Slashdot Mirror
Indian Rocket Blasts into Space
Quacking Duck writes "Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) successfully launched it's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C7) rocket from the Srikharikota launch-pad. The rocket carried 4 satellites into space, 2 Indian and one each from Argentina and Indonesia. Interestingly, one of ISRO's payloads, Space Capsule Recovery Experiment (SRE-1), expected to return to Earth 13 days after launch, will be the first test of its re-entry mechanism. This is a step towards ISRO's ambitious goal of designing and building a cheap reusable launch vehicle. ISRO is also planning a manned mission to the moon, Chandrayan-1, which is expected to use a modified PSLV rocket which was used for this launch. This successful launch comes close on the heels of the failed July 2006 GSLV lauch which had ended in an expensive fireworks display over the Bay of Bengal. Another GSLV launch is planned for later this year."
Much like the American tests this will prove nicely to Pakistan/China that India can (well at some point in the future) drop a nuke wherever they please on the planet, thus joining the big boy club. Oh and it also proves they can return a space capsule safely.
I wonder if this would spur the USA and Russia to speed up their space programs. I'm not sure about Russia anymore but at least the US has stated that they want to go back to the moon and put some dude up in Mars sometime on this half of the century if memory serves.
+Raider of the lost BBS
Not bad. Not bad at all! *g*
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Yes. About time. The existing telemarking satellites are choked. Ah excuse me I have an incoming call...
HIS book (not HES book)
HER book (you have it wrong - it is NOT "hers book")
ITS book
MY book
John's book
See the pattern? His, her and my are inflected, not formed by adding an S onto he,she and me respectively.
To form a possessive by addition, we add apostrophe s
So what do we do with "it"? "its" is not at first an inflected form. It appears to be formed by adding an S onto "it", and by the usual rules would therefore be "it's". Applying the same rule backwards to the other forms would give hes,shes and mes books respectively.
This is an example of a case where the uneducated thinks one thing, the partly educated thinks another (because they were taught a half-understood rule at school) whereas the highly educated professional (like my English teacher, a first in English from Cambridge) with a deeper understanding of grammar, points out that the rule in use is arbitrary and you could do things either way.
Grammar Nazis. Sheesh.
Pining for the fjords
Crap, I misread the title, sorry :/
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Chandrayan-1 (the correct spelling is Chandrayaan-1) isn't a manned mission.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
The purpose of a re-entry capsule (for maned flight) is slightly different from a ICBM re-entry vehicle. The capsule is supposed to land at speed ~= 0 The ICBM re-entry vehicle impacts Earth or is detonated at a speed of Mach 10 or 15 . It's definitely not the same thing.
with 9 launches the rocket has quite proven itself, but why would they design a rocket with 4 stages? Or does that figure include the strap-on boosters? I would expect with material weight going down, it would be more economical to design a rocket with less stages, as 3 stages instead of 4 means 25% less points of failure. Or is life expectancy of their motors so low they need 4 sets to get into orbit reliably?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
This is just the first step towards putting Indian call-center personnel on the moon.
We can outsource NASA!
My impression is they've become arrogant and bloated over the years. A little low-cost competition shouldn't hurt them too bad.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The heading is a bit puerile. I thought that yet one after Indian spacecraft crashed after takeoff.
the PSLV is quite different from GSLV. If am not wrong, the PSLV is powered by Cryogenic Engine developed ingeniously after Russia declined the technology transfer.
Eclipse PDE and Me
Yes. My father was in at least one of the battles of Cable Street (there were several). An amazing number of Londoners of that generation go a bit misty eyed over their days throwing bricks at Fasicsts. We seem to have lost the art of political protest in this country.
Pining for the fjords
Back in my day, "blast off" was what they said right after "1" in the countdown. I suppose all you knee biters who only know the politically correct versions think that "lift off" sounds soo much more genteel.
Get the hell of my lawn.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Blast as in London bomb blast or Blast as in blast furnace?
