Slashdot Mirror
US Military Seeks Hypersonic Weaponry
Dr. Eggman writes "In an interview with the Star-Telegram, the Air Force's chief scientist, Mark Lewis, talks about the USAF's latest research direction. The service is working on hypersonic missile and bombers for the purposes of reconnaissance and attack. In response to Chinese and Russian anti-satellite developments, the Air Force plans to develop weapons capable of sustained travel at Mach 6 to allow them to deploy against and take out anti-satellite launch sites before the enemy can fire their missiles. Furthermore, should the US spy satellite network be brought down, the Mach 6 recon flight systems would be capable of filling in. Air Force officials hope to deploy a new interim bomber by 2018, followed by a more advanced, and possibly unmanned, bomber in 2035." We've discussed on a number of occasions the scramjet technology that would power such vehicles.
Funny, Pynchon in his Gravity's Rainbow frequently made the point that the V-2 was an especially inhumane weapon because, falling faster than the speed of sound, it killed you before you even knew it was coming.
I don't get it. If the government has a secret database of information on everyone in the world, including enemy personnel, and they have black, stealth helicopters waiting to attack anywhere in the world at a moment's notice, why all the nonsense about hypersonic attack craft?
I got a catholic block.
Is the Aurora finally coming out of the shadows?
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Seeing the picture of the prototype being dropped from a 50 year-old B-52. And the design is 60 years old! They just don't build 'em like that anymore.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Didn't we develope Hyper Velocity Missiles back in the early 80s? No payload, they killed by traveling at mach8. I wanted one as a kid.
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
There are greater threats to USA's security than these mach 6 planes will address. Things like terror are far worse. Imagine six 9-11's on our [critical] infrastructure.
These plans also assume that Russia and China are sitting idle. Once again, we shall be surprised just like we were when Russia put into service, a nuclear capable missile with independent, multiple war-heads. This made our missile shield obsolete.
This confirms to me that my president and his administration are just incompetent.
I for one would like to welcome our new HYPERSONIC overlords...
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
In response to Chinese and Russian anti-satellite developments, the Air Force plans to develop weapons capable of sustained travel at Mach 6 to allow them to deploy against and take out anti-satellite launch sites before the enemy can fire their missiles.
Ah yes, the Picard Maneuver.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
It may just be me and my youth speaking, but planning out 28 years seems a little...risky. Who knows what the hell is going to happen tomorrow, let alone 28 years from now. Does anyone remember thinking "Tomorrow is going to suck" on 9/10/01? PLUS...what about technology advancements? I seriously doubt that in 28 years "stealth" will mean the same thing it does today. How can we plan out 28 years like this? (Serious question...looking for insight from someone with more experience).
Excuse me. Make that a frinkin' shark's head.
Spending billions more on another cold war while the world literally burns under our feet. Is this the best that human beings can do?
Regan talked about welfare queens. These hypersonic engineers are the new welfare queens.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The device was called "Pluto VSLAM".
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
It's from the 1950/60s. What a naive and stupid era.
Hypersonic Weaponry seeks non-smoking government for long distance travel at high speeds. Concern for neighboring governments, a plus. Must be able to handle my (at times) explosive temper. Prefer clear moonlit nights and cozy underground silos. Handle me with tender loving care. 1138
27 years is a long time to project for technology.
For example, Ray Kurzweil bet $10,000 that computers will have passed the turing test by 2029.
Even if you think Kurzweil is an optimistic hack, 27 years is 18 iterations of Moore's law. If that continues, we'll have computers with 200,000 cores and 32 petabyte hard drives by 2035.
I'm not saying that will happen, my point is just that it's probably not prudent to make such long-term plans wrt defense technology, because it's quite likely that technological advancements will make most of your plans obsolete by the time you get that far out.
Who's going to pay for this, other than the Chinese? I doubt they'll enjoy seeing the continued armament of the USA against Chinese interests being funded with Chinese credits.
and their deterrent power shouldn't be downplayed.
But amidst news of new systems a lot of folks forget that the greater part of U.S. strength is so-called "soft power." Economic strength, alliances, energy security, cultural strength, and good-old fashioned good will are examples.
They are harder to develop but are also harder to fight and confer an immeasurable advantage. Building hypersonic weapons is a good thing, but it's a lot easier for your geopolitical competitors to steal the plans and copy it than it is for them to steal your alliances or international good will.
