligence created it to us as a proxy against the U.S.S.R in Afghanistan. Al Quaeda was born in these same CIA sponsored camps in Pakistan with CIA funding. Now this ever expanding roving Muslim army goes whereever Muslims are being attacked. Today they are in Iraq fighting the U.S.

      --
      @de_machina
    63. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... then only outlaws will have the fucking things.

    64. Re:US Army by swingkid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all, war on Iraq != war on terror. We had much work left to do in Afghanistan and instead chose to pursue the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz vendetta against Saddam, which had little if any connection to Al Qaeda. Your fourth point may be accurate now, but was certainly not the case before we invaded. Not sure how you include the Jordanian plot in your Al Qaeda/Iraq analysis, perhaps you can enlighten me. And don't tell me that there were other reasons than WMD for invading Iraq; Congress and the American people never would have supported it otherwise, which is why the Bush administration was so keen on making it seem that there were, in fact, WMD.

    65. Re:US Army by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      There were and probably still are Al-Qaida agents in the US. Seems the US is linked to this terrorist organisation.

      Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other, they may both despise the US, but they not likely to collude.

    66. Re:US Army by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      If there is a God (or if Jesus is truly savior), then it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's still true.

      Although there are a bunch of different ideas about relgion & the presense/lack-of a God, there is still only one truth. Of course, none of us know what the truth is.

      Anyway, if the grandparent believes that Jesus is his own lord & savior, then his opinion is that he is also your lord & savior. Therefore, he can use "our" to express his opinion. :)

    67. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you on all accounts but one. The war shouldn't be against terror, it should be against islam. The world will never be free of fear and terror until that evil calling itself a religion is elminated.

      Prophet Of Doom, find out the truth about islam and its terrorist founder.

    68. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.
      How about this? You're a goddamn fucking moron.
    69. Re:US Army by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Funny

      "... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Jesus,

      Luke 22: 36

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    70. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent's quote, even if by John Stuart Mill, is a crock of shit.

      There is NOTHING uglier than war. You can come up with pathological examples till the cows come home, but the condition when whole nations can be reduced to rubble, innocent civilians killed, tortured, made destitute by war, can compare to nothing else, if we use the famous ``calculus of death''.

      Moral decay may be ugly - but that's your individual problem. Don't like it - don't decay. Move somewhere else. If you're dead, only then is there nothing you can do. That's the final arbiter. War is about killing people. Hence, it is the ultimate remover of choices and potentialities for the future.

      And guys, while we're on the subject, think about this - 50 years ago, everyone got together and swore that the shit that they just went through would not happen again. America was never bombed - no cities were annihilated, no one had to live expecting the next night's air strike to kill them. As a nation, America does not understand what it means to be ``under the bombs''. Hence, they are the only people with the inhuman arrogance to continue perpetuating this horror in the 21 century. Think about that.

    71. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror.

      Yeah, riiiiight. When US army unilaterally, and illegally, attacks and conquers a country, that's an "operation". When there are no armies involved, no declarations of war, no PoWs, it's called "war" ("war" on drugs, "war" on "terror", etc.). And now there's "operation Iraqi Freedom Back" by Iraqi insurgents (aka "yankees go home").

      Orwell would have been proud of you: war is peace, lies are truth and conservatives can be compassionate.

      And your indications of links between Iraq and Al-Qaida are pure products of overactive paranoid imagination. US had closer ties with AQ than Saddam ever had. But after the war, gee, how surprising: terrorists found newly created anarchy a vacuum to fill. Who'd have thunk? So now the fact they became active there is somehow a proof they somehow were there earlier, completely invisible, undocumented, just waiting for this to happen. Wake up and use your brains.

      I do agree with your WC quote, obviously. Nice way of proving that witty quote is accurate.

    72. Re:US Army by maomoondog · · Score: 1

      1. No U.N. does not equal unilateral.

      A token coalition whose members A) are extremely dependent on US policy, and B) whose leaders actively ignored the sentiments of their constituants in order to join the battle, may meet some technical definition of "multilateral". However, it does not have the strategic, diplomatic, or moral advantages that the term implies.

      2. WMD was not the only reason given for the attack on Iraq (read the actual transcript of the State of the Union address instead of your DNC talking points).

      You mean this one? I count 14 paragraphs about WMDs, 1 about how Hussein defines evil, 1 telling the Iraquis they'll be liberated (as an effect -- not a justification), and maybe another 2 about how this is one way of seeking peace. I'm not sure what you were trying to point out here. WMDs were quite clearly the reason given, with some beneficial side effects given and a context in an overall goal (peace!) added on.

      3. Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror.

      What are the political objectives of this war? What's the endgame -- how does it look when it's over? Which strategic objectives did this "battle" in Iraq meet?

      4. Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.

      Everyone knows there are terrorists in Iraq now. The question is, which ones were there before? Are there more or less than there were?

      5. The patriotism Mill describes is the degraded patriotism of the man who cries out that it is the patriotic duty not to fight, no matter the cause.

      I don't see how that has anything to do with patriotism. There's a lot of aspects to loving and supporting one's country other than fighting for it. Hell, Gandhi helped win independence for India by expressing exactly the sentiment Mill is talking about. But as long as you're bringing it up, I don't see anyone saying we should never fight, no matter the cause. I think there's plenty of situations where it's right to defend your country. But a lot of patriots agree that Iraq wasn't one of those.

      6. It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. -Winston Churchill

      Ooooh! Snap! Looks like someone's got a quote dictionary, and he's not afraid of whipping it out. Well I guess John Stuart Mill can spout fascist crap and Winston Churchill can make nursery school insults as well as the rest of 'em.

    73. Re:US Army by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      I don't think "indiscriminant" is the right word to describe our bombing strategy. The U.S. and her allies have been improving their precise strike capabilities for years. Gulf-war 1 was a marked improvment (remember missles flying down ventilation shafts) & Gulf-war 2 was even more so. We've come a long way from the carpet-bombing tactics used in WWII, Vietnam, etc. (not that the tactic still isn't appropriate in certain situations.)

      To say that we are "indiscriminantly" destroying things in the surrounding area is a bit overboard. We are attempting to hit valuable targets with the minimum of possible civilian casualties. There are a lot of soldiers under increased threat right now because of the value we place on civilian life.

    74. Re:US Army by miyoo · · Score: 1
      It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. -Winston Churchill

      Usually Abraham Lincoln is credited with the quote, "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt." I've seen it attributed to Mark Twain and even George Bernard Shaw, but never Churchill. It seems likely all of these men said it at one time or another, since it sounds like something any of them would say. Lincoln was probably the first.

    75. Re:US Army by ashayh · · Score: 1

      The chief of the be beheading plot is a Jordanian who moved to Iraq after the war.
      More money has gone to terrorists from Saudi/UAE Princes and Saudi/UAE public. Why werent they controlled first.
      Did saddam ever seem like a man who had any principles(flawed though the principles of al queada might be) to you ? Then why would he risk supportng the 911 terrorists and get his ass nuked again ... his palaces, cars etc destroyed again?

    76. Re:US Army by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The full story is that 3 guys were driving around in the M992 when the heater started up and wouldn't stop... [etc.]

      The human errors inherent in that diaster should be obvious.

      This is true. Being that it's a diesel fueled heater, those dingbats should have pulled the breakers and shut the fuelcock. I just wanted to point out that not every '992 will go up in smoke if the crew merely leaves the heater on. Particularly not now, since they've replaced nearly every armored vehicle heater with the new A-20...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    77. Re:US Army by bcboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.

      Anyone who is still trying to conflate Al Qaeda and Iraq is a god-damned liar.

      Islamic militants are in Iraq because Americans are there. It's easier to target Americans in the Middle East than it is to target them in America. Iraq has nothing to do with it. If we'd dropped Americans anywhere in the Middle East, terrorists would have come to kill them.

      Islamic terrorism was not, in fact, Saddam's great sin. You can't use the consequences of your actions to retroactively justify your war. The decision to go to war must stand on the pre-war conditions: the WMDs, and the brutal dictator. The plan that was hatched, a fast path to a unilateral war with a light-weight force and little post-war planning, must stand on the only argument that made sense: that Iraq had WMDs, capable of hitting American targets, that had to be taken out immediately.

      But that argument was not supported by evidence then or now. We went to war for lies.

    78. Re:US Army by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      ' Friendly fire always happens in every war. Regardless of what you think from playing SOCOM, war is chaotic and mistakes do happen."

      Well, at least in real war we don't have fucktards on your own side firing stingers at your helicopter when you get into it before they do.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    79. Re:US Army by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The full story is that 3 guys were driving around in the M992 when the heater started up and wouldn't stop... [etc.]

      The human errors inherent in that diaster should be obvious.

      This is true. Being that it's a diesel fueled heater, those dingbats should have pulled the breakers and shut the fuelcock. I just wanted to point out that not every '992 will go up in smoke if the crew merely leaves the heater on. Particularly not now, since they've replaced nearly every armored vehicle heater with the new A-20...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    80. Re:US Army by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. -Winston Churchill

      Are you sure that isn't Mark Twain or Proverbs 17:28?
      --
      -Dave
    81. Re:US Army by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      Iraq is a battle in the war. The war is on terror.

      The problem with the concept of a "war on terror" is that it makes as little sense as having "terrorism against wars". It might be hard to end.

      --
      -Dave
    82. Re:US Army by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Saddam wasn't a terrorist.

      Saddam made payments, out of the Iraqi national treasury, to the families of Palestinian murderers. Not small payments, either: $25,000 each, which to a Palestinian family is an absolute fortune.

      Let me say it more plainly: Saddam paid terrorists for killing Israelis. By our definition, Saddam was a terrorist.

      What is that definition, you ask? A terrorist is a person who attacks noncombatants with deadly force in an effort to impose social or political change through fear, or a person who attempts to do such a thing, or a person who provides material support or safe harbor to anyone who does or attempts to do such a thing.

      There's still no evidence that Saddam is even linked to Al-Qaeda.

      Honestly? Nobody cares. Saddam was a bad man. His continued existence as a head of state was a threat to the national security of the United States, of all Western democracies, and most especially to Israel. It's good that he's no longer in power.

      Why did we invade Iraq? Because we had just cause to do so, and because it made the world a safer place. Marginally safer, yes, but safer nonetheless. You only need look to our diplomatic victories in Libya and (to a much lesser extent) Syria and Iran to see that.

      Although personally I think we're gonna need to put boots on the ground in Damascus before this is all over. The Asad family isn't getting the message as quickly as I think they need to.

      --

      I write in my journal
    83. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's Al Queda in the US also. Perhaps a regime change is in order there as well (I'm all for it)

    84. Re:US Army by phylogeny · · Score: 1

      It remains to be seen whether the reasons for going to war were "obviously false." It hasn't been determined whether the WMDs exist and it might take years to find out the truth...Iraq is a large country, so searching for weapons really is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Let me say why I think Bush was justified in going to war the way he did. I think the reason we went in there was b/c the administration honestly believed, based on our intelligence, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them against us. No, I don't think it was b/c Bush believed there was an AQ link. I believe that he thought Saddam posed a threat to us by himself. Whether he actually had WMDs has been undetermined, as stated earlier, and is an issue for another post. But our intelligence definitely said he did. And you have to admit, two hard facts made this intelligence seem plausible. 1) Saddam had possession of such weapons in the late 90's when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds. 2) Saddam was obviously an unstable dictator. He attacked his own people (Kurds) and there was that whole Kuwait thing. Well, if you were president and the CIA told you that this unstable dictator had WMDs and was prepared to use them against us, what would you have done about it? Granted, we were not 100% sure that he had WMDs, but even the best intelligence can't offer a 100% probability. The only way we could have been sure was if he actually did use them against us, and I don't think we were willing to wait until then. I think that initiating preemptive war, while distasteful and ill-timed, was a response to a perceived threat. Yes, a perceived threat, not a certain one...b/c with intelligence you can never know for certain whether something 20,000 miles away actually exists. You have to just act on what you have. What other solution did we have? Approaching other countries? Not an option, as that would have taken years, if it ever got accomplished at all. "Building an international coalition" may sound all well and good, but the fact is that it's harder than most ppl make it sound. Every country is going to look out for their own interests. AQ has made it clear that they are targeting Americans much more so than other nations (AQ bombed Spain to scare them then offered a truce to all of Europe) so do you think that the leaders of France/Germany/Russia will commit their military (and hence, lose public opinion/political power) just to protect America from its enemies, when the French/German/Russian public despise America? I don't think so. I'm extremely unconvinced when I hear Kerry talking about building an "international coalition..." like he thinks it will be a cake walk. And forget about going to the United Nations, they're powerless...they watched as Iraq violated UN resolutions for years and did nothing about it.

    85. Re:US Army by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      1. True, and the UN multilaterally opposed our unilateral actions in Iraq.

      2. You mean "He tried to kill my daddy"? All the reasons that had any potential for legitimacy have proven just as false as the WMDs.

      3. Anyone who believes Iraq has anything to do with the "War on Terror" is delusional.

      4. Yes, there are al Queda connections in Iraq, but they were NEVER with Saddam's regime. Saddam and Osama have been bitter enemies since Saddam was paid by America to wage war on Iran, and neither are "forgive and forget" kinda guys. No, the al Queda connections in Iraq were with the Kurds; you know, "Saddam's own people" that he gassed, and we went in there to protect, and who were considered our allies during the invasion...

      5. Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov

      6. Actually, Mark Twain said it first, but how ironic that you should bring it up!

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    86. Re:US Army by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ghandi would probably make a much better example of this "extreme."

      Actually, I'm gonna have to give ghandi an N/A for this affair. What Ghandi realized, and pretty much every modern pacifist who invokes his name doesn't, is that pacifism only works against a moral enemy.

      To quote, for example: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look
      upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
      Yeah, Ghandi said that, indicating he believed violence was of us at times.

      He used pacifism against the British because they were morally restrained, and wouldn't violently put down a non-violent protest. The one British General who did was relieved of command on rather short order.

      You never hear of any Ghandi or MLK types from Iran, former Iraq, Syria, as they where all captured and murdered as soon as they opened their mouths, because their brutal regimes had no qualms about killing anyone given the slightest reason.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    87. Re:US Army by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2, Funny

      They could even use "Clippy" for a mascot, but it wouldn't be a damn paper clip this time. :-)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    88. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 1

      The bible is a big book with many words in it. It has so many words and so many contradicting sentences that you can back up any position using the bible. War or Peace, slavery or freedom, kindsness or venegance. It's all there.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    89. Re:US Army by mog007 · · Score: 1

      By our definition, Saddam was a terrorist

      Terrorism cannot be defined. There's no difference at the base level from what Al-Qaeda did to the WTC on 9/11 from what the US military is doing in Iraq now, with one small difference, the US military succeeded in taking over the country, which was a goal. Al-Qaeda had hoped to decimate the American economy and destroy the morale of the citizens with their attacks. It's easy to call one "terrorist" a terrorist when he fails and another a "hero" because he succeeds. History is written by the winning side, but it all boils down to one thing: people murdering other people. Whatever the reason: God, Money, or because your commander told you to do it.

    90. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Jesus takes the extreme of telling individuals not to retaliate when insulted. He says nothing about war"

      I guess all that about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek was just bullshit huh?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    91. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 1

      There can be no doubt that God is a hateful, venegeful, and destructive bastard. He kills millions of people in the bible. He instructs people to kill their enemies, to kill their wives and children, to kill their animals and to salt the earth so that even their plants die.

      In other occations he does the killing himself. At one point he floods the earth in order to destroy all life on it except one family and some animals.

      With God being so cruel, hateful, petty, and downright psychotic one wonders if the devil can possibly be worse.

      Where in the bible does it say that satan killed women and children?

      I am sure that when god comes back he will start his murdering spree afresh.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    92. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good boy, where's a hero cookie when you need one?

    93. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where???
      People always say these things but never give examples or they might say "Eye for an eye" contradicts with "love thy nieghbor" or they had slaves but they said slavery was bad. the Bible is a history book. There are alot of stories. It is also two different books, old and new testament. If you are Christian you are supposed to follow the rules in the new testament.

      I challenge you to read the Bilbe and provide these contradictions.

    94. Re:US Army by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >Not everyone believes in your deity, or your deity's children.

      No everyone assumes when they see the word "our" that they are included either.

    95. Re:US Army by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      One difference would be the intentional attack of civilians. And to most people that makes all the difference in the world. The U.S. looses soldiers in order to minimize civilian casualties, while terrorists aim to maximize civilian casualties. What part of that is hard to understand?

    96. Re:US Army by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Terrorism cannot be defined.

      Okay, that's obviously false. Let's see what else you've got.

      There's no difference at the base level from what Al-Qaeda did to the WTC on 9/11 from what the US military is doing in Iraq now

      Yeah, more of the same. Nihilism and moral equivalence. Nothing is anything, so everything's the same. Sure, man.

      Tell you what: let's try this again after you graduate.

      --

      I write in my journal
    97. Re:US Army by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >Many of the members of the coalition were also either bribed or coerced in to participation.

      And many of the opponents of the war were bribed or coerced into not participating. So your point is what?

      >Iraq is a huge distraction from the war on terrorism.

      As stated numerous times, in fact over and over and over again. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers in Israel. Therefore Saddam is a supporter of terrorism. Even if you think Saddam was no threat to us he was clearly a threat to Isreal who is our ally.

      >You simply can't make any case that it is patriotic for American's to invade a country with no provocation.

      No one is trying too. See the 2000 plus times they fired at our aircraft who were enforcing U.N. no-fly zones. Attacking us is provocation, clearly against the agreement signed after Desert Storm. Also see the state sponsored terrorism mentioned before. Attacking our friend(Israel) using a proxy(Hezbollah, et. al.) is supposed to be treated as an attack on us. Unfortunately most of the decision makers in the U.N. were on the take and were delaying action for years.

      Stop using the same tired CNN headlines from a year ago. They have been debunked time and again.

    98. Re:US Army by xyloplax · · Score: 1

      1. No UN means you have to put together a patchwork of nations to support you. Our list of supporting countries was not impressive (look at the list intead of your RNC talking points of x nations belonging to the Coalition of the Willing) 2. The other reasons was supporting terrorism, invading nations and torturing his citizens. Saddam had no link to 9/11. I am sure he supported terrorism. Why have we not invaded Syria and Iran if this is all that is needed to justify an invasion? Saddam was never capable of invading his neighbors after Gulf I. The torture of citizens is done by many nations to whom we give aid, have generous trade agreements and other perks; why don't we invade them? 3. How, exactly, has terrorism decreased by invading Iraq? Americans not in the military are being kidnapped, bombed and beheaded. Just because it's in Iraq it means it's not terrorism? 4. NOW they are in Iraq. Duh. Why would Al Qaeda support a completely secular regime like Saddams? They wanted his ass gone and nothing could make them happier than being able to establish a theocracy AND kill Americans at the same time. Where is the link between Saddam and the Jordanian bomb plot? You people come up with evidence after the fact. It used to be "saddam and alqaeda" but now it's just "iraq and alqaeda" and you mean currently instead of just under Saddam. 5. Saying "no" to things you don't believe in is how the American Revolution started. I don't agree that there is a "patriotic duty" not to fight, but I do think that it is one's choice and we cannot question one's patriotism based on whether one supports fighting or not. 6. Clever historical quote goes here.

      --
      -- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
    99. Re:US Army by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Anyone who still doesn't think AL Qaeda and Iraq have links after the beheading of a kidnapped American and the Jordanian bomb plot is self-delusional.

      I've read articles which claim that the war in Iraq was a tremendous mistake in this regard. The analysis goes, that the war in Afghanistan was quite effective against al Qaeda, in that it dried up much of their money supply and supporters, and ruined their training camps.

      But Saddam didn't particularly like al Qaeda, and they had very little activity in Iraq. Now that we've "liberated" them and pissed them off, there's lots more opportunity for evil terrorist types to train and recruit, and plenty of bad feeling to fuel them.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    100. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you watch the talk they have about it the morning after they know who f'd up. It's a bad deal. They went where they didn't belong while practicing the most agressive doctrine of warfare with firepower that doesn't give second chances.

      They're badass for just being able to play ball at that level at all. But people blaming the US are morons. It's the nature of the game. There is no margin for error, and the british made one. Their friends died. That's all. If fingers need to be pointed, the last place for them to point is across the atlantic.

    101. Re:US Army by vandan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      2. Yes there were plently of excuses aired as to why we should invade Iraq. Apparently the Bush administration, the CIA and the Pentagon argued at great lengths over which excuse to use, and WMD was all they could agree on. The one thing worse than a big lie used to start a war is a collection of big lies used to start a war. I beleive the court at Nuremberg called this type of war the 'ultimate crime' that 'contained all other crimes'.

      3. Bullshit. Iraq is a conquest. The war is on everybody who disagrees with the US's wars of conquest. As an antiwar demonstrator, I can personally testify that our local police see me as the enemy, and use the same sort of rough-handling tactics as the US occupying forces to 'keep us in line'.

      4. You think you can take anything you don't agree with and slap an 'Al Qaeda' tag on it. That's pretty handy, but very flawed logic. In fact, there is now speculation that the beheading of Nick Berg was arranged and paid for by the US to shift the focus away from the US's war crimes. You have to admit, the US have been taking a beating recently. The timing was remarkable. And even if the above speculation turns out to be untrue, if the US invaded my country and treated my people the way the Iraqis are being treated, I'm sure I'd think about doing the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't be alone. But all this talk al Al Qaeda ignores the fact that it is official policy to systematically toture, rape and execute Iraqi civilians. That heartless bitch that's had her pictures splashed all over the news recently ( you know, the one with the stupid grin who points at the Iraqis in various homosexual poses ) claims ( as do her partners in crime ) that she was merely following orders . Some orders!

      6. Resorting to taking quotes from other war criminals? Well done. But your quote is good advice for your fearless leader. Surely Baby Bush is one of the biggest dickheads to ever graze the US's pastures. Is he the best you could do. Really? That's pretty sad. The man doesn't have a fucking clue, and as your wise quote points out, he'd be much better off shutting his mouth and letting people wonder.

    102. Re:US Army by demachina · · Score: 1

      "And many of the opponents of the war were bribed or coerced into not participating. So your point is what?"

      Maybe you could explain who you're talking about or cite an example. Most countries and the majority of the population of most countries were against the war without any bribery or coercion. France lobbied against the war but I'm pretty sure they didn't bribe anyone and didn't have nearly the coercion power the U.S. did.

      As you recall the U.S. was going to give Turkey billions to buy their support.

      The Foreign Minister of Poland, one of the larger members of the coalition, flat out said they were in it to get a chunk of Iraq's oil business. If you recall you had to be part of the "coalition of the willing" to bid on the contracts in Iraq which are the modern form of the spoils of war.

      "As stated numerous times, in fact over and over and over again. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers in Israel. Therefore Saddam is a supporter of terrorism. Even if you think Saddam was no threat to us he was clearly a threat to Isreal who is our ally. "

      So what exactly does suicide bombers in Israel have to do with defending the U.S. If you're saying the U.S. invaded Iraq under orders from Israel, I'd say I wouldn't be surprised, but thats more disturbing than the U.S. doing it for its own motives. Why would it be the job of the U.S. to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American soldiers lives to defend Israel in such an enormously round about way. There have been more people killed in Iraq in the last year than in decades of suicide bombers in Israel. There are still and will continue to be Palestinian suicide bombers whether Saddam pays their next of kin or not. The fact is Palestinians in Israel have no hope and nothing to live for. Fix that if you want to get rid of suicide bombers.

      "No one is trying too. See the 2000 plus times they fired at our aircraft who were enforcing U.N. no-fly zones. Attacking us is provocation, clearly against the agreement signed after Desert Storm. Also see the state sponsored terrorism mentioned before. Attacking our friend(Israel) using a proxy(Hezbollah, et. al.) is supposed to be treated as an attack on us. Unfortunately most of the decision makers in the U.N. were on the take and were delaying action for years."

      Apparently you don't know what you are talking about. Hezbollah is a Shia group, its Iran's proxy, not Iraq's. Saddam is Sunni. Not likely he is going to be on good terms with a Shia terrorist group since he massively persecuted the Shia's in Iraq and waged war with Iran. I guess your saying the U.S. should get the tanks warmed up and take down Iran now in our apparently never ending duty to exterminate all of Israel's enemies, which is most of the Arab and Muslim world?

      I doubt you could sort out who was shooting at who in the no fly zone. The whole concept was deeply flawed. The first Bush administration should have taken down Saddam in the first war when there was justification instead of setting up that decades long disaster. The one time it should have been enforced is when George H.W. Bush goaded the Kurd's and Shia's into revolting against Saddam after the first war. When they did he turned his back on them and let Saddam slaughter them and filled a lot of those mass graves the current Bush administration is so upset about.

      --
      @de_machina
    103. Re:US Army by 0dugo0 · · Score: 1

      See the 2000 plus times they fired at our aircraft who were enforcing U.N. no-fly zones. Attacking us is provocation, clearly against the agreement signed after Desert Storm.
      All these years the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN nor were they sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

    104. Re:US Army by dustmite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nearly 800 dead

      I thought there were many thousands more than that dead by now. Or do only American deaths 'count' in this anyway illegal war? Surely not?

    105. Re:US Army by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      >The first Bush administration should have taken down Saddam in the first war

      I think we can all agree on that. However, how that Bush Jr. wants to make up for his father's mistake all he gets is grief.

      >Apparently you don't know what you are talking about. Hezbollah is a Shia group

      Excuse me, Hamas. I mispoke. Point still stands.

      >The fact is Palestinians in Israel have no hope and nothing to live for. Fix that if you want to get rid of suicide bombers.

      We have been trying for ages. Every time peace comes close Hamas, or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or some other group blows up Israeli citizens intentionally to stop the peace process. Then Isreal gets pissed and attacks a terrorist headquarters or assassinates a terrorist leader and the whole thing goes to shit. The point is that there will never ever be peace in the middle east while the terrorists are sponsored by countries. We just eliminated one of those countries. One down, 3-4 to go. Iran in particular will probably require no direct military confrontation due to the fact that it is dangerously close to a civil war right now. Once one or two falls the rest will eventually fall too.

      > I guess your saying the U.S. should get the tanks warmed up and take down Iran now in our apparently never ending duty to exterminate all of Israel's enemies, which is most of the Arab and Muslim world?

      Nope, the good people of the Arab world will revolt against their leaders if they know that the U.S. is an ally that they can rely on in a pinch. Right now(due in part the Bush senior, Clinton, etc) the good Arabs think we will put our tails between our legs and run as soon as the fighting gets tough.

      Unfortunately this whole thing is basically a civil war in the Arabic world. Iran's, Syria's and S.A.'s leaders, know that if democracy spreads there, they will eventually loose their power. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep their power using highly suggestable young people all over the middle east as their cannon fodder.

    106. Re:US Army by spun · · Score: 1

      Nope, even Ghandi's version of noviolence, "ahimsa" is actually a doctrine of least violence. If war is the least violent way of resolving a conflict, it would qualify as ahimsa.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    107. Re:US Army by spun · · Score: 1

      1.)When all your allies and partners need to be bullied or bribed, that is effectively unilateral.
      2.) Our supposed safety was the primary issue, and WMDs were the largest component. "liberating" Iraqis was an afterthought. Why do we not do the same to the dozen or so just as awful other dictators around the world?
      3.) Terror is a concept. You can't make war on a concept. Even if you could, what evidence ties Iraq to terror? Why not go after Saudi Arabia?
      4.) What? That makes no sense. How do those two things prove any kind of a connection?
      5.) What about the patriotism of, say, a Vietnamese monk who sits down and calmly lights himself on fire to protest an unjust war, or a student who nonviolently stops a tank by standing in front of it risking his life?
      6.) Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the incompetant debater.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    108. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The woman's head had been severed from her torso.

      Why was her head on her torso? Didn't she have a chest?

    109. Re:US Army by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

      One extreme says no war is worth it. Jesus takes this extreme
      Read the account ofo Jesus's arrest IN the garden of Gethsemane. One of his disciples draws his sword and cuts the ear off a guard. If Jesus was so antiwar / weapons why would he allow his followers to arm themselves.
      And lets not forget that the Old Testament is positivley filled with accounts of wars between Israel and just about everyone else in the Middle East.

    110. Re:US Army by d3m057h3n35 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, while we quote away:

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
      --
      Salvor Hardin, from Asimov's "Foundation"

    111. Re:US Army by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's one of the most creative red-herrings I've seen to date.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    112. Re:US Army by Zareste · · Score: 1

      War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.

      So these two retards walk into a bar. Retard #1 says 'I am hating anyone who doesn't want to kill people! And people who don't want to mutilate what's left of the world! Corpses are beautiful! Death is bliss! Pain is necessary! People who don't like killing and torture are dumb! And stupid! And dumb! American Nazis unite!'

      Retard #2 takes out a gun and points it at the bartender. 'I'm gonna kill you cause that's what patriots have to do. You have to destroy! and kill! because it's right and we're the superior race! Now you have to die! Oh and if you ask why I'm doing this, I'm just going to quote Retard #1'

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    113. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "If you are Christian you are supposed to follow the rules in the new testament."

      Wha? You mean the ten commandments are no longer valid?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    114. Re:US Army by next1 · · Score: 1

      i'm truly sorry about your friend on one of the planes that day. everyone all over the world was shocked by 9/11 and everyone felt for the innocent victims who died in such a terrible way. and indeed the same can be said for the brutal killings of innocent american civilians in iraq in last few months.

      but the fact is the 9/11 terrorists were not from iraq and there is no proven evidence to say that they had any links to iraq. indeed, alqaeda's primary base was afghanistan and that's where the group's leader was located. The US had a clear case to go and hunt him down and break up the taliban leadership there, who supported him and in addition oppressed their own people.

      while i also don't agree with the bombing tactics used in afghanistan, due to which we saw many similar cases of accidental civilian deaths, at least there was clear justification and purpose for the war, and therefore some kind of explanation (though i'm sure it was little comfort) for the relatives of victims as to why their loved ones lost their lives.

      this whole thread began on the subject of missile technology. firing thousands of missiles into cities is always going to cause "collateral damage", no matter how accurate. i have spoken with 2 iraqis about the iraq war, both of whom left iraq before the war but of course were still very concerned with what was happening there. both were in support of the US invasion because they wanted their people to be free of saddam hussein. but the problem is, that's until their entire family is wiped out by a missile.

      taking once again, the restaurant example. could soldiers not have gone in their on foot? they would obviously have had far greater firepower than anyone protecting saddam hussein. unfortunately i believe the reason they didn't do that is because that would have risked losing some of their own soldiers, and therefore they chose the alternative, which is to risk the lives of iraqi civilians.

    115. Re:US Army by next1 · · Score: 1

      i agree that the strategy was not intended to be completely indiscriminant. i was saying that any missile is still "going to indiscriminantly destroy anything in the surrounding area, not just it's target".

    116. Re:US Army by Dr_Cornholio · · Score: 1

      One could be described as a terrorist if he were to trigger an electromagnetic pulse device in New York City or another electronic-financial district around the world. An E-M pulse would have zero direct civilian casualties, but the consequences of such a device would destroy countless lives in the resulting economic meltdown. IF this were to ever happen, the person(s) responsible have not murdered a soul, however, they have brought the state that they are fighting to it's knees in one fell swoop. Would you call this person a terrorist?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the monkey spanks you!
    117. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, if you were president and the CIA told you that this unstable dictator had WMDs and was prepared to use them against us, what would you have done about it? Granted, we were not 100% sure that he had WMDs, but even the best intelligence can't offer a 100% probability."

      You know, mr. Blix was there all the time. He had been combing the country for ages, and found nothing. Then suddenly US & British intelligence came up with info that Saddams WMD were even immediate threat to others than close neighbours. So why didnt they fucking hint Blix "go look there" ?
      There was a HUGE difference with what Blix was saying and proving (or rather not proving) it with evidence and what GWB and Blair were saying (not exposing any of the solid evidence they had, apparently because it was classified for security reasons. They said back then they had evidence, not just intelligence speculation.

      Then GWB sets up a commission to investigate what went wrong with intelligence. Setting the deadline conviniently way past the election. Some might argue that investigation needs that much time. BS, he is the president. If the investigation got his ass out of the mess, just appoint more resources to get it done before the election and benefit from the outcome. Then if you, for some reason, are in doubt that the outcome declares you clean, yes, it's better not blow the election..

      The whole thing stinks so much you only have to read the newspapers to realize something is wrong. And you only had to read the newspapers before the invasion to realize things don't match here. Unless you, of course, had access to solid intelligence evidence that proved things otherwise.
      I think GWB and Blair are outright lying.

    118. Re:US Army by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      I think there are a few requirements for terrorism.

      1. intentionally targeting civilians
      2. doing harm to them or their property or posessions
      3. harming them with the intent to scare
      4. using this fear to further your views

      For instance, just blowing up a building for fun isn't terrorism because there is no attempt in influence anything. You would simply be psychotic.

      Also if we were at war and someone EMPed NY with the intent of wiping out our air defense as a precursor to an attack, that isn't terror either. The motive isn't to use fear as a weapon.

      Driving around a neighborhood slashing tires, and writing vulgar words on the cars of people of a certain race, religion, etc. to try to scare them out of your neighborhood is terrorism. You are using people's fear which you create to influence people.

      So to answer your question, it depends on the motive. You are clearly targeting civilians, and doing them harm. The question really is "why"? If you do it to scare people into lowering the drinking age or something, then yes. If you are doing it because you know that super advanced aliens are going to land on earth in a year, and they told you that the only way to save humanity was to EMP NY then no.

    119. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I don't know why jesus didn't admonish one of his followers for cutting off an ear, perhaps for the same reason that he returned a slave to his owner. That being he was not all that "good" according to our morality. Maybe he was all for slavery who knows.

      As for the old testament I think we are talking about different things. In the OT it's god that does the killing and the commanding of genocide and mass murder. Perhaps to you jesus and god are the same thing but not to me. I tend to believe that jesus was a human being who was a philospher and a wise and kind man but he was not god.

      I agree with you that the god of the old testament is a psychotic schitzophrenic mass murderer though. He does some sick shit.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    120. Re:US Army by instarx · · Score: 1

      Why did we invade Iraq? Because we had just cause to do so, and because it made the world a safer place.

      We attacked Iraq because GW Bush thought that when he became President he had his own personal army to do his bidding and morons like you went along with it. Bush attacked Iraq for three reasons: 1)there was incredible amounts of money to be made, 2) he is a closet zealot, and 3)Saddam had tried to assasinate his father. Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US or to the US economy. If you think the world is a safer place than a year ago you must be living in a parallel universe.

      Although personally I think we're gonna need to put boots on the ground in Damascus before this is all over.

      And who's boots are those going to be? Not yours I take it. Our military is stretched beyond its capabilities as it is. Hasn't the screw-up in Iraq gotten through to you that we are not omnipotent? We are on the point of getting our asses kicked in Iraq and our economy backrupted because of the hubris and ego of the Bush administration and you want to do MORE! Are you nuts!... no don;t answer that question, I know the answer already.

    121. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " if the US invaded my country and treated my people the way the Iraqis are being treated, I'm sure I'd think about doing the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't be alone."

      Then you are a barbaric peice of shit, & the police in your town SHOULD "see you as the enemy."

    122. Re:US Army by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. I guess part of my point was that missle & bomb technology has improved over the years so that the "surrounding area" isn't as big as it used to be. Plus, we no longer need to drop 50 bombs to hit the target, just one.

      In todays urban & terrorist warfare we definitely need to continue to improve our precision strike weapons. It used to be a fact of war that civilians would be killed. As long as that was not the specific purpose of the bombing, that damage was somewhat accepted. Now, as precision strike weapons become better & better, we expect more.

      Let's look forward to the day when warfare & military operations are no longer needed, just individual police action to handle small situations.

    123. Re:US Army by mburns · · Score: 1

      The sayings of Jesus concerning pacifism are accorded more of a claim to historicity than many of the other sayings attributed to him. His recommendations, when filtered for historicity by rigorous scholars, seem to be much more pragmatic than the usual interpretation that he is promising a magical reward extrinsic to the practice of peace. After all, what can be gained by resisting an irresistable enemy?

      --
      Michael J. Burns http://home.mindspring.com/~mburns9/

      --
      Michael J. Burns
    124. Re:US Army by vandan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow! Thanks for raising the bar for all other AC posters.

      There are certainly some barbaric pieces of shit in this world, and they are mostly American. Keep in mind who invaded who.

    125. Re:US Army by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

      I don't know why jesus didn't admonish one of his followers for cutting off an ear
      actually he did rebuke his diciple for that. My point was that he did not object to his diciples wearing them in the first place.,
      perhaps for the same reason that he returned a slave to his owner.
      huh? How about a verse reference.
      Reread some of the OT the israelis were always attacking or being attacked. They were conquered at two or three times at least. Egyptians, Romans, Babylonia all conquered Israel.

    126. Re:US Army by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "My point was that he did not object to his diciples wearing them in the first place"

      And you interpolate from that the fact that Jesus is not anti war? Seems like a stretch to me.

      "huh? How about a verse reference."

      My bad that was Paul (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Of course the bible is full of references to slavery such as Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Ephesians 6:5 , 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48 and even a few passages in mark and mathew. It's clear from even a cursory reading of the bible that god had no objections to slavery whatsoever.

      "Reread some of the OT the israelis were always attacking or being attacked. They were conquered at two or three times at least. Egyptians, Romans, Babylonia all conquered Israel."

      So? What does that have to do with anything? God kills lots of people for very silly reasons (mostly because they don't listen to him). He flooded the earth and killed just about every living being!. Not just people, animals and plants too!. That's just one instance, how about sodom and gomorrah? the tower of babel. It goes on and on. God kills people left and right and whats worse helps the israelites kill many more and commands them kill.

      As I said god is kind of sicko in the bible. Satan comes off smelling like rose compared to god.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    127. Re:US Army by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      "First of all, war on Iraq != war on terror." Wait, did your cable go out, haven't you been receiving your daily brain washing at fox news?

    128. Re:US Army by basingwerk · · Score: 1

      You've got the cork up too tight. Relax before that vein bursts.

      --
      I stole this .sig
    129. Re:US Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By our definition, Saddam was a terrorist.

      What is that definition, you ask? A terrorist is a person who attacks noncombatants with deadly force in an effort to impose social or political change through fear, or a person who attempts to do such a thing, or a person who provides material support or safe harbor to anyone who does or attempts to do such a thing.


      Then we should invade Israel at once, because that is exactly what the Israeli army is doing.
      While our government continues to sponsor terrorism in Israel, we have no moral right to judge those who sponsor it in Palestine.

    130. Re:US Army by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then we should invade Israel at once, because that is exactly what the Israeli army is doing.

      When's the last time the IDF targeted noncombatants? And no tin-foil-hat bullshit: I mean actual events that really happened.

      --

      I write in my journal
    131. Re:US Army by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1

      1. No, but saying that we'll do it even if nobody else signs up *is* unilateral. It's the willingness to go unilateral that matters, not the fact that Turkey will sign on if we bribe them $100 million.

      2. No, it was because they were giving them to Al Qaeda and going to Nuke the US homeland!!!!!!!! It's happening NOW. We'll ALL BE DEAD in just MONTHS!!! And stuff.

      3. Right. That's why Afghanistan and the Afghan people were abandoned with no resolution or effective rebuilding and no leadership. Because WE CARE dammit! And, that's why we invaded Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 terrorists came from. At least we didn't just fire some missles at Afghanistan, "hit some camels in the butt", and call it a day, like Clinton did! (according to Bush)

      4. Hmm. I hate America. I live in Afghanistan. There are a bunch of Americans in Iraq. I'm going to wait until I get a green card before I kill me some American ass. 'Cuz I"m smartz!

      5. WTF? Either I can't read, you can't write, or the quote has no relevance to the situation. Anyone who believes that there is no cause worth fighting for *is* a fucktard. As is the person who believes that it is their duty to *always* follow the leaders of their country.

      6. You forgot to add, "QED".

    132. Re:US Army by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1

      Dammit, where are my manners? I forgot to say, "Thanks!" for the troll bait!

    133. Re:US Army by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      I guess all that about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek was just bullshit huh?


      Historical context:

      The custom at the time to insult someone lower than you was to slap them on one side of the face. To insult someone who was your equal, you slapped them on the opposite side of the face.

      Thus if you were slapped on the 'lower' side of the face, Jesus's advice was to turn so that any further insults would require the belligerent admitting equality with the insultee.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  3. It would be MUCH better... by Phidoux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... if the time and money spent of developing new weapons could be spent on education rather. But then again, a better educated future generation would probably be able to think up even more devastating weapons.

    1. Re:It would be MUCH better... by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Educated masses are alot harder to control than uneducated masses are. If your audience is just a bunch of morons you can just say "we must kill these people because they are jealous of us and they hate freedom!"

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But isn't that happening now . . . .

      But they are jealous of our freedom . . .. .

      Are you calling me a moron?

    3. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So we're solving that problem by giving up our freedom. Great solution.

    4. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Phidoux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I live in South Africa where, not to many years ago, sentiments such as yours were considered to be official government policy. Thus I'm pretty sure that investing money in education, rather that in weapons technology, is a much better investment.

    5. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      It would be far better to spend all this money on giving people less reason to fight each other.

      Say, better resource control in Mozambique (water)? What about building a machine that, instead of pumping out millions of rounds of lead per second, are able to make mud bricks and houses at a rate of 10 a day?

      Why isn't this a priority? Simple. The ones in control of the funding are fucking assholes and have all the justification they need to continue bringing misery and death to the world ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:It would be MUCH better... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Sentiments such as mine"? My sentiment is that we should invest in education instead of better methods of killing each other. When the people are uneducated, it's a really simple matter for the power-at-be to make them do their bidding. they can use their fears and uneductated opinions as tools to reach their goals.

      And besides, it was Jack Handy who said "Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have." ;).

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    7. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      we are so jealous of those freedom loving torture rapist Americans, must be great to have those values

    8. Re:It would be MUCH better... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IIRC, South Africa was the only country to develop nuclear weapons and then dismantle them. It's nice to see a country with the balls to try to make things better.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    9. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that. What happens at universities... professors try to program their audience into thinking as they do. Have you been to a lecture and had the lecturor give a communist tyrade? This sort of thing happens alot. A century ago, it would easily have been about the benefits of colonialism and the glory of christian civilization. Different tune, same song.

      I've found people who go through the university system to be more constrained in their outlook. They've been filled with notions of the 'correct' way of things. The correct values, the correct opinions, the evilness of the incorrect people, and so forth. Uneducated people might be less likely to have opinions about things, but they aren't so overly certain of themselves about them.

      After all, suicide bombers are far more likely to have received higher education than the general population. And you can be sure the tyrades Arabic lectures give are not in support of communism.

    10. Re:It would be MUCH better... by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be far better to spend all this money on giving people less reason to fight each other.

      You are assuming that people have a rational reason to fight. In the West, that is often (but not always true). For example, Europeans historically have warred over access to natural resources - but have also warred over religion (most notably Catholic vs Protestant) since the Renaissance. However the animosity between England and Spain was about both.

      In Rwanda, the civil war was conducted along racial lines - two tribes determined to wipe one another out, pure genocide. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over religion and both sides are fighting the Kurds simply because they are of another race. In Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe sabotages the farming industry in order to starve their opponents into submission.

      What about building a machine that, instead of pumping out millions of rounds of lead per second, are able to make mud bricks and houses at a rate of 10 a day?

      Such a machine would not resolve a single conflict in Africa. The Hutus and Tutsis (IIRC) aren't fighting over who has the most bricks, but over which "tribe" you're from. The BBC news reported on a Rwandan who killed his own grandchildren because they were mixed race.

      Socialists like giving aid to third world countries because a) it justifies higher taxation at home and b) they don't need to trouble themselves about the root causes.

    11. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1, Insightful


      horse shit. the rwandan's are fighting each other over resources. rwanda has tons of natural gas and oil reserves, and the people who are fomenting this violence (i.e. those behind the curtain... i.e. congolmerates such as British Petroleum) know that having strife such as this going on is better than having a unified set of tribes with a political system that is uncontrollable by foreign interests.

      don't always believe what BBC has to say about things ... they are as guilty as any other major corporation of corrupting reality to serve their own purposes.

      if you give -any- large group of people sufficient means to self-sustain their communities, and make those means available to all and sundry, you will reduce tensions in the area.

      every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created. it doesn't 'just happen'. give people technology to avoid this creation, and they will ... nobody 'wants' death.

      the fact that all these freakin' weapons makers (any man who makes a weapon is an Enemy of Man) could instead be making fresh-water pumps and road-making machines, but aren't, simply means that their intentions are not to prevent war, but to prolong it ...

      give a man a gun, and all he can do is kill with it. give a man a pump, and he can keep his village alive...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    12. Re:It would be MUCH better... by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 1
      But what are we going to teach them? I hope you don't say the same things we are teaching them now. Our education system right now is built this way: in public elementary through high school we teach our kids the necessary things to survive in college... and for those who aren't going to college, they get simple vocational skills so they can go find a job and work for someone. The ones who go to college are then taught more subjects and skills so that they can go get a job and work for someone else. Both sets of people go on to have kids who teach their children to do the same things - go to school, get an "education", do what they tell you and jump through hoops so you can get a shiny piece of paper saying you graduated, and then get a job so you can live safely ever. The trend will keep going and keep going.

      Instead of pumping MORE money into current education, which does nothing but teach basic human skills so that our future adults are able to work for someone else and elect a few officials without ever having to really think for themselves, why not take current monies and reform education. The education system we are using right now, for the most part, is not producing intelligable adults who can reason out and analyze such things as decisions made about war, decisions made about the economy, research money spent on medical research and weapons research and education. So why pump more money into that _same_ system.

      Of course, as stated by someone else in this thread, changing the system or putting more money into it would create intelligent citizens... and we all know that intelligent citizens are not good government practice.

    13. Re:It would be MUCH better... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. Liberal arts graduates may be a bad example, but I'd like to think that anyone instructed in rational thinking would be at least somewhat more resistant to propaganda and group-think.

    14. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Andy+Davies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we stopped subsidising our (US, EU & Japan)farmers so that they stopped dumping sugar, cotton etc. onto the world markets at below cost.

      Then people in Mozambique etc. would be able to get a a sensible price for the goods they produce and make a living.

    15. Re:It would be MUCH better... by GypC · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahahahahahahaha

      You are real piece of work.