Blast as in "blast off", something Buck Rogers was doing in rockets back in the 1930's.
Sensationalism and deception, or an AC's ignorance...?
Blank until
This is such a great example of what is going RIGHT with the world.
Political decisions led the US to cut off certain space tech transfers to India, and instead of whining about it and complaining that the US was keeping them down, India developed their own space program, filling in the gaps of their technological capabilities as required. They worked hard and made it happen without relying on handouts or whining about how tough their life was.
Now the political realities have changed, but instead of India once again relying on US, UK, or Russian technology, they can compete and relate with the other space powers on a much more equal basis. They have their own capability, they don't owe anyone for it, and they have their national pride instead of being a nation of victims whining about how the US isn't giving them enough candy.
WTG India, the aerospace technology success story of the century. Way to be a winner, not a whiner. As an American sick and tired of every little country bitching about how the US doesn't give them enough money/respect/tech/whatever, I wish more countries would do this, even though it would result in the US ultimately having less influence in the world.
The thing is, the people who matter already respect India. The aviation and space industry has looked at India as an up-and-coming power for quite a while now. Yea they're not quite at the truly "graduate level" stuff yet like the US and Russia, but they're working hard at developing their own capabilities and that's what matters.
Plus they're not sitting on their butts whining about how nobody respects them or threatening to kill everyone who doesn't go to their church. That helps a lot.
This was the poinjt I was trying to mention in what I wrongly thought was an attempt at humour.
Pining for the fjords
The US built LTV Scout used for stages, all solid motors. If you use lower Isp engines you tend to need more stages to loft the same payload.
an ill wind that blows no good
.. "OMG wouldn't this money be better spent on feeding the hungry billions" comments.
Sheesh.
I tell you what, you stand under the launch pad and then decide whether a rocket blasts off or lifts off.
Well yes, thank God for British Imperialism!
Incidentally, what other "former British colony" has achieved anywhere near the success that India has? Pakistan - nope. Nigeria - nope. Kenya - nope. Malaysia - nope. Notwithstanding 100% white and British dominated colonies like Canada, the US, and Australia, no other nation has come close.
India's success has little to do with Britain, and more to do with blood, sweat and hard-work (as a previous poster mentioned).
Sadly, Britian remains a second-tier power and falling farther back each decade, and left (much like the Roman, Greeks and Egyptians) looking backwards at their infamous history rather than their future.
Yes the UK struggles along with the worlds 6th largest GDP, it's hell here in the second tier.
Why does everyone assume that every nation on Earth wants to start a nuclear war?
Maybe we should all sitdown and watch Wargames + When the Wind Blows and then ask ourselfs if anyone would want to use nuclear weapons in anger.
I for one would like to see India and China working alongside ESA and NASA establish future for humanity in orbit, on the moon and mars.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...Thank you, come again.
Indian serial killer suspect admits sex with dead bodies
Jan 11 2:16 AM US/Eastern
A suspect in the gruesome murders of 17 people, mostly children, near the Indian capital has told investigators he had sex with the dead bodies and ate their organs, a report has said.
The Times of India said Surender Koli admitted to carrying out the crimes alone and that his employer, businessman Moninder Singh Pandher who has also been arrested and charged, was unaware of the killing spree.
The grisly revelations emerged after the two accused were subjected to "narco-analysis" -- including truth drugs, polygraph tests and brain mapping -- at a national forensic laboratory.
Results of the tests are not admissable as evidence in court, but are designed to help police with their investigation.
The two were arrested on December 29 from New Delhi's affluent Noida suburb after an overwhelming stench led to the discovery of carefully chopped-up body parts in a drain next to Pandher's home.
But Pandher was apparently unaware that his servant used sweets and chocolates to lure the victims to the house, before killing them and raping their bodies, the Times of India said.
Koli, who previously worked as a cook in a hotel, narrated how and when he killed his 17 victims with precision. He also remembered the names of 15 victims, the newspaper said, quoting unnamed investigators involved in the tests.