      Why don't you go play with your rinky-dink synthesizer "music" and let the grown-ups talk, mmmm-kay?

    16. Re:It would be MUCH better... by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      don't always believe what BBC has to say about things ... they are as guilty as any other major corporation of corrupting reality to serve their own purposes.

      While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations. To suggest that the BBC is in league with them is, frankly, ludicrous.

      every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created. it doesn't 'just happen'. give people technology to avoid this creation, and they will nobody 'wants' death.

      You are wrong - look at all the wannabe martyrs in the world. And, you also conveniently overlook the concept that some wars aren't rational.

      Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over? Whether Mohammed's heirs should have been his sons or his disciples. They've been killing each other over this for 1300 years. You think a mud brick machine is going to help here???

    17. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Tristandh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Socialists like giving aid to third world countries because a) it justifies higher taxation at home and b) they don't need to trouble themselves about the root causes.

      Although your comment contains an elemtent of truth, I don't see anyone care about conflics and political instability in Africa (from which the 'average African suffers mostly). I believe it's better giving aid to those in need than to totally ignore the misery of millions. About the higher taxation: I do believe the annual spending of the average Western country (socialist or not) is only marginal compared to e.g. military expenses. And I (living in a social, not socialist country) have never heard anyone mention third-world aid as an excuse of higher taxation.

    18. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      pfftt... what are you, an insult machine?

      just admit it, your situation is hopeless. you live in a land not your own, and the walls of your palace are coming down ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    19. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over?

      Take two Sunni children and two Shi'ite children, give them a mud-making machine away from all the adults, and show them how to work together to make houses for all the lepers in the neighborhood.

      There. Peace.

      But no ... because there are people like you in the world who serve only to justify inhumanity, not do something about it ... we get gun-makers arming teenagers.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    20. Re:It would be MUCH better... by delong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's nice to see a country with the balls to try to make things better.

      More likely, South Africa faced no security threat that required the deterrance of nuclear weapons to justify their expense.

    21. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      man you just don't get it, that is NOT going to happen unless lets say... a powerfull country does that or forcs peace on them... or they kill each other.

    22. Re:It would be MUCH better... by daniil · · Score: 1
      I'd like to think that anyone instructed in rational thinking would be at least somewhat more resistant to propaganda and group-think.

      slashdot, of course, being a great example of this.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    23. Re:It would be MUCH better... by zero_offset · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Take two Sunni children and two Shi'ite children, give them a mud-making machine away from all the adults

      Everone else has already pounded your larger points into a fine-grained powder, so it looks like it's up to me to ask the question everyone has been avoiding: what the fuck is this "mud-making machine" you keep babbling about?

      No, seriously.

      Where you come from, what happens when you combine dirt and water without mechanical aid?

      --

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

    24. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heheh, actually, we seemed to have finally solved the whole "sunni vs. shiite" problem. Now they're just both killing Americans.

    25. Re:It would be MUCH better... by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      ... because there are people like you in the world who serve only to justify inhumanity

      People like me, eh? I haven't started any genocidal wars, not that I can remember.

      The problem with liberals like you is that you assume that people are fundamentally cooperative and sane, if only the nasty Warmongers (or Americans or Jews or Capitalists or whoever you blame) would go away, the world would return to Eden-like bliss. My advice to you is to grow up a bit.

    26. Re:It would be MUCH better... by ratamacue · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, I have seen otherwise intelligent people readily adopt that stance (that terrorists hate the US because of our freedom, or wealth, or religious beliefs, or basically any non-aggressive act they can drum up). When offered the possibility that terrorists hate the US because the US government regularly kills innocent civilians in the wake of its never-ending war campaigns, these same people launch into a verbal assult and full-out denial of any logic which tries to "reason with the terrorists". (As if admitting that the US government is wrong would somehow give justification for the terrorists' dispicable attacks on innocent people.)

      Group think. That's what we're dealing with here (on both sides, the gung-ho warmongers AND the terrorists). It's simply easier for people to conform to the group, than it is to deny the group and think for themselves. If pushed, some of these people will actually claim that it is just and moral to MURDER an innocent human being if it supposedly saves another. This is the power of group think.

    27. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. Thats the sort of close-minded thinking that results in assholes getting away with bombing the shit out of civilians.

      Give me the device, and I'll take it there, and make peace with it.

      I can't freakin' believe that people can't see how a weapon is a device of war, yet there are so many devices FOR peace that remain un-made...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    28. Re:It would be MUCH better... by GypC · · Score: 1

      I sense projection here...

    29. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      People like me, eh? I haven't started any genocidal wars, not that I can remember.

      You've done nothing but justify war the entire thread. Those who can find an infinite # of ways to justify war are the ones who are letting it happen ...

      The problem with liberals like you is that you assume that people are fundamentally cooperative and sane, if only the nasty Warmongers (or Americans or Jews or Capitalists or whoever you blame) would go away, the world would return to Eden-like bliss. My advice to you is to grow up a bit.

      The problem with people like you is you seem to think its okay to just let entropy have its way with our race. Where is the love?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    30. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      'projection'? I think the only projection around here is the very little one you get in your pants whenever you think of war machines ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    31. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read the thread, Mr. Smartie.

      I'm talking about machines that pump out houses and water and bricks ... not machines that pump out lead and death and misery.

      Its possible to use the utterly horrifying technology of the weapon-makers for peaceful means.

      All it takes is someone saying "lets do it, lets make machines that only have peaceful purposes" in spite of all the people who say "it can't be done, it won't work, we MUST fight war".

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    32. Re:It would be MUCH better... by GypC · · Score: 1

      Heh. That is a gun in my pocket and no, I'm not glad to see you.

    33. Re:It would be MUCH better... by meringuoid · · Score: 0
      Take two Sunni children and two Shi'ite children

      I hate this sort of thing. What's a Sunni child? What's a Shi'ite child?

      You might as well say 'Take a Marxist child and a free-market libertarian child', or 'Take a scientific materialist child and a Cartesian dualist child', or 'Take a many-worlds theorist child and a Copenhagen interpretation child'. What do children know of what these things mean? Nothing. They're children. It's their parents who are Sunni and Shi'ite, or whatever else it may be.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    34. Re:It would be MUCH better... by winwar · · Score: 1

      Well, we did want to instill a sense of unity in the Iraqi people... I guess it's positive in a twisted sort of way. What I'm waiting for is an official statement saying that was our goal all along :)

    35. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Even more likely, the then South African government (circa 1990) did not want to beqeath that capability to 'the communists' - the ANC, et al.

      Regardless, South Africa is a better place for it. These 'communists' know what they are doing.

    36. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      My point exactly.

      Okay, lets re-word it... take two children of Sunni origin, and two children of Shi'ite origin, and teach them to make things together that are good for all in the surrounding area.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    37. Re:It would be MUCH better... by hoofie · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      don't always believe what BBC has to say about things ... they are as guilty as any other major corporation of corrupting reality to serve their own purposes

      Obviously you've never watched a lot of the BBC News output, otherwise you'd know that's one of the most pig-ignorant statements made on Slashdot for a while. The BBC is no friend of big business, and whilst it may be called a corporation, it does not operate along the same lines.

      if you give -any- large group of people sufficient means to self-sustain their communities, and make those means available to all and sundry, you will reduce tensions in the area.
      I'll think you'll find with this, is that once a large group of people can self-sustain their communities, tensions often INCREASE as they start to look enviously at someone else's self-sustaining community.

      Also, another suggestion. Capital Letters are your friend - Go on, dont't be Afraid ! Use them !

    38. Re:It would be MUCH better... by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over? Whether Mohammed's heirs should have been his sons or his disciples. They've been killing each other over this for 1300 years. You think a mud brick machine is going to help here???

      You've got to admit, though, that one never sees rich people fighting over shit like this. When was the last time two first-world, democratic countries, with reasonable basic standards of living for their citizens, went to war over anything?
      Well, okay, about sixty years ago. But you get my point. Poor people are much more likely to seek to solve thier problems by blowing stuff (or themselves) up, becuase they've got less to lose.
      Rich lunatics such as Bin Laden excepted, of course. Damn, this is turning out not to be as strong a point as I had hoped.

    39. Re:It would be MUCH better... by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can rest assured that the US or UK will run to their aid whenever they need it, do all the dirty work, and suffer all the criticism from the One World Government.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Africa is also the baby rape capitol of the world, so don't go sucking their dicks just yet.

    41. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously you've never watched a lot of the BBC News output, otherwise you'd know that's one of the most pig-ignorant statements made on Slashdot for a while

      I don't think "ignorant" means what you think it means. Ignorant is thinking that the BBC is 'above' any sort of corporate corruption ... whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

      The BBC have their masters, believe me ...

      I'll think you'll find with this, is that once a large group of people can self-sustain their communities, tensions often INCREASE as they start to look enviously at someone else's self-sustaining community.

      My point is that if you give people the tools they need to work for themselves and improve their own conditions, then they are less likely to become jealous over the 'haves' over in the other village, and are more likely to expend the energy normally utilized in warfare for more productive, creative means.

      How else can you explain the Western world, and its peaceful cities? Oh, before you go off on the "Western World Oil Hunger Wars" tangent, lets just acknowledge that there are far more western communities who are _NOT_ waging war than there are currently engaged in fierce battle" ... and the difference is that these communities and cities and regions are able to fend for themselves, using technology designed and developed specifically for the job of promoting civilization, not defeating it.

      Power grids, water control, irrigation, agriculture - all of these realms would just as easily benefit from the same application of technology and investment of funds and resources as any "8-million rounds per minute" gun system ...

      Give a man a shovel, and he can till the field. Give him a gun, and all he can do is kill.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    42. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Knowledge and Wisdom are not the same thing.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    43. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a beowulf cluster of rational thinkers would probably break out the baseball bats and have a royal rumble after being exposed to slashdot.

    44. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, thanks to dogged application of the US pre-emptive doctrine, the world can now add Libya to that list. Soon, they will be able to benefit from N. Korea and Iran being added as well (unless the idiots actually elect let's-get-us-all-killed-Kerry in Nov).

      (as always, mod- for conservative posting on /.!)

    45. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well look at the sources.

      In the US the media owned buy private and corporate companies, so the outlook is going to be biased in those directions.

      And in Britian the BBC is run by the government, so I am sure that most people here can figure out were their biases go.

      And don't give me any anti-capitolist bullshit. Capitolism or socialist, it doesn't matter.

      Money and Political power are just different paths to the same end.

    46. Re:It would be MUCH better... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      I'm not so certain that there's ever really a good reason to fight. Consider the examples from the African or Asian continents. Are these people just bored or what's going on here? Fighting over which tribe? Fighting over which race? Fighting over religion?

      Honestly I think that all wars stem from love. Two people want to get married, their parents are embittered because they're not marrying the person that the _parents_ had in mind, and then the parents start to concoct excuses for why the marriage is bad (different tribe, different race, different religion, etc.). If the parents sit in sufficiently high positions of social or political influence, or if their social network is sufficiently gullible, then a coordinated aggression can be initiated. This may escalate into a war.

      I'm not so sure that the European example is any different. The history books may write wars up as products of religious differences or resource disputes but I think it boils down to two things: love and greed.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    47. Re:It would be MUCH better... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      As I have said before on /.

      "It is not in the best interest of the sheperd to breed smarter sheep."

      Apply as needed to all posts regarding government controlled or sponsored education.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    48. Re:It would be MUCH better... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      I've also seen otherwise intelligent people that readily adopt the stance that the people that disagree with them are mentally defective rather than actually engage them on the merits of their arguments.

      It is quite possible that the truth of your position is NOT self-evident and that other intelligent people looking at the same body of facts have HONESTLY and INTELLIGENTLY arrived at different conclusions.

    49. Re:It would be MUCH better... by daniil · · Score: 0
      every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created.

      the weird thing is, the closer you look, the fuzzier the picture becomes and the only thing you can really be sure of is that things happen. for instance, we know that there was/is a war going down in iraq, but we have no idea why it happened. who knows, maybe even bush doesn't have an idea.

      i don't think anyone can really create a conflict. the only thing someone can do is slightly affect the way things flow.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    50. Re:It would be MUCH better... by operagost · · Score: 1
      the fact that all these freakin' weapons makers (any man who makes a weapon is an Enemy of Man)
      Don't forget to mention that to the cops when someone is breaking into your house and you call 911 for help.

      Me, I'm selling my cloak and buying a sword. I lay down my life for my friends, not for random murderers, thieves, rapists, and sociopaths.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re:It would be MUCH better... by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I have seen otherwise intelligent people readily adopt that stance (that terrorists hate the US because of our freedom, or wealth, or religious beliefs, or basically any non-aggressive act they can drum up).

      Well, there actually is a component of religion in the mix. Islamic leaders are very concerned about the corrupting influence that our immoral society is having on their own people. Our sort of cultural imperialism is arguably *more* threatening to them than a few bombs, if you keep in mind that to them (as well as to many serious adherents of other faiths, like Christianity), death is not nearly as bad as damnation.

      As a Christian, I look around our society and have to sympathize with them on that point, at least in part. Particularly when I consider that their view of our society is primarily the one portrayed by Hollywood.

      And 9/11, of course, was not at all about innocent civilian deaths, it was mostly about trying to get the infidels out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia). Bin Laden's major beef is the fact that the Saudi Royal family invited drinking, porn-viewing US soldiers and their flesh-revealing women into Mohammed's sacred land.

      In fact, very little of the Middle-Eastern terrorism has been in response to American attacks on innocent civilians. The hatred is largely created by cultural imperialism, support of Israel and various apparently anti-Arab actions taken by the US government over the last 30 years in the process of fighting the cold war and suppressing Iran and Iraq.

      Of course, the civilian casualties of these actions just serve to reinforce the perception that America hates Arabs. That plus the religion-based fears plus the political disagreements leads to all of the Great Satan rhetoric and the moral "justification" of terror attacks.

      Be careful not to fall into your own groupthink and excessive simplification. The causes of the situation are many, varied and complex, and there is plenty of irrationality, self-serving and blind disregard for human life on both sides of the question.

      Overall, I think we need to be more sensitive to the Arab world, and less heavy-handed in our approach to international relations around the globe, but I think that there's ultimately nothing we could do that would erase the fear and hatred. Middle-eastern societies are in the grip of their own great internal turmoil, as they attempt to decide whether they're going to be Islamic or secular, whether they're going to join the rest of the world in the materialism we call progress or whether they're going to stay "pure". America is the ideal symbol for one side of this conflict, and much of the hatred directed our way arises from that struggle, over which we have no direct control.

      Over time, the Middle East will eventually join the rest of the world, become secularized, progressive, open and democratic. Why is this inevitable? Because that's what the vast majority of people individually want. In the case of devout and semi-devout Muslims, they also want to honor their religion and obey their religious leaders -- who do not want secularization and progress, and see that openness and democracy lead to empowerment of the common man who will act against his own best interest (in their view). But, over time, the desire for individual freedom and economic progress will push these societies away from religious control.

      Just don't expect the change to be painless, or to stay within the Islamic nations' own borders.

      Finally, it's also important to realize that everything I've said here is a sweeping generalization. The Arab nations are not a unified whole. Iraq is already very secularized (was prior to Saddam, and during Saddam's reign, although he used religion), Iran is very Islamist, Saudi Arabia is Islamist, but still trying to be progressive, Egypt is a melting pot with lots of factions and counter-factions, and a government that is secular. I don't know enough about Syria and Jordan to comment, but I'm sure they have their own, unique situations.

      Really, it's much more complex than just "they want to kill us because we keep killing them".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    52. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada had nuclear weapons at one point, we got rid of them shortly after.

    53. Re:It would be MUCH better... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Put two pairs of children who have grown up together in a sandbox with one (toy) dump truck and see what happens sometime. You're as likely to get a pitched battle as a peaceful compromise, perhaps moreso.

      Children might not know hate for people without cause, but they will fight over stupid shit. Many so-called adults have the same attitude, and for the most part they wind up in and out of jail and/or prison.

      Or, they end up leader of the free world...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:It would be MUCH better... by wass · · Score: 1
      While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations. To suggest that the BBC is in league with them is, frankly, ludicrous.

      Bullshit. I watched the BBC World News here in the US last night (on Maryland public access tv). At the end they listed the sponsors of the program, several of them large multinationals.

      --

      make world, not war

    55. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Phleg · · Score: 1

      I believe their official reason was that they were afraid the weapons might suddenly go "boom", without anyone asking them to.

      --
      No comment.
    56. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have seen otherwise intelligent people readily adopt that stance (that terrorists hate the US because of our freedom, or wealth, or religious beliefs, or basically any non-aggressive act they can drum up).

      If by "The Terrorists" you are talking about OBL, he's stated before he hates the US because the US supports Isreal. It really is that simple. Sure, they hate our liberalism, our wealth, and our freedom but more than anything they hate the Jews.

      When offered the possibility that terrorists hate the US because the US government regularly kills innocent civilians in the wake of its never-ending war campaigns, these same people launch into a verbal assult and full-out denial of any logic which tries to "reason with the terrorists". (As if admitting that the US government is wrong would somehow give justification for the terrorists' dispicable attacks on innocent people.)

      Give me a break with the super hippy rants already. The US government does not go out of it's way to kill private citizens of any other nation. If anything it bends over backwards to avoid it. The difference is that terrorists have no problem targeting innocent women and children.

      Group think. That's what we're dealing with here (on both sides, the gung-ho warmongers AND the terrorists).

      Yeah, and that is what we are dealing with when it comes to the "I hate America" crowd here on Slashdot and in the American media. Lets look at some of these "Group think" symptoms and how they apply to the American people who are crying that the war on terror is our fault.

      llusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.

      Hah, this one so obviously applies. People think "well if we just leave the terrorists alone then they wont attack us again!". Or I've heard "If Bush wasn't in office 9/11 wouldn't have happened" What they are blind to is the fact that 9/11 was being planned on Clintons watch. It didn't matter who was in the white house on 9/11. It could have been Gore, hell it could have been Nader, they were still going to carry out what they had been planning for years. The thought that anything other than force is going to stop them is ignoring the obvious.

      Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

      Ever heard how people rationalize everything the terroists do? The ones who compare the few Americans (8 of them) "tourturing" prisoners in Iraq to Nick Berg getting his head cut off. Nick's decapatation should be a clear warning to these people of the threat America faces, yet they explain it away.

      Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.

      Look at what the liberal news media did to Nick Berg. The alligations at the Iraqi prison were under investigation...THOSE SOLDIERS WERE GOING TO BE TRIED regardless of what CBS did. CBS decided to go public with the photos of alleged tourture. In response the terroists kidnapped and beheaded Nick Berg. CBS KILLED NICK BERG. The totally ignored the ethical consequences of their decision to air those pictures.

      Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.

      Ever hear how people who favor the troops are Stereotyped as "sheep" or "idiots" that are being conned into supporting the war? They never entertain the thought that a totally rational person could support the war.

      Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.

      You can see this one going on everywhere...Even here on slashdot.

      Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group compl

    57. Re:It would be MUCH better... by daniil · · Score: 0

      naah. somehow i don't believe even slashdot could be the answer to the age-old mystery of artificial intelligence. more likely, the alchemists were right and all it takes truly is a pumpkin, some horse sperm, the flesh of an unborn child, and a blue tea-pot warmer.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    58. Re:It would be MUCH better... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      If your audience was a bunch of morons you would say, "we must be nice to these people because they don't like our foreign policy."

    59. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, lets re-word it... take two children of Sunni origin, and two children of Shi'ite origin, and teach them to make things together that are good for all in the surrounding area.

      Let's reword it again: take two children of Sunni origin and two children of Shi'ite origin and strip them of their identities, then brainwash them with the ideology of my choosing.

    60. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give him a gun, and all he can do is kill.

      Right. He has the God given freewill to use that gun to put food on his table or to protect his family from dangers (human or not). From reading your previous posts, it sounds like you got about three quarters of the way through a liberal brainwash class, then dropped out before they attempt to explain their loony ideas.

      I can help you though. When making liberal arguments about gun control, you're supposed to blame $situation on the gun itself instead of the person, so your statement should've read: Give a man a shovel, and he can till the field. Give him a gun, and the gun will flip out and kill people.

    61. Re:It would be MUCH better... by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      I watched the BBC World News here in the US last night (on Maryland public access tv). At the end they listed the sponsors of the program, several of them large multinationals.

      Umm, dude, I am British. I have been watching the BBC my entire life. I won't be lectured on it by someone who has seen one show!

    62. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ukraine was the first nation which dismantled its nuclear arsenal. They inherited impressive set of nuclear weapons during destruction of USSR.

    63. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't.

      You had US nukes that we were kind enough to loan you.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    64. Re:It would be MUCH better... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Or you can say things like: We need to spend more money funding a government-controlled and run education system so we can have people who can think for themselves and be free and independent from government propaganda and influence.

      And then, those "educated" people will think the phrase: "We must defend ourselves against people who want to kill us..." is identical to the phrase: "We must kill these people..."

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    65. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Ukraine inherited delivery systems. All warheads were delivered to Russia. That was a condition of START-1.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    66. Re:It would be MUCH better... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      if only the nasty Warmongers (or Americans or Jews or Capitalists or whoever you blame) would go away, the world would return to Eden-like bliss.

      And if that isn't the seed for a nice pogrom at some future date, I don't know what is.

      Political ideology is a circle. Move far enough left or right, and you wind up at the same place: Blowing things up and killing people. You just do it for different reasons.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    67. Re:It would be MUCH better... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You mean, until some dictator kills you and takes the device so he can use it to make fortresses and walls around his cities, and then attacks his weaker neighbors so he can rule over them?

      Wars are also fought for power. Some humans just love lording it over others.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    68. Re:It would be MUCH better... by ThomaMelas · · Score: 1

      Now what kind of intrest do you charge for that kind of loan? I'm thinking maybe a percentage of the mass per month? And can we select what kind of mass we get back, cause we could get some cheap beer that way....

    69. Re:It would be MUCH better... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      A man can kill with a shovel, too. Just because you give him one doesn't mean he's going to use it to till a field.

      You're naivete on human nature would be sad if it didn't result in people getting killed.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    70. Re:It would be MUCH better... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      My point exactly.

      Okay, lets re-word it... take two children of Sunni origin, and two children of Shi'ite origin, and teach them to make things together that are good for all in the surrounding area.


      And as soon as the united States finishes the clean up of all the people that want to prevent that - We'll be happy to let you step in and help with the reconstruction.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    71. Re:It would be MUCH better... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      I did say, killing one person to save two others is ok which you had no answer for

      I most certainly do have an answer to that, which you can't possibly dispute: if you kill an innocent person, for any possible reason, you are a murderer who has committed the most horrible act of aggression possible. The heroic notion of saving another (or two, as you put it) is therefore null and void. Logically, you cannot be BOTH a murderer (a deplorable sub-human who initiates force as a means to an end) and a hero (a commendable savior who only invokes force in defense of force) at the same time.

      And I don't believe you've answered the most revealing question: what if the person who is killed to supposedly save another (or 100 others) is you, your wife, or a member of your family? You're stuck between a rock and a hard place now, because if you say it's immoral and unjust for a "hero" to kill you or your family for the supposed benefit of others, then you're a hypocrite, and your logic is proven arbitrary. On the other hand, if you say it's moral and just, then you have undermined your own inalienable right to individual soverignty. If you honestly choose to do that, then you may retain your stance without becoming a hypocrite, but now you must admit that you consider yourself nothing but a tool of the state, expendable for whatever reason the state deems necessary.

    72. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      In response to your comment about group think, I'd like to point out that there is a lot of pride to be had in thinking you have the moral and mental high ground compared to those around you.

      Find yourself surrounded by idiots who can't see or don't care? Find yourself mostly alone? Find that the people who outright oppose you are so driven by blind passion they can't see straight?

      The other guy feels the same way. Considering yourself to have the moral and mental high ground is a very blinding pride and words like "group think" when applied to your opponents show what you think of yourself compared to them. In the end, claiming the high ground is worthless and self-denigrating.

      If you find yourself on the highground, perhaps you should reflect for a little while and focus less on what your and his motivations are and more on the actual facts and history.

      Cheers

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    73. Re:It would be MUCH better... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Good insight. I agree with most of what you're saying. Innocent deaths are not necessarily the root cause of terrorism, but most certainly serve to stir the hornet's nest. The root cause is simply aggression of any type -- in general, the US government's long history of dealing with other coutries (especially Arab nations) through the initiation of force.

      And BTW, thanks for responding with a calm and respectful tone, which is more than I can say for most people who respond to my anti-war posts.

    74. Re:It would be MUCH better... by tcr · · Score: 1

      And in Britian the BBC is run by the government, so I am sure that most people here can figure out were their biases go.


      That's a "fact", is it?

      Bzzzt! Thanks for playing...

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    75. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heroic notion of saving another (or two, as you put it) is therefore null and void. Logically, you cannot be BOTH a murderer (a deplorable sub-human who initiates force as a means to an end) and a hero (a commendable savior who only invokes force in defense of force) at the same time.

      Yep, most people, and most things in life are shades of grey, not black or white. In the example we talked about, Hiroshima....was killing 75,000 to save possibly millions a good choice?

      And I don't believe you've answered the most revealing question: what if the person who is killed to supposedly save another (or 100 others) is you, your wife, or a member of your family? You're stuck between a rock and a hard place now, because if you say it's immoral and unjust for a "hero" to kill you or your family for the supposed benefit of others, then you're a hypocrite, and your logic is proven arbitrary. On the other hand, if you say it's moral and just, then you have undermined your own inalienable right to individual soverignty. If you honestly choose to do that, then you may retain your stance without becoming a hypocrite, but now you must admit that you consider yourself nothing but a tool of the state, expendable for whatever reason the state deems necessary.

      Actually, I did answer that question quite a few replies back. To refresh your memory... Here's a curveball for you: Do you consider the US government evil for murdering upwards of 75,000 at Hiroshima, the vast majority of whom were non-aggressors and just wanted to live their lives in peace?

      No. I consider them heros for having the balls to make the decision that save thousands if not millions of lives at the cost of 75,000. If the US didn't have the A-Bomb do you think the Japanese would have ever surrendered? I doubt it, even their civilians would have fought to the death. The problem with liberals is that you don't understand the real world and you can't make tough choices. I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men.

      If you answered "no" to the above (which I'm assuming you did), would you answer differently if the tables were turned and YOUR city was the one that was destroyed?

      No, if everyone in my state were killed but it saved the lives of everyone else in America than I wouldn't answer differently. If I could die to save lives of my countrymen, and to save what I believe in I would. I guess that is the difference between you and I.

      ------ If you honestly choose to do that, then you may retain your stance without becoming a hypocrite, but now you must admit that you consider yourself nothing but a tool of the state, expendable for whatever reason the state deems necessary.

      It's not a matter of being a toll of the state, it's a matter of sacrifice for the greater good.

    76. Re:It would be MUCH better... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Point taken. I will be more careful about this in the future.

    77. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a matter of being a toll of the state

      that will be 25 cents if you would like me to kill myself for the greater good, thx.

    78. Re:It would be MUCH better... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      If I could die to save lives of my countrymen, and to save what I believe in I would.

      You are trying to imply that you have a choice between dying for a noble cause and dying by senseless aggression. My scenario doesn't give you that choice. My scenario puts you in Iraq, with a wife and children, and a foreign superpower dropping bombs on your house for *their* cause, not yours.

      You wouldn't be dying for a cause. You would be dying because of simple aggression. Please answer the question under that criteria.

      You have to get past the idea that you belong to the US "team", and the Iraqis belong to the Iraqi "team". Realize that you are a human being, just like the human beings in Iraq, each of which are equally deserving of life. There is no difference whatsoever between an innocent Iraqi and an innocent American.

    79. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      "The problem with liberals is that you don't understand the real world and you can't make tough choices. I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men."

      In the realm of ideas, I completely disagree with the anti-war crowd, the anti-America crowd, and liberals in general. That said, I would be a little hesitant to call ratamacue a liberal -- notice his .sig.

      You also are exhibiting the "holier than thou" mentality with "I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men" with a little generalization to boot. Be careful when calling the pot black.

      No insult or injury intended

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    80. Re:It would be MUCH better... by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ALMOST correct:

      Iran is very Islamist

      This isn't exactly true. There is a rather large part of the Iranian population that is not only quite secular, but VERY "western" in ideaology and culture. There has been a increasingly vocal insurgency in Iran that is promoting western ideals of democracy and secular government.

      To label Iran as "Islamist" is only true of the government, but a gross injustice to it's actual people.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    81. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And BTW, thanks for responding with a calm and respectful tone, which is more than I can say for most people who respond to my anti-war posts.

      FUCK YOU AND DIE. :D

    82. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, lets spend the money on education so we can be good and smart when the terrorists blow us up.

    83. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are trying to imply that you have a choice between dying for a noble cause and dying by senseless aggression. My scenario doesn't give you that choice. My scenario puts you in Iraq, with a wife and children, and a foreign superpower dropping bombs on your house for *their* cause, not yours.

      The example given was Hiroshima and if I thought the US government was evil for dropping the bomb. As for the Iraqi example, I could argue that they are dying for two reasons.

      1. The liberation of the Iraqi people
      2. Because they are resposible for the leadership/government of their country. Every private citizen in any country is, as we found out on 9/11

      You wouldn't be dying for a cause. You would be dying because of simple aggression. Please answer the question under that criteria.

      The US aggression is for the reasons listed above and a few others. Not all of them may be noble to Iraqi's, but I'm sure the Kurds and the Shiite's are happy Saddam is gone.

      You have to get past the idea that you belong to the US "team", and the Iraqis belong to the Iraqi "team". Realize that you are a human being, just like the human beings in Iraq, each of which are equally deserving of life.

      I never said otherwise.

      There is no difference whatsoever between an innocent Iraqi and an innocent American.

      Sure there is, our Government should be protecting us not them. That is what I pay them for. That is why when I see the army dropping food to the Afgahns while people starve on the streets of NY it makes me sick.

    84. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      Your hypothetical situation assumes two things, I think:

      "My scenario puts you in Iraq, with a wife and children, and a foreign superpower dropping bombs on your house"
      "You wouldn't be dying for a cause. You would be dying because of simple aggression."

      I'm seeing two things implied here, please correct me if I'm wrong:
      1) The Iraqi is a bystander and has no part in causing the US to bomb Iraq (whatever the reason).
      2) The US has no real cause to drop bombs on Iraq.

      Assuming you are implying those two things, I'd like to contest them. I really shouldn't get into a discussion at work, so I'll try to make this short.

      In response to #2, the reasoning behind the US's motives are quite long. Saddam is bad is one of them but is really meaningless in my opinion, it's just icing on the cake. I'll summarize what I believe is the main reason:
      Rouge nations are the only viable sources for high-end WMD (nukes, etc.) for terrorists. Rouge nations are the only real, material threat to the world community (key assumption) and the threat is not insignificant (key assumption). By not enforcing previously stated rules (cease-fire in Gulf War) and other resolutions with regard to rouge nations, the world community is allowing rouge nations to become more defiant and some are beginning to position themselves to pose a real danger. In the interest of national security, the US is interested in holding rouge nations responsible. Several rouge nations are reconsidering their foreign policy after Iraq.

      In response to #1, I disagree with that idea if it is indeed yours. The people as a whole of a nation are responsible for its actions. An individual is responsible to the extent that he or she only becomes unassociated with an action of the nation if he or she publicly opposes it. If this isn't possible in Iraq, it's the people's job to revolt en masse and see that it is. A minority regime cannot hold back an entire nation.

      I'd be interested in your general feelings towards these matters.

      I think it also might be helpful to point out that I am not a Republican or a Democrat (nor a moderate, actually).

      Cheers

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    85. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n the realm of ideas, I completely disagree with the anti-war crowd, the anti-America crowd, and liberals in general. That said, I would be a little hesitant to call ratamacue a liberal -- notice his .sig.

      yeah, I cut and pasted from a reply to him that I made yesterday when I mistook him for a liberal. He has the same unrealistic attitude though, no matter how well meaning it is.

      You also are exhibiting the "holier than thou" mentality with "I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men" with a little generalization to boot. Be careful when calling the pot black.

      That was just a dig, I was having some fun with my AC posting. It's obvious not all liberals are gay men (Kennedy, Clinton, etc) but plenty of them are questionable (I bet Nader took it in the Keyster once or twice!)

      No insult or injury intended

      Same here.

    86. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      umm ... yeah ... nobody is advocating leaving kids alone in the desert sands to do as they please. if that were the 'only' way it would be, then what then is an adult?

      put 2 kids from 'both sides' in a desert, with some adults whose sole purpose is to help, and some house-making equipment, and then see ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    87. Re:It would be MUCH better... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      An adult, as I am presuming that you are using the term, is a child who as it has grown larger has been indoctrinated, some would say brainwashed, into believing that a certain course of morality is the proper direction for man.

      In other words, your example of adult supervision only serves to further my point that human nature is not pretty.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    88. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      You're naivete on human nature would be sad if it didn't result in people getting killed.

      eh? what? hellooo-ooo ... nobody gets killed by talking about different approaches to peaceful living.

      your way: killing things.
      my way: not killing things.

      big deal! no need to give me a free psychological evaluation over it! sheesh. antagonist!

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    89. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making that point so I didn't have to.

    90. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      "some dictator"? yeah, thats right ... maybe we should also be scared of space aliens as well, eh?

      the thing about weapons makers is that they are in the same league as dictators. you can't have one without the other.

      weapon == dictator.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    91. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple of additional points:

      1.) Cluster analysis would indicate that there is no such thing as "team Iraq", or that "Team Iraq" is a very weak alliegance indeed. We do have "Team Baath", "Team Kurd", "Team Al Sadr", etc.

      2.) Your ideology would appear to amount to accepting any consequences whatsoever, as long as you are not required to soil your own hands. The main benefit of this system is that it shields you from morally induced pain. The drawback is that, should it actually be applied, it would be unworkable and dogmatic, and hence would most likely cause great suffering among others. Still, as you would have remained passive, you would feel no guilt. Kinda ironic, no?

      2,5) Indeed - kin morality is a human universal. I would kill you before I would kill my brother. This is a human universal, caused by the fact that we are all vessels for our genes. Our kin share in our genes, and hence we care more about their welfare. ( A somewhat vulgar and brief, but decently accurate description.)

      A good, workable moral system takes this into account somehow, either by condoning these impulses, or by attempting to suppress them, or both depending on context. Either way, kinship, and it's leveraged, socially enhanced forms (Nationalism, etc.) will most likely be with us for quite a while.

      3.) In short, workable morality is good morality, Ends justify means, and no - we don't all share the same ends - that's why we have elections, politics and wars. Practical, no?

      Regards, Döbeln

      -Stabil som fan!

    92. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      yeah yeah ... i hope it gets to that ... i truly hope it does ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    93. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Defense does not always involve weapons, nor should the use of weapons for defense be the first choice of tool in the solving of the problem...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    94. Re:It would be MUCH better... by spook+brat · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you want to criticize "otherwise intelligent people" for not wanting to "reason with the terrorists". From what I've learned, they don't want to reason with us, either. Check out this quote:

      "The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates..., Platonic ideals..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun."

      It is taken from what is known as the "Manchester Document", an Al Qaeda training manual located by the Manchester (England) Metropolitan Police during a search of an Al Qaeda member's home. Selected passages from the manual are available in PDF format from the U.S. Department of Justice website. Go through it, it's a fun read. The quote above is from page four of the "Cover - Lesson Four" PDF.

      It would seem to me that they don't want to "reason with" the rest of us (the "apostate regimes", which incidentally includes any Arab governments that they view as tinted by foreign influence) any more than your "otherwise intelligent" friends want to talk to them. In fact, it looks like they [the terrorists] will answer any invitation to dialog with a bullet to the face.

      Please do some more research before discrediting those whose ideas you don't agree with. In this case I think you're both right - the terrorists do hate America because of its freedoms and religious beliefs, and the parading of civilian casualties on the Al Jazeera news channels is certainly being used by terrorists as a recruitment tool. Unfortunately, global politics is not as simple as we may want it to be, and neither negotiation nor cessation of the "never-ending war campaigns" will stop the violence.

      For what it's worth (probably not much), in my opinion Al Qaeda picked the fight and are determined to fight it to the death. Since they refuse to even talk about it (see exhibit A above), and I'm not willing to accept their demands (things like relinquishing national sovereignty and accepting forced conversion to Islam), G. W.'s solution of going to them and inviting them to bring it on is a (perhaps the only?) valid solution.

      Feel free to come up with another solution. I'll be willing to listen as long as it doesn't involve giving up my religion or nationality. You'll be doing the world a big favor.

      --
      Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... ...and kill them - http://schlockmercenary.com
    95. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, the United States spent 750 billion dollars on education in 2002. That isn't any where near the defense budget.

    96. Re:It would be MUCH better... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely accurate. The South African nuclear weapon program was a joint project with Israel, and while South Africa decided to get rid of their nukes, Israel kept theirs.

    97. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam has done nothing wrong, why are we bombing him? It's not right that we can kill Iraqis, has Saddam ever killed a single Iraqi? Now that I got some sarcasm out of my system, Saddam killed more people than the US has since WW2, and he did so for the reasons that the left-wingers say the US is doing it. He invaded Kuwate(sp?) for oil, he wanted Iran for oil, he paid off the UN and Annan's son with money from oil. The US unlike the UN wants to free the people of Iraq. Even CNN looked away as 10's of thousands of people were killed so that they could stay on the good side of Saddam for money reasons. Anyone being killed is a bad thing, but sometimes you need to fight fire with fire. To kill a few to save the many, is regretfull, but unavoidable. Hell, the north lost 1000's of people to free the slaves, if CNN was around then, there would still be slaves so that there are oppressed people to write about. Clinton would allow the slaves to still be slaves so that he could say that he is here to fight for them, but still keeping them down so that he has leverage.

    98. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      No, you fool.

      It is about those children.

      Not what the adults are, or are not. You put them in the desert, you get them working together; and they forget the divide between them.

      Look, if someone gave me $50,000,000 and said go and do something about the problems of the world, I'd go find the scummiest neighborhood ratbags in the poorest village in the word, and I would start a rock band.

      Does that make more sense?

      We, adults, responsible for the condition of the world, must stop teaching our kids to kill in order to solve their problems.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    99. Re:It would be MUCH better... by wass · · Score: 1
      I won't be lectured on it by someone who has seen one show!

      I agree, don't be lectured by someone who has seen only a single show. As for myself, I've seen many BBC news broadcasts, and I've read the BBC news webpage _daily_ for many years.

      My point was that BBC, if it really is against large multinationals, certainly has no problem with them sponsoring rebroadcasts. Take that however you wish, but don't ignore it simply because you falsely presume I'm a brainwashed American that only saw a single BBC news broadcast.

      --

      make world, not war

    100. Re:It would be MUCH better... by swillden · · Score: 1

      To label Iran as "Islamist" is only true of the government, but a gross injustice to it's actual people

      Thanks for pointing that out.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    101. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      ... won't be lectured on it ...

      yeah, okay, now that is british, and there is nothing better than british pride (even butter) ... and it is exactly this british bulldog pride which allows english media its effervescent grip on the british consciousness.

      BBC is corrupt-o-mondo, dude. give up bein' proud about it. the global world media order is upon us ... and the beeb is just as complicit as CNN ... and all those other media-sharing TLA's ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    102. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      There will always be an "uneducated" power in the world, that will be delighted to put bayonets in your oh-so-enlightened but militarily weak society.

      The world is a dangerous place. Humans are dangerous creatures. Societies that forget this no longer exist.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    103. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Let's reword it again: take two children of Sunni origin and two children of Shi'ite origin and strip them of their identities, then brainwash them with the ideology of my choosing.


      Coca Cola is brainwashing.

      Would it really be brainwashing if its their parents who are teaching it? Don't we keep hearing about all these Iraqi's with 6 children, some brother-in-law-in-jail with 12 siblings, etc? Shouldn't those people be given the things they need to prosper, instead of weapons?

      If I were a total stranger doing this, yes, I suppose it would be brainwashing.

      But if my corporate goal in life was to produce tools and give it to the people in the area to better their lives, and if those people then taught their children not to use weapons, and instead participate in the construction of better society for all, wouldn't that be a pretty fine investment of a few $Million, just some of a $Trillion National Debt line item?

      Why isn't there a "Peace, Inc.", and why haven't any governments done anything to create a market for such a thing?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    104. Re:It would be MUCH better... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does that make more sense?

      No.

      We, adults, responsible for the condition of the world, must stop teaching our kids to kill in order to solve their problems.

      Finally, something I agree with! First we should strike the death penalty entirely. If you make it illegal to kill people, and then you kill people, that's hypocritical.

      But the real problem with the USA is that we're meddling assholes (as a nation, not as individuals necessarily - though a nation is made up of individuals.) So, teaching our children not to be meddling assholes who have to stick their nose in everyone else's business should be our first step.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    105. Re:It would be MUCH better... by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      I'd say different. Lecturers at universities do have their opinions and they can be very vocal about them, but you get exposed to a wide range of conflicting tirades and the whole atmosphere at a good university encourages viewing and critically assessing all opinions.

      In countries that are typically totalitarian, e.g. many Arab countries, how likely is it that academics are going to openly oppose their government? The loudest tirades will come from the government supporting yes-men. The opposers may voice their opinion, but they have to be very careful where and how they do it.

      Uneducated people are usually very, very certain of what is moral/immoral, wrong/right. And added to that they lack the education and thinking skills needed to properly consider their beliefs.

    106. Re:It would be MUCH better... by RTMFD · · Score: 1

      Well, there actually is a component of religion in the mix. Islamic leaders are very concerned about the corrupting influence that our immoral society is having on their own people.

      Nope, Islamic leaders do not want to lose their stranglehold on the minds of their people and by extension, their power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      In fact, very little of the Middle-Eastern terrorism has been in response to American attacks on innocent civilians. The hatred is largely created by cultural imperialism, support of Israel and various apparently anti-Arab actions taken by the US government over the last 30 years in the process of fighting the cold war and suppressing Iran and Iraq.

      Bullshit, it is their "it's them or us" mentality. If you notice that the charter of the PLO doesn't mention coexistance with Israel (implicitly, the eradication of the Jews is implied). Americans and the rest of the non-Islamic world gets lumped into this mix.

      Be careful not to fall into your own groupthink and excessive simplification. The causes of the situation are many, varied and complex, and there is plenty of irrationality, self-serving and blind disregard for human life on both sides of the question.

      Wrong, there is no moral equivalence or grey area here. One group of people is targetting civilians and non-combatants, the other is not. It's that simple.

      Over time, the Middle East will eventually join the rest of the world, become secularized, progressive, open and democratic. Why is this inevitable? Because that's what the vast majority of people individually want. In the case of devout and semi-devout Muslims, they also want to honor their religion and obey their religious leaders -- who do not want secularization and progress, and see that openness and democracy lead to empowerment of the common man who will act against his own best interest (in their view). But, over time, the desire for individual freedom and economic progress will push these societies away from religious control.

      You rail against our "cultural imperialism" and then posit that a transition to a free and open Middle East is an inevitability because the people want to create their own culture which will have the same attributes as ours? Your logical paradox doesn't stand...

      Really, it's much more complex than just "they want to kill us because we keep killing them".

      Yes, you are correct on this point. Radical Islamists and the people whose minds they control want the extermination of all non-Islamic societies. This is their eventual goal and their interpretation of "jihad."

    107. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      ... not as individuals necessarily ...

      you know, i would have to say that i've met a few american individuals who weren't meddling assholes, but that was a very few ... it really appears to have become a cultural meme common to the U.S. point of view.

      honest, i've been all over the world, and i've lived in the States and travelled all over it, and i still maintain this view. it is not un-tested or invalid, in my world.

      of course, you can justify American meddling a million ways to Mars (and probably even there too), but Americans generally seem pretty ignorant of how grown up the rest of the world is, in places ... and how little of it is actually needed ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    108. Re:It would be MUCH better... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced that the individuals of the middle east want the area to be secularized. In Saudi Arabia, in particular, the government is much more liberal than the average person. Were Saudi Arabia to become democratic, the government would become more religious and isolationist. The separation of church and state is a particularly american and now european ideal, but is not necessarily related to democracy. Americans rarely elect non-politicians; why couldn't a coutry elect only clergy? Why couldn't the basis for the legal system be religious as opposed to whatever we claim it to be? For that matter, Israel is already a democratic religious state (with, of course, the caveat that Jewish law and custom is unusually in favor of religious tolerance).

      I wouldn't be surprised if the middle east ended up democratic as a consession to the political sensibilities of the rest of the world, but heavily religious and with a lot of restrictions on culture. I suspect that they will find that it is impossible to suppress information, but that their citizens will react to much of it with revulsion, much like most people on slashdot react to a certain .cx site. And American culture would probably be less welcome, because the people's sensibilities would prevail, rather than the governments desire to have favorable relations with the US.

    109. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would have been funny with better wording. But as it is, it just sounds like what it is, bollocks.

    110. Re:It would be MUCH better... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      I don't believe anyone -- not even you -- is so naive that you truly believe it is that simple in practice. The world really does contain a very, very large number of petty-minded, truly dangerous, downright bad, rotten-to-the-core people. The world is home to people who kill for pleasure. It is a place where jealousy and the urge to own and control is so strong that outright genocide is attempted on a fairly regular basis.

      You can't risk turning your sword into a garden hoe, unless you feel like sharing the product of your labor with the gang that lives down the road.

      Those are the sad facts of the real world, and all the well-wishing and beatific optimism in the universe isn't going to change it.

      --

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

    111. Re:It would be MUCH better... by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      Well that could be disputed.

      But there is some ridiculous quack medicine notion that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, and apparently the younger the virgin the better. The government is now making a serious effort to put a stop to these ridiculous notions.

      Still what can be expected in a country where the majority of people received an education that could barely be called education. Most still cannot read.

      And it'll still take years to correct the results of decades of vicious brutality.

    112. Re:It would be MUCH better... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "South Africa faced no security threat that required the deterrance of nuclear weapons to justify their expense."

      Compared to western countries which need their nuclear weapons to deter who, exactly?

    113. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually we are doing this, its just not reported much, but evil the euro leftists get it right sometimes

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0, 36 04,1163312,00.html

    114. Re:It would be MUCH better... by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      We don't need them. Our equipment may be mostly outdated, but the members of our armed forces are some of the best in the world. Given equal weaponry we could easily give Israeli, British or US forces a run for their money.

      Of course we do also have some really serious weapons like the Rooivalk helicopter.

      Still I'm never happy when governments balk at spending money on healthcare and education, yet seem to have piles of cash to develop better ways to kill people.

    115. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coca Cola is brainwashing.

      Liberalism is brainwashing.

      But if my corporate goal in life was to produce tools and give it to the people in the area to better their lives, and if those people then taught their children not to use weapons

      Ah. So if they don't know how to use weapons, they won't have any proclivities to fight. Because they're peaceful and pacifistic, no random nation (or small armed force) will want to attack them? Get real. Weapons aren't just for making war; they're also for defense. For every household that has a masked Jihadist with an AK-47, there're two households where a father has a loaded AK-47 stashed somewhere in case he has to protect his family, which doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to protect them exclusively from a weapon-wielding human.

      Your ideolistic world isn't going to come about by grabbing weapons from people with one hand and handing them a copy of some Ayn Rand book with the other. Try that, and the people you take weapons from will fucking die, because they don't live in the world you're imagining. You don't even live in that world (and it doesn't matter where you live. There are people near you that would as soon kill you as not, if not for the bother).

      In the end, what we (the USA) are doing over there will help the Iraqi people. They'll end up with cleaner water, plenty of electricity, the educational system will get better, and life overall will improve--all things that wouldn't have been possible with Saddam in power.

      Why isn't there a "Peace, Inc.", and why haven't any governments done anything to create a market for such a thing?

      Peace isn't the reality of the world, especially in a country where the ruler's son can randomly pick women to rape and nobody can do anything to stop him. If you plan for peace, you'll get destroyed when war comes around. If you plan for war, you'll be ready when the shit hits the fan. Governments typically choose the second route, because there's no common sense in the first.

      Lastly, there are a number of movements in the USA concerning gun control, a topic you seem to stress heavily in your posts under this story. You might check out the Brady Campaign website if you're interested in disarming people for the sake of disarming people. You should also check out the HCI parody website. Most of the high visibility gun-grabber lunatics in the USA are quite rich, and use their money to hire armed bodyguards (Rosie O'Donnell). Other rich gungrabbers live in cities like New York City, where their money and high profile are considered reason enough for them to be allowed to carry pistols, but the common person walking the street is barred from doing so.

      There's a ton of hypocrasy involved when you want to disarm people. If you're truly interested in peace on a small scale, why don't you go to Iraq and walk down some random street at night (unarmed and unguarded, of course) and spread your message of peace? Not a whole lot of common sense, that.

    116. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and look where you are now. Unemployment at all time highs. Crime rates at unheard of levels, poverty on the increase. There are so many murders in South Africa that the government has stopped reporting them. AIDS is going to claim whole generations and climbing at uncontrollable levels. Despite this valiant education South Africa is still ruled by superstition and ignorance. How many children are raped every day because the ignorant savages you let lose think that raping a virgin will cure AIDS? How many people are starving because your black African congress that seized power thought that redistribution of the wealth was a good thing?

      Like it or not South Africa was better off when the white people you are now killing where running the country. Oh well, can't take the monkey out of the jungle.

    117. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funding national defense is a Constitutional requirement. The other two you mention are best left to local or private institutions.

    118. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no they don't. crime is up, aids is more widespread, and extreme affirmative action policies are driving SA into the dirt.

    119. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely, the white South African government that these weapons where developed under was smart enough to dismantle them before they fell in the hands of the savage niggers that where taking over.

    120. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      The world really does contain a very, very large number of petty-minded, truly dangerous, downright bad, rotten-to-the-core people.

      really? you see, i've seen the contrary, but maybe i've lived a sheltered life, travelled as i have and lived in Japan, the U.S., Australia, and all over Europe...

      The number of simple-minded, utterly safe, downright good, well-meaning people in the world, who just want to get on with living a good life together with each other, is far greater than the few weapons-makers who would cause trouble for the rest of us...

      I never advocated turning 'swords into garden hoes', but I am advocating spending more on garden hoes than on swords, something the U.S. seems incapable, technically _and_ technologically, of doing ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    121. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Take two Sunni children and two Shi'ite children, give them a mud-making machine away from all the adults, and show them how to work together to make houses for all the lepers in the neighborhood. There. Peace.

      So what you're saying is that the only way to solve conflicts like these is the eradication of millennia-old cultural traditions?

      Everybody knows that if you take a Jewish and an Arab toddler and put them in the same sandbox, they'll play together happily. Or a white and a black toddler, or a Muslim and a Hindu toddler, or a Catholic and a Protestant toddler. But the thing is, a Muslim toddler isn't really a Muslim, is he? He's just a kid. And kids are, basically, all alike.

      The sons of Isaac hate the sons of Ishmael, and vice versa. That's their culture. How do we change it? Should we spend billions on a Sesame Street airlift and bring the "It's Fun to Play Together" song to an entire generation of Muslim and Jewish kids?

      I don't know. I don't know the answers, and neither do you.

      But to decry those who are working to defend our way of life from the people who would seek to hurt us... that's just low, man. That's just low.

      --

      I write in my journal
    122. Re:It would be MUCH better... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      And the number of ill intentioned people required to oppress well-meaning people is vanishingly small.

      I'd also point out that the US defense budget is only a fraction of the total budget. So the US does, in fact, spend quite a bit more on other things. It's also worth noting that a very large portion of the US defense budget is expended protecting people who aren't even Americans.

      Rather inconvenient facts for people like you.

      --

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

    123. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Resorting to a sarcastic, snide remark about "1984." You lose, man.

      --

      I write in my journal
    124. Re:It would be MUCH better... by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Islamic leaders do not want to lose their stranglehold on the minds of their people and by extension, their power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      I'm sure that's part of it as well, at least for some of them.

      Bullshit, it is their "it's them or us" mentality.

      Wrong, there is no moral equivalence or grey area here. One group of people is targetting civilians and non-combatants, the other is not. It's that simple.

      So we're lily white, are we? I didn't say we were morally equivalent, just that there's plenty of disregard for human life on both sides. When looking to see if that's true, be sure to look beyond strictly governmental actions, look at the rhetoric and actions of the people on both sides as well.

      FWIW, I think we do have the moral high ground in this conflict -- I just wish we wouldn't work so hard at giving it away.

      You rail against our "cultural imperialism" and then posit that a transition to a free and open Middle East is an inevitability because the people want to create their own culture which will have the same attributes as ours? Your logical paradox doesn't stand...

      First, I didn't rail against our cultural imperialism. I just stated its existence. I think our (western) culture is generally good, and that its spread is inevitable precisely because it's good, but that doesn't make our efforts (overt, covert and unintentional) to spread it any less a form of empire-building. We don't invade other countries to take direct control of them, we build our empire with movies, music, trade, subsidies, etc. It's a fact, not a discussion point. You're the one who chose to read a negative connotation into the phrase.

      Radical Islamists and the people whose minds they control want the extermination of all non-Islamic societies. This is their eventual goal and their interpretation of "jihad."

      There are some of those, of course. There are radical extremists in every society advocating nearly every form of world change. Don't exaggerate their size or influence, though.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    125. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      It wasn't intended to be funny. It was intended to be accurate - the Canadians never had Canadian nukes, they had access to American ones in a limited sense. This is verifiable and true.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    126. Re:It would be MUCH better... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Interesting points, and you may well be right.

      The problem with what you say, though, is that I think that democracy fundamentally requires some degree of church/state separation to function (though I think we go overboard). Why? Because to function democracy requires dissent, controversy, and when the government and the church are too closely tied together, people cannot disagree with the government without disagreeing with God.

      I think there must be a formal separation, at least, even if all of the leaders are themselves religious and guided by their faith, otherwise dissent becomes heresy.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the middle east ended up democratic as a consession to the political sensibilities of the rest of the world, but heavily religious and with a lot of restrictions on culture.

      I really hope this is exactly what happens. The society can be very religious, and maintain their culture, while jealously guarding the rights of people to disagree.

      I suspect that they will find that it is impossible to suppress information, but that their citizens will react to much of it with revulsion, much like most people on slashdot react to a certain .cx site.

      I think you're right. I live in a fairly religious area of the world (Utah), and the influence of the LDS faith is quite obvious, and even appreciated by many who do not have the same beliefs.

      However, what is not so clear is that the Muslim clergy will be comfortable accepting that their people can make the right choices. That's tough to do. I see the same things where I live... the state legislature has a strong tendency to try to encode morality in the law, to protect people from their own base desires, especially children and young people. This tendency creates plenty of conflict and problems, but it all works out here, for two reasons:

      First, the church is extremely careful to avoid applying its influence to politics. Members are encouraged to vote their conscience, which does obviously tend to push things the church's direction, and the church will occasionally speak out on issues of particular importance to it, but is careful never to support any particular parties or candidates, and never specifically asks its member to vote any particular way.

      Second, the legal infrastructure is designed to counter excessive church control. There are lines established, in both the state and national constitutions, that may not be crossed. There is the general understanding that dissent, in its proper form, is something that absolutely must be accepted, if not always embraced.

      I'm afraid that a highly religious society that *doesn't* enthrone secular government as thoroughly as we do will inevitably cease to be a democracy. And I'm afraid that if you're right about what the people would choose, then we're going to see a very long cycle of turmoil, the rise and fall of a long series of oppressive governments until the people finally do understand this principle.

      I hope I'm wrong.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    127. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Israelis are really tolerant. Just ask anyone behind that huge wall.

    128. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the only way to solve conflicts like these is the eradication of millennia-old cultural traditions?

      I never said this should be the only way of doing anything. Just that there ought damned well to be alternatives to spending $Trillions of dollars on something, and a nation which considers itself 'great' ought to have definitively and aggressively considered and pursued those options before defaulting to warfare and weaponry.

      I don't know. I don't know the answers, and neither do you.

      Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you, whether you think I know the answer or not.

      But to decry those who are working to defend our way of life from the people who would seek to hurt us... that's just low, man. That's just low.

      I wouldn't say I've 'decried' anything. My family has contributed greatly to national defense in two spheres of war in the past century, so I also don't feel a need to defend myself on this particular issue.

      I am only trying to point out that the American "Cult of Weaponry" is a perverse form of S&M, when in fact "Farming and Irrigation" would be far more useful to the peasants in the desert, if you know what I mean ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    129. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      And the number of ill intentioned people required to oppress well-meaning people is vanishingly small. ... isn't that what you and your President and his "weapons of mass destra^Huction" are supposed to be all about?

      I'd also point out that the US defense budget is only a fraction of the total budget

      Uh huh...

      Rather inconvenient facts for people like you.

      See, there you go again, pigeon-holing, putting me in a little box, making me small with your words and your labels ... "people like me".

      I'd sure like to meet a few more "people like me", frankly.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    130. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Completely missing the point that "love is love" and nothing else...

      I would say that in fact, you are the loser, no matter what games you think you may have won...

      I ask again, "where is the love?". It seems Consumericans are incapable of it.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    131. Re:It would be MUCH better... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Dealing with the real world, the way things actually work, is not the same as liking or preferring it. It should go without saying that most people pine for the utopian ideal. "People like you" are sufficiently disconnected to expect it will happen if we all just wish hard enough.

      You're probably one of those people to whom nothing seriously bad has happened yet.

      Enjoy it while it lasts.

      --

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

    132. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Just that there ought damned well to be alternatives to spending $Trillions of dollars on something, and a nation which considers itself 'great' ought to have definitively and aggressively considered and pursued those options before defaulting to warfare and weaponry.

      Two things.

      One: are you asserting that our nation didn't?

      Two: are you uncool with the concept of doing more than one thing at once? More specifically, are you not down with the idea of working for peace and preparing for war at the same time?

      Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you

      No, you don't. That's my point.

      --

      I write in my journal
    133. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Completely missing the point that...

      You didn't make a point! You were snide, and sarcastic, and that's all. You said nothing of substance, okay? Let me repeat that, in case you're failing to understand: you did not contribute an idea or an opinion.

      I ask again, "where is the love?". It seems Consumericans are incapable of it.

      Bored now. Moving on to folks who have something to say.

      --

      I write in my journal
    134. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      Do you know what Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting over? Whether Mohammed's heirs should have been his sons or his disciples. They've been killing each other over this for 1300 years.

      I have to disagree with that. That's what makes them different from each other, separates them, and therefore makes conflicts over other matters (e.g., power, like in Iraq) much more likely.

      It's what allows one member of a group point at another one, yell "Sunni!", and kill him because the Sunni is then part of that amorphous blob of people he has labeled as "enemy" and to which he attributes so many bad qualities. Prejudice, if you will, since you're prejudging whether the man is friend or foe by that one label, without knowing a thing about the person you're killing.

    135. Re:It would be MUCH better... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Well you are certainly not off-topic (in spite of what some stupid moderators think), I think your point was trying to be that people who live comfortably and have their basic needs taken care off are generally less likely to be inclined to wage war. By and large this is true, but there are exceptions. People also have basic needs which are not material, such as the feeling of having some independence and control over their own lives and communities, and the feeling that they are able to contribute to the development of their communities. Thus people like Bin Laden do not like foreign troops on their land and foreign meddling in their affairs.

    136. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      there are such devices, anything that poeple need, and need cheaply has a machine/system that makes them for the devloped worlds, bricks, food, water, they all exists.

      miltary spending on weapons doesn't just result in weapons it results in new tech that is used by ALL industry.

      And i think your the close minded on who thinks the poeple are all 100% perfect and good. bah to that some people are inherntly evil/good while most are somewhere in the middle.

      name a device for peace that remains unmade.

      And to give you the best example of why your thoery is false, look at the devloped countries, we still have problems with poeple killing each and the only reason it doesn't get out of hand is a strong police force that will lock you up if you kill ppl. Some people are crazy.

    137. Re:It would be MUCH better... by spun · · Score: 1

      People have a complex and shifting nature, determined by genetics and circumstance. We can't (or shouldn't, eugenics being a very slippery slope) mess with genetics, but we can change conditions. Some condtions support people being cooperative and sane, other conditions support people being competative and insane, and it is up to us to put ourselves into the chain of cause and effect and try to create a world that supports the kind of humanity that we want to live amongst. To suggest that humans are fundamentally uncooperative and insane is not only insane, but a self fulfilling prophecy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    138. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes ... I miss the days when the bliks knew their place.

    139. Re:It would be MUCH better... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      The current Israeli government is not tolerant of everybody, but it is not on the basis of religion that they oppress people; it's actually racism against the people who were living in the promised land when they got there. It's the same racism that you see everywhere between groups which lay claim to the same land, regardless of religion.

    140. Re:It would be MUCH better... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      It is not necessarily the case that religions don't permit dissent. Mainstream Christianity is very authoritarian (going back to Nicea), and would not be a good foundation for a religious democracy (which is quite ironic, really, given Christ's teachings). Judaism, on the other hand, is all about arguing over scripture. Even if dissent isn't a core religious prinicple, you can disagree with a religious figure's interpretation of God's will without disagreeing with God, particularly if the clergy disagrees with each other. It is not really different from disagreeing with the Supreme Court without disagreeing with the Constitution.

      There have to be multiple branches of government set against each other, with ways to oppose excesses, in order to maintain a democracy, but I don't think that a religious organization cannot be one of these, or that divergant religious organizations cannot be multiple of them. A church does not necessarily have particularly strong authority over the faithful, even on non-political matters (consider that the Catholic Church has been widely criticized by Catholics recently; and that's a religion with a dogma of infallibility).

      I think that a society will cease to be a democracy if it believes in the infallibility of a leader who is permitted to have power in government. It doesn't matter if this belief is religious or not; it can be just as bad if the leader is simply vastly popular. That's why Washington had to turn down a third term, and how Germany democratically elected the Nazi government. But it is a property primarily of the sects of Christianity that survived the early days that the religion contains this sort of leader, not a fundamental property of religion in general.

    141. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Zareste · · Score: 1

      Educated masses are alot harder to control than uneducated masses are

      'I pledge allegiance... to the flag...'

      Do you know what it means to pledge allegiance? We're all trained to simply say it and not to think about it, aren't we? You don't actually think the time teachers spent demanding your absolute obedience in school was intended to encourage intelligence and thought, do you? Does the drastic drop in a person's learning rate after going through the school system mean that little? Just watch and think for more than two seconds and it's pretty obvious that the school system basically exists to ensure that you believe what the government and authority says. Just look: kids would actually be thinking for themselves if they were allowed out of their cages. In a government-controlled 'learning' system, you're not going to learn anything the government doesn't want you to believe. Simple.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    142. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Dealing with the real world, the way things actually work, is not the same as liking or preferring it.

      Dealing with the 'real' world is no different than dealing with 'any other world'. Conjecture, assessment, analysis ... nothing happens unless we 'wish hard enough' for it to happen.

      People like you, a "naysayer above and beyond all else", probably live very sad, miserable lives, constantly cowering from the 'outside world' which is 'real' and 'hurty'. Do you never dream?

      Dreams are the first step to any situation a man creates for himself, and his fellows. Without positive dreams, without some responsibility for the endlessness of the future, entropy takes its toll.

      And ... why yes, in fact, lots of bad things have happened to me. But this is not an excuse to let my spirit for living and creating a positive future die ... Entropy happens.

      So do dreams.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    143. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      One: are you asserting that our nation didn't?

      Yes. I don't see the same line-item on your budget for reconstruction as I do for death and mayhem.

      Your nation worships death and strife.

      More specifically, are you not down with the idea of working for peace and preparing for war at the same time?


      Well, when a) the enemy you have made is one you actually did make (Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam...) and b) the whole world is held hostage to your adminstrations ideology, I don't think the American state has any business "making peace and war at the same time".

      Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you.
      -- No, you don't. That's my point.

      Well, thats your point, and you're entitled to it. But I don't think you're qualified, since you clearly have a bias against -any- option, not just the one I'm providing, to say whether or not I have an answer ..

      The answer to world peace is simply make it, above all else.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    144. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      You didn't make a point!

      Are you illiterate as well as being a bore?

      LOVE == WAR was a key point in the novel known as 1984. Orwell was saying that peoples minds can be bent so that concepts once known full well to support civilization are instead used to support its destruction.

      Saying that "love is the reason for war" is ludicrous and anyone who truly believes that enough to express it in an argument for peace is a brainwashed minion...

      If you choose ignorance over education, I can imagine that you wouldn't see my point, yeah ... so go ahead, move along, Citizen ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    145. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      And i think your the close minded on who thinks the poeple are all 100% perfect and good.

      Bah, what a fool you are. I have never said that people are 100% perfect and good. That is your ideal, not mine.

      If I truly had that ideal, I would have no problems with the 'goodness' of those people who choose to make weapons instead of tools of peace.

      CLEARLY, those people are evil.

      So, your little 'you are an idealistic fool' argument, has no weight. I know full well how evil people can be.

      Which is why I say: STOP MAKING WEAPONS FOR USE BY EVIL PEOPLE.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    146. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Guns can only be used to kill things.

      Well, okay, maybe if we make better bullets, we could use guns to 'tag' things, or 'put an RFID under someones skin', sure, yeah. Hey, maybe one day we can launch telecomunnications satellites with them, or something.

      A shovel, while it can of course be used to kill can also be used to till a field, and rejuvenate it every year in preparation for a new crop. Life as a substance is so frail that in fact anything can be used to kill, so big deal, we're talking about purposes not physics... the purpose of a shovel is to dig things, whereas the purpose of a space-based ultra-fast tungsten alloy rod delivery system is to smash and destroy.

      My point about this "mega-weapon cult" that seams to have gripped the world is that these weapons have no other use than to kill. Their purpose, finally, is to destroy.

      What does it say about a nation that puts more into destruction than it does construction? I say, its time has come.

      If that makes me some 'liberal brainwashee' then so be it. I don't consider myself 'liberal', at all. Maybe its just that I'm so sick of you Death Fascists and your endless justifications for doing the things you should not be doing, that I'm willing to stand up and profer a different view, even in the face of such vile antagonism from total strangers...

      Explain to me how this tungsten-rod delivery mechanism could be used creatively to solve the worlds problems, and maybe I'd be willing to stand down from the soapbox...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    147. Re:It would be MUCH better... by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Dealing with the 'real' world is no different than dealing with 'any other world'

      Congratulations, your statement has assumed the lofty title of The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Read on Slashdot.

      nothing happens unless we 'wish hard enough' for it to happen

      To a limited extent, I agree. Or rather, nothing begins to happen without the impetus of sufficient motivation. The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge that much more is required to bring such a wish to fruition -- in some cases, more than what is possible in the ugly old "hurty" real world. You can wish so hard you pass out, but that still isn't going to change the fact that the minute you realize your "mud machine" dream of kumbaya haromony, some twisted freak who wasn't playing along is going to show up to spoil the day.

      Hell, the simple fact that we're arguing is evidence enough that just because you have a good idea doesn't mean that everyone else is going to drop what they're doing to help you realize it. And you clearly can't do it on your own, otherwise I'm sure you would have.

      It's the real world. Welcome. We've been waiting for you.

      --

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

    148. Re:It would be MUCH better... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, your statement has assumed the lofty title of The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Read on Slashdot.

      Your so-called 'real world' is just as arbitrary as any other.

      Congratulations on being trapped by your own misgivings over 'reality'...

      Hell, the simple fact that we're arguing is evidence enough that just because you have a good idea doesn't mean that everyone else is going to drop what they're doing to help you realize it.

      All it takes is one other person to agree and come along, and its happening. Whereas, fifty million other people can disagree with me all they want, and then nothing happens.

      Look, all I'm saying is quit glorifying war for the sake of 'reality'. War is not reality, war is something that must be made in order to exist.

      In the meantime, there's still plenty of hungry mouths to feed, and lots of heads with the same "Why?" thought bubble ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    149. Re:It would be MUCH better... by Phidoux · · Score: 1

      I happen to be a _white_ South African.

    150. Re:It would be MUCH better... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations.
      I'd like to see that, where is it documented?
    151. Re:It would be MUCH better... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      The world really does contain a very, very large number of petty-minded, truly dangerous, downright bad, rotten-to-the-core people. The world is home to people who kill for pleasure. It is a place where jealousy and the urge to own and control is so strong that outright genocide is attempted on a fairly regular basis.

      You can't risk turning your sword into a garden hoe, unless you feel like sharing the product of your labor with the gang that lives down the road.


      Exactly! This is the main arguement I always used against my anarchist/marxist friends. I've read The Communist Manifesto, and the world it describes is a beautiful utopia. Too bad it will never happen in the real world because somebody always has to be The Asshole, and there will always be enough idiots in the world to get him where he wants to go.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    152. Re:It would be MUCH better... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      Power grids, water control, irrigation, agriculture - all of these realms would just as easily benefit from the same application of technology and investment of funds and resources as any "8-million rounds per minute" gun system ...

      While I agree in principle, it's impossible to build these things in a war-torn region. Sadly, someone must win the war first, and for that they need weapons.

      While a shovel can certainly be used as a weapon, I think we all know it's the guy with the gun whose going to win. Small wonder no one wants to be the guy with the shovel...

      My point is, peaceful solutions can help prevent war in a region that has already achieved (relative) peace, but they won't stop a war in progress.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  4. Popular science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Isn't there something in the FAQ about not running any stories from Popular Science? I seem to remember that Popular Science has now become just a military porn rag. They shifted from 50% flying-cars-real-soon-now/50% super-weapons to about 90% super-weapons/10% whatever. I refuse to click on the link.

    ------------
    Mobile porn

    1. Re:Popular science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, as if anyone really cared if you click a link or not...

    2. Re:Popular science? by kinema · · Score: 2, Funny
      I refuse to click on the link.
      Ah, a true Slashdoter.
    3. Re:Popular science? by wpiman · · Score: 1
      I refuse to click on the link.

      And we should click on yours? My guess is that it is 100% porn.

      Shameless commerce. I refuse to click on the link (at least until I get home)

    4. Re:Popular science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps they are just reflecting the fact that US research spending is now 90 % military and 10 % civilian?

    5. Re:Popular science? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe you're thinking of Popular Mechanics.

      I have a set of books published by Popular Mechanics from the 1920's called "The Boy Mechanic" that go over how to make damn nearly anything that could be made back in the 20's and they're amazing. Popular Mechanics *used* to be about how to make and understand contemporary technology.

      Now, it's a military-tech & muscle-car porn mag.

      As Kurt Vonnegut said ( I apologize for misquote ) "Cosmopolitan used to be a XYZ ( valid cultural magazine? ), now it's a sex manual"

      Magazines follow the times, because they want to stay in business; and the times today, they are *stupid*.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    6. Re:Popular science? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make any sense. How do you slashdot anything without clicking on links? Copy the URL and paste it into your address bar? Or just while (1) { wget $URL }?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Popular science? by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      My guess is that it is 100% porn.

      So?

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
    8. Re:Popular science? by Jardine · · Score: 1

      And we should click on yours? My guess is that it is 100% porn.

      You may also notice if you have sigs turned off, that it's not a sig

    9. Re:Popular science? by Lancer · · Score: 1
      a true Slashdoter

      At first I thought this was simply a typo, but you have come up with a beatiful new turn of phrase. I love it!

      --
      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  5. A sobering thought... by acehole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of all the things that are happening in the world at the moment, you can take solice that we'll never run out of inventive ways to kill each other.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:A sobering thought... by simong_oz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...you can take solice that we'll never run out of inventive ways to kill each other

      or reasons, sadly.

      --
      "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
  6. What about this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They can brag all they want, I won't be impressed until they get the BFG 9000.

  7. Really what we need.... by vandenh · · Score: 1

    MORE weapons!

    I say... leave the cool weapon design to computer games and invest all that money in some really useful technology. Super weapons have no use anyway when you have to fight street to street.

    1. Re:Really what we need.... by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Technology in weapons can lead to implementations in other ways.
      War has played a large part in technological development.
      Necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

    2. Re:Really what we need.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I don't know what anyone else thinks but that UCAV video is hilarious, in my opinion. Check out the enemy, wearing only loin clothes, armed with automatic weapons.

      The two of them are menacing a Water Buffalo, a Pagoda ( a religious object ) and some funny guys in hats next to a giant armoured vehicle with a large gun.

      Metal Storm in conjunction with only 2 Apache helicopters and 2 ground attack aircraft prove effective in eliminating the threat posed by the 2 loin cloth clad enemy and all without harming either the Water Buffalo or the Pagoda.

      Maybe I am just not getting into the spirit of it properly.

    3. Re:Really what we need.... by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      It's all about pumuping those damn SAVAGES full of lead. Cause you know, it's the third world that all the EvIl people come from.

      --
      stuff
  8. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure those war criminals in the American military are getting a hard-on about this news!

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Donal Duck is having a SCREAMING ORGASM right now!

  9. Why? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can understand the need for a good military, but to spend this much money for it.

    Personally I think it would be better spent if invested in medical research and to better the relationships with other countries (admit it, a whole big part of the world isn't a big fan of the US, putting it mildly).

    Not trying to flamebait people :(

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
    1. Re:Why? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Ooops. You've just questioned military spending AND been modded insightful. I predict a flood of "If we don't do it first, then our enemies will," comments.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I predict a flood of "If we don't do it first, then our enemies will," comments.

      What enemies? The only enemies the USA has right now (discounting people like the French who would love to see us taken down a peg or two, but aren't actually going to invade) are terrorists, and terrorists are famous for the amount of money they don't put into high-tech weapons research.

      Remember, on 9/11 al-Qaida brought down the center of New York and half the Pentagon with half a dozen box cutters.

      If we want to make our land secure, I don't think battlefield weapons are the way to go... we have the most powerful military in the world, but military power hasn't solved our peacekeeping troubles in Iraq, and military power hasn't caught bin Laden.

      Intelligence is the key to security. Let's see some of those tax dollars taken away from the military and handed over to the CIA and the FBI.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't even need alot of money. How 'bout starting to make wise political decisions. Watching the U.S. from outside makes it hard to sleep at night....

    4. Re:Why? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 3, Funny

      But medical research is such an EXPENSIVE way to kill things - rats in cages mostly, and a few rabits and primates. Booooriiinggg. Guns are much cheaper and far more interesting.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    5. Re:Why? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Actually I didn' vote in the warmongers, I'm dutch and last time I checked I wasn't allowed to vote in the US election system.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    6. Re:Why? by vandan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Exactly.

      And that is why we need a world government that can overrule all other governments. This would probably not be a good thing for smaller countries, but would at least put a limit on the things the US could get away with.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect! That way *all* our human rights abuses can be classified as police actions against rebels and terrorists instead of wars. Great idea.

    8. Re:Why? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Not completely sure what the tone in this comment is supposed to be, but the group Seriously Ill for Medical Research has a great site.

    9. Re:Why? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      You mean you think you're going to talk anybody into giving up their own sovereignty? I'm not seeing the benefit here.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    10. Re:Why? by goldspider · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      "I think it would be better spent if invested in medical research and to better the relationships with other countries"

      Sorry pal, this isn't Civilization. You can't just improve relations with other countries by throwing money at them.

      So until we do find a way to make everyone happy with us (yeah right!) I think it's a good idea to invest in technology that can A. make military operations less costly and B. requires that fewer soldiers be put in the line of fire when the shit DOES hit the fan.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    11. Re:Why? by Yazeran · · Score: 1

      Well I'll bet the French are not going to find the idea amusing (unless the government of said system were forced to talk and write all law's in french :-))

      Yours Yazeran

      Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer

    12. Re:Why? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Sorry pal, this isn't Civilization. You can't just improve relations with other countries by throwing money at them.

      link

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What enemies? The only enemies the USA has right now (...) are terrorists,(...)

      And to think that only 10 years ago, "Independence day" allowed me to vent my frustration toward ugly aliens from outer space! Aliens are our enemy, whomever they be! lest they be americanas, my given outlet of repressed anger...

      Whenever Bruce, Sly or Ah-nold make grunting noises and generally behave like the average next-door chimp on a cinema screen, my first reaction is: Do I sense a certain vacuum being filled; a way of sustaining the "patriotic feeling"? And in the case of '96 movie "Independence Day", the US of North America more or less ended a splendid bombing run against Serbs, Croats and Bosnians and showed some real initiative, such as acting through NATO, without anyone questioning why NATO has anything at all to do with such a conflict - no valid reasoning at all, except the demand of removing some heavy artillery from the outskirts of Sarajevo!

      But I digress. As current affairs dictate(read: propaganda), the Enemy of this World(read: Both USNA - like Oroborous) are Terrorists(read: ugly, evil, killing babies for no good reason). But who did the job of becoming "our enemy" in the past? Who did the dirty job of treathening the free world, and indeed the leader of this free world(read: every americanized nation usurping africa and certain south-asian countries)? Well, here's the list in no particular order(read: what? no order? are you lazy?):

      China 1945-46, 1950-53
      Korea 1950-53
      Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
      Indonesia 1958
      Cuba 1959-61
      Congo 1964
      Peru 1965
      Laos 1964-73
      Vietnam 1961-73
      Cambodia 1969-70
      Lebanon 1983-84
      Grenada 1983
      Libya 1986
      El Salvador 1980s
      Nicaragua 1980s
      Panama 1989
      Iraq 1991 to present day
      Somalia 1993
      Bosnia (Republic of Srpska) 1995
      Aliens 1996
      Sudan 1998
      Asteroids the size of Texas(and henceforth a known template of measurement) 1998
      Yugoslavia 1999
      Afghanistan 1998, 2001-02

      These are the known and verified areas of conflict(read: ways to get rid of bombs, so we can produce new ones and thereby get more wage-slaves doing more work, calling it a "positive economic conjuncture").

      My advice to all of you:

      LEARN TO SWIM! and NEVER START SMOKING, THEY ARE REAL HORRORSHOW TO QUIT!

    14. Re:Why? by goldspider · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you read that, it says we consistently give the most foreign aid of any country in the world. And what did it get us? 4 hijacked planes and -3000 innocent civilians.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    15. Re:Why? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Yep. Seems I was wrong about the flood. I agree that big military spending is not a good idea. Unless you happen to own a company that makes money from big military projects.

      Also, if the cost of the Iraq war had been spent on builing schools and infrastructure abroad then the world (and the US) would currently be in a much better and stronger position.

      Of course, that wouldn't assert the USA's status in quite the same way would it?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    16. Re:Why? by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      follow the $$

      taxs -> goverment -> mil spending -> americans -> taxs & other americans

      so its not alll that bad, unless the money goes to forien ppls

      but i guess the same can be said for most govement spending...

    17. Re:Why? by timmy+the+large · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Watching from the inside its hard to sleep too.

    18. Re:Why? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      A standing army is a waste of taxpayer money. Just like owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by it, owning a standing army makes us more likely to have it turned on us.

      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    19. Re:Why? by dalutong · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty shallow reading. It is also assuming that the original post meant that we simply give money to people so they will like us. That's not how it works.

      You want to make countries love you? Have Universities in other countries, which are entirely independent, be funded by us. And make sure that is well known. Giving money to governments does do much. With today's technology individuals have more power than ever. You have to make it so the vast majority of the _regular_ people think positively of you. If that means giving 100 million to arab nations to build mosques that are run by whoever is in the local area (as opposed to insisting that they adhere to what we consider "okay" islam), then you get some good PR.

      I have to go do some work so I'll just make a long story short. Make it seem as if we're actually improving the lives of a tremendous amount of people and you'll have less hatred towards us. And since people are generally reflections of their environments, you'll have fewer people willing to go all out to hurt us.

      You can't kill them all. I promise you that. This isn't the Cold War where it's a state that we're attacking. You can have killed every terrorist leader in the world and you'll have a new generation immediately. After all, I can just say, "hey, fuck it," and find the next american i see and kill them. you can't possibly forsee that.

      the times are changing. the rules are, too.

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah like its only 7% of the total spending by the Feds. Some 34% goes into Social Security system alone!

      What should really scare the bejeebus out of all you folks in other parts of the world, is this...soon the US military is gonna be fully remote control. We will bomb, strafe, mine and survey any other country by REMOTE CONTROL, thousands of miles away.

      So all those little bastard militia pricks can shoot down a Predator2 that just dropped a 1000 pound bomb, so what! It cost us only $1mil (a B2 is like $2Bil) so theres 2000 more where that came from. Meanwhile the 'pilot' just switched channels and is now driving a 20,000 ton land leviathon(Bolo) over more militia members.

      And the best part, when gets thru with that, the 'pilot' just drives his big oil fueled SUV home to the burbs for a good nites sleep.

      Americans think this is cool crap, and never seem to think it can easily be turned on them too.

      JoeR
      us citizen

    21. Re:Why? by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      (Part of) Parent is an Asimov reference.

      Salvor Hardin - Foundation.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    22. Re:Why? by goldspider · · Score: 1
      "If that means giving 100 million to arab nations to build mosques that are run by whoever is in the local area (as opposed to insisting that they adhere to what we consider "okay" islam), then you get some good PR."

      If only it were that simple. You are assuming that we would be allowed to contribute to a popular cause, and that the governments in these countries are interested in fostering goodwill between their people and the United States.

      I submit that the opposite is the case; that many of these people in power are there because of their hatred for the United States. Take away the hatred, and you take away their power. And what 'leader' these days (anywhere, really, but especially in the Middle East) is willing to abdicate his power for the benefit of those he represents?

      Those are the barriers to peace and progress that we are over there trying to remove. Then there will be nothing impeding improvements from getting to the Iraqi people. And that scares the shit out of Arab authority figures.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    23. Re:Why? by golgafrincham · · Score: 1

      Sorry pal, this isn't Civilization. You can't just improve relations with other countries by throwing money at them.

      oh yes, you can. sorry, but that's the way this capitalism thingy works. for example, many "dangerous" countries are indeed very poor countries. helping them in building up infrastructure and feeding their citizens does make a very good relationship. it also strengthens the influence one has over these countries (nothing beats good ol' blackmail).

      throwing money at them in stead of ruling them with steel and power made the usa the best friend of the former worst enemy of all the world, and it only took a couple of years, and this did more good to the whole world than any f*ckin war could have done. this comparison actually is not the best one, 'cause war had to be fought, but it ended when the enemy was defeated and money made this former enemy a friend.

      never underestimate the power of capital and money.

      --
      beer as in "free beer"
    24. Re:Why? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Let me refer you to another response. To sum it up, leaders make careers out of hating the U.S. and aren't going to let us come in and change the prevailing perception of us. Look at what's happening to people who are there to build up Iraq's infrastructure (they're getting their heads cut off).

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call that flamebait, it sounds level headed to me.

      Considering the price of the war in Iraq, and the price of all 'defense' (attack) operations ... we might as well be fighting the Iraqi's by throwing bags of money.

    26. Re:Why? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I can understand the need for a good military, but to spend this much money for it. Personally I think it would be better spent if invested in medical research

      Believe it or not, the military is responsible for a lot of modern medicine, particularly advanced treatments for traumatic injuries.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While ill give you that they used low tech weapons they in no way took down half the pentagon. They didnt even clear the plane all the way to the inner courtyard on the 1 side they did hit

    28. Re:Why? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Flippant. I was going for flippant.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    29. Re:Why? by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it would be better spent if invested in medical research and to better the relationships with other countries

      You think we can just give mean people a lollipop and they will start to like us?

      Don't you understand? They hate us and our Western lollipops. We put Victoria's Secret on TV and it makes them want to kill us.

      Our most basic values are incompatible with the people who hate us the most. Find a way to bridge that gap and you'll be more famous than that Jebus guy.

    30. Re:Why? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Just to check, are you sarcastically mocking the people who have been brainwashed by Bush propaganda, or are you one of the people who have been brainwashed by Bush propaganda? Honestly, real life isn't some cliched American TV show or movie where all the characters neatly fall into these little "good" and "evil" boxes. The real world is a lot more complex than that, and so are people. If you continue to believe that people in other countries hate the US because they "are just mean people" (oooh, invoke super-evil Darth Vader-like stereotype here), then no progress will ever, ever, ever be made towards peace. People like you just lead us further into the upwardly spiralling cycle of hatred and violence, seemingly unable to see the obvious, predictable and inevitable outcome of continually upping the ante against the potential threat of a hyper-caricatured and vilified view of 'the enemy'. Good luck with your intelligent strategy there, hope it works out for you.

    31. Re:Why? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Well, think of it as just a "large country" then. This has always basically worked when applied at the country level, a lot of different groups of people agree to organize their communities under a single rooted hierarchy for the benefit of all (safety, policing, infrastructure etc). This can work even in large countries like the USA, and historically the USA can be seen as a microcosm of the global concept, with different states agreeing to unite. So why shouldn't it work on a global scale? Especially with modern technology making the world effectively a smaller place. When you think about it, there is no need to have other countries to define as enemies. The world is just one large community of people. Communities have organized into self-governing units historically at the village level, municipal level, county level, province level, state level, country level, and so on. There is no theoretical reason why it shouldn't scale globally, and there are HUGE BENEFITS to doing so if you just think about the idea for a bit. We expend enormous amounts of resources in just figuring out how to destroy enemies as defined by lines we draw on maps. When everything becomes one big country, you're all 'on the same team', and psychologically the destructive competitive focus shifts toward a positive competitive spirit. Think it can't work? Why not? It worked in the USA. You may argue that the ideologies of the majority of all those in the different states that now make up the USA were relatively homogenous, while globally there are many different (and more conflicting) ideologies, preventing groups from agreeing. I'm not sure though that ideologies need to destroy one another, perhaps there is enough room for all. Just as in the states, people in different states still have a tendency to generally be grouped according to certain different ideologies.

      When you "give up sovereignty" you perhaps do give up firstly some sense of identity felt in asserting that "I am an X" or "I am a Y", and also to a degree one loses a sense of autonomy of one's 'own community'. But the benefits almost always vastly outweigh the disadvantages, and one can look at many historical contexts to back that up.

      An aspect of "sovereignty" is defining what you are by defining what you are not, which usually involves the creation of friction by defining other groups as having negative qualities. And it's damn silly.

      One could view try view things the other way round too, as a thought experiment. Imagine a world that started out as being just one huge country. Then imagine the people, for whatever reasons, deciding that they should split into three greater sub-regions. And then people within each sub-region start splitting up those sub-regions, etc etc. This is not healthy or progressive.

    32. Re:Why? by IronChef · · Score: 1

      People like you just lead us further into the upwardly spiralling cycle of hatred and violence, seemingly unable to see the obvious, predictable and inevitable outcome of continually upping the ante against the potential threat of a hyper-caricatured and vilified view of 'the enemy'.

      Hey, I didn't propose a SOLUTION, so don't get all "cycle of hatred" on me. I just stated a FACT, which is that there are a lot of guys who hate us for *who we are.* For *how we live.* Is that propaganda? Or is it just defining the problem?

      Even Bin Laden said, in his letter to us, that the first thing he calls us to is Islam. He wants to change us, he is very open about that, and he speaks for a lot of the "bad guys," as I call them, even if it gives the moral relativism crowd hives.

      If you have an easy way to make them stop hating us besides caving in to demands, please post it here and FedEx it to the UN and the White House while you are at it.

      (Insert standard "not all Muslims are asshats" disclaimer here. Thanks.)

      Honestly, real life isn't some cliched American TV show or movie where all the characters neatly fall into these little "good" and "evil" boxes.

      Not everyone fits neatly into such boxes. But some sure do, like the asshats that cut off that guy's head the other day. Claiming otherwise puts one in a different box, labeled "fool."

    33. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cute but useless list.

      Most of that list is a proxy war vs. the Soviets.
      No one ever said the Nicaraguans or Lebanese were some great enemy of the west out to destroy our way of life, etc, etc.

      Put away the silly propaganda and you might get some converts. You're only hurting your own cause with this garbage.

    34. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Owning a gun makes me less likely to be killed by someone breaking into my home.

      Having a standing army makes my country less likely to be invaded by a foreign country.

      Violence has been the solution to many problems throughout history. Just ask the Carthagenians if "violence never solved anything".

      Tripe.

    35. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey genius how about you put away the grade school level noise about "be nice to timmy and he'll be nice to you" and actually LISTEN to what these people say about the west? READ what they write about the west and what they see as their place in the world.

      They *really* are out to conquer the west and take over the world. They openly state these things on a regular basis.

      Are they just liars? Or do you believe that the west is so magically powerful we can just ignore them? Why do you dismiss the power of these people so easily? Do you look down on them because they're not white? How can you *not* take their constant threats seriously when they've been acting on them for 30 years?

    36. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you need to be reminded (yes you do) that the 9/11 asshats were middle class (ie: richer than you) Saudis?

      Or that several had lived in the US for as long as 5 years that we know of and traveled the world at will , saw the sights, gambled and whored in Vegas as well as enjoyed the best of our culture and generosity and *then* flew 4 planes into 3 buildings and an open field killing as many people as they could.

      These people already had better access to medical care, education, and everything else than *you* do and then tried to kill us.

      This isn't a play ground. Sometimes people really do just want to kill you and there's nothing you can do to change their mind. To think otherwise makes you out to be the exact sort of arrogant, blind, colonial westerner they claim to hate most.

      You'll be the first against the wall when the Islamic revolution comes to your neighborhood.

    37. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, yes, blah, blah, blah.

      The key point is that we in the US understand perfectly that the only reason people like you want a global government is, as you say, to limit our power and influence over the world.

      This is good for ex-colonial powers like your little country and bad for hyper-powers like the US.

      I am happy to self-identify with the most powerful and most free nation to ever exist in the history of the world. Why would any American want to self identify with some lesser creation of all the little loser nations that couldn't hack it in the big cruel world?

      Keep your crushingly high taxes, your nanny state, your devastated economy, your lack of work ethic, and all the rest that comes with creating a country for yourself that has no influence or control because your system is flawed.

      You can't even get most Americans to go along with the UN where we have veto power over anything important. In fact, most of us would be perfectly happy to kick their asses out of New York so the 'diplomats' from other countries would stop raping American women and double parking everywhere (and not paying their parking tickets), much less paying our insanely huge share of the UN budget (which is mostly eaten up by corruption).

      World affairs are definitely pure Darwinian survival of the fittest. Your dountry isn't. Mine is. Sorry, but we're not going to give up our system and adopt your failed system because you don't like watching us succeed.

      Instead of dragging us down to your level how about you change your own system to improve your own situation?

    38. Re:Why? by WNight · · Score: 1

      No matter what the USA did people would be offended.

      Give money for schools and provide teachers and they're pushing their agenda.

      Give money for disaster recovery and they should have helped sooner.

      Give money for infrastructure and they're just trying to get American industry into other countries.

      Stop industry from moving into third-world countries and they're keeping everyone down.

      Ignore a dictator and they're complicit in the deaths of ordinary citizens.

      Go remove a dictator and they're refusing to let people govern themselves.

      What could the USA possibly do that would make 98% of people happy? They're the super-power, the biggest and richest country. Every inaction of theirs is going to be scrutinized more than anything any other country can do.

      Personally, if I were an Iraqi (and Iraqis I know agree with this) I'd rather the USA went in and removed Saddam. I'd also rather they (or even better, a real UN with the determination to do something) stayed and left the country better off with a real civilian government instead of handing it over to the next dictators.

      Does this mean I like Bush? Nope. Does this mean I'm blind to the crimes to the government? Nope. But I realize that you can't please everyone and I like the fact the the USA is trying, in a suboptimal way maybe, but at least they're trying unlike all the other countries who'd rather a trade-pact with a dictator than helping people become free.

      It's funny how everyone was saying "we" (first-world nations) should go into Afghanistan in mid 2000 when they were destroying the statues and the news was full of stories about women being stoned to death for being raped. Then the terrorist attacks happen and the USA wants to go in and suddenly the Afghani people deserve to be left alone in the system they picked... What happened to the idea of rescuing the victims of a brutal theocracy, just because the USA showed up and was willing to help.

    39. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey genius, why not open a f*cking history book and read about the things that YOUR country has been doing to OTHER countries for decades. And you're an idiot if you think it's OK for the US to hold double standards in this world, that it's OK if the US does shit to other countries but not OK if other countries do shit to the US. Yeah, it's OK for Americans to do whatever they want. Sure. You're a f*cking retard if you can't see the sheer, arrogant hypocrisy inherent in your so-called "logic". Nobody asked you to "be nice to Timmy", God, grow up you childish dickwad, this is the REAL WORLD, where millions of people really suffer due to what the US does. Wake up. If you honestly think your strategy of increasing interference and control over other countries by sheer force is going to help the situation, then you're a fool. Keep going with your oversimplified view of brown people as caricatured stereotypes, and keep wondering why nobody in the world loves the US anymore, not just the Arabs. You've got a lot of growing up to do. Start by touring outside your borders.