"Sahab (master) did not know," Koli was quoted as telling investigators, adding the murders were committed when Pandher was away.
Asked what he had done with the missing torsos of the victims, Koli disclosed that he ate some of the organs and cut up others and flushed them down the toilet. The dismembered parts were disposed of separately.
Koli said his first victim was a four-year-old girl. He admitted to trying eating the child's liver, but said he vomited immediately.
His co-accused, meanwhile, emerged from the tests as a womaniser who used Koli as a pimp to find him prostitutes.
Pandher's family says reports of the results of the narco-analysis test were a relief.
"I had always thought Surendra (Koli, the servant) was behind all this. My father used to be out of town for long periods on business," Pandher's 23-year-old son, Karan, told the newspaper.
Clearly it is fun in the second-tier:
"British emigration reaches a high"
More British people emigrated in 2003 than at any other time since the 1979s, according to official figures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3982217.stm.
...what color curry does it burn for fuel? Red I presume? I just had red curry chicken yesterday, and wow is that stuff hot.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I guess this puts them one up on the Cowboys.
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
Thank you come again!
Racial stereotypes hurt everyone. Grow up.
I won't disagree with most of what you said. But India is like most religiously diverse countries and you do have sections of the populace who can and are easily tempted to kill another section. I wish it weren't true, but it is. Though, in comparison to the US, India is much, much more diverse.
Yet I think we can agree the Raj left behind the framework of ideas and institutions that allowed India to use its blood, sweat, and hard-work to transform itself into a peaceful democracy.
Britain's imperial legacy has done more to move the world forward in the past 400 hundred years than anything else. The fact the British Empire is no more does not diminish this fact.
Here's to Britannia - she can't make a decent cup of coffee but she gave us the free modern western world.
What?
Nothing against Britannia, but I am not happy with the modern world and I am sure many would concur with me on this.
There was this Indian joke:
Q. What do you call one Pakistani on the moon ?
A. Problem
Q. What do you call two Pakistanis on the moon ?
A. Problem
Q. What do you call all Pakistanis on the moon ?
A. Problem solved
Good - you shouldn't be. There's always room for improvement. What are you doing to improve Mankind's lot?
The world of today is a much better place to live than the world of 400, 100, or even 10 years ago. I don't know how old you are, but in my 44 years I've seen a considerable amount of progress in all areas of human endeavor. It's the optimists who moved us forward, and it's the optimists that will keep us moving forward.
Are you an optimist? I am.
What?
An optimist also is realistic about the past and its failure. So while Britain did indeed leave a legacy that has made the modern world and its prosperity possible, it also entrenched power, disenfranchised entire populations, and also left behind the an equal number of institutions that pose such enormous challenges to the world now (unequal trade relationship between North/South, Israel and Palestine to name a few). Britain and its imperialist past should not be remembered with fondness and should definitely not be the model for the new world order. It should be based on fairness and equality at its core -- neither of which were at the core of Britannia.
Earlier empires had a distinction as opposed to the british empire; they went after countries with roughly equivalent military technology. The british on the other hand being the only major island nation in Europe, had access to all of the jolly high tech weaponary of Europe, and a fleet to go out and deliver the sharp end of that technology to spear wielding cultures throughout the world. When it came to a toe to toe battle against an equivalent enemy, the Germans or Japanese, the british got their arses roundly handed to them. It took the overwhelming force of the USA and Russia to defeat Germany and Japan.
Sooo, gatling guns versus spear slingers. Thats something to be proud of. And its worth noting that the "empire" (snigger) collapsed as soon as the aforementioned spear slingers figured out which was the business end of the aforementioned gatling guns.
Oh and as for moving the world forward, its amazing how far ahead these other cultures move without incompetent british overseers bungling up the works, India being a case in point, Ireland another. Quite a lot of Africa and indeed the current shambles in Iraq can be laid squarely at the feet of the brits too.