    40. Re:Why? by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      I can understand the need for a good military, but to spend this much money for it. Personally I think it would be better spent if invested in medical research and to better the relationships with other countries (admit it, a whole big part of the world isn't a big fan of the US, putting it mildly

      If it makes you feel any better, a ton of the technology produced from these things eventually makes it into civilian use via the private sector. Everything from pastes to fill in wounds on the field (i think this war has the highest maiming rate so far, simply because the soldiers actually make it back). Or even more indirectly, a lot of the stuff happening at DARPA, if successful, has very broad implications. Hell, it could even be argued that what the ARPAnet has grown into has had broad implications for all things medical.

      I'm not advocating more spending or anything like that, but part of the problem with just saying "why can't we just spend that 100 billion on curing cancer" is that it often just doesn't work that way. A lot of our biggest achievements have been through basic research in whole different fields, then someone comes back from a conference after having coffee with someone else and goes "I wonder if I used this, plus this thing we're working on, with this...".

  10. meanwhile, Bin Ladin by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're developing space based weapons. But watch out. Bin Ladin is developing Ewoks.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But watch out. Bin Ladin is developing Ewoks.

      For the love of Jehovah, will the madness never end? Will somebody stop this sick, sick man before the BInks is developed, I beg you, stop this man.

    2. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, he will use the Clones from Episode III.

      Actually some of those weapons seem to be taken from the new Mace Windu-series.

    3. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would make Bush the Emperor, and Rumsfeld would be Darth Vader?

      Yeah, guess it fits.

    4. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But watch out. Bin Ladin is developing Ewoks.

      My god, he's even more evil than I thought.

    5. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Rumsfeld or Colin Powel. Powel's voice is closer to James Earl Jones'. That's gotta count for somthing.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    6. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by richie2000 · · Score: 1, Funny
      Bin Ladin is developing Ewoks.

      So that's what it is? Silly me, I thought he was growing a beard to feel more manly.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    7. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by hInstance · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, Ralph Nader is Jar Jar

    8. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      I would have modded this insightful.

      Whoever modded this 'funny', go read about the US experience in Vietnam.

    9. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Peldor · · Score: 0
      We're developing space based weapons. But watch out. Bin Ladin is developing Ewoks.

      Now more than ever we're going to need a Chewbacca defense.

    10. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Paulrothrock · · Score: 0

      If he puts on a gold bikini I will not be held responsible for my actions.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    11. Re:meanwhile, Bin Ladin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... Colin Powell isn't played by James Earl Jones?

      Holy shit.

  11. Space darts? by mkavanagh2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...and what are you researching now, Professor Dexter?"
    "Space bats."
    "Space bats?"
    "You bet your ass."

    1. Re:Space darts? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      So future elite combat troops will have massive beer guts, and be able to fight while simultaneously downing ten pints of lager.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Space Darts? by ttsalo · · Score: 1
      Didn't Dodge already try that?

      I don't know about that, but I inadvertently tried a "Sea Dart" with my -66...

      --

      --
      If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
    3. Re:Space Darts? by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      You tried a Sea Dart and you're still alive?

      I knew they were obsolete, but I would have thought they could catch a Dodge.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
  12. Wasted potential by NickeB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's depressing knowing that the potential of this technology is used for destruction. Hunting "terrorists" with a remote controlled laser-firing satelite ala some James Bond movie seems an awful lot like duck-hunting with a minigun.
    The US has the most technologically advanced army/navy/whatever in the world as far as I know already...

    1. Re:Wasted potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing is the easy part. If they could shoot them from a laser-firing satellite, they'd probably have long-ago figured out a way to track them.

    2. Re:Wasted potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big problem with this approach seems to be one of accuracy.
      - choose the correct planet (not usually the same one the politicians are living on)
      - select the correct continent
      - narrow down the target area to the correct country
      - refine down to the correct state/county/region in that country
      - Ok, now find the correct city, town, village or group of mountains
      - (optional) refine targetting info still further
      - now bomb everything to oblivion

      Current tactics seem to omit all but the final step, and also assume that the "information" provided by the "intelligence" community (a.k.a. lunatic asylum or huddle of journalists) is accurate and timely

  13. Who needs explosives indeed? by Motor · · Score: 5, Informative

    I remember during Gulf War II, the British were dropping bomb-shaped concrete blocks attached to the fanastic guidance systems they have now. No explosives needed... just plonk it down on a tank from 20000 feet and it does the job with much less collateral damage.

    Brilliant idea

    --
    We all know that crap is king
    Give us dirty laundry!
    1. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to Najaf and Fallujah these past few weeks, where the US has been deploying cluster bombs and Tankbusters in tightly packed urban areas. The British armed forces are the best in the world. They patrol Basra in berets to give the idea of a police force rather than parading around in tanks marked "Rough justice" and other charming witticisms. They begged the US to demolish Abu Ghraib *before the war even started*. Every single thing the US is doing now to try and fix everything (Ba'ath minions brought back, etc etc) was suggested by the Brits a year ago. END RANT

    2. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by korneel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      just take 20,000 20cm long/2cm thick steel rods with sharp points and drop them from a plane flying 4km high.
      Super deadly on infantry..

      --
      I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.
    3. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by pubjames · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Yes. Why the f*ck is Tony Blair not more critical of Bush's approach? I don't understand why he can't both support the USA, and be critical of it. I don't see them as exclusive. I would respect him a lot more if he did this.

    4. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny, the weapon you describe is actually very close to one of the earliest form of airborne weapons developed. It was called Fléchette (french for dart) and was dropped bu the ten of thousands over german troops. However, they were recognised as beeing inefficent, lacking penetrating power and virtually inpossible to aim (wind could bring them out of course). Straffing with machineguns proved much more efficent.

      The basic point of the article is corect however - no need to use explosives if you can provide as much or more energy delivered to the target by other means - and since the kinetic increases by the square of the velocity, a lump of metal can be deadly if it moves fast enought.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    5. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the US get the concept of cooperation/support AND criticism? Do they EVEN listen to their allies?

    6. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More so because the British armed forces have always had a policy of absolute minimum force needed to do the job -- unlike the U.S., the French or, in fact, most armies. All British soldiers have the idea drilled into them... and gung-ho bullshit (the sort you so often get with the American forces) is seriously frowned upon.

      Of course, not all U.S. troops are like that, but its not discouraged as it should be.

    7. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Good point. Bush himself said "I don't do nuance". (For me, that is a clear sign of Bush's lack of intelligence).

    8. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I saw an interview on the BBC a couple of days ago with the US' deputy ambassador in London, and the interviewer asked what the abuse photos were doing to the war for hearts and minds. The diplomat didn't seem to think that an odd question, which surprised me. I'd rather got the impression that the US left hearts-and-minds warfare to the Brits.

    9. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 1

      That is very similar to the effects of Depleted Uranium shots. While they're not dropped but are fired, the kinetic effects of a long thin rod of metal that's 1.7 times the density of lead, nearly as hard as tungsten, but with a far lower melting point it can be cast much more easily. On top of that, after impacting with armor and absorbing some of that incredible kinetic energy, it burns like magnesium, so not only does it put a hole in whatever it's fired at, it fills it with a white hot ball of flame while spewing molten, radioactive metal everywhere.

      All by taking advantage of the properties of the right material for the job*, instead of using explosive charges mixed with separate high density armor piercing segments, no electronic logic required to make it do all it does.

      * assuming the "job" requires something to effectively kill other humans operating and the enemy vehicle they operate while showering the area in radiation. My post is about the technical abilities of a kinetic dumb projectile, not its morals!

    10. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The British military probably has more extensive experience in occupying countries than just about any other army on earth."

      That makes me so proud. The most dominant tribe of apes anywhere! Must be a superiour race.

      "The British island was soon sorted out, became peaceful and propserous." (sic)

      I have heard of this island, it's Ireland, isn't it?

      Make peace, not war. End rant.

    11. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by vandan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Because he's a right-wing bastard like Bush and Howard.

      You think he's against any of what's happened? Sure, he makes some concerned noises occasionally to make out to his people that he's the voice of reason, but Bush, Blair and Howard decided from day 1 what they were going to do, and everything else has been lies, deception, thuggery and murder.

    12. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ireland is only still a problem because the whole island isn't British and the Dublin government, for may years, allowed the terrorists to operate freely.

      Whatever the faults or not of the Ireland problem... the British have a policy that the people of Northern Ireland will decide their future democratically -- and loonies with bombs won't change that. Which is more than the American's paying for the IRA bombing campaigns have ever done (you know, the ones who think they are Oirish because their grandad once drank a pint of Guiness).

    13. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Because he's a right-wing bastard like Bush and Howard.

      I genuinely believe that he wasn't, at least until fairly recently. I think the pressure that the whole Iraq war thing put him under may have changed him considerably. A shame.

    14. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by vandan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    15. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes for a damn efficient weapon with benefits that go far past just firing once and doing damage now, but the enemy will have OUR weapons on HIS soil doing DAMAGE for far longer after we've gone.

      Bit by bit we're permanently winning against bin laden. Now that a positive

    16. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      if brits are so great, then why don't they get their arses out of northern ireland....

      Because most of the Northern Irish don't want them out? Because the Republic of Ireland doesn't particularly want to take Northern Ireland off Britain's hands anyway?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    17. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by csteinle · · Score: 1

      I think the U.K. government would love to get out of N.I. Unfortunately for them, there are still a lot of people in N.I. who want to remain part of the U.K. It would be immoral to simply walk away from them without some kind of democratic justification.

    18. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the parent post said, "drop them from a plane flying 4km high". This overcomes the lack of penetrating power.

      Aiming them is still rather tricky: from 4km, they will probably scatter over a large area downwind, possibly having passed through more than one airstream on the way down.

      Flechettes are ok for close range, e.g. shotgun (Vietnam era?), but not that great for long range ... unless they have a high initial velocity (gun, railgun, etc)

    19. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by danro · · Score: 1

      The British military probably has more extensive experience in occupying countries than just about any other army on earth. This goes back a long way.

      Well, if we are looking back in history, how about the French army? Napoleon Bonaparte pretty much occupied everything in Europe except the UK.
      Or the Italian army? Rome more or less occupied the known world for a loooong time.

      Most older nations have had gone down that road at some point...

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    20. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly, the cost of an explosive is a pinprick compared to the price of operating a Tornado fighter/bomber and the cost of the sophisticated guidance system to land the concrete on target.

      It really was just a fine bit of thinking -- the concrete bombs are used in training and someone just put two and two together.

    21. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ireland is only still a problem because the whole island isn't British

      That lordly, condescending attitude must be unbearable for the Irish people.

      the British have a policy that the people of Northern Ireland will decide their future democratically

      How magnanimous of them. Why the British should be allowed to say anything else about any country is beyond me.

    22. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by TALlama · · Score: 1

      a lump of metal can be deadly if it moves fast enought.

      Now if only we could design a way to move small hunks of metal very fast horizontally, so we don't need to fly to do it. We could call them 'guns.' Sure, the first prototypes will likely be large, but I believe that some day we might be able to fit these things into the palm of your hand!

      --

      - The Amazina Llama

    23. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      Please, US voters, get rid of the psychotic little moron this time, so that he can no longer prop up Tony B. Liar. I don't want to wait till the next UK election to get rid of our local malignant dictator.

      Of course, it will not entirely fix things, our next PM might be the idiot who recommended Sir Monopolist Bill for his knighthood.

    24. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Every single thing the US is doing now to try and fix everything (Ba'ath minions brought back, etc etc) was suggested by the Brits a year ago.

      In fact, the entire invasion of Iraq was suggested by the Brits back in 1918 . One might even suggest that the present mess is in no small part the Brits' fault.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    25. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      There's big difference between where the americans are at and were the british are at. Sunni population doesn't want a change since they are the minority in the country, shiites want a change since they are the majority in the country and in a democracy they will have control. No guess who has the sunni parts and guess who has the shiite parts. There's no way in hell American soldiers can partrol on foot, they'll get killed. Also remember US soldier are up in Kurdish area's, maybe we can compare that with southern part which would be a better comparison.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    26. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Doctor7 · · Score: 1
      How magnanimous of them. Why the British should be allowed to say anything else about any country is beyond me.

      It isn't another country, it has never been another country. There is a basic misapprehension that the British went in and annexed the provinces from Eire, but there was no such thing as Eire at the time.

    27. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      assuming the "job" requires something to effectively kill other humans operating and the enemy vehicle they operate while showering the area in radiation.

      Actually, the radiation from DU is fairly minimal-- 40% less than that of naturally occurring uranium, since the less stable U-235 is processed out. The half-life of U-238(DU) is 4.5 billion years.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    28. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by dustmite · · Score: 1

      I guess the difference comes down to the sheer size of the geographical area occupied. The area of Rome roughly corresponded to what is now Europe, which is small, and even the Mongols only controlled most of the Asian landmass. The British Empire was vastly unprecendented in size, and no other empire has come close since either. At it's peak, they apparently controlled something like 1/3 of the planet's landmass, and 1/4 of the world's population.

    29. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by citanon · · Score: 1

      Interesting you mention fletchets. Janes Defense Weekly mentioned that fletchets are used today to attack chemical and biological weapons sites. The idea is that they puncture containers to make the sites unuseable, but there's no explosion to disperse the agents.

  14. Fantastic new ways of killing eachother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently being able to kill the entire human race with the touch of a button isn't enough. Now they want weapons which they can actually use. Fucking paranoids.

  15. Good stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Good stuff.

    Technology marches onward, for all aspects of life. Weapons, medicine, computers, communication etc. etc. it's all tied together. You can't have one without the other.

    It's the yin and the yang of the modern world.

    Ever since man discovered fire this has been going on.

    We could cook food to protect ourselves from rancid and contaminated meat. We could warm ourselves and dry ourselves in the cold winter months. We added hours to our potentionally productivity and progress due to night time light and it was used to clear feilds for our crops and herd animals for food.

    Along with that we also figured out how to use fire to harden the tips of our sticks and turn them into spears that more effectively killed our enemies, weither animal or human.

    Then later we learned to use it to cure leather to make better clothing to protect us from the elements, and we used it to cure leather for bowstrings and axes that were used for more effective hunting and gathering.

    The leather also provided simple armor and sheilds and bows and axes were used to devistate our enemies.

    Then we learned how to smelt down shiny rocks to make metal... etc etc.

    Now we understand mathmatics, magnets, plastics, explosives, propelents, electricity, gravity, and other modern technology and we refine our understanding of old technology, too.

    The cycle goes on and on.

    Can't have one without the other. If there is a imbalance it can only be filled with more suffering. One way or another.

    Why would it change now? We are the same people that existed many of a hundreds of thousands of years ago.

  16. That's not strictly true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look at tank ammunition:

    Discarding sabot - essentially a metal dart. This kills tanks using kinetic energy to punch a hole through armour. Makes a little hole and a lotta mess inside. This is the tank version of kinetic-only ammo, so scaling this up to use in a missile isn't a particularly new idea - the Durandural anti runway missile has a hardened nose cone and is rocket-accelerated under the concrete before it explodes.

    HESH - high explosive, squash head - hits the outside of the tank and explodes against it. This shakes scabs of metal away from the inside that fly around the cabin, killing the crew. This doesn't need to penetrate to destroy the ability of the tank to fight.

    HEAT - high explosive, anti-tank - this is the warhead attached to stuff like the RPG7. Nasty design - the shaped charge fires a jet of energy/molten metal through the skin of a tank, causing lots of damage inside to vehicle and crew. Even the relatively small warhead on a RPG7 can penetrate around a foot of steel.

    Now, the point for the last 2 shell types existing is that sometimes, kinetic energy isn't enough. Other ways to get better results are to make the shells heavier - using depleted uranium for example. While what I'm talking about here is tank warfare, the same will apply to bombs and bunker munitions - different tools for different tasks.

  17. Metal Storm by temprand · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Coincidentally, I just saw a program on this tonight on History Channel. Considering that the rate of fire on existing weapons max out at around 6,000 rounds per minute, it's a large step forward. For those of you that might be interested, it takes magazines of caseless rounds and electronically ignites the detonator in the round. By doing this, it effectively removes most of the mechanical limits of firing from the weapon.

    Being in the Army and having fired some very cool weapons, I've got to say this needs to be seen to be believed. What I saw tonight was out of this world.

    And for those that want to check it out:
    http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_latest.ht ml

    (sorry, don't know how to embed URL's)

    1. Re:Metal Storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Metal Storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choice quotes from the video transcript:

      These barrels each contain 6 anti-personnel grenades, and each of these has 4 heavy mortar rounds. Others contain some surprises you'll never find in a conventional minefield.

      The most suitable ammunition is selected, and the appropriate quantity is delivered.....

      The target is destroyed - quickly, accurately and precisely. As precisely as if it had been programmed to print.

      If I were a powertripping army general, I would be thrilled.

    3. Re:Metal Storm by ttsalo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Considering that the rate of fire on existing weapons max out at around 6,000 rounds per minute, it's a large step forward.

      Why do you need so many rounds per minute? The target can manouever out of the path of the incoming projectiles just the same. Consider an anti-ship missile pulling 10-20 g. It's already out of the way before the projectiles have travelled 100 meters. And something like Sunburn will be closing in at the speed of 1 km/s.

      I'm sure it's a very cool thingy - an ordinary ZSU-23-2 is damn fun to fire - but what's the real scenario where it is essential?

      --

      --
      If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
    4. Re:Metal Storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a seemingly endless stream of sentinels breaking through a hole in the roof of Zion's dock. They can't evade the projectiles and you need lots of bullets because there are lots of sentinels.

    5. Re:Metal Storm by ribena · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ummmmm...doesn't jam? Sounds pretty useful to me. Also means less to clean, and man is it boring cleaning a weapon. All round a pretty good idea...

    6. Re:Metal Storm by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's a very cool thingy - an ordinary ZSU-23-2 is damn fun to fire - but what's the real scenario where it is essential?

      It is so you can move the weapons platform very quickly and still put out a high density of rounds over a large volume. It's a numbers game, fire enough ammo at a target, some of it's bound to hit. An army in a firefight will expend hundreds or even thousands of rounds for every enemy killed. With a more-or-less stationary platform, vibration and variation in the ammo itself will take care of spreading it out as you track the target. On a fast moving platform such as a fighter jet, without a high rate of fire you stand a good change of your aim being dead on but your enemy slipping through the gapes in your fire.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use of the euphemism "collateral damage". What you're really saying is "murders of innocents".

  20. Here's an idea... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three years. That way, we don't leave land mines all over the place like we did in Cambodia, with people still dying from them, god knows how long after the conflict. Does anyone know if the US does anything like this? It doesn't sound that hard, and would do a lot of good. (Have them blow up at 3 in the morning, so noone is nearby).

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:Here's an idea... by orzetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      AFAIK the US are not really interested in more "humanitarian" behaviour of landmines. The Ottawa convention has not been signed by a few "rogue states", including the US, Russia, China, India, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. If you don't like that company, write to your representative.

      Landmines are not really meant to kill soldiers after all, they know what they look like and where they might be - they are often even designed not to kill, but to mutilate. A dead is buried, a mutilated child will be a burden for society for all his life. Fill a country with landmines, as both Soviets and US-backed Mujaheeddins did in Afghanistan, and you have cursed the country for generations.

      Self-destructing mines are not going to be accepted - these days the Geneva convention is used to wipe Rumsfeld's arse, and frankly a proposal for a more expensive and on-purpose less effective weapon is not going to get through.

      I'm told that mine production is not even that lucrative business. They have children mutilated with landmines that look purposefully like toys, only to make a few pennies more. Some motherfuckers.

      Speaking of Cambodia, these people know something.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    2. Re:Here's an idea... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Er, I thought *we* weren't using landmines any more?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about joining the ban on landmines like most other civilized nations have done already?

    4. Re:Here's an idea... by kimsh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I believe the Haag convention requires sea mines to self detonate if they are left to float around - and that rule is almost 100 years old. Non self destructing mines must be tied down.

      No rules exists concerning land mines.

    5. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you /. idiots:

      most modern day landmines have a built in timer that will render the detonation charge ineffective after a set time.

      Landmines aren't built to kill, they're used as a tactical weapon to deny terrain to an attacker and force him along preferable lines of attack. Outlawing landmines is like deciding to only attack people from one direction for every war.

    6. Re:Here's an idea... by aegisvirgae · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the Army or the Marines, but the Air Force mines dropped from cluster munitions all have timers on them. The anti personnel mines for the GATOR mines and others have a timer on them that you can select hours to upto 48 hours before they detonate on their own. I don't know if normal, as in the buried into the ground and not dropped from a plane variety, mines have this timing mechanism, but the mines that are released from our cluster munitions do. I still don't agree with even using the timed mines in an urban environment. There is no telling who will go through that area at what time. There is also the chance that the timing mechanism will malfunction, but this is quite rare.

    7. Re:Here's an idea... by eclectro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three year.......Does anyone know if the US does anything like this?

      Sadly, even if the US did create a landmine that would turn inert over time, there are a number of other nations in the military sales business that would not bother to do so.

      Certainly cost is a factor. Why buy a mine that goes dead after a period of time when you can buy two mines that don't for the same money?

      The idea of self destructing landmines is completely counterintuitive not only to the nature of war, but to the purpose of land mines as well.

      Landmines today are engineered to not kill a soldier (I do not know about US made landmines or if this is regulated by treaty as hollow point bullets are), but rather to cause horrific harm to him. In fact, there is one landmine that when it is triggered it launches itself in the air about waist high and then explodes.

      This deeply injures a soldier in a sensitive area. The purpose of doing this is to not only take him out of action, but to tie up resources to take care of him. But most importantly, it demoralizes those around him and those that come in contact with him. If it kills the soldier, the landmine is considered a "failure".

      Which brings up a larger issue of "war". There are no rules in war, period. War is the distillation of evil from the human spirit, with the purpose to cause (usually hurtful) harm to another human being. It might be a "just war" with a purpose (stop Hitler), or it might be "just a war" with the sole purpose of killing (Rwanda).

      Either case, the enterprise of evil is present.

      Which is why you find toys that are actually explosives so that kids will find them.

      In this context, will a new type of landmine be invented that turns inert?

      Yes, it will. But they will be so few in number compared to other countries that don't care, who will produce countless millions that don't turn inert. So, it could be argued that any such effort is doomed to be meaningless.

      As an aside, I don't excuse what is happening in Iraq with the prisoners of war. But people forget a couple of things. First, it is a war . By definition this kind of thing is going to happen. People would like to think that American soldiers are above this behavior. But the fact is many of those prisoners have American blood on their hands, and many families here in the US will not see their loved ones again because of it.

      So, from my perspective, I can see where if you had a buddy killed by a rebel and you manage to catch him, you might want to exact a bit of vigilante justice to show your displeasure.

      In fact, when Americans captured such prisoners at the turn of the last century in wars, they were routinely lined up against a wall somewhere and shot. Another thought was never given to it.

      I don't fault the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq. I fault the Bush administration trying to fight a "polite" war, to in some way rid the Iraqi people of the evil of Saddam and bring democracy to the Arab world. As some have said, you can win the war, but not necessarily win the piece.

      The purpose of war is to inflict pain on, conquer, or kill your enemy. So, the goal of this war, "to help" the Iraqi people, is incongruous with the definition of war itself. Hence, this incongruity has produced instances of abuse in the Iraqi prisoner of war population. It was not the first, nor will it be the last time it happens. I dare say even by other American soldiers at some future date.

      I am not saying that it should be accepted or excused. What I am saying is that war is an evil enterprise, no matter how smart your bombs are, or if the landmines are self destructing. And when people are fighting a war, I think it would be safe to assume that whether a landmine will turn inert at some future date or not is the very last thing on their mind. They just want it to explode when somebody steps on it.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    8. Re:Here's an idea... by pikkumyy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Landmines are not really meant to kill soldiers after all, they know what they look like and where they might be - they are often even designed not to kill, but to mutilate.

      Finland is one of the countries that hasn't signed the Ottawa treaty. We have landmines all over the Eastern border that is shared with Russia. Landmines are effective slowing down fast military advancement from this direction and surely is used solely against enemy soldiers.

      Finland's defense plan has for years been to make fighting exhausting and slow against enemy forces and landmines serve that purpose. I agree that mining places that an army occupies for a short amount of time isn't maybe the wisest of things, but they can also be used correctly. If a vote comes, I for one will vote for keeping the mines on our border.

    9. Re:Here's an idea... by B.Smitty · · Score: 1

      The US already does this.

      From FAS

      "The US unilaterally undertook not to use, and to place in inactive stockpile status with the intent to demilitarize by the end of 1999, all nonself-destructing AP mines not needed to train personnel engaged in demining and countermine operations, and to defend the United States and its allies from armed aggression that crosses the Korean Demilitarized Zone."

      So the only place we use non-self destructing AP mines is in Korea under controlled conditions.

    10. Re:Here's an idea... by delong · · Score: 1

      There is one primary reason for the US not signing on to the "landmine treaty" - North Korea. The DMZ is the largest landmine zone on the planet. And I imagine the South Koreans who still remember the Korean War appreciate it.

    11. Re:Here's an idea... by danro · · Score: 1

      most modern day landmines have a built in timer that will render the detonation charge ineffective after a set time.

      Not any of those I've seen.
      Or even heard about for that matter.

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    12. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those mines will not protect you against concentrated invasion since organized military has several options for demining at their disposal. It would more likely limit your ability to outflank the enemy and attack at their weak points.

    13. Re:Here's an idea... by HBPiper · · Score: 1

      The only US land mines that do not have timers built in are the ones in the DMZ between North and South Korea. All the others, for all the services, have timers.

      --
      "I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
    14. Re:Here's an idea... by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three years.

      These have been introduced in cluster bombs dropped by RAF Tornados.

    15. Re:Here's an idea... by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      "There are no rules in war, period".

      Err, there are, here's a little primer The rules of war

    16. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finland is one of the countries that hasn't signed the Ottawa treaty. We have landmines all over the Eastern border that is shared with Russia. Landmines are effective slowing down fast military advancement from this direction and surely is used solely against enemy soldiers.

      No, we don't have landmines all over the eastern border. We have a mines and a plan, but as far as I know there is no mines on the ground at the moment, all of them are stored somewhere.
      In the case of attack the mines would be placed where ever the military sees fit.
      However Finland should sign the Ottawa treaty and get rid of the mines, because mines don't do a shit in a modern warfare.

    17. Re:Here's an idea... by phayes · · Score: 1

      The USA even proposed signing the treaty -- IF an exception was made for the DMZ where it's impossible to claim that the mapped minefields could kill or maim innocent civilians. The minefields in the DMZ are fenced off and clearly mapped out (to facilitate removing them if they are no longer needed) according to rules set in the geneva conventions. The mines dispersed willy-nilly throughout the rest of the world are ALREADY geneva conventions. The extremists in the anti-mine camp refused to make an exception for the US. Net result: The anti-personel mine treaty will be just as successful as the early renaissance ban on crossbolts.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    18. Re:Here's an idea... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      I have a great idea... How about we don't kill anyone?!? There are things called InterPol and World Court, where terrorists can be tried for their crimes. You want justice? It doesn't come out of the end of a gun, it comes from a court.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    19. Re:Here's an idea... by ponxx · · Score: 1

      > And why Americans should not forget that those
      > people who drove the airplanes into those
      > buildings are "at war" with us.

      So if those 19 Saudis and Egyptians attacked us, why did we not start a war with Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

      Unfortunately most Americans HAVE forgotten that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

    20. Re:Here's an idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Instead we're going to end up with smart mines that can walk, aka the self-healing battlefield. When we want to get rid of the mines, we'll be able to instruct them to self-detonate. Clearly this is not a driving feature, though once they are announced they will claim that it was.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Here's an idea... by burbilog · · Score: 1
      AFAIK the US are not really interested in more "humanitarian" behaviour of landmines. The Ottawa convention [gol.com] has not been signed by a few "rogue states", including the US, Russia, China, India, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. If you don't like that company, write to your representative. Landmines are not really meant to kill soldiers after all, they know what they look like and where they might be - they are often even designed not to kill, but to mutilate. A dead is buried, a mutilated child will be a burden for society for all his life. Fill a country with landmines, as both Soviets and US-backed Mujaheeddins did in Afghanistan, and you have cursed the country for generations. Self-destructing mines are not going to be accepted - these days the Geneva convention is used to wipe Rumsfeld's arse, and frankly a proposal for a more expensive and on-purpose less effective weapon is not going to get through. I'm told that mine production is not even that lucrative business. They have children mutilated with landmines that look purposefully like toys, only to make a few pennies more. Some motherfuckers. Speaking of Cambodia, these people [emergency.it] know something.

      Actually it's the same idea that lies behind lowering caliber to 5.45/5.56. Because it takes two soldiers to transport wounded, thus lowering amount of fighters on the front line. So don't blame it on "rogue states", it's standard military thinking that lowered calibers during XIX and XX centuries. The same applies to mines.

    22. Re:Here's an idea... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. The political fallout of a US landmine mutilating innocent civilians would be great. As a result (and maybe as a result of morality, who really knows?) the US is EXTREMELY careful with our own mines. Also, your claim the the US designs mines with the specific intent of mutilating but leaving alive the enemy is not substantiated by your post.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    23. Re:Here's an idea... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That's because you hang out with the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-landmine lobby instead of watching what the military actually does.

      Unless you're scaling fences with skull and crossbones signs on them in the Korean DMZ, you're not going to find a US landmine without a timer (unless you start digging around for very old landmines).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    24. Re:Here's an idea... by paiute · · Score: 1

      First, it is a war .

      I'm pretty tired of the whole "we are at war" stuff. We are certainly not at war. Check the Constitution. We are only at war when Congress declares that we are. We have not been at war since 1945.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    25. Re:Here's an idea... by Derkec · · Score: 1

      There are indeed rules to war, and there have been more often than not for quite some time. Midevil European armies would meet. Leaders or spokespeople from each side would get together, often discuss if the fight was really need, and go back to rally the troops. What ensued then was often not pretty, but there were rules.

      In modern times, we have decided that using chemical weapons is "against the rules." Some don't follow those rules, some do.

      You also lack the distinction between a war between armed forces and total war. In total war the civilians of the enemy are legitimate targets. The goal is to demoralize them. In non-total war, civilians are supposed to be kept safe as much as possible. Obviously, if somebody is using a civilian as a shield, and firing at your friends, it would take enourmous restraint not to fire through the civilians. The restraint is sometimes shown and sometimes not.

      Guerilla warfare specializes in taking advantage of countries who try to follow civilized rules and avoid total war. There, enemy forces mix with and appear to be civilians, making it very difficult to combat them without breaking the goals of keeping civilians safe. That's why one of the rules of war is that participants should wear uniforms - so that combantants know who to shoot and who not to shoot.

      To say that US forces cannot invade Iraq and try to help Iraqis disregards history. Look to WWII. As Allied forces swept into Europe, many friendly civilian Europeans died. I believe those in Belgium had particularly bad experiences, but I may be mixing them up with the Nederlands - my European geography is poor. So like Iraq, there was considerable pain inflicted to the civilian population. Bringing them out of Nazi or Bathist rule, is probably better with that pain than the alternative.

      Naive is it may have been to launch this war, once launched, we needed to try and bring a better system to Iraq. Given our inability to make Israelis and Palastinians get along, imposing further force on tha region without making life better for those in the attacked country would just create more mistrust, hate and terrorists. In Slashdot terms, the more we tighten our grip, the more hearts and minds would slip through our fingers. We may still succeed in doing this, but it hasn't been as easy as was suggested by the hawks.

      I hold my tounge in check before I discuss too much of the prisoner abuse. Keep in mind that our WWII GIs generally were proud that they did a pretty good job of treating their prisoners decently while the Axis powers committed atrocities. That aided their conviction that they had the moral high ground.

    26. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noooo.....

      Landmines have two purposes:

      (1) Cause attrition in troops that try to cross a minefield. Less of them attacking means less of them killing the defenders.

      (2) To create a difficult obstacle that the attacker will try and avoid. This allows the defender to control the direction of an attack, and get the attacker into a location in which they can be killed more easily.

      As far as changing caliber, the idea is that with lighter ammunition, more can be carried. If more can be carried, more shots can be fired. Theoretically, more shots means more probability of a hit. I've recently read (and I'm too lazy to find the source) that the US military is trying to change to a caliber closer to .30 than it's current .223.

    27. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Geneva convention is used to wipe Rumsfeld's arse

      That's because the Constitution was already being used to wipe Bush's ass and the Bill of Rights is well used in Ashcroft's toilet.

      Rumsfeld needs something to wipe his behind too!

    28. Re:Here's an idea... by antin · · Score: 1

      I know that this isn't a solution to the land mine problem, but I think that it is the single best example of genetic engineering I have heard of; land-mine detecting flowers:

      http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,6206 6, 00.html

      The flowers turn red when planted near a land mine (I think they are normally white) which gives a good indication of where *not* to tread. I think it is a really elegant solution to a very serious problem.

    29. Re:Here's an idea... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      No, there simply hasn't been an *official declaration war*. We're fighting undeclared wars authorized by Congress.

    30. Re:Here's an idea... by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      I used to say stuff like that... then I realized I was deluding myself.

      All the other, more important characteristics of the current conflict are in keeping with the definition of what a war is. Before there was a Constitution or a Congress, there was a war.

      *honk*

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    31. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd need to get the terrorists to court first. And I reckon they'd be pretty keen on just letting interpol take them into custody.

    32. Re:Here's an idea... by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      n modern times, we have decided that using chemical weapons is "against the rules." Some don't follow those rules, some do.

      The good thing about rules is that there are some many to choose from. Grand parent is right, there are no rules of war.

    33. Re:Here's an idea... by www+www+www · · Score: 1

      There are no rules in war, period.

      You are mixing anarchy (no rules) and war; they may often come together but they are definitely not the same thing. Just take a look at a good army fight, how systematically they move, how structured their command line is, how much all their activity is ruled by laws. This is a trivial example of how war and anarchy are two very different animals, but there are also laws of war on a much more fundamental level. Not surprising in a way since human beings have always created laws to govern their interactions and war has been a sport that human beings have entertained themselves with since the morning of time (since Kane and Abel to be precise).

      What is special about war is that certain laws found in all human societies are put aside. This is probably why the notion that there are "no laws" in war is such a common confusion. The biggest break from normal laws is of course that you suddenly are allowed to legally kill another human being. Other laws that have become commonplace in Western Democracies, like free speech and movement is also out of the question in the war theater.

      Penalties for breaking the laws in war are also much harsher. Steal food from your buddy and you will end up in "jail" and probably get a beating. Not showing up for work (going AWOL) usually ends with execution. Quite nasty this war business, but then again that is why one wants to avoid unnecessary wars. A soldier loves war as much as a fireman loves fires, they are ready to fight but they know avoiding the fight in the first place (effective diplomacy/fire prevention) is always to prefer.

      The laws of war are old, but are most famously codified in modern time in treaties like the Geneva convention. You are allowed to kill soldiers and combatants from the other army/fraction. You are not allowed to kill or torture civilians or POW's. There are also ancient rules for what is considered a just war (in older times connected to the moral backing of the Church, in more modern times, backing of the civilized world or even more recently the backing of the UN and the security council).

      Now you may say the Geneva convention is just a piece of paper and there is no police to enforce it. Well, first of all, if you don't respect the Geneva convention, your enemy will probably not respect it either. Conclusion, your own soldiers/civilians captured will be tortured and killed. Second, moral. If the soldiers don't behave like they are the good guys anymore, moral among the soldiers disappears, support from home disappears (like in Vietnam), support from allies disappears. Conclusion, the fighting ability of the army is badly diminished. Third, allies. The US army is strong enough that it does not depended on allied soldiers in the field, but still it helps to have the British there. Beside, allies means someone to share the cost with (wars are expensive). Allies means intelligence is more easily obtained. Allies means it is easier to win the peace (how much we could need a muslim ally in Iraq). Because you want to win the whole war not only the battles, you are wise to follow the written and the unwritten laws of warfare.

      The problem when dealing with the laws of war is that abuse can be easier to hide (dead people everywhere, who will notice one more) and that anarchy is often a friend of war. As in any law driven society, the army doesn't want the soldiers to take the law in their own hands. Because as have been shown time and again, vigilante justice "to show your displeasure" is the first step to no respect for any "laws" but your own. Anarchy is not only a problem for the victims of the war crimes, but an even bigger problem for an army. If you don't control your soldiers and their action, you will probably lose the war. Anarchy is the best sign for bad moral and discipline, or in other words an ineffective army.

      The idea of self destructing landmines is completely counterintuitive not only to the nature

      --

      bring it on! --- JFK

    34. Re:Here's an idea... by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      > So if those 19 Saudis and Egyptians attacked us, why did we
      > not start a war with Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
      >
      > Unfortunately most Americans HAVE forgotten that Iraq had
      > nothing to do with 9/11...

      We did not go to war with Egypt or Saudi Arabia, because those who perpetrated 9/11 were not there to represent their nationalities. They were there to represent a certain brand of Islam. Subscribers to that brand are not isolated to one or two countries.

      The possibility/wisdom of using Iraq strategically against the perpetraitors of 9/11 is debatable. You might have very well been right when you said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, I think, might be a different story.


      *honk*

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    35. Re:Here's an idea... by orzetto · · Score: 1
      Finland's defense plan has for years been to make fighting exhausting and slow against enemy forces and landmines serve that purpose.

      As far as I remember, Finland's tactic in case of a WW3 was to let the Russians bypass the norwegian border at Kirkenes, pass through northern Finland, and invading Norway (NATO country) through Finnmark. The documents of the Soviet-Finnish deal were declassified a couple of years ago and made quite a sensation here in Norway. Can't find the article though.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    36. Re:Here's an idea... by orzetto · · Score: 1
      The political fallout of a US landmine mutilating innocent civilians would be great.

      If the victim ended on CNN, or were pictured and shown at the Congress. Do you realise that people die on US (or Italian, soviet-build, or chinese, or whatever) mines every damn day? Do you think it's a small issue? There are places where you see people on one day, and regularly some of them will be seen the next day with a limb less--Cambodia, that we already mentioned, is an example of US mines still killing people.

      In Afghanistan many soviet mines are actually US-made copies, since the CIA would not pass american mines to the Mujaheedeen; that's also why it's not easy to assess how many mines come from Russia (which has laid likely the most of them anyway) and how many from the US. I read somewhere the copies were manufactured in Cairo, though I don't really know why there.

      The fact that mines (not just US mines) are made to mutilate is obvious and common knowledge. And for that sake it's a fact that many mines resemble toys. Ever heard of "green parrots"? They don't look dangerous. Thousands and thousands of them were used in Afghanistan. Children pick them up, start to play, and... nothing happens. They go on playing, bring the thing home, and when they have shaken it just enough or touched the right spot, BANG. So you can mutilate the whole family if you're lucky. Someone tell me why this should not qualify as terrorism.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    37. Re:Here's an idea... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      So if those 19 Saudis and Egyptians attacked us, why did we not start a war with Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

      Good question. I thought about including this topic in my post, but I had already managed to wander pretty far from original topic, and the post had become protracted as it is.

      I also knew somebody would bring this up.

      Since 9/11 some investigations have revealed that Saudi Arabia had played a role, whether intentional or not. Significant funding of groups (namely alqaeda) hostile to the US within Saudi Arabia occurred with either approval or deference.

      I think that it is safe to say that the issue of war with Saudi Arabia would be a lot clearer if we did not get a very significant amount of the oil we use from the middle east.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    38. Re:Here's an idea... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Err, there are, here's a little primer The rules of war

      Yes, I was aware of those rules.

      But it remains largely academic, as the "rules of war" is determined by who wins (usually at any cost).

      If Nazi Germany had won WWII (and some historians think this might have been a possibility if Germany had been able to develope some of its technologies further), do you think there would have been the Nuremburg trials??

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    39. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Certainly cost is a factor. Why buy a mine that goes dead after a period of time when you can buy two mines that don't for the same money?"

      Heh. American army, choosing something to save money. Riiighhht...

    40. Re:Here's an idea... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      As a US citizen, I can tell you that the US dropping mines that look like toys would be all over the news if it were true. And the people who order it would be forced to resign. But don't worry about it! Here in the US, we are developing all kinds of robotic war machines which will make mines obsolete. All we'll need to do is deploy smart sensors that can recognize friendly forces and take anyone else out with a lazer blast from space, or have little roaming robots, or whatever. Who needs mines?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    41. Re:Here's an idea... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      All your points are well made, though I agree with some more than others.

      It is not counterintuitive to use "smart ammunition" that does what you want it to do and not more.

      I think the distinction needs to be made between a smart weapon for the purpose of killing a specific target and a smart weapon for the purpose of protecting the adjacent citzenry.

      The former is an obvious priority, while the latter is not. If a civillian is in the way of your enemy, and you are going to kill your enemy no matter what, oh well.

      Anarchy is not only a problem for the victims of the war crimes, but an even bigger problem for an army. If you don't control your soldiers and their action, you will probably lose the war. Anarchy is the best sign for bad moral and discipline, or in other words an ineffective army.

      This is debatable, however clear it may seem from our perspective and the way we control our army.

      I find the easiest way to counter the arguments you and others may make is not by parsing the logic, but rather point to the reality.

      The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia is the first to come to mind, with horrific atrocities (the killing fields) seeming to be a shared goal of all those that belong to the Khmer Rouge.

      The leader, Pol Pot, arguably was never brought to justice. He died in relative comfort.

      The coup d'tat in Chile is another example. Agusto Pinochet and the "carvan of death" tortured and killed thousands of people. Pinochet has never faced any real justice for his crimes.

      I think that you confuse true anarchy with sponsored terrorism. Both these examples show that an immoral army can have enough cohesion to perform atrocities breaking "the laws of war" and do so in the face of numerous treaties in place to prevent such actions.

      It is a bit tricky if you should really call fighting a terrorist organizations like al-quaeda for a war, al-quaeda have more in common with a criminal organizations than a true army.

      I was not speaking from our perspective, but the perspective of alqaeda, in which they have declared war on us Americans.

      I agree they have more in common with a criminal organization than an army. I also think that it is important that the distinction perhaps should be made, as it is needed to determine how we should respond to them. In other words, if they are criminals (and I think that this is the proper road) they need to be named, hunted down, and brought to justice. I think the humiliation of a public trial on american soil would do more service than throwing the term "war on terror" around. I realize this is easier said than done, but if we had directed our militarty efforts to the border of Afganistan rather than Iraq, Osama bin Laden could very well be in custody.

      If they are an army, then we fight them like an army. Meaning we drop bombs on them no matter where they are until they are dead or taken out, wherever they are hiding. This might would motivate countries (like Saudi Arabia) not to offer refuge to alqaeda, and instead to capture and behead them. It seems though that they receive a wink and a nod from many in the Arab world.

      One alternative to both, as difficult as it may seem, is to stop buying oil from Arab interests. This would certainly mean an economic hardship here in America, and other countries would buy up the balance. So there is a question if this would even work if we could do it, and move to an "hydrogen economy".

      Anyway, from alqaeda's perspective, they are fighting a war against us.

      It is such a sad story how the "war on terror" lost the plot that I will stop there.

      It has become unnecessarily convoluted, and you are right in choosing to end there, as there is not enough room (or time) for all the necessary discussion.

      I think that "aimless" wars, like the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs" serve no purpose other than a convenient sound bite or justification for some political philosophy, and do more harm on the collective psyche than achieving practical results.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    42. Re:Here's an idea... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      I was not speaking of the Americna army, but rather third world interests that are going to buy for "bang to to the buck".

      The US army actually deploys comparatively few mines compared to other armies.

      It really is about cost for those buying mines (other than NATO).

      I remember seeing pictures of a particular deadly mine manufactured in China. Made out of plastic, explosive, and one simple integrated circuit, it was an example of efficiency of design and deadliness.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    43. Re:Here's an idea... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder whether another purpose of "the rules" is to provide moral protection to those with power from those without.

      Crossbows were banned when they could kill knights. Nuclear weapons were banned when they could give smaller nations advantages against more powerful ones (but were still kept by the more powerful ones)

      The British got pissed in 177x when Americans weren't standing out on fields in brightly colored uniforms and firing at them like good little soldiers. Taking cover behind trees? Not fair!

      Powerful armies can overcome weaker ones, unless the weaker army strikes at 'soft spots' and uses hit-and-run tactics.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    44. Re:Here's an idea... by zCyl · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty tired of the whole "we are at war" stuff. We are certainly not at war. Check the Constitution. We are only at war when Congress declares that we are. We have not been at war since 1945.

      Renaming a thing does not change what it is. (Wouldn't it be great if governments and their populations figured that out?)

      War, by dictionary.com, is "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

      If a congressman holds up a duck and says it is a rock, which is it?

    45. Re:Here's an idea... by kni52 · · Score: 1

      Going to war without declaring it is illegal acording to the rules of war (The Hague Conventions specifically). IIRC (correct me if i'm wrong) the rules of war only apply to countries that abide by them. Doesn't this make our armed forces and citezens subject to torture, medical experiments and other horrendous acts? It may be a purely ideological desitincetion, but that seems like a pretty reckless move on the part of our goverment.

      --
      My subtext is just a figment of your imagination.
    46. Re:Here's an idea... by kni52 · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder whether another purpose of "the rules" is to provide moral protection to those with power from those without.

      I don't think there is a conspiracy involved in helping the wounded and sick or respecting the dead.

      --
      My subtext is just a figment of your imagination.
    47. Re:Here's an idea... by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      But the fact is many of those prisoners have American blood on their hands, and many families here in the US will not see their loved ones again because of it. A slight problem with your argument: most of the Iraqi soldiers that were tortured were innocent. A lot of them were just in an area that something bad happened, and they were rounded up with the rest of them.

    48. Re:Here's an idea... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Ah but a few innocents here and there, who cares when it's blood-thirsty revenge, right?

      Yup, indeed, those were civilian prisoners.

      The worst part about that logic is that it is the stupid-ass 'cycle of violence' logic in action. They 'had blood on their hands' for killing Americans, poor poor loved ones. But wait, what were those American soldiers doing there to begin with, and hey, those American soldiers also killed many Iraqi soldiers (and civilians) whom their loved ones will never see again thanks to them. So unless you agree to hold double standards, then you also have to say it's OK for an Iraqi to think "hey, let's torture some Americans, they have blood on their hands, and it doesn't matter if some are innocent". So you say the Americans are there because of 9/11 (dubious at best since no link has ever been shown, but hey, let's pretend to go along with that). OK, but why did those guys plot 9/11 to begin with? And no the answer is not "they're just really evil guys who hate US freedoms". Anyway, apart from a childish "who started it" argument, bottom line is you get trapped in the cycle of attacks, counter-attacks, retribution, counter-retribution, counter-counter-retribution, ad infinitum. And it only goes on because people here imply that their side's latest attacks were justified as a response to the other side's latest attacks. Dumb, dumb, dumb. There are far many more Iraqi women and children whose fathers/brothers/uncles etc have been killed by US soldiers than vice versa. This is in a war which everyone widely agrees had no justification, no provocation, was not self-defence, and is definitely illegal. Sorry, but if you're going to wage an illegal war and invade another country, don't go blaming others when you lose some people.

    49. Re:Here's an idea... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Yup, fully agree, a 'rose is a rose by any other name' etc.

      Like the riddle: "How many legs does a donkey have if you call it's tail a leg?" Answer: "Four. Calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg."

      Also, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...". If this was a "war", all that would be different was the label.

      Likewise, calling POWs "enemy combatants" does not make them any less POWs.

      It is a war, and it's an illegal war with no provocation and no justification.

    50. Re:Here's an idea... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you're going to wage an illegal war and invade another country, don't go blaming others when you lose some people.

      This is the problem I have with the war in Iraq. Every day we "lose some people" to rebels who think that it is ok to attack our soldiers.

      Regardless of what justification there may or may not have been for the war (I think WMD certainly wasn't it), if we are going to fight a war, we need to fight a war.

      Which means we defeat those who are attacking us. Obviously, we have not communicated to the other side that they are defeated.

      I think that the argument that there are foreign forces travelling to Iraq just to engage our troops a cogent one.

      Still, when they get to Iraq, they need a support structure to exist in, which means that the natives are helping out.

      The very problem with this war is we are as I said in my parent post, trying to help the Iraqi people. You can not do this with a war. You use war to defeat people. The Iraqi people have yet to be defeated. Maybe if they were they wouldn't give help to all the rebel fighters there.

      There was a 'man on the street interview' on the news where a someone said we need to reduce the place to rubble. I think this might be an argument to consider.

      I know this is anathema to many people. But a police action is what the UN is for (and what we left behind when we decided to 'go at it alone').

      I agree that this is a horrendous concept, and would lead to the entire Arab world angry at us. But one could argue they are already angry at us. But there really is no morality in war, just the goal of defeating your opponent. And why the argument against the 'cycle of violence' doesn't hold any water. If you are worried about the 'cycle of violence,' you don't fight a war in the first place.

      So much as the prisoners being civilians, we do not know what circumstances that led to the arrest of 'these civilians.' Otherwise, they are the collateral damage of war. Crass, but true. That's just the way war is.

      I hope people are mindful of this when they vote in November.

      I think this entire situation would be different if it was not for Arab oil.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    51. Re:Here's an idea... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Every day we "lose some people" to rebels who think that it is ok to attack our soldiers.

      But of COURSE it is ok for them to attack your soldiers --- you have (illegally) invaded their country and taken occupation, and they don't want you there! There is nothing difficult to understand about that: If a country like, say, China invaded the US, overthrew the government and took occupation of the mainland, I guarantee you that you'd also feel as though you had a right to defend against the illegal occupation, including by force! And I would support your right to fight the occupation too. Would China "declaring the war over" and telling you that you were "now defeated, so stop fighting" change your attitude? Of course not. How silly really to think that the Iraqis should stop fighting foreign occupation on their soil!

      Having said that though (in *principle*), I am actually optimistic about the medium-term future of Iraq. I think that the resistance is a relative minority of the population, and that many members of the resistance will tend towards pragmatism after the elections when they see start to see the benefits of a new relatively democratic government, and people start focusing on the positive aspects of building a new Iraq. I think that the majority of Iraqi people really are going to ultimately see this as new hope for them to finally build a "new Iraq". I know it sounds corny, but I think it is a definite possibility. Remains to be seen if I'm right or wrong though. In the years leading up to the first democratic elections in South Africa, there was a lot of violence and quite some armed resistance, and the world thought that civil war was almost inevitable. I think a lot of it stemmed from uncertainty and fear about what the "new South Africa" would mean. After the elections, a new far more peaceful South Africa emerged, with a people that mostly have a growing positive spirit of building the country. I think that something similar may happen in Iraq. I do however think that it is critical that American troops remain in Iraq for a long time still, to maintain the peace and make sure that civil war is averted. The premise of this war apparently was never to "defeat Iraq as an enemy" but to "liberate Iraq", and as occupier and liberator, staying there a looong time and spending a lot on it is just part and parcel of the decision to go to war and overthrow Saddam - one must accept it if that is one's stated goal. You don't go in, throw out the leaders, and then pull out and say "we've liberated you, have fun and good luck". You either liberate properly, or you don't go to war at all.

      The idea of "flattening the place" is incredibly, ridiculously childish. I might understand such a comment only if spoken in anger against the perpetrators of 9/11. But there has never been demonstrated any link between 9/11 and Iraq. So that amounts to "hey let's bomb some small country into oblivion because we're angry and because we can". Good luck winning any friends in the world that way. It's comments like that that help cause the rest of the world to view America as a bunch of backwards barbarians.

      And why the argument against the 'cycle of violence' doesn't hold any water. If you are worried about the 'cycle of violence,' you don't fight a war in the first place.

      But that is precisely the point - that the US should not have fought this war in the first place. The vast majority of people in virtually every country in the whole world realises that, and despises what the US is doing and the way they are doing it, and the cavalier, casual "oh well shit happens in a war" reaction to things like torture and killing (accidental or otherwise) of innocent civilians.

      I think this entire situation would be different if it was not for Arab oil.

      I think there is no doubt about that. Western wars, in fact wars in general, are almost always about access to important resources. But that is just the way it is. The US must certainly feel that it needs to ensure it has a

    52. Re:Here's an idea... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Please read my post before replying. You're misunderstanding which rules I'm refering to. I'm not arguing against the Geneva convention. All my examples concern the weapons/tactics used against soldiers.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    53. Re:Here's an idea... by ponxx · · Score: 1

      > We did not go to war with Egypt or Saudi Arabia, because those who perpetrated 9/11 were
      > not there to represent their nationalities. They were there to represent a certain brand of
      > Islam. Subscribers to that brand are not isolated to one or two countries.

      Indeed.

      The one middle eastern country where they wouldn't have been however, was Iraq. While a pretty vile dictatorship, it was a secular country.

      Of course now radical islamists appear to be filling the power vaccuum in Iraq. If the US were to fulfil its promise to turn Iraq into a democractic country there is an inherent danger that the Iraqi people would democratcially chose a regime whose policies are at odds with US interests.

      This might turn out to be a very interesting chapter in future history books. I still have hope it's all going to work out for the better though...

    54. Re:Here's an idea... by Derkec · · Score: 1

      I think when you look back to things like the American revolution, there were certaintly rules for honorable combat. I'm not sure why they were there but I imagine it was more a historical issue than a way of keeping small powers down.

      The small power of the rebellious American forces did what small powers do quite often. They gain a tactical advantage by participating in tactics their enemies find dishonorable.

      That being said, when they were captured, they were generally not treated as prisoners of war, but as traitors, found guilty of treason and hanged. The revolutionary war was as much an insurgency as a war, particularly early on.

      Keep in mind that most Americans were not gung ho seperatists. About 1/3 were, a third were loyal and a third skirted the issue. Small groups of highly motivated individuals are very, very powerful when their message resonates with a substantial (not dominant) portion of the populace. That's what scares me to death about the US's approach to the Middle East.

    55. Re:Here's an idea... by orzetto · · Score: 1
      As a US citizen, ...

      ... you are making people in your country look incredibly stupid. The US has already been dropping mines like toys, take a trip to Cambodia in the Ho Chi Minh trail region. Yesterday a US chopper has bombed a wedding killing anything between 20 and 40. I guess it will be forgotten in a week's time.

      You don't have the slightest idea of what a war is like, and you have seen way too many sci-fi movies if you think that the US (or any other) army is going to shift out 2-penny landmines with multi-thousand-buck AIs.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    56. Re:Here's an idea... by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      > This might turn out to be a very interesting chapter in future
      > history books. I still have hope it's all going to work out for
      > the better though...

      I have few arguments for anything you said in that post, and in this last statement we are most heartily agreed.

      (Honestly, I think most people in the debate seem to lose sight of the fact that most people in the debate want for everything to work out for the best, and so lock in their positions and fight the evilerals and vilervatives. End off topic minirant.)

      *honk*

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  21. Space darts by BabyDave · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... space darts, ...

    Research is now beginning into surface-to-air Tiddlywinks, and atomic Shove Ha'penny.

    In other news, British scientists have abandoned their work on railguns after they found that the projectiles continually arrived an hour late. This was blamed on the "wrong sort of magnetism".

    1. Re:Space darts by awol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Quite apart from being a remarkably funny post. It is unfortunately true that the "tiddlywinks" motif has actually been looked at seriously, dropping specially shaped cupronickel (IIRC) discs from aircraft that heat up and reform into nice pointy molten metal bullets that tend to turn tanks into smoldering lumps of swiss cheese is a weapon that was mooted some years (20??) ago.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  22. Funny thing... by -noefordeg- · · Score: 2, Troll

    Spend billions and billions of dollars on new weapons.
    Sell off all the old weapons to foreign nations to get some balance in the budget.
    Realise that the weapon you sold are almost as good as the weapon you developed and start all over again researching even better and more deadlier weapons.
    Sell off all the old weapons....

    And then you have it going. Great profit for those who make weapons tho :) So it's not all bad.

  23. I'd love.. by Keruo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd love to see what the army is really developing.
    Most of these weapons are just old ideas with gee-wish factor.
    But then again, if slashdot posted something that army wanted to keep secret, we might find banner saying "servers ceased due national security issues " on front page next time we logged in.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:I'd love.. by temprand · · Score: 1

      As far as weapons go, there isn't really anything that the Army isn't developing that you can't see. Most all of the classified projects are only related to intelligence gathering or stealth platforms. Traditional weapons platforms are pretty much fair game for the public to peruse, such as the Land Warrior project or the XM8 (Which is being fielded soon).

      http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-c ar bines/xm8.html

  24. good for us by hutkey · · Score: 1

    i have always protested war between any two parties.
    but the good thing will come out of any research of ay kinda is we will get some new technology which can be useful for mankind.
    there will be of course, always debates on whether or not what we invented/discovered is ethically /morally right/useful etc. but we should not judge the research like that, or else how could have we got the nuclear reactors for electricity!

    fire is both, useful and hazardous. it is important, who is using it and how. don't blame the discoverer of fire.

    1. Re:good for us by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I'll have to argue a subtlety there. It's not important "who is using it" only "how". Saddam could have had a shitload of WMDs but as long as he's not lobbing them at anyone (or planning to) I don't really care.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:good for us by hutkey · · Score: 1

      i fear the bearer(BUSH) of the fire(WMD),
      coz he is who has made my world(IRAQ) a real desert

  25. Cletus? Fetch Mah Shootin' Iron. by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This just shows the fundamental problem with the American military mindset: that brute force is the way to solve everything. If the military is overstretched, give 'em bigger guns. That way you need fewer grunts to kill the gooks, ragheads, commies or whatever politically-expedient target the rednecks in the White House have found this week.

    Here's a thought. Don't invade every country that looks at you funny. Then maybe the rest of the world won't hate you so much, and you won't have to spend all your cash on finding ways to kill us all real quick.

  26. Thor by Entropy+Unleashed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jerry Pournelle developed the concept of a space-launched kinetic energy weapon in 1964. It's been used a decent amount in his science fiction since then, but we do have to wonder why it's taken the military so long to consider implementing it. The high cost to orbit such weapons could be part of it, but we could definitely bring costs down a lot if we ended NASA's excessive bureaucracy and came up with a launch system that didn't cost half a billion per launch.

    --

    "I would give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
    1. Re:Thor by zardor · · Score: 1

      If the cost of spaceflight became too cheap, and the technology becomes 'off-the-shelf', then everybody and anybody would be raining chunks of titanium down on the heads of the people that you don't like.
      Perhaps this is why we don't have cheap access to space, and space technology is, for the most part, tied up in massive government beuraracies?
      In fact, in my opinion, if air travel was just developed today, in 2004, I can guarantee you that there would never be no 747s, or even Single seater cesanas for public transport. Only the military would have the tech, and all military planes would cost the same as a Stealth bomber.

      The high cost of space is protecting you.

      --
      -- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
    2. Re:Thor by condensate · · Score: 1
      I highly disagree. When air travel was invented, it was the military that developped it further and thereby made it accessable to the public. Veterans of war, who fought in the air force became the first private pilots flight instructors etc. It was a rapid change to civil aviation at very low cost. The difference is not artificial expensiveness (I mean, come on, my wristwatch and my laptop both have titanium on them and neither cost a fortune). Spaceflight is expensive because you cannot use familiar technologies. For example, you have to come up with new engines that work in the vacuum of space AS WELL as on earth. But the production of the whole thing involves separating Hydrogen from Oxygen in one or the other way, a process that is very (and I mean very, as opposed to normal fossile fuels) expensive.

      Then, space is an environment not designed for humans to live in. So you must provide special vessels. Aircraft just lift you off the ground and press you a bit so that you feel at home, but this does not do in a spacecraft. You have to be trained and you have to regrow your muscles after spending several days in space etc. All this is going to cost a lot. And these factors will never get cheaper, exept when we find a means (such as aircraft) to assure the average person can suvive a spacetrip. Then, cost will sink inevitably.

      As for non-manned spaceflight, several companies are doing that. Perhaps not with shuttles, perhaps not very spectacularly, but all those communication satellites have to come into orbit somehow, don't they? I mean a reasonably funded University could easily do a project involving a satellite. And hadn't NASA messed up inches and centimetres, I would know at least one project carried out in this way. So spaceflight is in fact accessible.

      Another thing is the fact that, sorry to say this, you have to have some knowledge prior to do spaceflight. Even if the computer can do a lot for you, you have to know what you're doing. This involves planetary motion (satellites) or even general relativity (GPS). So it's going to be highly trained employees, and of course human resources is the most costly cost of all... It's just not feasible nowadays to just set up a rocked in your backyard and shooting it up. It's more complicated.

      As a final example for accessibility of military knowledge is the atomic bomb. See, any physisist can tell you how it works, you can get recipes from the web etc. Shortly after it was invented, the information was available, because scientists around the world were proceeding along the same lines and would have told you unless the government told them to shut up. I believe there were scientists who knew how to do it but chose to remain silent because of the devastation the weapon could produce. Then, Plutonium was not a thing you could just get around the corner, but for may years afterwards, it was relatively cheap and nowadays, terrorists can buy plutonium, uranium and all the rest of it if they chose to. Given that they have rather more limited financial mean than governments, the atomic bomb is cheap. And military cannot hold it back.
      --
      Black holes were created when god tried to divide by zero
  27. Cool Weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I cant believe an adult actually thinks that a weapon that can fire a million rounds a minute is cool?

    Do you not realise that the ulimate reason for this design is to kill more people more efficiently?

    You army types make me sick

    1. Re:Cool Weapons? by mirko · · Score: 1

      If it fire that much ammoes, it might indeed turn very HOT.
      But I agree, simply because I live in Switzerland and I love the idea of a protective (and not preemptive) Army.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Cool Weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safe by whom? By those that wouldn't have any reason to attack you in the first place?
      If you weren't such asshole and attacked anyone that stared at you then noone would have any reason.
      I come from a country that USA actively supported a dictatorship for seven years.
      This is something that doesn't brings good feelings you know.
      You are a bully and someday you'll be surrounded by your victims and no laser, no THOR weapon, no stealth fighters, no arrogance is going to get you away from that situation.
      Someday you'll have to behave yourself.

      Oh and by the way.

      You spend the majority of your money for the army. You depend on "other's people education" to promote your research. Your healthcare is obnoxious.

      While your masturbating with the "1 million bullets per minute" your christian fundamentalist country goes down the drain. Ignorant. Depressed. Oppressed. By yourself.

      I hope that you enjoy the fall because the impact will be painfull.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Popular Science magazine... by Spoing · · Score: 2
    ...neither popular (now) nor science (was it ever?).

    It's tech, not science, and vapor tech at that.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  30. Terrorism by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Don't we have enough bombs already?

    The biggest threat to the USA in the future is terrorism. Terrorism is defeated with bombs, although the chimps currently in the White House seem to think it is.

    Terrorism is just a symptom of a disease - hatred within society. For every terrorist, there will be a hundred people in the same society that feel very strongly about the same issues, but not enough to become a terrorist. That is, until you drop a bomb on their children. To defeat terrorism in the long term, you've got to tackle the strong feelings within the society that produced it.

    When Tony Blair first started office, he realised this was the way to solve the Northern Ireland problem, and did some very intelligent things (along with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland) to tackle the social problems that were the root cause of terrorism in N.Ireland. Why on earth he is now supporting Bush's neanderthal approach to Al-Quaida I will never understand.

    1. Re:Terrorism by Vavrek · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely.

      Terrorism ultimately can only be prevented.

      The way to eliminate all of your enemies is to make everyone your friend.

    2. Re:Terrorism by Kirill+Lokshin · · Score: 1

      The biggest threat to the USA in the future is terrorism.

      Terrorism may be the most psychologically frightening threat, and the most unpredictable and difficult to prevent one, but it is certainly not the biggest:

      International casualties due to terrorism (1968-1997): 7,427 killed, 29,427 injured.
      [from the Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism]

      US casualties due to actual warfare (1941-1945): 291,557 killed, 671,846 injured.
      US casualties due to actual warfare (1950-1953): 33,686 killed, 103,284 injured.
      [from the Department of Veterans Affairs]

      Certainly looks like there are bigger threats than terrorism to me.

    3. Re:Terrorism by superyooser · · Score: 1
      Don't we have enough bombs already?

      Did you read the article? There was nothing about bombs in there. The point was basically that we're moving to a post-bomb era. A major objective with these projectiles and laser weapons is to make them accurate enough to kill terrorists without killing the children and other civilians they surround themselves with when they attack.

      For every terrorist, there will be a hundred people in the same society that feel very strongly about the same issues, but not enough to become a terrorist. That is, until you drop a bomb on their children.

      If your logic is correct, then these weapons will result in fewer people becoming terrorists as we wipe out those who already are.

    4. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize you are comparing a world war from over 50 years ago with an actual army involved to what a few individuals are doing in the last 20 or so years. That is hardly a proper basis for comparison unless you supported the Nazi regime since you seem to think that WWII was wrong.

    5. Re:Terrorism by workindev · · Score: 1

      If you start bending over and giving terrorists what they want just so they won't try to blow you up, guess what happens? Suddenly every country/political group/religious sect that wants something from us realizes that all they need to do is blow some of us up and the US government will cave.

      It's the same thing as the randsom syndrome. If you pay the randsom, what you are doing is showing the world that all they have to do to get what they want is kidnap your kid.

    6. Re:Terrorism by citanon · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is currently the greatest threat because anything more overt and damaging would cause the offending party to be pulverized by the US Military. If we don't keep up our overwhelming military advantage, people like Osama wouldn't need to have their buddies blowing themselves up while attacking us. They'll just overrun our interests with tanks.

      The rule of thumb in war is that a sensible enemy will strike you where he has the greatest relative advantage. Today, our enemies are forced into terrorism. If we leave the door open for more conventional and damaging types of warfare in the future, he'll use that.

      In Vietnam we lost 50,000 dead killed millions of Vietnamese. We should try not to go back to the bad old times.

    7. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let's go through the 3 most well known Islamic 'terrorist' organisations.
      • Al Qaeda
        The Wahabi branch of Islam is the state religion in Saudi Arabia, and they are trying to use their cash to increase it's influence throughout the Islamic world. Unfortunately the Saudi rulers are pretty much hypocrites and allow things (such as an infidel presence) which are incompatable. Osama bin Laden is a rich kid who is a True Believer (tm) and thinks that it is a great idea to sacrifice other True Believers for the cause. He himself is much too valuable to be sacrificed. He has a lot in common with Dubya in that.
      • Hizbollah became powerful because Israel was undermining Lebanon by fighting a proxy war there using the Lebanese Christians.
        Now that Israel have abandoned that strategy, Hizbollah are trying to cash in on the kudos they got when they drove Israel out by entering the political mainstream. This is causing them to compromise and modify their positions in order to attract votes.
      • Hamas have similar origins. Israel is occupying their country, and elements within Israel are using this in attempt to revert to the borders of AD 80 or so. Hamas is one of the more extreme reactions to this land-grab.
  31. "Who needs explosive missiles...?" by judmarc · · Score: 1

    ...the rest of the question is really unnecessary.

  32. Now I See by Vavrek · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes. It must be really expensive to make all of these amazing weapons.

    No wonder we can't afford health care, education, Social Security, welfare, and a living wage.

    It all makes sense now.

    1. Re:Now I See by Arcady13 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not the government's job to take care of us.

      Then we should stop paying them 25-50% of the money we earn, at least until they get a leader who can speak actual English.

    2. Re:Now I See by Vavrek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, and a little more mature as well.

    3. Re:Now I See by Vavrek · · Score: 1

      We, collectively, do take care of eachother.

      If we did not, we would not exist.

      There is a optimal balance to be struck between self-responsibility and social support.

      I say that during the last few decades, and particulary with this administration, the scale has seriously shifted towards the side of 'everyone for themselves.'

      We construct government to serve our own interests.

      A government, for, by, and of the people, remember?

      So, yes, it IS the government's job to take care of us.

    4. Re:Now I See by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      It's not the government's job to take care of us.

      Spoken as a true serf.

      If the government isn't for the people, it is to oppress the people. If the US government isn't for the US people, then the US people aren't free.

    5. Re:Now I See by goldspider · · Score: 1
      Well said!

      It's always easier to sit back content knowing that there are people who are forced to take care of you.

      Of course, as demonstrated in California recently, there is a certain point at which the producers can't keep up with 'needs' of people draining the system.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:Now I See by goldspider · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Didn't someone once say "He who sacrifices essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither"? (yes, it was B. Franklin, as so many others her elie to quote)

      As far as I'm concerned, that goes for financial decision-making as well. What kind of freedom do we have when we have virtually no say in how 35-50% of our paycheck is spent?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    7. Re:Now I See by ImWithBrilliant · · Score: 1
      No wonder we can't afford health care, education, Social Security, welfare, and a living wage.


      Interesting view on cost comparisons: according to my notes from a talk by a senator on the armed services committee:

      JFK era: DoD was 9% of GNP or 32 cents on the tax dollar;
      2002: DoD was 2.8% of GNP or 19 cents on the tax dollar. And this now includes env cleanup, QoL for volunteer army, etc.

      DoD seems to have a pretty good handle on budget and schedule to win in combat. What would be the budget and schedule to eliminate social suffering?

      --

      Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?

  33. Typo! by pubjames · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course I meant to say "Terrorism is not defeated with bombs..."

    Also, I guess a tip of the hat is also required to John Major re. the intelligent approach to solving the N.Ireland problem.

    1. Re:Typo! by JPRelph · · Score: 1

      I was going to post exactly that, John Major did a LOT to improve the situation in Northern Ireland, probably more than our current incumbent. He just didn't go for the photo shoots and "look what I've done" as much as Blair.

    2. Re:Typo! by Tzunamitom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No it's not. The conservative party was the reason tha the peace process was stalled for so long in Northern Ireland. The Conservatives held a weak majority and therefore required the support of the Ulster Unionists (who unquestioningly supported Mr Major in return for him not compromising on the Northern Ireland issue). The only way Major helped the peace process way by so sensationally messing up the 1997 election, and allowing Tony Blair a nice comfortable majority to play with

    3. Re:Typo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me? John Major had the chance to get peace in Northern Ireland that's for sure, however he decided to put political gain ahead of peoples lives in one of the most discraceful acts of selfish short-termism ever seen.

  34. Friendly fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > a gun that fires a million rounds per minute
    Christ, the yanks could wipe out the entire british army with this before they realised that the union jack is not the Iraqi flag!!

    1. Re:Friendly fire? by Anhaedra · · Score: 0

      Christ, the yanks could wipe out the entire british army with this before they realised that the union jack is not the Iraqi flag!!

      Only if there was enough ammo, which there probably wouldn't be... Not to mention that gun would probably overheat in about two seconds...

      --
      Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
  35. Applicable uses of military technology by temprand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see that lots of you are tearing down on the development of weapons in the context of terrorism and such. But lots of these technologies are being applied to law enforcement as well. Smart rounds being the best example. Some of these new ammunitions are based on 'smart-metal' designs that can penetrate metal or body armor, but stop and fragment when it hits tissue. Sounds bad, but would have been a great solution to the armored bank robbers in LA several years ago. Those cops did nothing but blanket a neighborhood with random shots because they were useless against soft body armor. So look at the positives of the whole argument.

    1. Re:Applicable uses of military technology by binaryfinery · · Score: 1

      Except that any new bullet/gun, etc is going to make its way onto the street via the Black market, so you've the next generation of 'cop killer' bullets. So then you need better body armour for the cops, which get onto the black market ...

      --
      "Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them." Tycho, PA 14/2/7
    2. Re:Applicable uses of military technology by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Look at the negatives of the whole argument, too.

      Those LA bank robbers WEREN'T SUPPOSED to have soft body armor in the first place. If they managed to get contraband armor, bet your ass they'd be capable of getting some of that new metal-piercing ammunition.

      How do you bring down a criminal when they're firing rounds at you that can stop an armored tank?

    3. Re:Applicable uses of military technology by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      They had armor piercing ammunition before the type mentioned by parent. The problem the new ammo addresses is overpenetration.

      A cop with standard AP rounds shoots bank robber in full body armor. Bullet goes through armor, then bank robber, then armor, then bank teller. Potentially dead bystander.

      A cop with this newfangled round shoots a similarly armored apponent. Bullet goes through armor, lodges itself in bank robber. No dead bank teller.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    4. Re:Applicable uses of military technology by winwar · · Score: 1

      Or you could insist that the police actually have good marksmenship (even under fire). Their guns and ammo were accurate enough to get head shots (not much armor there...). The users (police) obviously weren't. If I can do this at 25 yards under ideal conditions with minimal training, you should expect police to be able to do it under stressful conditions. It is their JOB after all, and lives depend on it (especially theirs). You don't need a technological solution to a training problem.

    5. Re:Applicable uses of military technology by Ded+Mike · · Score: 1

      Like this?

      In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards. He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.
      "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," Thomas said. Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new -- and controversial -- bullet. The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is "nonstandard" and hasn't passed the military's approval process.
      "The way I explain what happened to people who weren't there is ... this stuff was like hitting somebody with a miniature explosive round," he said, even though the ammo does not have an explosive tip. "Nobody believed that this guy died from a butt shot." The bullet Thomas fired was an armor-piercing, limited-penetration round manufactured by RBCD of San Antonio.


      So now, instead of a "beowulf cluster of...," are we going to start seeing weapons/ammo tech here at slashdot and the question will be "I'd like to see a MetalStorm cluster of THOSE!"???

      --
      Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
  36. we've sortof got that already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  37. Americans cant even win a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    see Iraq for details, big special guns mean nothing against people with grenades and suicide bombers

  38. Will this work? by NemesisStar · · Score: 1

    It can't be easy to aim for something when travelling at Mach 7!

  39. Waste of cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    End of the day, unless your prepared to develop physic mind control devices, ala Red Alert 2, then your either going to have to level cities or get out of the war.

    Explain what good spending a billion dollars in developing space borne missiles is going to do if for $80 a guerrilla fighters can set themselves up with an AK and some ammo and hold of the entire US army in [insert rouge state here] for months.

  40. I cant wait to be the first one thats killed by PimpbotChris · · Score: 1

    by a miscalibrated satellite dropping a tungsten rod on my house

    --
    Damn, I left my good sig in my other pants
  41. supercavitating torpedos by evenprime · · Score: 1

    the torpedos in question are old news, and have been discussed here several years ago.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/06/1646 25 1&mode=thread&tid=126

    I think the soviet skhval torpedos that have this capability were designed back in the 1980s.....

    --

    "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
    I think that goes for OS's too
    1. Re:supercavitating torpedos by sandbagger · · Score: 1

      Hi:

      But the average American hasn't heard about it so it doesn't count.

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  42. Space Darts? by 10101001011 · · Score: 1

    ... space darts....

    Didn't Dodge already try that?

  43. Metal Storm by digitaltraveller · · Score: 1

    Metal Storm's technology is pretty close to useless. It might have a limited role protecting naval frigates as a patriot anti-missle type defensive weapon but that's it. The logistics of carrying and resupplying a gun that turns over that much ammunition is absurd.

  44. Did anyone else think... by jupitercore · · Score: 1

    of the Glitter Boy Boom Cannon when they read Mach x railgun?

  45. One million rounds per minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  46. He, who is higher up the gravity well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    He, who is higher up the gravity well..
    will win everytime.

  47. Now we know where to look.... by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

    for those pesky and elusive WMDs.

  48. Forget future weapons by phoxix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Deal with the ones we currently have ...

    We all know Russia has plenty of weapons that are unaccounted for, (or some that have bad care taking/accounting). So instead of funding all this new bullshit, and this useless war on Iraq, how about we keep funding for arms control like Nunn-Lugar or Start III ?

    Sunny Dubey

    1. Re:Forget future weapons by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      I think we tried the whole arms limitation thing about 60-70 years ago but Japan basically told everyone to go to hell about the time they started the Asian-Pacific theater of WWII. Definately works.

    2. Re:Forget future weapons by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Because under the previous similar treaties, they ended up with all those unaccounted-for arms.

      Repeating the same actions over and over again, hoping for different results, is a sign of insanity.

  49. Who Cares? by unixbugs · · Score: 1

    i wont even blink until they actually find a way to build the eludium-Q-36 explosive space modulator.

    --
    You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
  50. more torpedoes! by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
    yes, it's clear that we need to be spending a lot more money on torpedoes these days since we as a world have fallen way behind in torpedo knowledge.

    and by this, i mean that the total number of torpedoes fired in anger in the last 60 years has essentially been three, all aimed at the same ship (the general belgrano) and all of which (well, except for the one that missed) have brought only shame and embarassment to the country that fired them (old blighty).

    perhaps i am wrong about the number of submarine torpedoes launched in anger--anybody know of any others?

    1. Re:more torpedoes! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      I must disagree with you here, pretty much the sentiment about the Belgrano sinking was that it was justified and correct. Court cases brought against the UK government regarding the case have all failed.

      For the people who arent aware of the story, the Belgrano was an Ex US battle cruiser sold to the Argentinian Navy after world war two. The Argentinians used the Belgrano during their invasion of the Falkland Islands, which the UK has owned for nearly 200 years, but the Argentinians have always claimed as their own.

      The UK government authorised the Royal Navy submarine Conquerer to sink the Belgrano after it was decided that she played a great threat to the UK task force fleet sailing to free the Falkland Islands, even tho the Belgrano was outside the "area of interest" as defined by the UK government (she was sailing to intercept the task force when she was sunk, but was about 100 miles outside the exclusion zone around the islands). She was hit twice, and sunk. The two escort ships accompanying the Belgrano turned and fled, failing to pick up any survivors now in the water, and thus sealing a lot of deaths.

      THe upside of it was that the UK Navy didnt have to deal with the Argentinian Navy any longer, they stayed in port during the entire conflict, leaving the defence of the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian airforce, who could fly from the mainland and had enough range to attack the falklands.

      The reason that the strike was ordered while the ship was outside the exclusion zone was that she was about to pass into a shallow area of water, which the submarine would have to go around. IT was deemed too risky to the task force for Conquerer to attempt this and search for the Belgrano on the other side, so the descision was made to sink the Belgrano before she passed into this area.

    2. Re:more torpedoes! by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      They were Mark VIII** unguided "steam" torpedoes, developed in WWII. There was some doubt that a modern tordedo (Tigerfish, IIRC) could take out an armoured target.

      [flamebait]
      British WWII torpedoes were reliable, unlike German and USan fish.
      [/flamebait]

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    3. Re:more torpedoes! by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      have brought only shame and embarassment to the country that fired them (old blighty).

      That would be a military ship of a nation that the UK was at war with?

      Quite honestly, exclusion zone or otherwise, I couldn't give a damn. It wasn't like it was a civilian ship or anything.

    4. Re:more torpedoes! by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      I think y'all missed the point (well, the torpedo bit was my main point, the belgrano a second)

      Right or wrong, the sinking of the belgrano brougth shame and embarassment to the UK. this is irrespective of the tactical, strategic, or political significance of the event.

      like dresden.

      dresden apologists posting in 3.. 2.. 1..

    5. Re:more torpedoes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The superpussyfication of western culture is so far gone this is hardly remarkable. "Hey, no killing enemy soldiers unless they've had their rights read to them first!"

    6. Re:more torpedoes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Conqueror's torpedoes were not the only one fired in anger. The argentine navy's sub ARA San Luis fired at least three others (I have info that she fired eight) Due to a malfuncion in the torpedo guiding system (modern german SST4)they failed their target. Though an unedintified impact was heard it was never confirmed as a hit.
      This lonely sub was a nightmare for the main NATO ASW force (a.k.a. Royal Navy) that almost depleted the full asw arsenal the task force carried trying to sink it. She survived and return to base after 39 days of war patrol.

      About the Belgrano: It was a very sad event. The ship was in a heroic war mission trying to reach the RN Task Force from the south, that is a fact recognized by her captain (Cap. H. Bonzo). On of the problems is that the very same day the Belgrano was sunk a cease fire agreement was about to be issued. The UK goverment forced the continuation of the war by sinking her.

    7. Re:more torpedoes! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick, wasnt Nato, it was the UK standing alone. We turned down all offers of help, including that of the US who offered to back us up if we decided to go ahead with a full scale invasion of Argentinia.

    8. Re:more torpedoes! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The sinking of hte Belgrano brought no shame to the UK whatever, tho certain politicians will try and say otherwise. If such an act brings shame to a country, then how much shame must Argentinia have brought on themselves for invading anotehr nations territory.

  51. Some thoughts by carvalhao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although I am a pacifist, I do believe that currently it is still a necessity to develop weapon technology, for if the Americans and Europeans don't, some other country, perhaps with less respect for human life or International Law (although the USA haven't been that respectfull with the last one), will! So it's a martial arts kind of philosophy: get the knowledge in hope you'll never need to use it.

    What must be stressed, though, is that military supremacy should not be an excuse for poor or non-existing foreign policy. The best way to get and maintain peace is not through the use of weapons, as we've been repeatedly taught by History, but by respecting people, their culture and balancing economical divides. And this is true not only as far as international war is concerned but also in the little national wars that are waged in every country in the form of crime.

    As a final remark: didn't "Kursk", the Russian sub, sink due to a failed test of that same torpedo technology? And now they're selling it? Great move... develop a dangerous-to-use torpedo AND get the other guys to use it! :)

    1. Re: Some thoughts by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > What must be stressed, though, is that military supremacy should not be an excuse for poor or non-existing foreign policy.

      Unless of course you're deliberately trying to start WWIII.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Some thoughts by i · · Score: 1

      "As a final remark: didn't "Kursk", the Russian sub, sink due to a failed test of that same torpedo technology? And now they're selling it? Great move... develop a dangerous-to-use torpedo AND get the other guys to use it! :)"

      No, it sink becuase it exploded. And that was (probably) because the fuel of a torpedo started burning/exploded and short thereafter ignated the warhead of several torpedos.

      The reson it started burning was problay becuase they choosed a cheaper and more dangerous fuel for the torpedos.
      Pennywise...

      BTW, it's supposed that the torpedos was a sort of "ramming" devises, that is, they forced their way through the water with such a force that they reached (teorethically) MACH 1 or 2. The reason that they can reach such a velocity is that the shockwawe with the water creates a "vapor shield" that greatly reduces (or practically eliminates) the friction against the water.

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    3. Re:Some thoughts by IrresponsibleUseOfFr · · Score: 1

      I'm not a pacifist. But history teaches us another lesson, whenever a weapon is developed it will be used, no matter how horrible the consequences. Maxwell invented the machinegun to stop wars nearly 100 years ago. He wanted to make a weapon so devasting that people would never wage war again, due to sheer human cost. Wars are obviously still being fought. Look, I'm for security, and there are times when you need to fight back. But, by the very nature of the weapons, you are giving power to a few over the lives of hundreds, thousands, possibly millions. There is always a fear of the weapons falling into the wrong hands, but I ask whose are the right hands for that kind of power? Can we really trust anyone with that kind of weapon? Hell, I wouldn't even trust myself. While, I admit a part of me wants to fawn over the new technology, and another part of me loves big explosions. This is real-life. People are going to die from that thing. Possibly evil men, men who have commited egregious acts of sin. But also innocent people, who love their life. And the potential for killing innocents goes up as the weapons get more devastating, because in the end, there are still humans picking the targets. I personally think we have over-developed our military potential for the political state of the world. We need to destroy weapons, notably nuclear weapons, that we have instead of developing new ones. I love America, I'd fight, kill and give my life freely for America, but it isn't worth destroying the whole human race over. The whole endeavour of developing better ways of killing people is on the same moral ground as beheading people. It sickens me. And no, I didn't RTFA. -IrresponsibleUseOfFrogs

      --
      Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -Homer Simpson
    4. Re: Some thoughts by Gannoc · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you're deliberately trying to start WWIII.

      It turns out the only way to win that is not to play. How about a nice game of chess, instead?

    5. Re:Some thoughts by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      About 200 knots, actually.

      Also it emits bubbles from its nose, rather that friction with the water.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
  52. I agree by Arngautr · · Score: 1

    Also anyone else notice how popsci's future predictions are rarely remotely accurate, as opposed to SciAm? Also these techs are not new ideas by any means, heck super cavicating torpedos have been around for years, admittedly they don't steer but they go faster than sound so steering to track a target probably isn't that importantant. The rods from space/lasers were key components of the star wars program. The gun's been around for a while too, though also its concept is nothing new. I seem to recall that bricks were droped from airplanes (followed shortly by explosives) during some greco-turk or italian-turk or some war in that area in the early 20th century.

  53. 1 million shots a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of one of those in an Apache helicopter.
    Lets's say it's fired upon with a ground to air missile. Give it 2 seconds to impact. Assume the automated gun can be aimed at the missile in 1 second. So the next second it will be firing at 1 million rounds pr minute, so about 16000 bullets are fired at the missile, surely some of them will hit and destroy.

    1. Re: 1 million shots a minute by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > Think of one of those in an Apache helicopter.
      Lets's say it's fired upon with a ground to air missile. Give it 2 seconds to impact. Assume the automated gun can be aimed at the missile in 1 second. So the next second it will be firing at 1 million rounds pr minute, so about 16000 bullets are fired at the missile, surely some of them will hit and destroy.


      And if not, maybe the recoil will push the heli out of the missile's path.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: 1 million shots a minute by mrjb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      16000 bullets per second, assuming each of them is 2 inches (5cm) long, makes 80000 cm=800m of bullets per second if no space is left in between. The bullets would have to travel at least at 800 m per second. According to this, that should indeed be reachable.

      Somebody once commented about the physics of movies that Rambo couldn't possibly keep firing and firing and firing all that much time because the weight of all the bullets he fired would get to be way too heavy to carry around.

      I'm not very well informed about weaponry, but if a bullet weighs ten grams, then a minute worth of bullets (1 million of them) weighs 10 million grams or 10000 kilograms. I don't know, but basically such a fast gun to me seems not much more than a great way to overload your apache chopper, and a fantastic way to run out of bullets real fast.

      Could this be real? Possibly. Practical? I doubt it. There's only so much more benefit of spitting out even more bullets per second.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    3. Re: 1 million shots a minute by zytheran · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Could this be real?Possibly" http://www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html
      (sheesh, ever heard of a search engine??)
      Yes it is real.(USA does not invent everything in the world, surprising as that may be..). Although it has a high rate of fire it's not like a machine gun. The projectiles are loaded into the barrel in series. Once gone the entire barrel needs reloading. The main advantage is many bullets close to each other means you can target things things like grenades and artillery in flight. Normally the physical distance between each bullet/shell is so large the target can move far enough between each shot (say 1/10th second=30m of target movement)so that the rounds miss. If the rounds are only 1/100,000th of a second apart they are physically closer together and as long as you can aim the first shot accurately the rest of barrel load will be very close behind.Of course if you miss, the target will probably hit you before you reload the barrel. (Which is why the device typically has multiple barrels)
      You can also electronically control the rate of fire to exactly what you need. e.g. 1 rounds/min to it's maximum.

    4. Re: 1 million shots a minute by DiscoDave_25 · · Score: 1

      Testing day for metal storm:

      Researcher 1: How many barrels was that we just fired
      Researcher 2: 64 with one round in each
      Researcher 1: How long did it take for them to ignite
      Researcher 2: 4ms
      Marketting Drone 1: So that's 64 rounds in 4ms. Which is 1,000,000 rounds/minute.

      Ahh real life testing.

      I want to announce my 1,000,000 rounds/second - 1 million people with a gun gun.

      In tests with 1 million people with a gun when I shouted fire 1 million rounds were fired in a second. Beat that Metal Storm.

    5. Re: 1 million shots a minute by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Again, that's its top speed. It doesn't fire for a minute, and holds only a few hundred rounds. That means it's smaller and more practical than your measurements. It's like saying an abrams doesn't work, as if it fired for a year, it would weigh several million tons and couldn't drive anywhere :)

    6. Re: 1 million shots a minute by ivrcti · · Score: 1
      You are partially correct. The massive weight of the total projectiles makes this type of weapon less suited to aerial platforms. But, 2 major factors keep it in check.

      First, the weapon fires for only a tiny fraction of a second, so the total mass of projectiles is much smaller.

      Second, the actual rate of fire is electrically controlled by a laptop, so you don't have to fire at a full rate like a traiditional machine gun. You can programmatically tell the system to fire anywhere from a single bullet, to a slow sustained line of fire, to all of its bullets in a single massive, rapid volley.

      The last cool thing is that you can combine different sizes of barrels and types of ammunition in a single configuration. So the weapon may have kinetic energy bullets for long range offensive use and at the same time carry smaller proximity explosive shells for close defensive functionality (RPG intercept).

    7. Re: 1 million shots a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question... could you sign and read each bullet.. do tcp/ip over ammunition?

      It's the new denial of service attack..

      oh yea..

      imagine a beowolf cluster of those..

    8. Re: 1 million shots a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely this would be used as a stationary anti-air defense system, you know knock down heavy ballistics. Seems the patriot system is actually quite sucky.

      I think the reason for these new high tech weapons is not for cases like Iraq but to intimidate others into not interfearing in cases like Iraq.

      I can't imagine what an advanced society the USA would be if it spent all this cash on education, alas instead it seems more concerned with watching stuff blow up. "Wow billiy-bob, that blowed up real good! Woohoo!"

    9. Re: 1 million shots a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Claymore Mine fires several hundred projectiles in a millisecond or so and is a lot cheaper to manufacture. The idea of a machine gun that fires a million rounds a minute is just another Goverment sponsored boondoggle.

    10. Re: 1 million shots a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are generally not aircraft-mounted systems. Rather they are used as close-in (anti-missile, anti-aircraft) cover fire for naval ships. The idea is that if you have incoming aircraft or missile, it's gotten though the long-range defenses. You only have seconds, and putting up a wall of lead may be just the ticket. Carrying an extra thousnad kilos of bullets is manageble on ships. Besides, you don't fire the guns for long at all--a few seconds per incoming better be enough, after that it won't matter much.

      For examples, consider the Phalanx http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm

  54. um... Bush doesn't by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Listen to his allies? Bush blew the cover of a CIA spy because her husband was saying things he didn't want to hear.

    Bush decides what he wants to do, and goes fishing for someone who will give him a good excuse for doing it.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:um... Bush doesn't by delong · · Score: 1

      Listen to his allies? Bush blew the cover of a CIA spy because her husband was saying things he didn't want to hear.

      You don't hear much from Mr. Plame since his book came out. The book that says his sources in Niger confirmed that Iraq was fishing for yellow cake in Niger.

      His wife wasn't a "CIA spy", either. Just because someone works for the CIA, doesn't mean they are operating under official cover.

    2. Re:um... Bush doesn't by BenBenBen · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You don't hear much from Mr. Plame since his book came out. The book that says his sources in Niger confirmed that Iraq was fishing for yellow cake in Niger.

      Umm, BZZT. The documents the whole case was built on were fraudulent. Go study current affairs.

      His wife wasn't a "CIA spy", either. Just because someone works for the CIA, doesn't mean they are operating under official cover

      She was an undercover operative for the CIA, who 'worked' for a shell company. Everyone who ever had any dealings with this company or lady was put at risk by this (illegal) disclosure. You're wrong on both counts. Watch a lot of Fox?

      --
      The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
    3. Re:um... Bush doesn't by delong · · Score: 1

      Umm, BZZT. The documents the whole case was built on were fraudulent. Go study current affairs.

      Umm, BZZT. Go read Plame's OWN BOOK, dumbass. He now says his sources in Niger say Iraq was shopping for yellow cake. Keep on current affairs much? Or did you just not know who "Plame" was?

      She was an undercover operative for the CIA, who 'worked' for a shell company.

      Years ago. She was no longer in an operative role.

      Why don't you make sure you know what you're talking about before you go shooting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself?

    4. Re:um... Bush doesn't by edhall · · Score: 1

      The guy's surname is "Wilson," not "Plame." If you'd actually read the book you'd know this -- it's on the cover. His wife, Valerie Plame, "worked" for a CIA front organization. Her name, the fact that she was married to Joe Wilson, and the name of her front organization weren't secrets. But the fact that the organization was a CIA front and Plame was a CIA operative and not just an international business consultant were secret. Revealing this meant that all of her contacts, some of which were involved in illegal arms sales and other activities of potential aid to terrorists, now know that she was a CIA plant. Whether she was presently active or not was immaterial -- The people she had dealt with now knew they had been compromised, and might well shut down ongoing operations and could "out" other operatives based on the chain of contacts. Also, consider that the claim she was no longer active could itself be a cover (think "damage control").

      In other words, someone decided that getting revenge on Joe Wilson was worth sacrificing part of the war on terror. IMHO that's politics at its slimiest.