And hey, I love what you've done with your food.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I have a Scots mother, lived in England for six years, and was married to a girl from Finglas for nine years.
The only place I tasted worse food than England was Ireland.
But I guess that's why you invented Guiness - to wash the horrible taste of boiled cabbage and potatos from your mouths.
What?
Heh, you have a pretty distorted view of history. There are so many things wrong with your post I don't know where to start. First off, your mention of the Japanese and Germans beating up on Britain. I can only assume you're referring to World War 2, and it might be noted that the British Empire was no longer in existence at that point. To say that the British got the "arses roundly handed to them" when they faced an equivalent enemy is foolish. Read up on the events prior to world war 2, and you might realize this. Trafalgar might be a good starting point. They went toe to toe with the French and Spanish for an awful long time. (And the French were no pushovers either... They were THE land power for a long time). You also might want to do some checking up on the statement about the British being the only nation with high tech of Europe and a fleet to go with. Reference the Spanish, or the French, or any of the other various nations that colonized the Americas. Your statement that previous empires went after countries with equivalent tech levels is also foolish; many of the empires came about precisely because the country had superior technology. If not that, they often had superior population or resources. If you think it was a fair fight with the Romans vs. the Gauls, you don't know much at all. In short, you're an idiot. I would suggest you inform yourself a little bit before going off next time. A good place to start is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire.
I have a Scots mother, lived in England for six years, and was married to a girl from Finglas for nine years.
Who cares?
The only place I tasted worse food than England was Ireland.
Who cares?
But I guess that's why you invented Guiness - to wash the horrible taste of boiled cabbage and potatos from your mouths.
Is there a point to any of this at all, or are you just going to rattle on about your culinary experiences after apparently marrying the worst cook in Ireland?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Heh, you have a pretty distorted view of history.
Somewhat less so than yours.
To say that the British got the "arses roundly handed to them" when they faced an equivalent enemy is foolish.
Oh okay, so the fact that the greatest military achievement of the british in WW2 was to successfully evacuate their army would be a falsehood?
They went toe to toe with the French and Spanish for an awful long time. (And the French were no pushovers either... They were THE land power for a long time).
Which is why britain conquered France and all of France now enjoys a good spotted dick with their rum, sodomy and the lash... splendid.
Reference the Spanish, or the French, or any of the other various nations that colonized the Americas.
I didn't say any of them were free from blame, either.
Your statement that previous empires went after countries with equivalent tech levels is also foolish; many of the empires came about precisely because the country had superior technology.
Ah here you are confusing superior methodologies and tactics with superior technology. Lets face it, any inbred bucktooth with a gatling gun can mow down a few hundred african spearmen, and often did. If you can't tell the difference between two men with swords, and one man with a machinegun and another man with a spear, theres not much I can say to you.
In short, you're an idiot.
Snigger.
Edmund: Well, you see, George, I did like it, back in the old days when the prerequisite of a British campaign was that the enemy should under no circumstances carry guns -- even spears made us think twice. he kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with dry grass.
George: Now, come off it, sir -- what about M'boto Gorge, for heaven's sake?
Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand D'watushi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle, instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad. No, when I joined up, I never imagined anything as awful as this war. I'd had fifteen years of military experience, perfecting the art of ordering a pink gin and saying "Do you do it doggy-doggy?" in Swahili, and then suddenly four-and-a-half million heavily armed Germans hove into view. That was a shock, I can tell you.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
All I can say to you after reading this and your replies to the other poster is that you seem to be a horribly bitter person. Lighten up a bit, you might start enjoying life more.
Oh and yes, I am English. I'm not proud of an accident of birth, and we have done a lot of terrible things in the past, as well as a lot of good. As you're Irish I could blame you for the death and destruction the IRA caused, except of course I know that it isn't your fault. Just as the terrible things done in Britain's name 200 years ago isn't the fault of modern Britons.