      As for Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear materials, it's well known that as of 1991 Iraq had a sophisticated nuclear program with capabilities for uranium enrichment. They were certainly attempting to obtain uranium from several sources, inclusing Nigeria. But we destroyed Iraq's nuclear program during and after Desert Storm, and there was little evidence that they had made significant progress in reconstructing it. Just because Joe Wilson mentions these earlier, pre-1991 attempts to obtain uranium doesn't contradict his claim that there were no such attempts ten years later.

      -Ed
    5. Re:um... Bush doesn't by delong · · Score: 1

      Just because Joe Wilson mentions these earlier, pre-1991 attempts to obtain uranium doesn't contradict his claim that there were no such attempts ten years later.

      Yes, I forgot that Mr. Wilson's wife didn't take his name.

      As to his claims, the claimed attempt to obtain uranium occurred in **1999**, not pre-GWI. His Niger source identifies the Iraqi official as none other than the Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf.

      Interestingly, it appears rather that Mr. Wilson was the one sexing up his claims. While steadfastly denying the truth of the claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Niger, in actuality his Niger sources informed him in 2002 Iraq *might* have, and then later positively identified Sayyaf.

      For reference:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-d yn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A54640-2004Apr29&notFound= true

  55. Superweapons vs beheading someone by Quizo69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it highly disturbing that the US recoils in revulsion at the brutal beheading of one of its own, but bats nary an eyelid when superweapons designed to kill MILLIONS are announced. Just because you can visit death on people from afar, doesn't mean you are somehow morally superior. That is already painfully evident in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If we don't learn very quickly to put aside differences and work towards real peace, I fear we won't be celebrating the coming of the 22nd century, because we won't be around any more.

    1. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by NickeB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "One mans death is a tradgedy, a million deaths is a statistic"

    2. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by pubjames · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I find it highly disturbing that the US recoils in revulsion at the brutal beheading of one of its own, but bats nary an eyelid when superweapons designed to kill MILLIONS are announced.

      It's called lack of empathy.

      I've heard some people saying that the recent torture/humiliation photos "aren't that bad". However, I expect if the situation in the photos were reversed (e.g. a small Iraqi woman holding a naked, beaten up US marine on the end of a leash) those same people would be able to empathize with the victims a whole lot better...

    3. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Um, the weapons mentioned in the story are meant to take out tanks, surgically. They aren't nuclear bombs.

      I wouldn't call that "designed to kill millions".

      While a sorta agree with your point of not needed new weapons, your argument is a pure appeal-to-emotions, which is worthless.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    4. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but it shows the mindset of the so called "people" we are facing.

      If they din't want to be treated as animals, they might quit acting like them.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    5. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Quizo69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "No, but it shows the mindset of the so called "people" we are facing. If they din't want to be treated as animals, they might quit acting like them."

      And they could say the same of Americans. They aren't "so-called people", they ARE people. When Iraqis see a US sniper put a bullet through their relatives' heads, do you think they consider that sniper a hero? Or do you think they would call them the animals, callously butchering their loved ones like dogs?

      My point is this - always, ALWAYS beware of demonising your enemy. The truth is that there are people on BOTH sides who enjoy killing, and neither represents the motives of the vast majority. When you've travelled extensively you come to realise that all peoples of the world have similar goals - raise a good family, live in peace, be allowed to do their own thing without being persecuted. Americans want this just as much as Iraqis.

      But also consider how you would feel if your country was invaded, and the invaders said one thing and practiced another. You would fight back, wouldn't you? I know I would. Well, so do the Iraqis. They cannot beat the US at its own game, so they do it on their own terms. That doesn't make the vast majority "sub-human monsters" or any other derogatory term.

      Yes, the beheading brought home the cold blooded murder aspect of it. I don't condone it in the slightest and having seen the full video, was disgusted by it. However, I also watched the disgusting video of an Apache crew gunning down unarmed men and shooting the wounded one as he crawled away. Is that any more moral?

    6. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Kirill+Lokshin · · Score: 1

      "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

    7. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High calibre rounds from any slightly larger weapon will decapitate someone if hit in the head.

    8. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I find it highly disturbing that the US recoils in revulsion at the brutal beheading of one of its own, but bats nary an eyelid when superweapons designed to kill MILLIONS are announced

      Did you read the article? If our objective was simply to kill a lot of people, we might as well keep using old-fashioned carpet bombing. Or nuclear bombs. These weapons are designed with the focus of killing the right people, not more people, thus ending violent conflicts more quickly and with fewer casualties on both sides.

    9. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Mephie · · Score: 1
      Exactly. In Eddie Izzard's standup show "Dressed to Kill" he makes a very similar statement. Basically that the number of people you kill determines how society responds to you. Everything from killing one and going to jail, killing twenty and getting put in a mental institution, up to killing millions and we suddenly don't really know how to deal with death on that level. It goes from "You killed ten people! That's terrible!" to "You killed twenty million people? You must get up very early in the morning!"

      It's a comedy show, so obviously it's not precise, but it's an interesting point.

      Smiliar things happen when specific people die as well. For example, the football player cum soldier (Pat Tillman, I think is his name). Many United States residents have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. To most of us, they are anonymous people. We didn't know them. The only thing we know is that they died in battle, we feel bad for a bit and Newsweek publishes their names or a news program reads them. Many of them have done a great deal of noble things in their lives which we'll never hear about.

      But someone with even a slight bit of name recognition dies and it's national news. It's covered by every major TV news outlet and Newsweek does a four page story. Why? Did he sacrifice more? No. Is his death more tragic? Certainly not. But the response is huge; it's a horrible, horrible tale of heroism ending in tragedy fit for a made-for-TV movie.

      Meanwhile, a wonderful woman no less heroic but anonymous to everyone but her family and friends comes home draped with a flag and she's a statistic.

    10. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      What animal uses an innate object to cut off the head of another animal ?

      The people "you" are facing, _are_ humans. Bad ones for sure.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    11. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for proving that nerds are incapable of creative thought.

    12. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by scottennis · · Score: 1

      Look at history--the better the weapons, the fewer the wars.

    13. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey butt plug, we are not spending money on weapons designed to kill millions, we are spending money on weapons designed to kill as few innocent people as possible while still elminating a military target. If we were only interested in killing millions, we wouldn't have to design nay more weapons because we already have enough to do that.

    14. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we don't learn very quickly to put aside differences and work towards real peace, I fear we won't be celebrating the coming of the 22nd century, because we won't be around any more.

      You write as if our foes are logical, rational human beings. They're not. They're sick fucking psychos who need to be destroyed if our way of life is to survive. It's us or them, as they've demonstrated. I vote us.

      Real peace is when all people who don't believe in freedom, tolerance and democracy are dead. Not before.

    15. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, but it shows the mindset of the so called "people" we are facing.

      If they din't want to be treated as animals, they might quit acting like them.
      It goes both ways; it's hard to act like a human when someone is riding you like donkey.

    16. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good 'ol Uncle Joe.

      Notice there was no "problem" with Chechnya with him around.

    17. Re:Superweapons vs beheading someone by ndogg · · Score: 1

      I've been told this before:

      "I don't know the kind of weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  56. On the matter of HEAT... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...or shaped charges as they are often know:
    Back when the shaped charge was first developed as a usable weapon against tanks, it was seen as a way to defeat the newer, more heavily armoured tanks that had started appearing. Up to that point, a anti-tank gun had relied on the penetrating power of a solid shot - often with a tungsten core.
    After a little while people realised that since a HEAT warhead did not rely on kinetic energy to punch a hole thru armour, lighter, manportable anti tank weapons could be designed and built - including the US bazooka, the british PIAT and the german Panzerfaust (the worlds first disposable anti tank weapon). Shells fireing HEAT warheads was also fired from guns of virtually any caliber during and shortly after WWII.
    Relatively soon however, it was found that composite armour and, to a lesser extent, spaced armour was efficient in protecting against both HEAT and HESH shells, signaling a return to the solid penetrators - now fired by guns that could achive much higher muzzles velocities than the pre WWII designs. For manportable weapons however, it was difficult to increase the velocity of the weapon without making it larger, heavier and thus more difficult to transport and operate. Therefore the wast majoity of the manportable anti tank weapons, including the M72, the RPG-7, the TOW missile and many, many more, still uses HEAT warheads - and is likely to do so for the forseeable future. The deliverysystems for the warheads are simply not capable of delivering enought energy to make a kinetic penetrator a viable option.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  57. Arthur C. Clarke had a similar idea by F4Codec · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke story, Earthlight. The battle was set on the moon, which helps considerably with projectile weapons.

    The weapon used in this case was a large glob of molten steel, fired using extremely large electro-magnets to launch and guide the "projectile".

    The image he paints of spearing a space ship, like a pinned butterfly has stayed me for a long while.

    1. Re:Arthur C. Clarke had a similar idea by hplasm · · Score: 0

      Indeed, a "true" railgun uses the armature as a projectile, which is vaporized by the launching current and accelerates up the 'barrel' as a conducting plasma, to emerge as a sci-fi type energy bolt.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  58. 1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by pbhj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you shoot this gun (I did look at the article and there aren't any details except that it's electric) more than 15000 bullets a second are leaving the muzzle. If each bullet is 1cm in length that's at least 150m of bullet and assuming a recycle time equal to 10 times the length of the bullet [*] let's say 3000m. That's a firing velocity of Mach 9.

    Also, a one million strong line-up of 1cm bullets adds up to 10km of metal being fired each minute! Alternatively if each bullet is 1cm^3 of metal that's a m^3 of metal which is likely to weigh in excess of 7 metric tons (using Iron, 7380 kg/m^3 as a guidline).

    So each 60seconds we accelerate 7+ tons of bullet metal to Mach 9 ... using KE (kinetic energy) formula we give it 30 thousand-million Joules of energy @ 500 million Watts (about the output of 5 large electric plants). ... They're going to need big batteries!

    [*> that is the bullet has moved ten times it's length before the next bullet sets off]

    PS: I'm sure someone will find a mistake in these calculations and that someone else with more gun knowledge will correct some horrible assumption, but hey.

    1. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by carvalhao · · Score: 5, Funny

      No to mention that, if Newton got his apples right, you'd have an incredible thrust is the oposite direction. Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing... I can envision some aircraft going backwards with this one! ;)

    2. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by ribena · · Score: 2, Informative

      Think you are getting a bit confused. The electrical charge only ignites the propelent in the bullets, it doesnt actually propel them forward. Also the article talks about multi barrel systems...so your speed calcs might be slightly off.

    3. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noone nowhere said that these bullets will fly in one line. As I understood - it's a cluster of MG's. So divide your numbers by atleast 10.

      However the stats are pretty neat with that tho.

    4. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      MG's is presumably machine-guns ... hmm, yeah, on actually _reading_ (rather than my usual scan-read thing) the article more closely it does say multibarrels for the million rounds. Can't this be achieved with any gun as long as you have enough barrels??!

      What a cheat, specially when the headline is "A GUN THAT FIRES A MILLION ROUNDS A MINUTE" ... what they mean is a set of guns. I suppose 60,000 rounds a minute didn't sound impressive enough. Other flaws include the rounds being up to 60mm (6cm) diameter - though I expect they aren't fired at such high rates.

      Also, yeah, it's not electric that's used to power the bullets flight but I didn't bother to look up the energy provided by propellant explosives.

    5. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are firing 1 million bullets with mutiple barrels. For one barrel it was "just" 1 000 bullets per second.
      The bullets are accelerated with their propelling charges, they are only initiated electrically. So the electricity used could almost by supplied by a car battery

    6. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mach 9? Wow! Very high velocity rifle ammunition occasionally approaches Mach 5, but has a barrel life expectancy of a very few rounds at that velocity. (Mach 1 is about 1000 fps or 300m/s. Most rifle ammo tends to be under 2500 fps, i.e. Mach 2.5)

      The electricity is not used to accelerate the bullets (as in a railgun): it is merely used to ignite the propellant, so a motorcycle battery will provide more than enough juice.

    7. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It can't fire for a whole minute at 1,000,000rpm. In fact, it empties itself after a couple of milliseconds. When it goes off, it sounds like a quick fart, and what ever it was pointed at is a small cloud of dust.

    8. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Eye+of+the+Frog · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "Bullets stacked in the barrel fire at rates of up to 60,000 rounds per minute, even a million in certain multi-barrel configurations."

      So you're off by a factor of 15 in some of your numbers.

      --
      "Sexy Man" is not a moderation option. -- arose
    9. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No to mention that, if Newton got his apples right, you'd have an incredible thrust is the oposite direction. Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing... I can envision some aircraft going backwards with this one! ;)

      Perhaps this weapon could be used like the Backward Utilized Tracking Torpedo (BUTT) on the Spathi ships in Star Control 2.

    10. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Eye+of+the+Frog · · Score: 0

      Oh, and to reply to my own post, from the article:

      "Coded electric signals ignite propellant embedded within each specially designed bullet."

      So, you don't generate the power needed to propel a bullet, it uses the potential energy of the embedded propellant. So you're off by a lot more than a factor of 15 as far as needing 5 power plants to power a gun.

      --
      "Sexy Man" is not a moderation option. -- arose
    11. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by ivrcti · · Score: 5, Insightful
      First - essentially no reload time since all the bullets are stacked directly in the barrel before firing begins. Reducing your estimate by a factor of 10.

      Second - as others have pointed out the electrical charge merely ignites the propelant rather than providing the impetus. Reducing your estimate by another factor of 100.

      Third the weapon only fires for milliseconds when at full rate, reducing your estimate by another factor of 50.

      Fourth - the million rate is developed by a weapon that has about 50 barrels, so the velocity of each bullet can drop accordingly, reducing your estimate by another factor of 50.

      Your last sentence was the most correct, it's the assumptions that invalidate our calculations at least by a factor of 2,500,000.

    12. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Metex · · Score: 1

      Sigh seen the design before... think 2 years ago. the million bullet stat could possibly be correct since instead of firing one long gun they had a 20x20 array of barrels each with 50 or so bullets in each barrel. Remeber all you need is a wire running down the side as a control mechanism so no need for anything extra. Just an array of 20x20 tubes that can hold the bullets.

      the one problem at the time though was that once the gun was done firing. the tubes were useless and you werent able to reload the bullets. Guess they solved that.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    13. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by esampson · · Score: 2, Informative

      The stat isn't inaccurate, it's misleading. You need to understand the design of the Metalstorm system as well as the definition of what they are talking about when they say a million rounds per minute.

      The design of the device is that each barrel holds multiple bullets which are triggered by coded electrical signals. The bullets can be fired one at a time, several at once or all at once depending on the instructions sent. Because of this you don't have to have a gap of 10 times the length of the bullet. Additionally the device uses multiple barrels which can fire simultaneously as opposed to current multi-barrel weapons such as gatling guns which fire one barrel after the other.

      The electronic firing aspect of the Metalstorm system is not theoretical and has been fired under test conditions, so it definitely works.

      Bullets do not feed into the barrel, however. When a barrel is empty you replace it with a new barrel (I assume the barrel can be reloaded at a later date, just not while in use).

      The key to realize however is that the Metalstorm system does -not- fire 1 million rounds a minute. It has what's known as a cyclical -rate- of 1 million rounds per minute.

      When talking about guns the cyclical rate is how rapidly a weapon will fire assuming it can sustain fire without the needs of reloading or cooling off.

      The reason the Metalstorm system has such a high number is because they have one gun that has something on the order of 40 barrels. Each barrel holds 10 rounds (I'm approximating the numbers). When the trigger gets pulled the gun 'burps' out all 400 rounds at once. The time it takes from the trigger pull to the last bullet leaving the barrel is something on the order of .0004 seconds. Going by all the math that equates to a cyclical rate of 1 million rounds per minute, even though it was 'only' 400 rounds.

      Of course after this you are left with a huge hunk of dead weight until you finish swapping out all 40 of those barrels.

      In the end the number is more of a stunt than anything. It sure looks pretty and impressive but it is not truly an indicator of real performance. This isn't to say that the system itself is bad, merely that that one statistic isn't as impressive as it appears at first glance.

    14. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing..."

      A bit?

      A lot.

    15. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      Multiple barrels does not necessarily mean multiple firing mechanisms. The gun on the above mentioned A-10 has multiple barrels.

      The barrels rotate around a center point lining themselves with the firing mechanism. The multiple barrel configuration is neccessary (I believe) for sustained high rates of fire, minimizing the deformation of the barrels caused by heat.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    16. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by esampson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I have felt for a few years that the multi-barrel Metalstorm 'guns' are really more of a battery of guns myself. The do all share the same trigger but each barrel has it's own firing mechanism.

      The nature of how the gun works sort of muddies the issue but to my mind saying the gun has a cyclical rate of a million rounds a minute is like saying a double barrel shotgun has a cyclical rate of 200,000 rounds per minute just because when you pull both triggers 10 separate rounds come out of the two barrels.

    17. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by JonMartin · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Mod any Star Control 2 reference up.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    18. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing...

      Correct. If it wouldn't run out of ammo or melt its barrels an A-10 could keep firing until it actually stopped and reversed. Hmmm, barrels melting. That brings up a point I'll have to post elsewhere.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    19. Re:1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing two different guns here. One is the kinetic energy weapon they mentoned in the first part of the article. The second, mentioned in the last part of the article is a gun designed with no or minimal moving parts using conventional explosives.

  59. What? You mean like the British army by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And airforce.

    Did you know that before the war in Iraq "ended", the US armed forces killed more of their allies than the enemy did?

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:What? You mean like the British army by lobsterGun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a new problem.

      After the D-Day invasion of Normandy (in WW2) the bulk of the German Army was nearly encircled, but was allowed to escape beacuse the Allies did not want to risk the friendly fire casualties that would have resulted from completeing the encirclement.

    2. Re:What? You mean like the British army by phayes · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lobster, I'm of the same opinion concerning Friendly Fire that you are, but:
      - The great majority of the German army was never in France. Only 1/3 of the Wermacht was on the western front which includes all forces in southern France & Italy as well as the forces in Normandy.
      - While Friendly Fire was feared & factored into plans, both Monty & Patton tried hard to close the Falaise pocket. The historians I've read attribute the failure to trap the German forces to german proficiency (being the first users of blitzkrieg they knew what getting encircled entailed) & allied exhaustion (breaking out was a Major effort. Sealing off the forces was beyond them).

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:What? You mean like the British army by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Could you please verify this with references???

      I've never read about this anywhere. I'm not saying its not true, but Ockham's Razor applies unless you can prove otherwise.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    4. Re:What? You mean like the British army by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      D Day: June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II by Steven Ambrose

      It's been a while since I read this, and I've forgotten a lot of the details. Per the other poster, I may be remembering friendly fire as a larger factor thatn it actually was.

    5. Re:What? You mean like the British army by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      Oops, I didnt mean to imply that the whole German army was there. I should have been more specific. I want to say that it was the German 15th army, but I really can't remember.

    6. Re:What? You mean like the British army by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Well, not precisely. The Allies -- especially US and Polish troops -- fought continuously to close the Falaise Pocket, but good old Monty screwed it up. He should have reinforced the Americans and Poles, which would have completed the encirclement, but instead he just kept attacking from the West and forcing Germans to fight their way through the gap.

      The pocket was bombed and shelled continuously until it was finally closed, and it left so many dead men and horses that reconnaissance pilots barfed when they flew over the scene weeks later.

      rj

    7. Re:What? You mean like the British army by robsteele · · Score: 1
      Did you know that before the war in Iraq "ended", the US armed forces killed more of their allies than the enemy did?
      What? You want it to be the other way around?
      --

      Consequences ensue.
    8. Re:What? You mean like the British army by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Monty probably wanted to try to plug the gap with his dick.

      That guy was a prat.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:What? You mean like the British army by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Funny
      "- While Friendly Fire was feared & factored into plans, both Monty & Patton tried hard to close the Falaise pocket. "

      For a moment I read that as Monty Python, and suddenly I began visualizing your post in a whole different way.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    10. Re:What? You mean like the British army by msi · · Score: 1

      The German forces during the second world war were one of the best army's the world has ever seen and well worthy of our respect for their ability to fight. At the same time the American army was still rapidly increasing in size and therefore had lots of quickly trained and green troops the British soldiers were on the whole better but not by much.

      On the other hand the Iraqi army was very badly equipped and trained and the coalition troops are all professionals with lots of training. I know training isn't the same as experience but it is better than the troops of the second world war had.

      The US and UK troops are all NATO assets and as such are supposed to be trained to work together against the USSR without too many blue on blue kills. I know you can not stop friendly fire but it should be very unusual.

      Why are our troops killing each other fighting a third world army? If we knew this would be a problem why not work on it before the war and if we knew this was a problem why was it not worked on when we could have been fighting the USSR?

    11. Re:What? You mean like the British army by phayes · · Score: 1

      Because a certain level of friendly fire is unavoidable & acceptable if it means that your opponents become sufficiently overmatched that you suffer fewer total casualties. In WW2 when fighters had finished escorting bombers they were released on search & destroy missions to use up remaining munitions before returning to base. There are documented cases where allied troops were victims yet the fighters were so effective in disrupting german movement that the secondary search & destroy taskings were never discontinued.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  60. The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The suicide bombers from 9/11 were mostly university students, therefore much more educated than the average poulation of their countries.
    The problem is, you have to be a moron not to see that what the Israeli government does to their Palestinian "brothers" by all standards unfair, illegal und cruel.
    Then, if you're young and clever and have a sense of justice, you feel the urge to do something against that.
    If some demogugue comes along then, you're an easy victim for their propaganda.
    There comes your next suicide bomber.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
    1. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BerntB · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Explain something to me, since you're so certain.

      There were lots of land losses after WW I & II.

      Many of them were quite unfair (Finland comes to mind), but the people from the lost areas moved out to neighboring countries -- and there is no problem today. Except for one case.

      Now, tell me what makes it much worse with Israel?

      It was not an existing country before and would, without the present state, have been part of another country. It should have been much less of a problem than many other areas.

      (And then we have the literally hundreds of less criticism over literally hundreds of times worse treatment of non-muslims by muslims in Sudan over decades. Etc, etc, etc.)

      It seems to me you're really simplifying a complex matter.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    2. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BgJonson79 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Isn't it also unfair, illegal and cruel to strap a bomb to your chest and blow up a bus at the behest of Mr. Arafat?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    3. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      This is where you can justify mandatory exposure to humanities courses.

      Things like objective lessons on history, literature from major cultures throughout the world, music appreciation -- they all help develop a sense of empathy in the individual. They also help develop critical thinking skills when forced to evaluate subjective subject matter. Not always, but more likely than someone who just takes engineering and mathetmatics courses.

      BTW, i think all humanities students should be forced to have math and science competencies as well. It would kill off alot of the conspiracy theories and new age garbage that keeps getting recycled.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    4. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by proj_2501 · · Score: 0

      i'm all for mercerism and empathy boxes. mood organs too.

    5. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There were lots of land losses after WW I & II.
      Land losses are one thing, but where can you go if your country basically ceases to exist?

      It was not an existing country before...
      But there was a strong feeling of a being a nation before. For example, Poland as as state didn't exist for hundreds of years, but the people always considered themselves a nation.

      ...worse treatment of non-muslims by muslims in Sudan
      That's because it's in Africa. It sounds cynical, but international politics is not interested in Africa. The people in Sudan are poor, the country has little military power and there are few natural resources.
      I mean, how long did it take for the world to recognize what's happening in Rwanda?

      It seems to me you're really simplifying a complex matter.
      Of course I do. It's a posting on Slashdot, not a 20-volume encyclopedia about the history of the Middle East.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    6. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by startxxx · · Score: 0

      huh?

      unfair, illegal und cruel. ???
      what exactly is unfair? demolishing houses where snipers hide and shoot parents and their young kids on their way home?

      Terrorists are different people. Any person that is capable of shooting down a pregnant woman in her 8th month and her 4 young daughters from 0 distance (shot in the head one by one) is not a human I can live in peace with. No matter whats the reason, no piece of land justifies such a brutal and unhuman acts.

      http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/108343 65 18982.html

      Had they stopped the murders they'd had their own country by now. telling that as a left wing pro-withdrawal Israeli citizen, just like the majority here.

    7. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it also unfair, illegal and cruel to strap a bomb to your chest and blow up a bus at the behest of Mr. Arafat?

      Of yourse you're right.
      Call me an idealist, but I still think a democratic government should not murder its assumed or real enemies (or innocent bystahnders, of course) with missiles from helicopters. There should be something like Police and a fair trial.
      When dealing with terrorists, is it really inevitable to use terrorist methods?
      I believe not. We must show that there's a difference between totalitarian regimes and democratic governments.
      Something we completely failed to show in Iraq. Now the Arabian world thinks there's not much difference between Saddam's torturing or the Americans' torturing.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    8. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unfortunately, reducing Afghanistan from a Third World country to worse
      Unless you are an anarchist, this statement makes no sense. Afghanistan didn't even have a government before - just Taliban controlling 2/3 of the country and the Northern Alliance about 1/3. Oh, and a bunch of puny warlords mixing it up all over. Yup, it's much worse now.

      Your analogy suggests that bin Laden would have just gone away if we left him alone. Are you mad? That's essentially what we were doing! President Clinton could have taken bin Laden dead or alive multiple times and failed to do so. This freed him to plan the murder of a dozen sailors in Yemen in 2000 and the murder of 3000 people in the USA on September 11, 2001.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what exactly is unfair? demolishing houses where snipers hide and shoot parents and their young kids on their way home?

      It's this spiral of violence and revenge that doesn't let the region come to peace.
      Both sides think their terrible crimes are excused by their enemy's crimes in the past.

      Terrorists are different people.
      You mean people like Yosef Avni, Yisrael Levi, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin? 90 people killed, not bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel
      Terrorism is often the last weapon of the powerless. I don't want to excuse it, I just want to explain it.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    10. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BgJonson79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my idealist world, I pretty much agree with you. In my real world, I think some of my idealism simply won't work.

      That said, wouldn't you be able to tell the difference between the abuse of a hundred prisoners* and the killing of a hundred thousand people?

      * I will be BULLSHIT if the perpetrators don't end up spending many, many years in Levenworth. Yeah, abuse and torture are horrible, but isn't killing even worse?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    11. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      Jordan Ceased to Exist?

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    12. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by startxxx · · Score: 0

      One side goes once in 60 years Vs. the other that goes twice a week since I was born. Please...

    13. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by b-baggins · · Score: 0, Troll

      And only a moron would think that Arafat couldn't shut the terrorist attacks down within a month if he was serious about it.

      Of course, then those filthy Jews would still be in Israel.

      Make no mistake about it. When you hear someone criticize Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, you are listening to a jew-hater.

      Arafat runs the Palestinians, so anyone who excuses him and targets Israel as the problem does so because they hate Israel, and the only reason to hate Israel is because it's full of Jews. No other reason. But the anti-semite can spew his vitriol by cloaking it in a drapery of human rights and opposition to Israel.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    14. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Blastercorps · · Score: 1

      There is a HUGE difference between demolishing inanimate houses, and killing civilian men women and children.

    15. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem. Neighboring countries refuse to integrte the displaced for two reasons:

      1. to precipitate a crisis
      2. no one likes palistinians

    16. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      startxxx, I've been watching the insanity in your country unfold on tv since I was a kid.

      It really has escalated the last years, hasn't it? I think it was about the same time that Sharon came into power. It's quite difficult to understand why everything is as it is, nobody seems to be considered neutral once he states an opinion. So here are my prejudices, fell free to bash them.

      1) Israeli have tanks, helicopters and missiles, Palestinians have suicide bombers, machine guns and some home-made stuff. Both sides use them to the best of their abilities.
      2) There is a pattern of ... -> Israeli retaliation -> Palestinian retaliation -> Israeli retaliation -> Palestinian retaliation -> ...
      3) Israel doesn't call it's retaliations as such (keep talking about self-defence)
      4) Hamas does.
      5) Both sides have their religious freaks.
      6) Israeli live in settlements.
      7) Palestinians live in refugee camps.
      8) Israeli are fed up with Palestinians.
      9) Palestinians are fed up with Israeli.
      10) Israeli are rich, Palestinians are poor.

      In my opinion, Israel should stop retaliating each and every attack from the Palestinians. If they don't there is not a single peace proces that has a chance. Every fool with a gun or a bomb will be able to stop negotiations. Quite obvious, I'd say, and Sharon must know that too. So maybe it is a deliberate move frome Sharon to keep the violence up. That way the settlements will not have to be given back soon, and later at negotiations they can use the "people have been living there all their lives"-argument to to make it permanent Israeli territory??

      Just my thoughts..

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    17. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by SQL_SAM · · Score: 1

      first of all the Palestinians are no way in hell Isreal's 'brothers'. America doesnt have a comparison to that situation - the closest thing would probably be having all the Mexican illegal aliens taking over California and saying "this is ours now". The only thing that is fair in that whole situation is that Isreal shows a lot of restraint when dealing with the palestinians and hasnt kicked the living sh*t out of the PLO with all the 'terrorist' suicide bombings. But in reading your post I just figure you hat Jews - thanks for the compasion.....

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that know Binary and those who don't.
    18. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by SQL_SAM · · Score: 1

      I'm going to forgive you since you seem to be high on drugs... but basically what your saying is that because Isreal is rich (it is there country - by the way). That they should let the palestenians (whom it is not their country by the way) Let them do suicide bombings because they are poor? I love your quoute of: "Israel should stop retaliating each and every attack from the Palestinians". your right Isreal should stop retaliating and just wipe them out once and for all - problem solved. How about them apples?

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that know Binary and those who don't.
    19. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the Israelis seem to be pretty good at both.

      So are the Palestinians.

      I say we put a wall around the lot of them, take away every weapon more dangerous than a pointy stick, and let them kill each other.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BerntB · · Score: 1
      (Yes, yes -- I know this is offtopic. I just want to see if there is any good answer to this, which I've tried to get for years.)
      Land losses are one thing, but where can you go if your country basically ceases to exist?
      As the other commenter said, there were political and language continuity -- and as I wrote "It was not an existing country before and would, without the present state, have been part of another country. It should have been much less of a problem than many other areas.". The lost parts of e.g. Finland or the brutally kicked out German-speaking people had hardly more connection back to their respective countries.

      In short -- you didn't answer my point. If you had an answer, you'd written it.

      My example of Sudan was just one of a multitude. The point is that there are very, very different standards used for judging Palesina/Israel. You didn't answer that point either.

      It seems to me you're really simplifying a complex matter.
      Of course I do. It's a posting on Slashdot, not a 20-volume encyclopedia about the history of the Middle East.
      You used extreme terms like "be a moron not to see", 'illegal', 'cruel', etc, etc. And can't answer simple questions?! (And seem to agree on that there are lots, lots examples that are much, much worse???)

      If you had answered those, I would have added my other questions -- but I think you're a troll.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    21. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      but basically what your saying is that because Isreal is rich (it is there country - by the way). That they should let the palestenians (whom it is not their country by the way)

      I have never said such gibberish. I only say that a large difference between rich and poor adds tension to the area. Don't take it too serious. And btw, the occupied territories do not belong to Israel, they are just occupied by Israel. Let me add some more prejudices:

      11) Israel has a centrally controlled army.
      12) Palestine has a lot of splintered militia.

      Does it make more sense now that Israel should be the one to control their forces? Only because it's quasi impossible to control all those splinter cells; there will allways be one blowing up the peace proces.

      your right Isreal should stop retaliating and just wipe them out once and for all - problem solved.

      Yep, that's a possible endlösung. How would you prefer to do it? Gas chambers? Seriously, what you said is worrying/insane.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    22. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by SQL_SAM · · Score: 1
      I know you never said such gibberish, but it needed to be pointed out that they are their own independent nation/country/state whatever. But according to Arafat (leader of the PLO terrorist group) he recognizes them as being independent and their own state.

      "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

      http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

      Basically there are rich and poor areas all over the world and they don't kill each other over it like they happen to do in Israel. It's not a money thing at all - it's all about Jewish hatred plain and simple, and if you think it is anything else you are totally off the mark. If you want to argue this point name one other Muslim Middle Eastern country that accepts Israel as a Jewish state (and there are a lot of 'rich' Muslim's in the Middle East - who by the way supply Palestine with money and arms).

      11) Israel has a centrally controlled army.

      And there is a problem here because?... The only reason you'd have a problem with that is that they can defend themselves and organize better then the radical Muslims (aka PLO) - so way to go Israel!!

      12) Palestine has a lot of splintered militia.

      Because radical muslims don't get along with other radiacl muslims.... To bad they're to power hungry I guess.....

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that know Binary and those who don't.
    23. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 1

      In short -- you didn't answer my point.

      So, what is your point? Are we still talking about Palestine? What I want to say is if a country basically just gets smaller, people know at least, where to go when they have to leave their home.

      The point is that there are very, very different standards used for judging Palesina/Israel.

      Well, maybe it's because nobody listens to the people in Sudan.

      If you had answered those, I would have added my other questions
      Go on, ask. I don't know any solutions, but I can tell you what I think. Just an irrelevant opninion.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    24. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 1

      One side goes once in 60 years Vs. the other that goes twice a week since I was born. Please...

      Because they won... What's the point of being a terrorist if they make you Prime Minister?

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    25. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BerntB · · Score: 1
      So, what is your point?
      Are you a troll or are you pretending to not understand because you lack answers?

      No, never mind -- I don't care. Good bye.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    26. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by koi88 · · Score: 1

      I do not understand your question.
      However, if you decide not to talk about it...
      Good bye. Have a nice weekend.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    27. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BerntB · · Score: 1
      The first point was that I made a parallell between Israel/Palestina and all the other land losses in WW I&II.

      It is the only loss of land area that is still a problem -- and other were much worse. See first post.

      You answered that "Land losses are one thing, but where can you go if your country basically ceases to exist?", which is obviously not relevant when it never was a country and would have become a part of another country (Syria, or something.)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    28. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by startxxx · · Score: 0

      I don't blame you for not understanding the reason behind each terror act and defense act. You are fed with partial information and it shouldn't be of your top interest to find out. So just for the little balance: >It really has escalated the last years, hasn't it? It has escalated few months before sharon was voted pm. Barak was in charge and he tried getting to an agreement with the palestinians. They didn't like being pushed to a peace agreement so they have escalated the terror to a suicide bomber per day for 2 months. At this time Israel did almost not respond in order not to ignite the area. 2 month I was sitting at home bcs i didn't want to take the chance to become splitted to pieces just for a drink outside. Sharon's first action was to get into Jenin and clean some terrorists infrastructure. Indeed, 1 month after we could feel safe again. >Both sides use them to the best of their abilities Wrong wrong wrong. Israel has the ability to wipe them with a button push. If you look at the current happenings you'll read about 12 israeli dead soldiers in gaza. They were in a deep operation to destroy bomb factories. Israel could send an airplance to take the factory out, but it would risk palestinian lives so we sent soldiers by foot. a mistake that i hope won't be repeated. Palestinian in their attacks mostly target civilians. wondeful way for self defense, shooting children. Have a look how an israli funeral looks and sounds like, then look at a palestinian funeral. One side is speaking about sorrow and pain, the other brings guns and shouts death to jews. i don't know... i can't balance ur view in one post, if you really feel it's important to understand what's going opn here u should read somewhere else, cnn's a joke. bbc too. try debka.com or haaretz.com for more accurate news.

    29. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      I don't blame you for not understanding the reason behind each terror act and defense act. You are fed with partial information and it shouldn't be of your top interest to find out.

      Thanks for the reply, I realize that I'm probably influenced by the local media, so I used the word 'prejudices'. That's why I tried to get your point of view, talking to someone who lives there can really put things into another perspective.

      The violence does concern me, it makes me sick to see all the violence, all the loss of life and body parts in a land considered holy. By now, there must be a whole generation of young people who have known nothing else than fights and bombings in their lives.

      All this while peace could be a goldmine to both people. I really believe that tourism would become the no1 industry (or at least very big) in both countries, considering the history.

      But except mailing around a bit, I really don't think I can do much to try and stop the insanity :(.

      I hope you can one day leave your fears behind, and live a normal life.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    30. Re:The suicide bombers from 9/11 by BerntB · · Score: 1
      I do not understand your question. [...]
      Good bye. Have a nice weekend.
      I wrote it again.

      No posts at all on Wednesday, neither to me or the others wondering...

      It seems we won't get answers.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  61. War Crimes by torpor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The whole thing stinks of war crimes to me.

    The U.S. is guilty of more war crimes than any other state.

    Period.

    The U.S. refuses to live up to its ratification of the ICC, because half of the existing Administration would go straight to Jail, would not collect $200, and would not pass Go...

    Dick Cheney == biggest war criminal of the 21st Century.

    Highway of Death incident, anyone? (It was his order...)

    Most Americans do not have the courage to confront the fact that their country is being run by known and wanted criminals.

    Alas, the conversion of American to Consumerican has been completed successfully, and the elite get their way no matter what...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:War Crimes by GypC · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The truth can hurt, but lies are really irritating.

      Facts? I don't see any facts to disprove. I see some statements that, in my opinion, cannot be proven because they are false. Give me some hard data and I'll either refute it with more hard data or concede the point.

    2. Re:War Crimes by torpor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      1. What if the people you kill aren't actually fascists, but you label them that way just so that you can get away with it?

      2. Your government is criminal and repressive. By default then, so are you.

      3. Your post is now bookmarked as a prime example of yet another robo-Consumerican spouting vitriol and hatred ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:War Crimes by operagost · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's quite enough from you, froggie. Now, would you please send al Queda one of your efficient French guillotines so that they don't have to hack the heads off of Jews with a dull sword anymore?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:War Crimes by netwiz · · Score: 1

      oh the hell w/ all of it. let's just reduce the entire planet to a warm plasma and be done with it. that way, NO WHINING.

    5. Re:War Crimes by GypC · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We're good at lots of things (Americans that is). Inventing things like integrated circuits, space shuttles, telephones, and light bulbs. We lead the world in medical and pharmaceutical technology. As far as new things and cutting edge research we're number one. Many (but not even half) of the researchers and engineers come from other countries. That's because we appreciate hard work and our government lets us keep most of our money instead of playing Robin Hood.

      We're also good at smashing our enemies into the ground, I admit. You seem to think this is a bad thing. What, exactly, did Saddam Hussein and the Taliban ever do that was worth defending them despite the brutality of their regimes?

    6. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greenhouse effect is bullshit. In spite of the sun getting brighter, the earth had been undergoing a slow cooling trend. To be expected. Or were you talking about the increadibly modest increase at what seems to be the tail end of an unusually long interglacial period? That's right human activity might be staving off the the next iceage.

      FYI the guy who founded Greenpeace left in disgust after the politico nut jobs took it over and gave reason the finger.

      And what's really scary, where you come from you're probably considered knowledgeable.

      As to my nation's history: Sure we do a lot of shooting first and asking questions after the fact. A couple of observations. That's why we're still here. That's why we're number one. And a little known fact is all dead people are staunch pacifists. Feel free to whisper quietly in the cheap seats. There's a reason your nation is riding the pine as opposed to on the field calling the big plays. Besides, I could bring up YOUR nation's history. And no matter which nation it is, its far less nobel than the US of A.

    7. Re:War Crimes by vandan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why don't I volunteer for a suicide squad?
      Because I have things to live for.
      You clearly still don't understand what makes a terrorist. It's simple. So simple, even a fucking Yankee could understand it. You kill someone's family, take away their home, destroy their community and make sure to take anything else they might possibly be able to call their own. After that, they're a terrorist.
      But I'm sure there are Americans who share my horror at what the majority support ( calling them sheep is insulting to sheep ), and a small percentage of them will be terminally ill. They are your problem. They have very little to loose, and if you keep up your attitude and foreign policy, Bin Laden will be the least of your worries; you'll have plently of home-grown terrorists to defend yourself from.
      And while I won't go quite so far as to say "bring them on", I will point out that karma always catches up with you. It's only a matter of time.

    8. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be a European socialist (add any term you prefer to use like "commie"), but atleast I don't go around annoying people for the fun of it, you are the perfect example of the troll aka assdweller. And come on people you do know that the socialists get research from univsersities that will support them, while capitalist pay companies and set up commities, so the results are NOT comparable and will always show both as being just as much the right thing

    9. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Unfortunately, it seems that the world wants to defend them because the US decided to attack them.



      "What, exactly, did Saddam Hussein and the Taliban ever do that was worth defending them despite the brutality of their regimes? "



      Literally, it seems that what they did was become enemies of the United States. To the world, that's good enough. Personally, I'm sick of it.

    10. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right! The Saudi royal family needs to stop raping their people. Taking away everything they have. Exporting their civil war...

    11. Re:War Crimes by Darby · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. We don't support fascists, we kill them

      Burying your ignorant head in the sand isn't helping anything.

      Our Energy policy was written by the energy industry with no ability for the American public to even know who was there to set our policy.

      That *is* fascism. The merger of state and corporate power.

      I happen to support my government.

      Good for you. I sincerely hope that you realise that that has nothing to do with Patriotism. In some cases it is, in fact, the opposite.

    12. Re:War Crimes by torpor · · Score: 1

      by americans, i have been called a 'fascist', a 'commie', a 'pinko', a 'terrorist', a 'leftie pig', an 'ignorant green', and now .. finally ...

      a froggie.

      cool.

      what is it about americans and their hastiness to label things in derogatory ways? it seems to give them something they need in order to fight ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    13. Re:War Crimes by torpor · · Score: 1

      "Smashing Enemies", eh?

      The story of Saddam Hussein involves more than one or two Americans. Taliban too, and you may as well include "al Q'Aeda" (or, "the base") in that story as well.

      America is good at making enemies. Ha!

      Another thing Americans are good at is propaganda, and irresponsibility...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    14. Re:War Crimes by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      We're also good at smashing our enemies into the ground, I admit.

      From a Desert People Revenge standpoint, we're not nearly good enough at it. There are only two strategies that can win a war against terrorists- genocide and surrender. What we did in Afghanistan and Iraq was neither- and you can mark my words on this, within the next 20 years there will be another Islamic Fundamentalist attack on America in revenge.

      All we've really done is create a generation of new terrorist recruits- the orphans of this war- who will grow up without parents, without hope, and hating America for the situation that they are in. By attacking at all, we've created this problem. By leaving some people alive and some people dead instead of nuking the whole area, forgetting about taking oil out of the desert for the next 1600 years, we've guaranteed that we will continue to have problems.

      Far better would have been to surrender immediately and pull our troops out of the middle east; THEN threaten nuclear war if the terrorist attacks continued. Oh yeah- and it would probably be a good idea to close our borders while we're at it, seeing as how all 19 of the 9-11 hijackers were here illegally.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    15. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen to yourself. You're a total idiot.

    16. Re:War Crimes by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Americans have the monopoly on denigrating other people. Nobody else on the planet ever exhibits anything like xenophobia.

      People all over the world are the same. Get used to the idea. You will encounter it again.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    17. Re:War Crimes by torpor · · Score: 1

      People all over the world are the same. Get used to the idea. You will encounter it again.

      I find it ignorant of you to presume that I wouldn't already know that, and that in fact it may be the reason for my point of view...

      But then, I too am as ignorant as any other, and I suppose ... because everyone else is ... I should just stop having my own little, un-unique point of view ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    18. Re:War Crimes by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I know nothing of you other than what you posted. I presume nothing: I rebutted your comment.

      You are also "presuming"; in point of fact I have a great deal of faith in people in general. I believe that, by and large, people have the ability to be wise and good. Unfortunately, all too often, we take the easy route and reason by preconception.

      So I take issue with those sorts of preconceptions whenever I encounter them.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    19. Re:War Crimes by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      What I posted is based on 2000 years of military history- but of course, the Bushites will never understand that because none of them can READ.

      Read what I posted again- it really is an either-or situation. Either kill EVERYBODY who hates America AND all of their friends and relatives who will hate America for killing them- or surrender completely and become an isolationist nation. Without doing either of these- and there's no reason why we can't do both- all we succeed in doing is guaranteeing that we will have more trouble with Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists. At least I'm not posting as Anonymous Coward- too stupid to back up what I say.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    20. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Bush is doing in Iraq will save this nation! You're an idiot and a traitor to suggest anything different!

    21. Re:War Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we did in Afghanistan and Iraq was neither- and you can mark my words on this, within the next 20 years there will be another Islamic Fundamentalist attack on America in revenge.

      Yepp....nuclear. If you can pronounce it. A lot of old soviet equipment floating around and these people are neither poor nor stupid.

    22. Re:War Crimes by operagost · · Score: 1
      People all over the world are the same. Get used to the idea. You will encounter it again.
      After being told by the left all day that I have to bend over backwards to "respect the culture of other peoples," now they're telling me that everyone is the same!

      Who let John Kerry in here?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    23. Re:War Crimes by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your point.

      Sure, cultures are different. I think other cultures are very interesting. I also know (from speaking to people who are from other cultures) that the differences between myself and them are much smaller than the same-nesses.

      What does left or right or John Kerry have to do with this discussion?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  62. Don't they ever learn? by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just watch Iraq. The US have an overwhelming military advantage there. Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank. The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc... Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.

    Those futuristic weapons are designed to fight 20th century's wars, not today's or tomorrow's wars. What's the use of a gun that fires a million rounds per minute when you're trying to control a riot? How can space darts help you identify the terrorist hiding in the crowd?

    Overwhelming weapon superiority does not work in Iraq; I don't think further increasing this superiority will work better.

    --

    It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    1. Re:Don't they ever learn? by B.Smitty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, while we may have an overwhelming firepower advantage in Iraq, we hardly have overwhelming numbers.

      A general rule-of-thumb for occupations is 1 soldier per 40 inhabitants. Having less means you don't have enough troops to adequately control activities on the ground.

      We have something like 1 soldier for every 160 Iraqis there today.

      A Proven Formula for How Many Troops We Need

      So it should be obvious why we're having these problems today.

    2. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Noryungi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank.

      Hellooooooooooooooooooooo?

      Obviously, you have never seen this little page... Just scroll down through pictures. Don't ever underestimate the power of single RPG round fired at close range.

      A lot of people seem to consider the British "Challenger" a much better tank than the Abrams, btw.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    3. Re:Don't they ever learn? by ms1234 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I think in the future wars will go something like this:

      1) Let invaders come
      2) Wait some time for things to cool down
      3) Start guerilla warfare
      4) ..
      5) Victory (no, not profit)

    4. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank."

      Perhaps you are a victim of your government propaganda. U.S. actually lost dozens of M1 in Iraq. No need for depleted uranium to kill Abrams, a recent RPG with melted copper core is sufficient.

      "The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc..."

      In Falujah setback, hundreds of US soldiers were even hungry for days because of total destruction of dozens of supply convoys from Baghdad. That was the reason for retreat and negotiation.

      The problem is leaders are often overconfident with weapon effectiveness, while field tactics is always more important in real life.

      Perhaps that stupid mind setup has culture roots in computer so-called "strategy" games, where resource economics and sheer power via upgraded tech wins the map.

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    5. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The space darts are bunker and tank killers, such as the old "Thor" program to drop crowbars from orbit. Saddam spent a lot of time near the end of his career in underground bunkers to prevent assassination: being able to destroy one, precisely and without having to send aircraft over the other country is appealing.

      It is also a fantastically dangerous weapon of political control of foreign heads of state and amazingly illegal under various US-signed treaties against space-based weapons. But hey, this is Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld! They don't need no stinkin' badges to go stop the terrorists!

    6. Re:Don't they ever learn? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      The use of the gun in a riot situation is in its interchangable ammo that can take less-lethal rounds. It also has customizable firing rates. You can turn it down a couple of notches and get a good stream to take out an entire crown in no time with few real injuries.

      It's a perfect riot suppression gun.

    7. Re:Don't they ever learn? by dave420 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The US soldiers don't have the best training, though. Not by a long shot, and that's what wins a war.

      Train the US military to protect a population, instead of blowing it up. Then it can take on these sorts of actions knowing they can actually do good. Instead, they wade into a country, and end up reaming the whole country. Great. Thanks.

    8. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gross weapon superiority can work against guerilla insurgents, more or less... but you may have to be willing to slaughter >100k innocent people. (see also: Chechnya)

    9. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A lot of people seem to consider the British "Challenger" a much better tank than the Abrams, btw."

      Obviously you know shit.
      Let's leave it at that.

    10. Re:Don't they ever learn? by meringuoid · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Train the US military to protect a population, instead of blowing it up.

      This is their big problem in Iraq. Americans just don't do peacekeeping.

      The usual pattern of things throughout the wars in Yugoslavia throughout the nineties was: Milosevic starts war. Atrocities commence. Americans start bombing, threaten to invade. Milosevic backs off. Yugoslavia gets a bit smaller. Europeans keep peace under UN flag. The result of this is that the Americans end up with an army that's absolutely brilliant at invading countries and crushing opposition, but doesn't know its arse from its elbow in keeping order afterwards.

      Of course, the Europeans didn't exactly cover themselves with glory in the Balkans. Srebrenica was an utterly appalling failure.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    11. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That military might is what took control of the country in a weekend. But when you ask your troops to stand around and wait for someone to shoot you, well, thats not exactly the best way to use your weapons. This isn't the way war will be fought in the new century, It's the way war will be fought by a millitary that can not face yours.

    12. Re:Don't they ever learn? by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

      "Don't ever underestimate the power of single RPG round fired at close range." Close range? I guess you could aim it a bit better, but given that it is a SHAPED CHARGE, the impact speed is almost irrelevant, as that does not do the damage. The damage is done by the "lens effect" focusing the force of the explosion. The "lens effect" is caused by the shaping of the explosive charge - thus, a SHAPED CHARGE. Also, an RPG is a ROCKET, so it needs time to get up to speed. If one hit 10 feet from the launcher, it would have very low speed. It needs most of a mile to burn its fuel and get up to speed (200-300MPH, which is nowhere near the much less effective kenetic projetiles that tankes fire.) I'll tell you what, go build a few shaped charges, then come back and tell me what can kill a tank. Andy Out!

    13. Re:Don't they ever learn? by autocracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Personally, I'm of the belief that being hit with anything disabling at the rate of one million rounds per minute will fast go from disabling to deadly.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    14. Re:Don't they ever learn? by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      The Challenger 2 certainly has more firepower, with a 55 caliber cannon instead of 44.
      That's 1350mm of extra barrel.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    15. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, wars are always about profit for a large number of people...if no one ever made money off of war, there wouldn't be any.

    16. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Bandwidth_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the most part, you're right, big iron is a thing of the past. Perhaps all those burning Abrams on the side of the road in Iraq hit with RPGs, er somehow disabled, are just flukes. Oh well, the most interesting government tech thrusts are in less-than-lethal techs.

      Try looking up recent research on calmatives (despite international treaty, they're hiding under the less-than-lethal mantra), and vortex based weapons (a round based modification for the MK19-3 automatic grenade launcher). Hell, I've even read entire thesis from the naval academy on the use of smells for controlling crowds. It is a very active field of military research, you just don't hear about it.

      ...but there's always a place for railguns. Being able to bombard a country from outside the range of anti-ship missles (without expensive cruise missles) is still needed.

    17. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Percieved US weaknesses in Iraq are nearly almost entirely due to weaknesses in the modern western culture, media and politics - they have little to do with actual events on the ground.

      The media were prepared to declare Afghanistan a setback after roughly one month, despite non-existant US casualties. Similarily, the Iraq campaign was declared a disaster after one week of fighting. (This has, naturally, been forgotten by now)

      The localized and light (by any historical standard) fighting of the last month has in a similar fashion led our beloved media to declare utter defeat - not by any historical standard for warfare, but rather according to the rather esoteric standard of perfectness developed by the media itself. These tendencies towards auto-defeat have rather naturally been noted by the more perceptive among the enemies of the US (Such as OBL), although they tend to miscategorize the phenomena as cowardice.

      A lot more could be said on the subject - still, if the US loses in Iraq, the defeat will be largely a self-inflicted wound.

      Regards, Döbeln

      -Stabil som fan!

    18. Re:Don't they ever learn? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      What's the use of a gun that fires a million rounds per minute when you're trying to control a riot?

      Area denial, instead of mines. Projectile interception, particularly mortars and RPGs.

      Overwhelming weapon superiority does not work in Iraq; I don't think further increasing this superiority will work better.

      Then you agree with Rumsfeld, who was instrumental in killing oldthink pork programs (Crusader, Comanche, etc). OTOH, research is absolutely necessary to reduce good-guy casualties, improve intelligence, and provide all those neat spinoffs we so enjoy (like the internet, high-speed digital computers, high-tech materials, etc.)

    19. Re:Don't they ever learn? by puke76 · · Score: 1

      Almost half of Iraq's population is under 18.

    20. Re:Don't they ever learn? by B.Smitty · · Score: 1

      So? 14-year old kids can wear suicide belts and fire RPGs & AK-47s too.

    21. Re:Don't they ever learn? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.

      The media, except for fox news (and they're still in the camp that no news is good news) is largely from the american left, and seem to now consider it their sworn duty to do whatever they can to defeat GWB in the upcoming election, instead of actually reporting the news over there.

      This means that anything that makes the US look like a failure and incites anger against the US gets widespread airtime, and anything that makes the US look good or reminds folks just how barbaric our enemies are gets little play, or regulated to the back page.

      The Belmont Club offers a more balanced view, with soldier's opinions.

      The media has a political agenda, and it colors everything they report, sometimes to an incredible degree. The same is true of Fox News, of course, but at least they wear that bias on their sleave for all to see, instead of pretending it isn't there.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    22. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A lot of people seem to consider the British "Challenger" a much better tank than the Abrams, btw."

      Who? The British?

    23. Re:Don't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... the $10000 qestion. How many americans inhabit the earth;)

    24. Re:Don't they ever learn? by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      Just watch Iraq. The US have an overwhelming military advantage there. Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank.

      Guess again. And remember that very few troops are driving around in M1s. Most are in Humvee death traps.

      The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc... Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.

      You are right about that. Some problems simply cannot be solved with more and better weapons.

      Those futuristic weapons are designed to fight 20th century's wars, not today's or tomorrow's wars. What's the use of a gun that fires a million rounds per minute when you're trying to control a riot? How can space darts help you identify the terrorist hiding in the crowd?

      I believe the US military (the military industrial complex) is still fighting (and losing) the Cold War. For all the talk of "transformation" and this "different kind of war" the paradigm remains the same: spend more money on high tech toys. Spend into bankruptcy just like the Soviet Union. The US did not win the Cold War, the Soviet Union just ran out of money first. So why keep spending on these ridiculous systems when more basic training and better armour protection for troops is what is really needed today?

      These are not my ideas (I'm not that smart). I probably read them first on G2mil. Check it out, it has lots more interesting and insightful articles.

      Remember, all the technology in the world cannot help you conquer a guy who is willing to die for a cause. The best you can do is try to minimize the damage he inflicts.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    25. Re:Don't they ever learn? by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      Before the war General Shinseki was asked by Congress how many troops would be needed. He said three to four hundred thousand. He pointed out that the high number was not for defeating the Iraqi army, but for controlling the country afterward. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly ridiculed him (the Chief of Staff of the Army!), calling the notion that more troops would be needed after the fall of the regime ridiculous.

      Rummy and Wolfie should be fired for that reason alone.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    26. Re:Don't they ever learn? by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      Saddam spent a lot of time near the end of his career in underground bunkers to prevent assassination: being able to destroy one, precisely and without having to send aircraft over the other country is appealing.

      Because getting rid of Saddam made everything in Iraq shiny and happy!

      The US military is already more capable than any other military on the face of the Earth at knocking over governments. Maybe they should spend their money to improve in areas they are not so good at?

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    27. Re:Don't they ever learn? by JonMartin · · Score: 1
      The US soldiers don't have the best training, though. Not by a long shot, and that's what wins a war.

      Absolutely. How bad has training become? This bad.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
  63. Nuclear Whipping Boy by Thwomp · · Score: 1

    General: [walks to a map of Springfield] Springfield has been classified "NWB," for "Nuclear Whipping Boy." In the first moments of a nuclear war, Springfield will be bombed at will by all friendly nations to calibrate their missiles.
    [audience cheers wildly]
    Now for total security, I will terminate the cameraman.
    [pulls a pistol, and shoots the cameraman]

    Cameraman: Argh! Thanks a lot, Steve! [falls out of camera range]

  64. Anyone understand the cavitating torpedo? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    Does anyone get this whole 'supercavitating torpedo' thing? Wouldn't a gas bubble cause just as much friction as the torpedo itself? And I thought cavitation created a vacuume? But then IANANSMD (I am not a nuclear sub missle designer)

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:Anyone understand the cavitating torpedo? by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1
      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    2. Re:Anyone understand the cavitating torpedo? by evenprime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      slashdot discussed it at length a few years ago. The principles are well known, and the soviet military has been using 200+ mph supercavitating torpedos since the 1970s. The best article on the subject that I know of is from the May 2001 Scientific American

      --

      "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
      I think that goes for OS's too
  65. Two Points by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) As long as terrorism is seen as being effective, it will be used. Terrorism breeds fear: fear makes change.

    2) The current mess was allowed to fester for well over a decade before proactive action was taken. An entire generation was brainwashed to hate America as the enemy. Until they are old enough to recognize the truth and have the societal roots to care about living more than dying, the murder will continue. Population demographics in Africa and southwest Asia aren't on our side.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Two Points by pubjames · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      An entire generation was brainwashed to hate America as the enemy.

      Are you being ironic?

    2. Re:Two Points by meadowsp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So which "truth" is it that they need to recognize?

    3. Re:Two Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you being ironic?

      Are you being deliberately obtuse?

      Please consider the belief that by committing suicide in the process of killing thousands of "infidels" you would wind up in paradise in the company of 72 virgins. Do you really think such a belief is the result of anything other than brainwashing?

      Because I do hope you've noted that is isn't the Osama bin Ladins or Yasser Arafats doing the "going to paradise" martyr bit....

    4. Re:Two Points by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, how are we not the enemy? We go into countries (Ira[nq] included) and we meddle with their politics, disrupt their economy, we create a situation which we should have foreseen and which is our own damn fault, and then we invade to "rectify" the situation, then we leave military bases behind and frequently set up our own puppet dictator in the name of democracy.

      People will stop believing that the USA is the enemy when we stop giving them a reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Two Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should feel blessed that you have grown up with so many priveleges and so little tyranny and strife in your life that you could actually confuse what the we do with the "enemy".

    6. Re:Two Points by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah, right. So people hate the USA because they're "just jealous", or whatever.

  66. why is this insightful? by holy_smoke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    really. Its more of a flamebait in its current form.

    - America absolutely does NOT use brute force to solve everything.
    - The purpose of better weapons is to shorten conflicts and save casualties.
    - We don't invade every country that looks at us funny. North Korea is a good modern day example.
    - Many countries do hate Americans, but some of that hate is rooted more in jealously than disgust. By they way, every country is hated by somebody. We have a lot of friends too.

    I can't believe someone moded this insightful because its absolutely not.

    --
    Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
    1. Re:why is this insightful? by Larsing · · Score: 1

      "We don't invade every country that looks at us funny. North Korea is a good modern day example."

      Yes, of the opposit!
      The only reason you haven't yet invaded North Korea is because they have nukes. Instead you invaded Iraq, which you knew, beyond all reasonable doubt, had no WMD...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    2. Re:why is this insightful? by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 1

      The purpose of better weapons is to shorten conflicts and save casualties.

      Listen to yourself, Cletus. Save casualties, by killing more of the other guys faster... where the hell did you learn to reason like that?

      As other posters have said, the US military has an overwhelming superiority in Iraq in terms of cool shiny toys, but they've still completely lost control because they're trying to respond to guerilla warfare, which by design does not provide nice easy targets to aim at, with massed, untargeted firepower. Just like Vietnam all over again, in fact. Sure you have lots of things that go 'BOOOM'. Great. Go have a wargasm. They just aren't the solution.

      If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

    3. Re:why is this insightful? by JayAdams · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Instead you invaded Iraq, which you knew, beyond all reasonable doubt, had no WMD...

      Beyond all reasonable doubt? Hardly...just because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist! How hard would it be to take weapons into that God-forsaken wasteland of desert and bury them? One sandstorm later and all trace is gone.

      Now you don't have to hide the weapons. You only have to hide a set of GPS coordinates!

      Of course the questions beg to be asked:
      1) How could this happen under the nose of satellite surveillance?
      2) Can you remove all traces of nuclear & biological weapons so that we couldn't detect them? I don't know the answer, but I would say there is reasonable doubt (at least in my mind).

    4. Re:why is this insightful? by gglaze · · Score: 1

      Save casualties, by killing more of the other guys faster...

      Exactly.

      If you have a bunch of guys in ski masks running through the crowded streets with uzi's, trying to reach the crowded mosque where the religious people are trying to chant their hyms to Allah, the more of them you can take down before they cover more ground and get to the more populated areas and then get to the sacred religious sites, and the faster you can take them down, the better!

      I can't believe you can debate against the idea that modern weapon technology can be developed (and is being developed) to reduce casualties - let's be more specific here perhaps - civilian or "innocent" casualties. Accuracy and speed of weapons are all about minimizing this type of collateral damage. Deny it all you want, but then go have a look at the statistics on the last Iraq war, and follow that backwards to previous wars, and you would obviously find an exponentially decreasing percentage of civilian casualties, even as the modern enemy takes even harsher "human shield" tactics to endanger civilians.

      but they've still completely lost control because they're trying to respond to guerilla warfare, which by design does not provide nice easy targets to aim at, with massed, untargeted firepower.

      I think you've just made the point yourself - if this doesn't make the case for more accuracy and speed and power in weaponry, I don't know what does. If you don't understand the "power" part of this, replace my scenario above with a hijacked armored vehicle or tank or crowded building or whatever other enclosed/shielded area, where the faster the enemy is eliminated, the less likely you are to have more civilian casulaties during the time that the enemy is finding ways to keep themselves surrounded by civilians.

      If you really think modern warfare technology is about "shiny toys" and "things that go boom", well... you obviously are refusing to do any actual research or rational thinking.

    5. Re:why is this insightful? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that in what must be one of the most closely scrutinised countries in the world Saddam dug an absolutely gigantic hole in the middle of the desert.

      He then arranged for the transportation of the millions of tonnes of WMD and there support systems, manufacturing plants, command and control systems to be transported one dark night to be dumped into this big hole and that of the ( surely no more than ) three people who did all fetching, carrying and digging are not now claiming an undoubted reward to reveal the location of this hole.

      All this of course being done in the face of an imminent or maybe even actual attack by the US and her allies. Strangely despite the fact that Saddam was an evil dictator in the same league as Hitler he decided that even though he would soon be welcoming the Americans into Baghdad and even though he has these huge stocks of WMD he would not use a single one of them to stop the American forces.

    6. Re:why is this insightful? by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 1

      How exactly would a hypervelocity railgun help minimise collateral damage?

      How would a Metal Storm help pinpoint targetting of hostiles?

      The fact that you believe that the solution lies in 'better' weapons would seem to prove the point that the 'shiny toy' mentality is still prevalent.

      We'll have to agree to disagree, since I have neither the time nor the inclination remove the scales from your eyes.

    7. Re:why is this insightful? by holy_smoke · · Score: 1

      ok let me explain.

      First, conflict is inevitable with evil people in the world. That can't be argued.

      Imagine, if in Iraq or Afganistan for example, we did not have laser guided bombs or fancy radar or unmanned drones? Can you imagine the increased civilian and American casualties?

      The concept is that if you can quickly and accurately eliminate the enemy you can shorten the conflict and (yes) save (overall) casualties. My statement is, therefore, accurate.

      Your are correct in that guerilla warfare is a different animal, and using hospitals, churches, schools, and neighborhoods as attack points is harder to deal with. But that is an entirely different issue. That's where night scopes and fancy sniper rifles come in - again developed with military R&D money.

      War is wrong from the standpoint of humanity, but it is a reality. We must be prepared to face it. I do not however believe is war as a default tool, and therefore I have problems with Bush's Iraq mess.

      --
      Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
    8. Re:why is this insightful? by gglaze · · Score: 1

      In my previous post, I've just given you concrete examples for both of these, based on real world situations that are occuring this very moment in Iraq. To answer your specific questions:

      Hypervelocity railgun - more accuracy, efficiency, and less cost and effort involved in eliminating a fortified enemy target, for example a section of a mosque, surrounded by crowded civilian areas. If this sort of target could be eliminated without even having to enter the hostile territory, with great speed and accuracy, and without much effort or cost, then that seems to me like an improved way to eliminate this type of target while minimizing the risk of casualties to enter the area, or potentially miss the target with a less accurate weapon.

      Metal Storm - as described previously, in a scenario where you have guerrilla soldiers moving from one position to another, with crowded civilian areas within the hostile territory, and your greatest chance to avoid civilian casualty is to catch them at a point before they reach the next crowded destination, but there are many indivual targets, then it seems reasonable that the highest probability to avoid civilian casualties is to have a weapon that is highly accurate and extremely fast (to take down as many indivual targets as possible). Without this type of weapon, it seems to me (IANAMA - i am not a miliatary analyst) - that the only options are (1) allow the enemy to fortify themselves in an even more crowded position and risk more casualties later; (2) use a less accurate, slower weapon to take down less of the enemy and increase risk of mis-targeted casualties; or (3) throw a big grenade in or drop a bomb, and get them all at once, and take the maximum civian casualties for an isolated area, rather than allowing multiple areas to be infiltrated.

      Speed and accuracy make a lot of sense to me. I don't get it - so you would prefer slower, less accurate weapons?

    9. Re:why is this insightful? by holy_smoke · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If North Korea harbored or bred terrorists then yes, you would be correct and we absolutely would have attacked them ultimately.

      Barring that, the nuclear issue is extremely scary. Not because they have them, but because of who may be able to purchase the technology from them.

      Regardless, one can see in reading about the issue that we (the US) want China, South Korea, etc to confront the situation diplomatically (as apposed to militarily).

      And you are incorrect about your last statement. Our best intelligence indicated that Iraq still had WMDs in their possession and plans to develop more. This coupled with the terrorist environment and the threat of something bigger than 9/11 prompted us to take pre-emptive action. Discovering the lack of WMDs once we got in there does not mean we intentionally lied or that we are bullies and thugs - it means we were wrong, which is a different issue.

      Now that we made the Iraq mess, we need to see it through - to make it right. Its our responsiblity. A bully would just leave - we won't.

      --
      Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
    10. Re:why is this insightful? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      North Korea has in the past (though not much recently) used mini-subs to infiltrate commandos into civilian populations... which then killed civilians and tried to disrupt industry civic services. Definately state terrorism.

      They have not been particularly preemptive recently, so they haven't been on the "destroy soon" list. (That and the nukes they may or may not have.)

    11. Re:why is this insightful? by wolssiloa · · Score: 1

      the US could have went into North Korea anytime after 1953, when we were pretty sure they didn't have their own nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union wasn't going to use their own, but the US didn't "invade". It's because the population is too densly packed there, and too dangerous for our troops. BTW our knowledge pointed to Iraq having WMD at the time. But again like another poster said, that is another issue. Wikipedia states: "U.S. troops suffered about 44,000 fatalities, slightly less than to the Vietnam War, but in a much shorter time."

    12. Re:why is this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he thought it prudent to transfer his weapons outside Iraq(Bekaa Valley anyone? Syria being one of the usual suspects) since inspections and/or impending military action may reveal what he had. But they denied they even HAD any weapons of mass destruction. To deny it all along to the world, then attack the US with WMD's isn't, well, the smart way to go. It would prove the US right and they'd lose face for doing so, for what little credibility they had.

    13. Re:why is this insightful? by Ded+Mike · · Score: 1

      North Korea is a good modern day example.

      No, the reason we don't invade North Korea is the same reason we didn't pursue OBL over the Pakistani border: North Korea MAY have nuclear weapons and they are WAY more prepared than Iraq EVER was (4 million artillery tubes within a 55-second impact-zone of Seoul and 35,000 young American soldiers)...not only that, but those scary NK bastards already beat us!!!

      THAT is why we don't invade North Korea!!!!

      Many countries do hate Americans, but some of that hate is rooted more in jealously than disgust

      No, I think disgust FAR outweighs jealousy for most countries these days...that and the fear of a neo-Nazi Fascist administration who does not hesitate to violate EVERY International law on the books and then try to hold itself up as a "moral example."

      By the way, what RIGHT do we have to determine the definition of "democracy" for a nation of people who don't even speak English?

      --
      Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
    14. Re:why is this insightful? by Ded+Mike · · Score: 1

      Except that Iraq is not Europe.

      The "civilians" are logistically resupplying the "enemy." Iraq is an intifadah, now, as it was always destined to be, ever since we invaded for Sharon and Israel...think of it as the "Far-West West Bank" of The Occupied Territories. Iraq had NO strtegic importance to the US and TREMENDOUS strategic importance to Israel.

      We are caught in the same untenable situation in Iraq as the Israelis are in The Occupied Territories.

      Oh, and mounting a "hypervelocity rail-gun" on a HMMWV or LAV (or even an Abrams tank) would be physically improbable even in the next 10 years, not to mention being a complete violation of Herr Reichsfuerher Rumsfeld's "smaller is better" military philosophy. The MetalStorm thing seems to be moving along smartly...maybe this summer, at the Athens Olympics, instead of the Star-spangled Banner, they'll play "Vader's March" instead when US athletes win medals.

      --
      Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
    15. Re:why is this insightful? by Ded+Mike · · Score: 1

      Our best intelligence indicated that Iraq still had WMDs in their possession and plans to develop more. This coupled with the terrorist environment and the threat of something bigger than 9/11 prompted us to take pre-emptive action. Discovering the lack of WMDs once we got in there does not mean we intentionally lied or that we are bullies and thugs - it means we were wrong, which is a different issue.

      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!! Wrong again, Jethro!!!!!

      Our BEST intelligence told us that there had been no WMD in Iraq since at least 1994. We sacrificed one of the most effective intelligence tools this country has ever had on the altar of politics. Don't get me wrong, though: The Iraqis had the desire, but not the infrastructure to produce, kind of like the Soviet Union during Reagan.

      But we flat out KNEW there was WMD in Israel, as there still is...chem, bio and nuke.

      --
      Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
    16. Re:why is this insightful? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Using WMD may not have been smart but it would hardly put Saddam in any worse position than he is in now, if he had them he'd have been better off using them when he had the chance.

  67. Hearts and minds by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To win the Iraqi's hearts and minds would have been alot easyer, if the US had taken the time to do things like fix gas mains, ensure access to water and electricity 100% of the time and if they had bothered to repair the telephone system. Had things like this been done right away even the impact of this abuse chrisis would not be half as bad as it is. One somehow gets the feeling that the Bush administration argued:

    1. Invade Iraq.
    2. Arrest Saddam.
    3. Everybody cheers.
    4. Sheperd the Iraquis to the oil pumps.
    5. Oil profit.
    6. Oil profit pays for buildup.

    Unfortunately it has taken alot longer to get the Oil flowing than they thought and the rebuilding of Iraq has been half hearted which has resulted in alot of angry Iraquis. And in a way it is hard to blame them, I would certainy be pissed off if electicity and gas were rationed, I had to wait in line for 4 hours in the burning sun to fill a jerrycan with water and could expect to be harrassed by US troops on police duty that have had ZERO police training (not their fault but their leaders). You expect that during the initial period after an invasion but not after over a year of occupation. It is amazing that the USA which did a very good job at stabilizing Germany after WWII did such a lousy job at taking those lessons into account when trying to stabilize Iraq.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Hearts and minds by cyclocommuter · · Score: 1
      It is amazing that the USA which did a very good job at stabilizing Germany after WWII did such a lousy job at taking those lessons into account when trying to stabilize Iraq.

      Could be a leadership problem... GWB is no FDR, Blair is no Churchill.

    2. Re:Hearts and minds by winwar · · Score: 1

      Easier? How exactly?

      Everything I have read about Iraq's infrastructure states that it is a complete mess (think FUBAR). It worked poorly before the invasion (the difference?-people who criticized Hussein ended up dead...). That cannot be fixed quickly. Your point about about getting the oil flowing flowing taking more time than expected makes this point quite well. If the equipment that brings in money doesn't work well....

      Rebuilding is not a quick process. Never is. Going to take more than a year (especially since conflict is NOT over). We went from being a bogeyman under a dictator (it's the fault of the US) to being the one to blame (the US is here, everything is still broken, everything is their fault). It wasn't helped when the Iraqi's stole everything that wasn't bolted down after/during the invasion. It doesn't help when the utilities are sabotoged. And it sure isn't helped when the contractors get shot at/killed/tortured.

      Ultimately, we have to give the Iraqi's at least partial control of their country. With control comes responsibility. There is a reason we aren't delaying the transfer of power. Once that happens, it won't be just "our" fault any longer. Then they may realize the enormity of the problem and that it won't and can't be fixed overnight.

      Finally, about your Germany comment. Remember, Germany surrendered completely. There was little or no resistence after the war. The rebuilding effort took many years. The population was fairly homogeneous, supportive of the occupation, industrious, unified against the Soviets (hated them), etc.
      So, exactly what lessons from reconstruction Germany apply to Iraq?

    3. Re:Hearts and minds by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Everything I have read about Iraq's infrastructure states that it is a complete mess (think FUBAR). It worked poorly before the invasion (the difference?-people who criticized Hussein ended up dead... ...So, exactly what lessons from reconstruction Germany apply to Iraq?

      So did people wo critisized Hitler. The lack of us resistance to the US occupation was to a large extent due to efficient US administration of Germany after the war. Civil servants were kept in office even if they had been party memebers as long as they were not war criminals. The problem of unemployment and civil discontent was solved by getting masses of Germans busy on reparing the infrastructure, rebuilding the police force from ex cops and soldiers ASAP after the allied victory helped enormously. It may not sound like much but it gave people hope. And perhaps most siginficant of all any acts by GI's of looting, maltreatment of civillians such as the practice of abducting women and raping them or beating people up in public was quickly stopped by formidable military commanders like Patton and Eisenhower. Moreover these things were not hushed up, justice was swift for any GI who did such things.

      Contrast this with the disbandment of the Iraqui civil service because most of them were Baath party members even though they had done nothing else wrong. Disbandment of the Iraqi army and Police the bulk of which had also don nothing wrong beyond being Baath party members. Widesperead faliure to rebuild infrastructure which did nothing to alleviate unemployment and perhaps worst of all faliure to train US troops for occupation duty. The US amry is a fine filed force but you can not expect combat troops to take to police duty just like that. If that was the case we would not need polce schools.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    4. Re:Hearts and minds by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      "GWB is no FDR"

      Just an FYI - FDR died before the Reconstruction started. It was Truman - the man who is loathed by many as the man who "dropped the bomb" on Japan - who was the great leader you're alluding to.

    5. Re:Hearts and minds by microTodd · · Score: 1

      Well, there's also the slight problem that the Americans who are over there to help rebuild keep getting killed, kidnapped, beheaded, etc...

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    6. Re:Hearts and minds by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      In general I'm in 100% agreement here, however:

      "US troops on police duty that have had ZERO police training"

      While I'm sure some folks didn't get this training, I'm remembering a documentary on troop training and how our units (active service at least) were going through urban warfare training which included segments on dealing with civilians, riots, police duty, peacekeeping, etc. I seem to recall that this was standard training.

      Anyone with more time able to back me up or refute my memory?

      Cheers

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    7. Re:Hearts and minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, about your Germany comment. Remember, Germany surrendered completely. There was little or no resistence after the war. The rebuilding effort took many years. The population was fairly homogeneous, supportive of the occupation, industrious, unified against the Soviets (hated them), etc.

      The last is a fairly important difference.

      After WW2, the Germans were *terrified* of the Soviets. The Nazi war machine had terrorized Russia in its abortive march to Moscow, and the Soviets were returning the favor in kind. Tens of thousands of Germans (including some of my relatives, who tell interesting stories) fled to the west -towards the US and British armies- rather than remain in Soviet-controlled regions. Their fears were not entirely justified (the Russians were portrayed as blood-thirtsy murders and rapists) but there was some merit to it.

      In comparison, the conquerors from the West looked tame. Given that choice, it is not surprising that the Germans were supportive of the American and English occupation - who else would hold the Russians at bay?

      There are also some other things to keep in mind regarding the comparisons of Germany with Iraq:

      * Time - The occupation of Germany lasted a long time and hostilities didn't end overnight either (although they didn't go on as long or as severly as they have in Iraq either). But America stayed in Germany for a good while to make things stayed on track. We've been in Iraq only a year and already people think that's too long. Occupations and rebuilding takes time!

      * Money. Lots of it was poured back into Germany and Europe to help the rebuilding. Comparitively little has been given to Iraq. Destroyed infrastructure doesn't rebuild itself. And people get cranky without running water, electricity, and police.

      * Guilt - A massive propoganda program was used against the German people to remind them of their guilt - both with regard to the war and the attrocities of the Holocaust. On the other hand, the US policy is that the Iraqi people (except for a handful of Saddam's friends) are guiltless of anything except being duped by their leaders. And I am sure that subconsciously some of them are thinking that, if they are not guilty, then why are they being "punished" with the mishandling of the occupation by US forces (e.g., continued strife, no infrastructure, abuse scandals, etc.).

      (I'm not saying the Iraqi people are necessarily guilty of anything... just that the difference mindset between the Germans and Iraqis plays a part in how the occupation is playing out)

    8. Re:Hearts and minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it odd and disheartening that most of the uninformed world think that the Duds involved in the abuse were not trained. They are military police, their mission and training is not cime prevention or traffic control but prisoner handling.

      There was a breakdown of discipline, the human turds who soiled MY uniform are not the victims here, they deserve swift, extreme punishment for their inhumane actions, for their actions unbecoming a Soldier, and they should be publicly flogged.

      12 year veteran with no sympathy for scumbags

    9. Re:Hearts and minds by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      A good leader is not always the same as a popular leader.

      My dad was a prime example, back when he was a foreman for a commercial construction company. His crew didn't like him, but they respected him. While he was a bit of a slave-driver, and definately a perfectionist, his insistence on doing things right the first time meant their job was actually easier in the long run.

      A direct quote from one of his crew: "Yeah, he's an asshole, but we get to go home early on Fridays."

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  68. End world hunger? by krhaze · · Score: 1

    i heard somewhere if every military operation in the world stopped for just one day, it would save enough money to end world hunger.

    --
    Cheers!
  69. Time travel by teh+Wang · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice that the most exciting part of the story is the authors quiet use of timetravel technology? Apparently he wrote the article in June 2004. Is it really John Titor back again?

    1. Re:Time travel by MagusX · · Score: 1

      It's fairly common for magazines to put out the June edition in May.

  70. Thats all nice, but... by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    The more complicated the device, the more things that can go wrong.

    Don't forget, the United States got its ass handed to it in Vietnam even with a technological superiority that has never been seen before or since.

    Simple stuff doesn't break as often, and when it does its easier and faster to get it working again. That makes a big difference when the shit hits the fan. Simple stuff is also easier and faster to train people in using.

    High tech military hardware certainly makes a difference, but when shit goes wrong, we need stuff that any idiot can operate and fix. Our commanders need to be focusing on how to win a battle, not how to keep the equipment working.

  71. Not really new by skasingularity · · Score: 1
    None of this is really new. Spend five minutes on the internet and you can find all sorts of home-built railguns. I remember reading an article[slashdot.org] about laser weaponry being successfully tested. (I know this was defensive, but how hard would it be to point it at something other than a missle?)

    When do we get to see some NEW ideas?

  72. Nice guns, but... by deltwalrus · · Score: 1

    If that huge ship-mounted railgun had been included in Unreal Tournament 2003, it would have done about 15 points of damage on a direct hit.

    --
    --- "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all..."
  73. Cluster bombs? by Vengeance · · Score: 0

    I call bullshit. We are simply not using them, PARTICULARLY in urban areas.

    We are doing enough things wrong for REAL, you don't need to go to the tinfoil hat brigade for news.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    1. Re:Cluster bombs? by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      We are simply not using them, PARTICULARLY in urban areas

      Er, no.
      You *are*

    2. Re:Cluster bombs? by Vengeance · · Score: 1

      We *were*

      That report is from a year ago. My question now, since I DID watch a military spokesman a few weeks ago saying that they absolutely aren't using such munitions today: ARE they still using them today?

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    3. Re:Cluster bombs? by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      still using them today

      Oh, fair enough. I misunderstood the point being made, it rather read as "not using them at all during the whole conflict". If they were but aren't now, the point is valid, if a little less important.

      It'll be a great comfort to all the mutilated civilians that they've stopped using them now...

    4. Re:Cluster bombs? by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Well, the US is using attack helicopters to POLICE A TOWN. I mean, any time an authority has to use attack helicopters to police an area - they're doing something horribly wrong.

      The US armed forces has too much technology and not enough brains or tact. If you give a redneck a tank, he's still a redneck. Just a lot more dangerous.

    5. Re:Cluster bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time a town is overrun by hundreds of rocket launcher and machine guns wielding people, using helicopters actually does make sense.

      It is not US forces but you who has not enough brains.

    6. Re:Cluster bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using Attack Helocopters to police a town?

      COOL!

    7. Re:Cluster bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Helicopters are pretty much asking to be blown up by RPGs in that sort of situation.

      In this situation what you really need is overwhelming firepower: drop a battleship or two on them.

  74. The BBC. by torpor · · Score: 1

    While the BBC's bias is well documented, it is AGAINST multinational corporations. To suggest that the BBC is in league with them is, frankly, ludicrous.

    Uh huh. Yup. You know whats ludicrous? The fact that anyone puts any faith in the BBC providing fair and balanced reporting on the subject of mass-genocide.

    Millitants get their arms from somewhere. They get their trucks from somewhere. They get their gas and machetes' from somewhere. You know which multi-national corporation has the biggest weapons cache in South Africa?

    I'll give you a hint ... you won't find out about it on the BBC website.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  75. A good SciFi book about these technologies by SharkDiver · · Score: 0

    Is 'Martian Rainbow', by Dr. Robert L. Forward (ISBN: 0595167462). The storey's characters are thin, but the technology is not.

  76. American Flag? by peterprior · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I find it interesting that the slashdot story icon for this is a nice wavy American flag. Is making missiles and weapons what America is proud of ?

    1. Re:American Flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Is making missiles and weapons what America is proud of ?"

      Yeah, it is part of being modern and civilized nation.
      We also develop a lot of other things but that wouldn't interest you now would it ?

      Every time I read about 300 000 thousand dead and hundreds of billions spent essentially helping out Europeans become civilized place, I think it was wasted money.

    2. Re:American Flag? by curtoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      America is proud of everything we do. Even things we shouldn't be, but that's another discussion.

      Powerful weapons are used as deterrents, mostly, so it behooves us to always have the best and fastest and most intimidating arsenal.
      Of course it makes no sense to have so many Nukes because they can't be used (too much damage, too messy to clean up). So we develop smaller, more precise weaponry. Always learning, always improving, always the best.

    3. Re:American Flag? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 0

      Is making missiles and weapons what America is proud of ?

      But of course. If you don't like it, turn off your computer and disconnect your internet. Those came courtesy of our 'missiles and weapons' research, thank you very much.

      Frigging pinkos.

    4. Re:American Flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the day when I worked at General Dynamics, we had a poster:

      "American as Baseball, Apple Pie, and Standard Missile 2".

    5. Re:American Flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off. russians had 21000000 of casualties in the second world war. usa was willing to help right before war was ended anyway.

  77. The problem... by intnsred · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problem with all these expensive new weapons isn't that we have morons who run our foreign policy and invade countries based on pathetic, easy-to-disprove (e.g. WMD) lies.

    The problem with these "smart" weapons isn't that we have low-skilled people in the military fleeing "McJobs" flipping burgers or Wal-Mart clerking who were primarily interested in the military in order to fund a college education. (E.g. like the MPs stupid enough to take pictures of their torture.)

    The problem with these weapons isn't that we simply cannot afford them and that as a nation we would be far, far better off sinking our riches into education or economic development rather than more toys for generals to play with.

    The problem isn't even that, as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

    The problem is that these weapons won't solve our "security"[sic] problems. We make our own enemies. We funded and created Bin Laden and Hussein. The Iraqis are now defeating the US military with little more than improvised explosives, courage, and a desire to defend their homeland. These new weapons will simply spur an arms race that we cannot afford and our insecurity will remain that will cause us to spend more and develop more new weapons. It's a race to the bottom.

  78. Railgun by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Back in 1990 a good friend of mine took his gifted internship (Florida has such a great gifted program) out on the Eglin AFB RailGun test site... they launched BB sized pieces of metal at something like 300G's over the gulf of mexico. Or some such ludicrous speed.

    --
    meh
  79. Highly Simplistic by benzapp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You apparently are very much unaware of how education and media collude to control what and how you perceive the world, with the ultimate goal of conrolling what you do with your life.

    In fact, what you say is so wrong that the simple reason mandatory education was ever implemented was specifically to better control the masses.

    People are not innately consumers or internationalists or egalitarians. Only through relentless propaganda do people give into the international system of finance we have in place. Only then do they crave new material goods, or welcome endless hordes of foreign immigrants, or believe their system of society should be imposed on the entire world. Education is absolutely necessary to maintain our current system.

    Also, I should say that your point of view is very representative of the ridiculous points of view found on American college campuses. Try and examine the world without parrotting the views of your teachers and your 5 million fellow rebel students.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  80. Bad Science. by ttsalo · · Score: 1
    Some of these are just nonsense.

    The tungsten darts dropped from the orbit (forgetting for a moment that you can't drop anything from orbit) will burn up on the way down. Tungsten or not, they're too small and light to penetrate the atmosphere at any useful speed.

    Railguns for DD(X) - fantasy too. A ship could generate enough power, but that's not all. The power needs to be supplied in an insanely short time. A warehouse full of car batteries (14000 of them) or a ridiculously large capacitor bank are some of the current "solutions" - but the energy density sucks ass and they would need to be scaled up, a lot, for blasting bunkers 290 miles away. And they are talking about superconducting rails in an application where the power has to arc from one rail to the projectile and from the projectile to the other rail. Good luck keeping those rails at superconducting temperatures while arcing hundreds of kiloamps straight from them.

    Not to mention that point targets have been getting scarcer and scarcer in the recent wars.

    This wasn't in the article, but US is now trying to make small, earth-penetrating nukes (in fact US has raised the nuclear weapon budget to what it was at the height of the cold war - like the current arsenal wasn't enough for every conceivable scenario). I just want to say one thing: look at the quality of the intelligence US had about Iraq's WMDs, and tell me how the hell do they think they're going to get accurate enough data to nuke someone's WMD program?

    Yeah and another thing. I think that the threat of chemical weapons has been raised out of all proportion. Consider the track record: Aum Shinrikyo strikes the Tokyo subway with nerve gas: 12 dead. One crazy guy attacks the Seoul subway with a friggin' milk carton filled with gasoline: 120 dead.

    Nuclear and biologic are another story, though.

    --

    --
    If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
  81. Torpedo technology by dcsmith · · Score: 2, Funny
    From the PopSci article - In the case of the supercavitating torpedo described in this article, skeptics ask where the need is. "If we ever face a hostile navy again I'd like to take a look at it," says Thompson. "Obviously it's an improvement over what we have, but what's the enemy? It's not enough to have a weapon that can use new technology creatively. It needs to answer a valid military need or threat."

    He obviously doesn't read /. or he would know that that sneaky Swedish Navy is up to no good. We may need those torpedoes!!

    --
    This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
  82. Railgun please... by Genda · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was a while back, but last time I read about the railguns currently being experimented with, they were trying to raise the velocity from about 13 mile per second to a wee bit over 18 miles per second. The reason being that just over 18 miles per second, a ballistic object colliding with another object can initiate a fusion reaction (at least of limited proportions.) This would needless to say, neutralize any object the rail struck instantly, and with extreme prejudice.

    Genda

  83. Politics and Polaroids by Arch+D.+Bunker · · Score: 1

    Warfare is politics by other means, as Clausewitz put it, I think. It seems to me that the US military has been put on the back foot in Iraq by nothing more sophisticated than a few dollars worth of camera equipment deployed in the wrong place at the wrong time. All the high tech weaponry in the world is useless without the political and moral will to employ it. Perhaps that is what is so frightening for the West countries in the phenomena of suicide bombing. "They" have people who are willing to die for their beliefs, "we" have leaders who pulled strings to dodge the draft. Anyone remember that jungle war where the B52s battled elephants and bicycles, and came off worse?

  84. Back to the Stone Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using the force of Gravity to accelerate a non-explosive projectile has been used in the past. In WWI, darts were dropped from aircraft on German cavalry and similar devices were tried in later conflicts against unprotected troops.Now, in persuit of enlightened technology we drop the equivalent of a large boulder with a guidance package costing several hundred thousand dollars. Methinks stenciling rock images on the sides of B-52's is not very glamorous.

  85. Re:Translation by GypC · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh I support your right to make an ass of yourself. I was just giving you ideas for your next step.

  86. a million rounds per minute???! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I'm strugling to understand what the practical usefulness of this would be... sounds like a major waste of ammunition. It's unlikely you'll find a million *targets* per minute or anything near that figure.

  87. northern ireland by bsDaemon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the "root cause" (to use the fancy schamcy bleeding heart liberal term) of "terrorism" in Northern Ireland is that the GOD DAMNED BRITISH WON'T GET OUT OF IRELAND AND GIVE US BACK OUR FUCKING ISLAND!!!!!!! No right at all to be there. Quite frankly, if my mates gave me a suitcase nuke and told me to blow up the london underground, i'd have no qualms at all about doing it. 800 years of brutal, racist oppression. it cannot stand.
    anyway, muslims are bent on world domination, not fighting against occupiers of their land. 15 active conflicts, all of which have to do with muslims not getting along with their neighbors. do you really think that in Indonysia, they will stop chopping off the headsd of christians if Israel stops fighting for their survival?
    All Muslims hate Jews. They may not all be terrorists, but not all Nazis were in the SS. Islam is like Nazism only 10x worse. the SS didn't wrap themselves in Christ as they were administering Zyklon-B. And I know sure has hell it wasn't Christ or Mary or St. Patrick that put an Armalite in my hand and told me to fight for Ireland.
    Islam is a social disease. It spreads like AIDS. It must be eliminated before they take over the western world and crush the light of humanity, plunging the world into 1000 years of darkness. If you don't believe that will happen, then i hope you're the last one they kills, so that you can see every other decent human being perish before your eyes and know full well it was the disbelief of people like you that let darkness spread over the land. There is no fleaing to Numinor in this realm, my friend.

    Sinn Féin.

    1. Re:northern ireland by meadowsp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So how is blowing up the london underground going to change anything?

  88. but what about poor puff? by nounderscores · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Puff the Nuclear Weapon

    Puff the Nuclear Weapon was pointed at Iraq,
    and waited in his submarine for the signal to attack.
    Little George Bush Junior, he loved that rascal puff,
    and all those days, he nightly prayed for the UN to get tough.

    oh
    Puff the Nuclear Weapon lived in the sea,
    protecting all our freedoms to
    a brand new SUV.
    Puff the Nuclear Weapon lived in the sea,
    protecting all our freedoms to
    a brand new SUV.

    Now Puff he liked to travel, so he wore travelling clothes
    While Bush was home and on the phone, from locations undisclosed.
    Presidents and Princes, they bowed when'ere he came,
    and Nation States lowered their flags when Puff roared out his name.

    oh
    Puff the Nuclear Weapon defender of the peace,
    securing the world's oil supply
    and the occasional golden fleece.
    Puff the Nuclear Weapon defender of the peace,
    securing the world's oil supply
    and hte occasional golden fleece.

    Plutonium lasts for ever, but not so little boys.
    ICBMs and M-16s give way to... other toys.
    And one grey day it happened: The traders broke the Dow.
    So Puff the Nuclear Weapon's on the open market now.

    His warhead packed in plastic, green crates that bore his name.
    Poor Puff would not intimidate for the Stars and Stripes again.
    Without his life long friend, poor puff could not be brave,
    so al-Qaida hid that that weapon in a deep, dark, man-made cave.

    oh
    Puff the Nuclear Weapon lived in the sea,
    but now he's in a backpack
    some where close to you and me.
    Puff the Nuclear Weapon defender of the free,
    and you can blame it all upon
    Bush fiscal policy.

    lyrics fully GPL.

  89. What, like Hong Kong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be immoral to simply walk away from them without some kind of democratic justification.

    I guess NI is just that bit closer to home. This, combined with the fact that while most people in the Republic would have some general idea that a united Ireland is a desirable thing, that doesn't mean that we want to annex a population the majority of whom don't want to be part of an independent Ireland, some violently.