Grow up and chill out you old bitter nut.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Any faults of NASA aside, they're not in the launch business, so the Indians aren't competing with them. Lockheed, Boeing, Orbital Sciences, and SpaceX (maybe, hopefully) are American payload launchers. The first two are already beat out on price for most launches by European, Russian, and Japanese rockets. Their biggest customers are probably NASA and DoD. Orbital Sciences does small payloads. SpaceX is poised to shake up the market by cutting launch costs in half or better, assuming they are successful. These guys are the ones competing against the Indians.
NASA's business is research and human spaceflight, and they're not designed to compete with anyone in that regards. It would be hard to since the information and technology they gain aren't easily marketable. That's why it's a government funded endeavor in the first place.
In fact, NASA is generally cooperative with other space agencies when there is no concern over technology being used for ill. They coordinate quite significantly with the ESA, for example, evening loaning out scientists and engineers from time to time. Cooperation with Russia has blossomed since the end of the cold war, held back as much by budget limitations as the still lingering wariness. India, on the other hand, as a young nuclear power occasionally at odds with our associates in Pakistan, is probably not high on the list of countries we're anxious to give space and rocket related technology to.
Yeah fact that british cut off indian artisans hands, prevented it from trading with any other country other than east india company of britain,plundering treasures of the mughals and 200 other indian kingdoms forcing them to pay the english blood money for not invading their kingdoms,not giving a shit about ppl thus killing millions of Indians during the great bengal famine(it was a british made famine), reducing Indian economy one of the largest and richest of 17 th century and one which controlled 28 percent of world trade to utter shambles(british owe Indian 3 trillion pounds!)causing ethnic and religious strife b/w hindus and muslims by their vicious divide and rule policy,practising most disgusting and extreme forms of racism towards indians.british called India their golden bird and looted and destroyed it.British would have even lost the second world war if not for the million indian soldiers who fought for saving its ass from the germans(indians send troops to britain cos the british promised india independence in exachange for the help).Who can forget the famous british dictum on Indians tht they should not produce salt(which mahatma gandhi opposed by the famous danadi or salt march).British just remember when you arrived in india you wre just greedy,hungry,uncivilized pauper traders who were so awed by its wealth and opulence of its cities that they turned barbarians and attacked and looted it.Now look at you British you are just an American poodle.
How do you know the World was better 400 years ago? You are looking at the world through somebody else's perception. Even going by that perception, apart from advances in Science, tell me one thing that is better now than before. There is a saying, "an optimist sees color, a pessimist sees black & white, but a wise person sees nothing". I am not wise, nor optimist or pessimist, I am stating the facts.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"Powered almost entirely by curry and hot spices, spectators were left coughing, wheezing, and gorging on rice after the smoke plume drifted overhead."
I've gotten the impression that Russia is focusing more on a commercial space program. The ESA is probably the biggest competitor to NASA right now, in terms of how likely they are to do something big and impressive. Not that NASA can't trump them, but it would require the American government to reduce the extent to which it engages in cronyism, earmarking, and all of the other things that make accomplishing anything of merit next-to-impossible. The ESA is comparitively lean and efficient and has so many nations' scientific and technical resources to draw upon that it can provide serious competition to the vastly better-funded NASA. But if the US Congress were to give NASA a free hand to manage themselves reasonably and to budget sanely, well ... the other space programs would probably be lining up just for a chance to participate in NASA's ventures.
Oh and yes, I am English. I'm not proud of an accident of birth, and we have done a lot of terrible things in the past, as well as a lot of good.
;-p Seriously though, no harm to you or yours, I just object for the reasons I outlined above.
You should be proud, the british have brought a fair bit of good to the world. However the british empire wasn't one of those things. My original post was not to shoot down the british generally, just the muppet reminiscing over "the good old days", and rule brittania. Personally, I don't find the slaughter of the mostly defenceless to be anything to celebrate unless you happen to have a swastika tattooed on your neck.
As you're Irish I could blame you for the death and destruction the IRA caused, except of course I know that it isn't your fault.
Ah yes, but no one voted for the IRA, house of lords notwithstanding. Also comparing a group of homegrown partisans with the mass export of high-tech butchery isn't exactly a good parallel. It wasn't the inherent superiority of the british way, or the stiff upper lip or any of that nonsense; it was the equivalent of interstellar aliens nuking some ewoks. Any semi-competent army in Europe at the time would have beaten the tar out of them.
Just as the terrible things done in Britain's name 200 years ago isn't the fault of modern Britons.
Well if they would stop proudly trumpeting about them, perhaps I will stop knocking them down.
Grow up and chill out you old bitter nut.
Right back atcha, limey.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Haven't the Indians been launching satellites for years? Wasn't that why ISRO was formed in the 60s - for communications and weather sensing satellites as opposed to manned missions and weapons?
This particular form of rocket may be new, but everyone in the comments seems to think that the fact they they have a space program and that they have launched a satellite is new. Sourely that has been going on for years
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Uh... handouts? No. Most countries are complaining about, you know, little things ... like the US firing rockets into their sovereign territory, the US violating trade deals that the US originally pushed for (spoiled bitches can't handle it when another country embraces capitalism and bests the US at it), the US describing their democratically elected leaders as despots while allowing massive amounts of electoral fraud in American elections, the use of the CIA to assassinate democratically elected leaders and replace reasons. Those nations are all supported by the US for purely selfish reasons. The handful that remain are supported because there is basically NOTHING the people there can do to better themselves right now. Americans just aren't sufficiently sociopathic to consistently refrain from aiding people that are in dire peril. A positive attitude and an independent spirit wont make droughts go away or reverse the effects of earthquakes. No amount of Ayn Randian thinking will protect you from malaria or the dozens of other parasites that keep people in equatorial zones too sick to accomplish anything of merit.
is to have a robust film industry, which India has.
heh, I think he meant to say 'indigenously' (ie. locally) after the Russians backed out of their supply contract.
My understanding is that India was specifically looking for cryogenic technology, not unlike what the Space Shuttle uses, and that's no good for ICBM's since it takes a very long time to fuel up, and the fuel is hard to work with. Even though it has a better chance of getting you to the Moon, LOX/LH2 is overkill for what an ICBM needs anyway.
I think it's good to see a variety of nations and companies trying to get into space, because more players on the field increases the chance of scoring goals. It's a tragedy and a crime against scientific progress that nobody's gone back to the Moon in over 30 years, much less beyond it.
So this means my curry and vindaloo will arrive faster?
Man, hate to see how much I'll have to tip *that* guy.
India, China, Middle East had free and prosperous trade for five thousand years before the Portuguese showed up in gunships and blockaded India's west coast.
The real story isn't just about weaponry, although you're right, it certainly played a huge part. The real story here is about the western powers using military power to move economic objectives, and that's something that Asia is still coming to terms with.
More than mere navel gazing.
India is planning an UNMANNED rocket to the moon, I am surprised this hasn't been corrected yet.
India, China, Middle East had free and prosperous trade for five thousand years before the Portuguese showed up in gunships and blockaded India's west coast.
Wonderful to hear about how all of these major landmasses had free and prosperous trade for many years before the advent of the Sumerians, never mind the Egyptians.
The real story here is about the western powers using military power to move economic objectives, and that's something that Asia is still coming to terms with.
May I introduce you to Smedley Butler...
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Actually, my apologies, some rancid shitbird appear to have edited that entry. Long may they rot. Here is a fuller account...
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
As I noted before, performance in World War II is hardly an indication of past performance. The British Empire was in existence long before WWII, and by the time WWII came about, the empire was effectively crumbling. The empire had its beginnings in the 15th and 16th centuries, nearly 5 centuries before World War II began. Also, to say that the evacuation was their biggest success is ignorant; they (and the commonwealth) were significant participants in all theaters. Also, the British did in fact at several points conquer significant portions of France. Read up on the Hundred Years War if you wish some background. You don't seem to realize that recent performance has no bearing on past performance. Finally, if you believe that it was just superior methodologies and tactics that paved the way for previous empires, because they were still "two men with swords", you are sorely mistaken. There is a world of difference between a bronze sword and an iron sword. And there is an incredible difference between a naked barbarian with a club or axe, and a fully armored soldier with tower shield, iron sword, and a vast array of siege technology behind him.