  90. I don't get you people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You guys bitch and moan about engineering jobs crossing the seas to India, but look at this - the defense industry provides tons of jobs to intelligent American engineers and computer scientists. These are jobs that will NEVER be outsourced, either... Yet, it's always the same people complaining we should put more money into education instead of developing these weapons. Granted, education is great.. but sometimes it seems like we're just throwing money away on wasted reforms ("Leave No Child Behind" act).. More money isn't gonna solve the schooling problem in our country, better management of teh money will. Giving money to the defense industry rather is a win-win situation - it keeps hundreds of thousands of engineers/scientists employed (not to mention, thinking of innovative and creative solutions), while keeping America safe.

    Loved the article, btw.

  91. education vs schooling by nounderscores · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now we come to the crux of the matter. Most so called "education" is actually brainwashing and is a perversion of the kind of personal development and mentoring that used to happen only for the sons of nobles long ago.

    Education comes from the root latin "Educare" which means to draw out, or to extract the resource which is already there like drawing water from a well. To school someone on the other hand is to force them into a class of person which has certain known skills, attributes and capabilities and then make them into a cog in the machine.

    A truly educated person is hard to control, because they will have the knowledge, opinions and most importantly the fully developed critical mind to make their own decisions.

    A truly schooled person will be easy to control, because they've spent years of their life being trained to do as they're told.

    Both of these individuals can do what an untrained person cannot - devise new ways of making peace and war.

    Think about that, and look at the person sitting next to you. Can you trust them with an education?

  92. New Weapons by Sarrek · · Score: 1

    A Rod 'Falling' out of orbit .. Ouch .. Wouldnt want to be anywhere near that thing when it hits.

    Here's a older link to the Replacement for the M16 (Standard Issue Rifle) ..

    http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/199 8/ 9/army_wonder_weapon/print.phtml

    But I think they dropped the program? Not sure

  93. Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how Popular Science comes out with an article like this about every 10 years. And each time they publish it, the weapons and technology never change.

    Read you some Footfall [amazon.com].

  94. Guidance by phayes · · Score: 1

    Seeing through a mach 28 (orbital velocity) plasma bow shield was impossible in 64 and still is 40 years later. Thor is useless until the guidance problem is solved...

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  95. Don't worry about those who hate You! by guran · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The list of countries "hating" the US is more or less constant. Don't worry about those, since they know very well that they stand absolutely no chance against the US.

    No, your real problem is that your list of friends is growing shorter at a rapid pace.

    More and more countries are neutral vis a vis the US. Not actively working against it, but certainly not bothering to help.

    Sure, You have all the firepower You need to fight your wars alone, but without the help of foreign intelligence, airstrips and military bases it is a lot harder.


    And even though few states actively support terrorists, some start to care less and less about fighting them, as long as their targets are somewhere else...

    --

    All opinions are my own - until criticized

  96. Why moded troll? by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

    If the west had just stopped selling their 'old' weapons, we still wouldn't have had any need to make even more sophisticated weapons.

    We could instead be spending money on education and increased peace effort in 3rd world contries.

    And we should have helped former USSR, when the communist leadership lost control. Instead we suddenly had huge aoumnts of advanced weaponry being shipped all over the place.

    -Troll post my ass....

  97. Oh you brave fellows by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

    "We want a system that can generate a variety of effects on the battlefield, from damaging something to totally destroying it, to just kind of harassing with it,"

    Wow, Such noble goals, It's good to know the military wants to be able to "Just kind of Harass" opponents sometimes, Here I was thinking the military was usually called in when lethal force was required,

  98. I've seen what one can do. by BCW2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I knew a guy that worked at White Sands in the early 90's. His project was the rail gun. One evening he brought a few thing by my work and showed me the possibilities. A 5mm plastic BB, not even hard plastic, and a 4inch square of 2 inch thick aluminum with a one inch dia. hole in it. The gun accelerated the BB to mach5 and it went throug the plate like a knife through butter. Very impressive technology.

    This kind of research goes on all the time, it does advance science. Wheather it ever gets used or not, who knows. Once the technology gets developed it can be adapted to other uses. Anyone think the space programs computer research was wasted? While your sitting in front of the result?

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  99. WW2 = Good??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It harkens back to the good old days of WWII."

    The good old days???

  100. Re:Metal Storm == solution looking for a problem by phayes · · Score: 1

    I find it ironic that the article decries expensive solutions that are looking for problems to solve then goes on to laud the two projects that are just that:
    - Metalstorm: Sure it can fire thousands of RPM, but: Reloads are new loaded barrels. Neither light (so you cannot carry many) nor quick to reload (ready when you need it).
    - Shkvall: It made sense in the fUSSR's context: When fired on by a US sub that it could not see, fire back a nuclear tipped missile in the general direction of the other sub to make it break off. The article claims that a shkvall will do major damage even without a warhead. How in the hell is the shkvall supposed to be guided? It's blind as a bat & deafened by it's own noise. Once again a solution looking for a problem...

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  101. Rate of Fire vs Rounds Fired by gruhnj · · Score: 1

    The million shots/min weapon is by a company called Metal Storm. The million bullets/min statistic is the theoretical rate of fire acheivable. From their web site faq http://www.metalstorm.com/04_faq_technology.html

    Where do you keep the one million bullets?

    In dealing with conventional ballistic weapons, the rate of fire is a measurement and a quite separate issue to the number of rounds fired, or to the number of rounds carried in the magazine.

    For instance, it is quite common for an infantry rifle to be capable of firing at a rate of say 600 rounds per minute. However, it does not follow that the weapon carries 600 rounds, or indeed that it continues to fire for a full minute. Rather, such a weapon might be expected to have a magazine capacity of say 15 or 30 rounds.

    So too with Metal Storm. The 36 barrel prototype has fired at a rate which is in excess of one million rounds per minute, whereas it has a 'magazine' capacity of 540 rounds.


    No one in their right mind would have that much ammo on hand anyway. To have 1 Million rounds on hand and one gun would mean that gun would be very quick on the air strike list. Anything thats stationary and that powerfull will be destoryed simply due to the fact it cant move.

    Lastly, thankk goodness I dont need to feed that thing.

    SPC Gruhn
    US Army

  102. Bloody Irish Americans... by blorg · · Score: 1

    Quite frankly, if my mates gave me a suitcase nuke and told me to blow up the london underground, i'd have no qualms at all about doing it. 800 years of brutal, racist oppression. it cannot stand

    I wouldn't normally reply to something as trollish as this, but I think you honestly belive it.

    So Native Americans would be justified in nuking New York? Sounds reasonable.

    Islamic terrorists are certainly justified in attacking Spain. The Muslims only got kicked out of Iberia finally in 1492 - well within your 800 years - and that very fact was mentioned as justification by the group that claimed the attack.

    Terrorist attacks on English Catholics might be well be justified - Queen Mary was persecuting English Protestants as recently as the 16th century, after all.

    And as for Israel, well Palestinian terrorism is obviously completely justified due to the Israeli occupation. (They were there before modern Israel.) But on the same line so are Israeli acts of aggression! (They were there before that.) What a marvelous circular argument that gets us nowhere and just fuels more violence.

    Follow your argument back to its logical conclusion and we should all just move back to Africa, where we'd all get along fine. Might have to cull the world population a bit though.

    The whole historical card is absolute crap. In what way is Ireland 'your' island precisely? Do you live here? Pay your taxes? Things change. As I said in my title...

    1. Re:Bloody Irish Americans... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      i don't live there anymore. However, the Irish nation is all Irish people, including the 54million Irish in America, or in Australia, New Zealand, et cetera. The muslims invaded Iberia. They were then kicked out. I also do support ETA, Mostly due to blood relation between the Basques and the Irish (we arn't really Celts, in that strictest of senses). The Philisteans (Palestinians) and Canonites were in Judea before the Isrealites. I think "Wounded Knee" was justifed. I happen to rather like "Native Americans," of course being born here, whether or not i am also native, or at what point an immigrant can become "native" is up for grabs. I am, however, not an "American Indian," and that much is certain.
      Humans will never "get along fine." We are all too different. That is a fact. World Government will never work voluntarily because of it. No, I do not want to go around killing people. I want the nice, quite life of an Anglo-Irish Country Gentleman (I am half Norman, the remaing half can can be devided into 3 parts Gaelic and 1 part German). However, History is all I am. History and Politics. And religon. I am obsessed with it all. And I am intent on being a prosecutor. "Mercy is for God. I deliver Justice." -- a priest at the Catholic highschool of Tim Russer (Meet The Press). I do think the world could use another good ol' fashion world war. Give me my M1 Garand and .45ACP 1911 and I'm there with spades on... and a tweed shooting jacket.

    2. Re:Bloody Irish Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      shh dont mention history, Americans dont have any...well apart from last week i guess

  103. Denial is a powerful ally... by Larsing · · Score: 1

    ...'nuff said.

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  104. Cost by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1

    The cost of war (just in terms of $$$ to fight) is almost unbelievable.
    "Laser weapons are a relative bargain compared with existing long-range weapons: They're expected to cost $8,000 per shot versus up to hundreds of thousands for missiles."
    8K$ is cheap for one shot!
    What %age of GDP does the US spend on defense R&D? CIA factbook places it at 3.2% in 1999 (and it's gone up recently a lot). That is effectively the cost (along with the rest of defence spending) of staying as the most powerful country. This dominance is only the means to the true end of the govt. - the interests of the the country's citizens. Given the level of US defence spending lately, I wonder if the means has been mistaken for the end...

  105. Why bother? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    I wonder why they bother? The way things are going weapons and wars will be irrelevant soon - after all, there has to be people in order to have war.

    And even if one is to be optimistic - we are going to have more pressing problems than 'American Interests' to think about, when we run out of oil, air, water and environment in general.

  106. does anyone else think that by AndroidonPPC · · Score: 1

    dropping tungstun rods from outer space is a bad idea? Accuracy would probably be atrocious, and how would you test the damn thing?
    This is one of those situations where a little error up there means a big error down here.

  107. in every war they kill you a new way by johnrpenner · · Score: 3, Interesting


    You can't say civilization doesn't advance,
    for in every war they kill you a new way.
    (Will Rogers)

    j

    1. Re:in every war they kill you a new way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gun that can fire a million rounds a minute?

      When fitted with a lightweight bolt head the German MG-42 proved capable of achieving rates of fire as high as 1800 rounds per minute.

  108. Friendly Fire by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    While I don't agree 100% with the Falaise gap comment there were at least two episodes in the Normandy campaign where bombing caused heavy losses among friendly troops and civilians.

    Bombing of Caen destroyed the city with little military benefit and heavy civilian causialties:
    http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/IS SUE/Liberating _Caen.htm

    Bombs landed short near Caen/Falaise and close to 500 soldiers of the Polish First Armoured and the 3rd Canadian Division were killed during the accident.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  109. Smart leaders not smart weapons by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with the US military isn't a technical one, it is a cultural one. It seems strange to fret over our ability to crush weaker enemies when our military force has a budget that is greater than the other nation's entire GNP.

    The question isn't how force is used so much as why it is being used in the first place. We simply have our fingers in too many places around the world.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  110. Hmmm... by sparcnut · · Score: 1
    electromagnetic railguns, space darts, superfast torpedos, laser cannons, and a gun that fires a million rounds per minute
    Sounds like Quake and Unreal Tournament to me.
    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
  111. Reading makes baby Jesus sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well you're wrong.

    At least two of the weapon sytems were about taking explosives out of the equation and getting kinetic kills. So an even more casualty resistant form of warfare. And trust me there are PLENTY of americans who'd like to see a little WWII visited upon the muslim world. Then lasers for just injuring and killing hardware with the option to bump it up to the occasional kill for people. Not to mention missle defense. (The current missle defense at all ranges is pre-emptive strike) And metalstorm which would offer increased protection from missles, and facillitate closer contact for better discrimination as opposed to ever greater stand-off ranges. Or selecting lethal and varying degrees of non-lethal force as the moment dictates. It's a lot easier to own the ground when the only trick in your hat is "bomb it to gravel and suck all the oxygen out of the air." We don't do that, and not because we can't, but because we buy into that "age of enlightenment" bullshit. That's what everyone Iraqis, Islamists, Westerners and Americans included seem to be forgetting. But aside from all that, the inevitability and human propensity for war. Pretend that doesn't count. Just go along with me. There's the technology.

    The move from chemical to high power solid-state lasers will revolutionize a lot. New cooling technologies, which might influence everything hot where a cold side needs to be kept cold. To semi-conductors in general. To X-rays with out the X-rays. To better low power chemical sensors. And who knows what. But lets go to railguns. Delivering ordinance at hypersonic velocities without explosives very handy no doubt. But a big brother verion of it could put payloads in orbit. All of a sudden maybe putting an erector set in space is pretty cheap, and the space program is looking to build an office building where no man has gone before. Or how about the Rod's from God. Heavy metal indeed. Takes a new type of rocket engine, or just some old school ambition. Next thing we know project Orion gets off the ground from a Sealaunch platform? The government does the hard thinking and 50 years later Intel runs the numbers finding it's suddenly feasible to build a fab on the moon.

    Once more, the world should stop looking over our fence, and worry about the shit they've got in their yards.

    They hate america because they're reminded of what their not. The Arabs like to blame everyone for their problems, and it's taken the combined might of the Soviets and Americans to keep them from exterminating each other for 50 years. Even the feudal Japanese culture Matthew Perry encountered knew it immediately it must undertake a radical transformation or be destroyed. And American wasn't the dominant power by any measure that it is today. How many second chances do the arabs get? And the things that divide them are insignificant in comparision to the things that divide America. Who gives a fuck about how the leader of the world's poorest and fastest growing religion is chosen, and why the fuck are they cutting their babies with small swords? And really there's the answer. In the west, and America especially, kids are raised to look foreward to the future, not fight some war lost 300, 500, 700 years ago. Who gives a fuck. That is ancient history.

    The mongols had it right. "We be bad. You can do it our way, or we can do you in." Harsh lesson? Maybe. But Russia would be a tiny collection of fifedomes if it wasn't for them. Germany, the UK, and China they owe a debt to those that subjegated them too. Of course every american grows up learning Yankee Doodle Dandy, and we love that star spangled banner. A song about the British kicking the crap out of a fort protecting Baltimor after they burned down the whitehouse, later lending the seat of last superpower its name. Maybe that's what the arabs and islamists need. A whole lot of killing at the hands of a would-be empire that thinks they all look equally worthless. Or maybe an object lesson would do it. But h

  112. Come on people!! Get real.. by the_rajah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's "Popular Science" none of that stuff that they predict ever works out.

    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  113. What science? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I think Popular Military Porno magazine is now edited by Dr Strangelove.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  114. Re:MS DRM by escher · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ready! Fire! Aim!

  115. WW2 = Good??? // Mod Parent Down!!! by danharan · · Score: 2, Funny
    "It harkens back to the good old days of WWII."

    The good old days???
    Cowardly troll! Just because it's politically correct to think all these wars are bad, we must remember it was a good and noble war against an enemy that disregarded the authority of the League of Nations. Officially using the pretext of humanitarian intervention and seeking to protect itself against terrorists, it led a campaign for unchallenged world domination, including control of resources.

    A regime so authoritarian that it created attacks against itself to justify intervening against minorities and other states. A regime of such unspeakable evil that even its willing executioners smiled while butchering their victims.
    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  116. Not much of an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, 100k dead in Chechnya...and...they're still fighting!

    MILLIONS were killed in Vietnam...and...they still won the war!

    When fighting against a people defending their homeland, you must be prepared to fight forever. Or just go home and start doing business with them, which is gentler and ultimately more profitable.

    1. Re:Not much of an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US military left after a peace agreement with North Vietnam was reached that *would* have attained the US war aims in Vietnam. I think South Vietnam probably screwed it all up by refusing to cooperate with the treaty's requirements after the US left. This probably caused the reignition of the war which the US refused to get involved in AGAIN.

    2. Re:Not much of an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're invading a country with a goal of anything other than exterminating all resistance, at any cost, you are a fool, militarily speaking.

  117. the boat has to stop to fire the rail gun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But with DD(X), you can divert the power to whatever you need. We can stop the ship and fire the railgun as many times as we need, then divert the power back to the screws.

    Great. A floating glitter boy. Just what we need.
  118. Dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't Popular Science publish this exact same story every year? It seems like they've been talking about the Amazing New Weapons(tm) like railguns and space darts for the last ten years.

  119. yadda, yadda by sharkey · · Score: 1

    Chucking I-beams is nice and all, but when will I be able to get a Little Doctor of my very own?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:yadda, yadda by Little+Brother · · Score: 1

      Hopefully AFTER we get interplanatary colonies, otherwise that's a really, really STUPID weapon to use... (Of course, I'm still waiting on a color bomb or space rotation bomb)

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  120. Oblig Neal Stephenson quote by ydnar · · Score: 1
    REASON

    version 1.0B7
    Gatling-type 3-mm hypervelocity railgun system
    Ng Security Industries, Inc.
    PRERELEASE VERSION - NOT FOR FIELD USE
    DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA

    - ULTIMA RATIO REGUM
  121. Nazi Resistance at the End of WWII Comparable by johndeerejedi · · Score: 1

    Almost noone seems to remember there was a Nazi resistance at the end of WWII that compares to what you are seeing in Iraq.

    The "half-hearted" attempt to rebuild the country is enormously complicated by a spectrum of issues from incredibly poor infrastructure to begin with, to looting, to sabotage. The infrastructure was horrible to begin with and what was running was running because of ingenuity and incredible jury rigging (from lack of resources to repair properly) that would make any slashdotter proud.

    As for the police training being the fault of the leaders of the troops, troops are not meant to be cops. Training time is valuable and that time is dedicated to doing stuff that will ensure victory and save their lives.

  122. So what? by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Look at all the bombs that miss all of the tin pot dictators and all of the bombs that miss all of the terrorist clerics.

    Military technology is a great aide but at some point you will always need well trained, well equipped manpower to actually walk into the battle zone, leaders with good plans, and informed foriegn relation policies.

    Steve

  123. The rent for the Bomarcs was... by temojen · · Score: 1

    Cancellation of the Avro Arrow project. They both were inteded to protect against the same threat (Soviet Bombers), but the Arrow had the advantage that it didn't involve detonating neclear weapons over northern Canada. The disadvantage was that it was competing for sales with powerful american companies (GE, Grumman, etc)

  124. Non-leathal weapons.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.villiansupply.com/heavyarms.html look for ACCUKAK SYSTEMS NON-LETHAL ANTIPERSONNEL UNIT

  125. Specifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article reads like a user requirements and specification document.

    Giving advantage to any of the "axis of evil" I wonder?

  126. We're shooting our allies? You're one to talk... by spook+brat · · Score: 1

    One of the soldiers in my (US Army) unit was shot in the leg by a British officer who was drunk a the time and was showing off his Browning high power pistol. The American specialist got lucky - despite the fact that the bullet entered his thigh and exited from his calf (crossing the knee joint) the 9mm round managed to miss all of the bones, ligaments, and major blood vessels. This was last November in Baghdad.

    It's unfortunate. It shouldn't have happened. But things like this do happen, even outside of combat situations. So cut the poor Patriot crew a bit of slack:

    If you saw incoming aircraft and no "I'm a friend" signature," you'd launch, too.

    --
    Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... ...and kill them - http://schlockmercenary.com
  127. An old quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a smart teacher once, ex RAF (I think), and he said this: "War is supposed to remind you of why you don't go to war".

  128. John Stuart Mill by finelinebob · · Score: 1


    "John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill."

    Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, Bruce and Michael, er, Bruce
  129. obligatory python quote by nih · · Score: 1

    million rounds per second?

    Tis just a flesh wound!

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
  130. USAF B-1 by ericlp · · Score: 1

    2 BLU-109 ( forged steel pointy tip 2000lb iron ) and 2 regular 2000lb ( Mk84 ) iron bombs ) all 4 hooked to a JDAM ( GPS/INS ) kit. Poor intel. Good response time ( less than 20 minutes ).

  131. M16 is out of date? by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    Many current weapons systems are fast becoming out-of-date, from aging attack helicopter fleets to the early-'60s-designed rifles troops carry on the ground.

    He can only be talking about he M16. It's interesting that it's "out of date" but you can't buy them. You can't get the civilian (semi-auto) version in many states. Gotta love the uninformed media.

    1. Re:M16 is out of date? by Sarrek · · Score: 1

      Here's a older link to the Replacement for the M16 (Standard Issue Rifle) ..

      http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/199 8/ 9/army_wonder_weapon/print.phtml

      But I think they dropped the program? Not sure

  132. It's a good job none of these weapons cause... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...mass destruction. I don't fancy having the US invaded by those folks at the UN.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  133. Custard Cannon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that anything like a "mayonnaise cannon"?

  134. OLD stuff. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    I heard this puppy described back in the late '60s or early '70s - and not in a classified context, either. (Early L5 society meeting, as I recall.)

    I'm trying to recall the name of it. "Javelin" or "Thor" or something like that.

    Basic idea was a rod with steerable tailfins and guidance system, dropped from extreme altitude or orbit. Would turn a tank into a crater easy.

    Why is this suddenly "news" in 2004 - when they STILL aren't talking about somebody actually DOING it, but just thinking about it?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  135. (I shoulda RTFAed.) by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Why is this suddenly "news" in 2004 - when they STILL aren't talking about somebody actually DOING it

    Shoulda RTFAed. So they're launching it from a railgun rather than high altitude and the may actually be working on it.

    Railguns were all the rage back in the '60s/'70s, too, though I never heard of somebody combining the two weapons to make a surface-based device.

    Terminal guidance on a railgun projectile. Now THAT's a mind-boggling concept!

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  136. Nonsense by Rayonic · · Score: 3, Informative
    Your link is bullcrap. Utter garbage and junk science, mixed in with an unhealthy dose of hysteria.

    Depleted Uranium is just that -- Depleted . Actual research, like that from the World Health Organization, has proven the risk to be minimal:
    A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

    So basically, don't eat the stuff, and don't hang around a battlezone while combat is going on. But that goes for regular lead bullets too.
    1. Re:Nonsense by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Lead is worse than DU. Lead can be absorbed through the skin, most DU radiation is alpha particles, skin stops em. Lead kills brain cells. And never leaves. DU is not much of a risk, and cancer is easier to cure than lead poisoning. DU is better as a bullet than lead. it is denser, thus allowing more energy to be delivered to the target. Things hit with DU die faster. This is a Good Thing (for the shooter, at least.)

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:Nonsense by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, lead doesn't ignite and vaporize upon impact like DU normally does. Thus posing an inhalation hazard before it (quickly) settles to the ground.

      But if you're near a DU slug when it impacts it's target... well, you probably have bigger problems to worry about. ;-)

  137. ObSnowCrash: by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    "I'm sure they'll listen to Reason..."

    Seriously, the 1 million round-per-minute gun sounds like an extremely bad idea. With a mechanism moving that quickly, if a grain of sand or anything else in the enviroment jams it, the results would be at least failure and at worst an explosion. Currently, our soldiers in Iraq are having problems with their M16s jamming due to sand contamination. Apparently, AK47s, with their looser tolerances, do much better in a dirty environment.

    Not to mention that if you're shooting that many rounds into a small area, you may as well be done with it and fire in a few shoulder or vehicle-launched missiles or rocket-propelled grenades. Unguided missiles do not necessarily have to be complex or expensive. Guns are more useful in war when you need to fire a few shots into very specific targets.

    -Drew

    1. Re:ObSnowCrash: by esampson · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Metalstorm gun doesn't really have any moving parts. The design of the device is that each barrel holds multiple bullets which are triggered by coded electrical signals. The bullets can be fired one at a time, several at once or all at once depending on the instructions sent.

      This aspect of the Metalstorm system is not theoretical and has been fired under test conditions, so it definitely works.

      Bullets do not feed into the barrel, however. When a barrel is empty you replace it with a new barrel (I assume the barrel can be reloaded at a later date, just not while in use). Because of this design you have no significant moving parts to jam.

      The key to realize however is that the Metalstorm system does -not- fire 1 million rounds a minute. It has what's known as a cyclical -rate- of 1 million rounds per minute.

      When talking about guns the cyclical rate is how rapidly a weapon will fire assuming it can sustain fire without the needs of reloading or cooling off.

      The reason the Metalstorm system has such a high number is because they have one gun that has something on the order of 40 barrels. Each barrel holds 10 rounds (I'm approximating the numbers). When the trigger gets pulled the gun 'burps' out all 400 rounds at once. The time it takes from the trigger pull to the last bullet leaving the barrel is something on the order of .0004 seconds. Going by all the math that equates to a cyclical rate of 1 million rounds per minute, even though it was 'only' 400 rounds.

    2. Re:ObSnowCrash: by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      The design of the device is that each barrel holds multiple bullets which are triggered by coded electrical signals. The bullets can be fired one at a time, several at once or all at once depending on the instructions sent.
      Ah, sorta like a Pez dispenser for bullets :) I was picturing a very fast feed mechanism with electrically-fired bullets queued in the barrel rather than the simpler solution (the military often buys needlessly complex and overspecified stuff). The scary thing about firing such a weapon rapidly is; what happens if several of the bullets don't ignite? Hopefully, the barrel will be able to stand the resulting overpressure without exploding.

      The key to realize however is that the Metalstorm system does -not- fire 1 million rounds a minute. It has what's known as a cyclical -rate- of 1 million rounds per minute.
      Yep, I know that the gun won't be able to fire that quickly for any length of time. Still, even the 60,000 rounds per minute per barrel stated in the article seems like overkill. Although, I suppose that the system could as well the programmed to fire one bullet at a time.

      -b0s0z0ku

    3. Re:ObSnowCrash: by esampson · · Score: 1

      Actually, these things have fewer moving parts than a Pez dispenser. A Pez dispenser still has all the little candies stacked up and spits them out one at a time. These are more like a pixie stick, I suppose.

      Metalstorm does design the guns so that if a round fails to ignite the following rounds will clear it. That is one of the advertising points for the gun, in the case of a misfire the weapon will keep right on shooting and without a feed mechanism it is pretty much impossible to jam.

      As for firing that quickly for any length of time, I personally feel that the numbers are just flat out misleading since it is essentially only doing it for one shot. I mean I could load up a trebuchet with 3000 pounds of ball bearings that would do some pretty wicked damage to whomever they hit. Does that give my weapon a firing rate of 180,000 rounds per minute?

      You are right though that the gun can be programmed to fire one bullet at a time. One of it's other main selling points is that it's rate of fire can be adjusted, not just to one bullet at a time or a burst but to 10 bullets at 6000 rounds per minute or 10 bullets at 600 rounds per minute, depending on the task at hand.

    4. Re:ObSnowCrash: by esampson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant 300 pounds of ball bearings, not 3000.

  138. On the Need for Massive Bombs by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    Don't we have enough bombs already?

    The biggest threat to the USA in the future is terrorism. Terrorism is defeated with bombs, although the chimps currently in the White House seem to think it is.
    Let us not forget that it is the US relentless weapons development that makes it possible for terrorism to "step up" and become the biggest threat ... that is, the only way to engage the US with any hope of success is terrorism. The US armed forces are so overwhelming in the field that the biggest combat risk is faulty IFF. I'd like to keep it that way.
    Terrorism is just a symptom of a disease - hatred within society. For every terrorist, there will be a hundred people in the same society that feel very strongly about the same issues, but not enough to become a terrorist. That is, until you drop a bomb on their children. To defeat terrorism in the long term, you've got to tackle the strong feelings within the society that produced it.
    There are some more factors here. Arab governments gleefully blame America (and our masters, the Jews) for every possible problem, cheaply diverting dissent which would otherwise come down on their own fannies.

    You mention the need to "tackle the strong feelings". Oddly enough, that is, for better or for worse, the entire purpose of the "Bush doctrine" ... to install modern liberal secular democracy in the Middle East. The theory being that this will (a) improve the lives of the masses, (b) raise their living standards, (c) discredit the poor management of dictatorial or Islamist regimes nearby. [We lightly skip over (d) create a 'jihadi sink' in Iraq where we combat fanatics way over there instead of in the continental US]

    Whether this will work is certainly open to question. But do note that it is an attempt to address the real real root causes (poverty, societal failure) of terrorism, as much as any foreign aid donation.

    One final note before we go back to normal programming... the way in which foreign aid is given out really, really sucks. We give cash to governments, where it is promptly wasted, stolen, or otherwise prevented from helping anyone. What we really need to do is get some massive helicopters and airlift technical and vocational schools to trouble spots. Or say something like, "Okay, 3 billion in foreign aid? Hmm ... we'll give that 3 billion to Bechtel or (gulp) Halliburton, and have them build you something useful and train you in its maintenance". Sadly, my invitation to the smoke-filled room was lost in the mail.

    (gasp) Okay, I'm done.
  139. Apparently... by bfg9000 · · Score: 1

    ... a good Slashdotting is still the deadliest of weapons.

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

  140. Why must we find an alternative way to spend it? by rleibman · · Score: 1
    I don't get it.

    Why do those who oppose something government does (e.g. the current mess we're in in Iraq) instantaneously jump the gun and say we should be spending the money on something else? Why can't we KEEP our well earned money for a change? Why must we spend it on *your* favorite badly-run corrupt government-sponsored program?

    Always go back to the essence. People question the spending of public money on a particular program but rarely question the source of that public money in the first place, its very spending (and taking).

    - A concerned Libertarian
  141. I can see it now.... by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    It looks like you're trying to aim the weapon. Would you like to :
    ->Track the target
    ->Fire the weapon
    ->Cancel

    *Pop-up window appears with links*
    ->Search for weapons on ebay
    ->Fast fire weapons on amazon
    ->Get your weapon to fire faster!

    *Dialogue pops up on touch screen at that instant*

    This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. If you would still like to use this gun, break the glass and use the pedals provided to power the device.

    *Another dialog box pops up*
    MICROSOFT WINDOWS SUXORS! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! - Outlook worm.

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  142. Too much assumptions... by danro · · Score: 1

    That's because you hang out with the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-landmine lobby instead of watching what the military actually does.

    You make a lot of assumptions...

    I was an army engineer during my military service. Just not in the American army.
    Our mines had no timers and the warzawa-pact mines generally had no timers.
    I don't remember much about US mines (it was 8 years ago) but I think a lot of them were timerless too, at least the ones deployed manually.

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:Too much assumptions... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Remember that a timer isn't necessarily something that looks like a clock. It can be as simple as a mine who's detonator requires electricity to operate, electricity supplied by a battery. Once the battery runs down the mine is nutralized and can be removed safely. AFAIK, this is the preferred method for the US army, as it is uncomplicated and unlikely to fail (it's hard to accidentally manufacture a battery that lasts forever).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  143. They're also cloning Neal Stephenson by halfelven · · Score: 1

    Hypersonic projectiles... Milions of rounds per second... I thought i've head of those in one of N. Stephenson's books - was it Snowcrash?

    1. Re:They're also cloning Neal Stephenson by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure they'll listen to Reason"

  144. Tactics not just technology. by Enrique1218 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As we get more technologically superior with our weapons, we are increasingly finding ourselves in situation where they are not particularly useful. Specifically, guerilla warfare seems to be difficult to defeat with such weapons. Rumsfeld's doctrine on using advanced technology to created a slim, efficient force works well when the enemy has tanks, aircraft, and well define building that can easily distinguished for attack. But when faced with a insurgents who blend in the civilian population and use schools and mosques as bases, the doctrine becomes less applicable. This is evident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where often a strike against militants often cause unintended collateral.

    Perhaps what the military needs is less emphasis on technology and more on tactics. As we becoming increasing superior in both military and resources, our enemies are going to increasingly rely on guerilla warfare and terrorism. So, our military should put more effort in its most reliable system- the soldier. No technology developed is as versatile as the human mind. They should focus mobilizing efforts on preparing the soldier for the battlefield environment that he is entering. This includes basic education in the local language with techniques to expand their skills once they are there. Also, they should give soldier better access to surveilance with a realtime view of the battefield as that they can track enemies using hit and run tactics as well as ambushes. Ultimately, they should develop a toolkit of general tactics that the soldier can then hone into a specific strategy to suit their current situation.

    The technologies we should give particular focus are those that augment the soldier. Examples include body are that protects not just center mass but also the limbs, a selection of weapons that have strength in certain areas of combat such as long-range (open field) and medium/short range combat (urban), a lightweight computer that they can use to get realtime information.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  145. Re:M16 is out of date? Yes by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    Look at what British special forces are carrying. Look at the offerings from SAS and a slew of other manufacturers. The M-16 is a good weapon, but there are better, more reliable combat-assault weapons available. The fact the author is trying to make is that the military hasn't put any serious cash into developing a successor in 40 years, and with a 10-15 year development cycle, they need to start now.

    You can have all the fancy weapons you want, but areas are still occupied and patrolled by the most basic weapon...a soldier and his firearm. Have the best-trained foot sildier, and the rest of the technology is 10x more effective. Have a poor soldier, and no technology is going to help you win the battle. Look at Vietnam, great weapons
    far advanced compared to the enemy, but crippled by poorly trained, non-motivated soldiers. They didn't have a chance.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  146. Re:M16 is out of date? Yes by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    If it's so out of date, they can send a me a pallet of them. OK?

  147. "and a gun that fires a million rounds per minute" by demonbug · · Score: 1

    I have a gun that fires more than a million rounds per minute.

    Unfortunately, the photons coming out of my flashlight don't pack a whole lot of punch.

  148. Please stop making sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Terrorism is just a symptom of a disease - hatred within society."

    Shhhhh, you'll be arrested for being unpatriotic. Either you agree with the US administration or you are with the terrorists!

    When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

  149. WoMD? by gsperling · · Score: 1

    I see two plausible scenarios with the introduction of this technology. #1: How long before some greedy-rich politician, trying to make EVEN MORE money, sells these ideas/secrets/actual production models to some foreign government? #2: Which future president will accuse another country of having these weapons and then recant his story later? #3: Where do I buy my tinfoil hat so I can avoid being railed by the electromagnetic phaser gun?

  150. A Waste of Human Effort by npsimons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
    signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
    fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not
    spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
    genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way
    of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is
    humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
    -- Dwight David Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

    1. Re:A Waste of Human Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell those who hunger to get a job, stop wasting money on drugs, cigs, and alcohol, and stop going deeper in to debt every month putting useless crap on their credit cards and only paying off the minimums.

      Tell those hopeful children to get parents that give a crap about them more than when the next game is on or who got kicked off ++reality tv show of the week++ last night.

      Eisenhower, indeed.

    2. Re:A Waste of Human Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting question, for readers in general -

      If you could press a button that would explode/disable/disintegrate every dedicated weapon on the planet, would you?

  151. Re:why is this insightful? Good one! by holy_smoke · · Score: 1

    Right on the money, though it seems some individuals cannot understand this concept.

    Thanks for putting it correctly and technically.

    --
    Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
  152. Re:"a gun that fires a million rounds per minute" by Sarrek · · Score: 1

    http://www.metalstorm.com/04_videos/videos.html

    It DOES exist .. Watch the AVI ...

  153. A bit pedantic, but... by mariox19 · · Score: 1

    Those of us among the "educated masses" know that "alot" [sic] is actually two words: a lot.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  154. high-power laser weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly happens if the enemy has thick mirrors?

  155. obligatory simpsons reference by Spamlent+Green · · Score: 1

    "So, a round of applause for...this inanimate carbon rod!"

    ok -- I confess the rods in this case are apparently tungsten but they're still (mostly) inanimate...

  156. Shakespeare by rinks · · Score: 1

    Agreed- though, of course, Shakespeare said it best: "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose"

    --
    My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
  157. There was also a little racism involved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When white minority rule was ending, South Africa sold most of its weapons grade uranium to the US. I think the white government was more than a little afraid of the ANC or a unstable government getting their hands on nukes. One ex-South African diplomat asserted in interviews that South Africa's decision to sign the NPT was in fact "motivated by concern that it didn't want any undeclared nuclear material or infrastructure falling into the hands of Nelson Mandela" and the ANC. http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1993/a93/a93Albr ightHibbs.html

  158. See also: by Firefly1 · · Score: 1

    Syndicate Wars, made back in '96 or so by Bullfrog Software (which got folded into EA, I think). In said game that weapon system is poetically known as 'Satellite Rain'.
    Note, too, that the article addresses the placement costs and inherent availability issues of a satellite-based platform, suggesting modified ICBMs (or, I would think, SLBMs) as delivery vehicles for these rods...

    --
    - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
  159. Dr. Pournelle helped design THOR by Ranten_N_Raven · · Score: 2, Informative



    For more info, go to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's EXCELLENT site and do a search on "THOR." He helped develop the idea. There are 32 hits, one of which is MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER. Another is for the book he co-authored with Dr. Possony and Dr. Kane called THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY, which was a required text at the USAF Academy for YEARS.

    --

    READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
  160. Not really by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    None of these resources explained how the thing worked. They explained 'what it does', yes. But not how it worked.

    If you had an air bubble around your torpedo it would create drag. I assume that this uses a vacuume rather than an actual 'air bubble'. The only way I know to create supercavitating bubbles is with powerful sound waves. Is that what this does? How do you get a supercavitating bubble around your missle? Or is this one of those "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" deals.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:Not really by sandbagger · · Score: 1

      Hi: Microlasers?

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    2. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      None of these resources explained how the thing worked.

      I thought it had a fairly nice description of how this works.

      If you had an air bubble around your torpedo it would create drag. I assume that this uses a vacuume rather than an actual 'air bubble'.

      You needn't assume. The article makes it clear that this is a bubble of gas, not vacume. It says:

      The trick is to surround an object or vessel with a renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag.
      ...How do you get a supercavitating bubble around your missle?

      Again, your questions were already answered. The bubble is started with a cavitation plate on the leading edge and expanded with gas injection around the nose...typically injection of a small portion of the exhaust gas from the rocket propulsion. The article says:

      Supercavitation is an extreme version of cavitation in which a single bubble is formed that envelops the moving object almost completely...blunt-nosed cavitators and prow-mounted gas-injection systems produce these low-density gas pockets (what specialists call supercavities).
      and
      Just aft of the cavitator sit several rings of ventilation ducts that inject rocket exhaust and steam into the cavitation bubble to enlarge it.
      All those quotes are from the article in Scientific American that you were refered to.
  161. Mod Parent Up! by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    Seriously folks, as silly as ewoks are they are a prtty powerful image of the asymmetric warfare the US will face in the next century. We have an arsenal of the most high-tech weapons anywhere; Saddam's army melted away before them. Why fight when you don't have a chance?

    A year later they've killed six times as many US soldiers as during the war proper, using entirely low-tech weapons combined with stealth.

    The most deadly attack on the US in two generations was perpetrated with a set of quarter-inch-long knifeblades; the only technology used was our own (the planes).

    I think these weapons are as cool from a geek perspective as the next guy. But you hide from a space-based kinetic energy weapon the same way you hide from a cruise missile, tank, or humvee: in plainclothes in a crowded building.

    These things will be useful in some scenarios, but better intelligence, better cultural knowledge, psychological and group-psychological action, and actually-effective nonlethal weapons are going to be the far more important military needs of the US for the next few decades.

    No nation will pick a hardware-based fight with the US. It's all going to turn on boots on the ground, among the people. As yet, we're nowhere near as good at that.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  162. Re:M16 is out of date? Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Look at Vietnam, great weapons
    far advanced compared to the enemy, but crippled by poorly trained, non-motivated soldiers. They didn't have a chance."

    The US had a fine kill ratio of enemy troops in Vietnam - problem was, the enemy's loss tolerance was even higher...

  163. Not 'Friendly Fire' by spun · · Score: 1

    The prefered term is 'Incontinent Ordinance' nowadays. No, seriously.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  164. Re:M16 is out of date? Yes by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    If you want outdated weapons, buy a pallet of AK-47s. You can get 4 for the price of a pallet of m-16s

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  165. it shoots way faster than they say by nappingcracker · · Score: 1

    i saw some reports on the super-hyper brick gun about a year ago, also another blurb a couple of months ago on history network (yah i know they have such accurate info) but, yet again, as astounding as these weapons are, any numbers you hear are WAY low. the gun that shoots so fast is a brick of tubes stacked with bullets (caseless). the bullets can be shot one at a time or in a crazy volley, but, in both the earlier article i had read, and on the history channel, both articles said ~180,000 rounds in a fraction of a second!! way way faster than 1 million per miute. both had also mentioned that the bricks could be scaled up, achieving up to and above 1,000,000 per second. this rule of "public lowball" is SOP with the military R&D, but it really is a low, low, ball. the b-2 bomber was being flown in public for over 17 years before any one knew about it! same goes for every skunk works project. the new $2 billion (and up, no no, really, 2 billion $) subs are quieter at top speed than the quietest one we know about at rest. if you think about it, we have been in the dark since the a-bomb, crap why dont we have anything super advanced? when was the TV created - 50 years, 60 years, 70? jeez, it bends light and they still dont have anything fancier?! wheres my teleporter? wheres free power? on the shelf, with the rest of the goodies, until another country or some schmo figures it out. on a side note -my friends brother works for ratheon (sp?) and nobody knows what he does (hed have to kill us) but one night at the bar, we asked - "so exactly how tapped are our phones?" he laughed (this was after a few beers) and then got kinda serious "dont say anything important on the phone - ever", wow.

    --
    |plastic....or gasoline?|
  166. Friendly fire in SOCOM by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

    Even in SOCOM where friendly players are clearly marked and you can see where they are, friendly fire accidents happen all the time. Someone sticking their head out into your line of fire or a misthrown grenade are always killing people.

  167. Friendly fire and civilian casualty's will happen. by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

    Deal with it. We take steps to minimize the occurance and severeness but thats all you can do. Accidents will happen
    Just be glad we don't have to carpet bomb anymore.

  168. neat weapons :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad the US won't be able to afford them. When .30 of every tax dollar is used to pay for loan interest, There won't be anything left for things like roads, teachers and weapons.

    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

  169. Nothing new for the KE weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first job out of college around 1985 was working on railguns for SDI. Everything that the article says here could have been said back then. Apparently not much has changed. Rails have to be replaced frequently, electronics need to be hardened to withstand g forces. Doesn't seem that they have solved any of these problems in 20 years. Hmmm and they will not be battlefield ready for another 10.

    What I wonder about the claimed speeds of Mach 6, was this in a vacuum or in the atmosphere. When I was working on this stuff, everybody fired in a vacuum range tank. Much different than in the atmosphere.

    Another major problem with this technology that the article doesn't mention is the hugh problem of EMP. Just look at the USS Forestal to see why these weapons need lots of shielding on a ship.

    The article is also somewhat inaccurate in it's claim that the required power could not be generated on previous ships. The most common way to power a railgun is with a homopolar generator. It takes awhile to charge up the generator that then delivers a huge current pulse for a few milliseconds. Even a small ship can power a motor which can run this device. None of these weapons will ever have a 100% duty cycle.

    As far as the spaced based KE weapons go, Google for 'Brilliant Pebbles' for much more info.

  170. MG42 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a pic:
    http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nightingale/graphi cs/mg4 2pix1.jpg

  171. inanimate houses? by koi88 · · Score: 1

    But how inanimate is a house when 91 people die when you "demolish it"?
    My point is that terrorism is the last weapon of really desparate people. Sometimes, these people win, like Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin. So Israel was basically founded by early terrorists.
    I'm not anti-Israel, I'm sure Ben Gurion and Begin would have preferred to fight the British in an "open battle" with tanks and soldiers, but they didn't have any of these so they chose a terrorist attack.
    In this aspect, the're pretty similar the today's Palestinians.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  172. Re:The problem of distrubution by B.Smitty · · Score: 1

    In their defense, I'm sure "Rummy & Wolfie" knew there was no way, in this day and age, that we could sustain three to four hundred thousand troops in Iraq for any significant length of time. We just don't have the divisions anymore.

    We'll have enough trouble sustaining 100,000+ for a couple years, and the resulting extended deployments will probably play hell with Army recruiting & retainment for years to come.

  173. difference between the abuses by koi88 · · Score: 1

    wouldn't you be able to tell the difference between the abuse of a hundred prisoners* and the killing of a hundred thousand people?

    I am -- but I'm afraid, many Arabs are not.
    This abuse shouldn't have happened in the first place (I mean, I'm sorry, but I believe the guards when they say they have never heard about the Geneva Convention. But, as it has happened, the criminals (or whoever's fault that is) must be punished.
    In a very visible way.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  174. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    Here's a <a href="http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nightingale/graphi cs/mg42pix1.jpg">pic</a>.
    yields: Here's a pic.
  175. Yes they have this... by citanon · · Score: 1

    Most modern US area attack/denial bomblets (though not yet mines) will disarm themselve after a given time period.

  176. "The war is on terror" by Herkules · · Score: 1

    Please inform this stupid person what "terror." is and is not.

    And also how you can wage a war against it ?

    --
    CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  177. "Why did we invade Iraq?" by Herkules · · Score: 1

    I think the true answer would be becouse you could!

    And thats what's scary!

    --
    CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  178. Would this be terrorism ? by Herkules · · Score: 1

    An Iraq pre war blowing up a goverment building (civilian) to try to remove Saddam ?

    --
    CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
  179. I don't think this is new by RabbiRob · · Score: 1

    This Starwars book, Shatterpoint, published June 3, 2003 has a very similar concept called a DOKAW (De-Orbiting Kinetic Anti-emplacement Warhead). The DOKAW is just a rod of solid material ("durasteel" I think) with ablative shielding and thrusters for moderate smart targeting. I only remember this because I finished reading the book for the second time a couple days ago.

  180. Muslim Rules of Engagement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

    --Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad

  181. criticism among friends? by koi88 · · Score: 1

    When you hear someone criticize Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, you are listening to a jew-hater.

    And when your parents tell you not to watch so much TV and not to take drugs, it's because they hate you.
    Don't believe their excuses that they want to help you, it's not true.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  182. Hear, hear! by Larsing · · Score: 1

    (no mod points)

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  183. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Robert Anson Heinlen. "Yes, but we have many rocks!"

    I've liked Manny from the first read. RAH really buggered it up after he went a bit senile and sex-mad; he integrated TMiaHM with his later series and ruined Manny.

    TANSTAAFL, I expect. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      No kidding...To Sail Beyond the Sunset was pretty sexually messed up.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
  184. From our dear Albert Einstein by karevoll · · Score: 1

    "I don't know the kind of weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." -quote Albert Einstein-

    I've got to hand it to him, he sure has some nice quotes :-)

  185. Uhh, yes! by citanon · · Score: 1

    Any other questions?