The empire had its beginnings in the 15th and 16th centuries, nearly 5 centuries before World War II began.
Take a look at these maps, detailing the expansion of the british "empire" over time. Note the immense expansion in and after the 1850s. Gatling guns and howitzers can have that effect. Really what that shows is that the "empire" lasted a grand total of about 70 years. Geniuses.
Also, to say that the evacuation was their biggest success is ignorant; they (and the commonwealth) were significant participants in all theaters.
Yes, featuring such victories as "the Americans supplied us with war materiel", "we're getting bombed by the luftwaffe again", and my all time favourite "We can sit on our island cowering for as long as we need". Legend.
There is a world of difference between a bronze sword and an iron sword. And there is an incredible difference between a naked barbarian with a club or axe, and a fully armored soldier with tower shield, iron sword, and a vast array of siege technology behind him.
The bronze age was finished for hundreds of years before the foundation of the Roman Empire. If you're talking about Egypt, that was still bronze weapons versus bronze weapons. And still you persist with this delusion that the technology used by the Romans and the Gauls were substantially different. Learn the difference between technology and training, technique and organisation.
Or since you appear to be of the less intelligent persuasion, let me spell it out for you. Can you tell the difference between a 25mm cannon firing 8 rounds a second with a muzzle velocity of 500m/s, and a spear hurled by a tribesman?
You have been owned, you muppet. As was your ludicrous little "empire".
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Indians walking on the Moon ? Holy cow !
~sigh~ I suppose I started the name calling, so I can hardly complain when you continue it :-).
First of all, world war 2. Yes, they got supplies from the US, and depended on them. They're an island nation, and hence don't have a whole lot of resources. That's a large part of why they founded the colonies. Even so, they did a fair amount before the US got involved. They did a pretty decent job down in North Africa. They outfought the Germans in the Battle of Britain. They still had a large naval presence which did a lot in the Mediterranean (unfortunately for them, they were late to the navy-air game, and hence took heavy losses against the Japanese). Later, they also provided large portions of the troops for Operation Torch, the allied invasion of Sicily, the invasion of Italy, and finally, the Normandy invasion. As for the bronze vs. iron, I was mostly referring to the Assyrians. They developed iron working very early on, and used it to build their empire. I think part of the problem is that you seem to be largely referring to the late british empire, where they concentrated heavily on asia/africa, whereas I was mostly referring to the earlier british empire, built around the americas and the colonies there. Your assertion that the British only fought those that had lower tech, whereas most other empires took on people with similar tech is where my main argument lies. Yes, they had superior technology to the people they conquered in the later years of the empire, often overwhelmingly so. That was not always the case. They did fight many of the other european nations, and especially in the water, were pretty successful. They won the Seven Years War (or as we would call it, the French and Indian war) and kicked the French out of the Americas.
Finally, I'm still uncertain why you seem to think the Gauls and Romans were at technological parity. Yes, the Romans had superior organization and tactics. But I seem to remember that they also had quite good siege technology, and superior armor to the Gauls. They certainly had better infrastructure, and the technology that allowed that was part of why they were so powerful. As to your comment about the gatling gun, yes, its obvious that gatling guns are superior to spears (I assume here that you're talking about the Anglo-Zulu war). I never disagreed. What I do disagree with, was that it was always that way. The British Empire has taken on more than just the Zulus.
I included Egyptians and Sumerians when I said "Middle East". :-) The trade routes across the Arabian Sea are really old; I'm talking 2000-3000 BCE here.
More than mere navel gazing.