Sources of soft power aren't usually included in defense planning because areas like economic policy and cultural strength appertain variously to non-military departments or even the private sector. But they should be, because our competitors (like China) are.
That said, the United States has a lot of work to do to restore the soft power that eight years of the Bush administration has squandered. Let's hope the next administration is more astute and capable.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
"Thompson defined 'time-sensitive assets' as 'something that if you don't hit right now it will be gone if you come back later.' He cited, as one example, a ballistic missile preparing to launch against the United States."
There are a few problems with this:
1. If we can indeed detect a missile preparing to launch, can we accurately project where it's being pointed at? I can see a situation where we hit a missile we thought was aimed at us, but wasn't. "oops!, my bad"
2. Most likely these hypersonic vehicles could and would ultimately target nuclear weapons. What if we launch a defensive attack on a missile silo (or multiple silos)? Would there be any danger of setting off the nuclear warheads in the enemy country? I know nuclear warheads don't explode by just being shot at, but there could still be radio-active fallout from the release of radio-active material into the environment. And if so, would the US be accused of reckless use of our weapons against civilians that may be affected by such a fallout?
3. If we did hit a "regular" missile and/or a nuclear missile as a defensive attack, couldn't this be easily turned against us politically? Couldn't the enemy country simply cry foul saying they weren't really going to attack and that the bully US strikes again?
4. Perhaps a better strategy is to develop satellites with defensive capabilities of their own. Some kind of emergency propulsion system that would move them out of harms way really fast.
5. Perhaps the best solution is to talk with China and make some agreement not to develop these weapons in the first place. China is the last country we need to be fighting right now.
While these hypersonic vehicles are cool, they could become very reckless since they have such a small window of opportunity and could have terrible political or human costs if we have an itchy trigger finger.
Health Insurance Quotes
In 2035, The unmanned bomber will also give way to 1 manned armored suits, capable of attaining flight speeds close to near supersonic, and outruns most military aircraft. The US Military has released pictures of the new suits which are being created by Stark Industries. http://screenrant.com/images/trailer14.jpg http://www.allaboutduncan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ironman-fly.jpg http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/Images/moviestills/i/ironman/29.jpg
I wonder if the US is the only one trying to get better military armaments? From the posts so far, one would think the US was the only one building weapons.
Whether or not this particular technology is good to pursue isn't the point of my post, but the idea of developing arms in general.
No one wants another cold war, but no one wants to suddenly be under the military might of China, either, do they? I'm sure all of us slashdotters would love to have the Chinese version of the Internet.
[sarcasm] But of course, our freedom has absolutely nothing to do with military might, because other nations absolutely love the US and really just want to help us become a better and more free nation... [/sarcasm]
Another interesting thought... I wonder if the US military would really release information on the nwest and most advanced arms technology? It seems like that sort of research tends to be fairly classified?
"All these plans would not be that necessary if the USA kept out of other countries' business."
And just exactly how is that supposed to happen? How the fuck is the LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD supposed to "keep out of other countries' business"?
"But we will not leave them alone."
Again, how the fuck is that supposed to happen? The US withdraws totally and walls itself off from civilization? Total isolationism? Not only is that not possible, it doesn't do anything about the fact that the US has resources that some country somewhere will eventually want.
What then, Mr. Waste-of-Resources? I guess you could always complain on Slashdot if they invade...
We're part of the world. All the dumbass pie in the sky wishful thinking, passed off as peacenik wisdom, doesn't change that fact. Pretending it's possible to "leave them alone" just illustrates how far removed from reality you are.
And you'll notice, all the well thought out posts listing the very real reasons why your post is stupid sit there unloved, while your steaming pile is modded up. That says it all about the quality of thought that goes into moderation these days.
nm
Just remember, defense is always cheaper than offense (with the possible exception of nuclear weapons). Once this is done, and billions of dollars of taxpayer's money gets spent on the project, Russians will come up with a countermeasure that shoots it down at 1/100th of the cost, and sell it to everyone else.
A Frinkin' shark's head? With the swimming and the biting and the moyven glaven?
What makes you think we can't do it as well as or better than they do?
+++ATH0
The only land the US has taken is for cemeteries for their dead soldiers.
Oh, that's rich. Tell us another one.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
You obviously haven't taken a look at the Chinese and Russian weapons programs and their latest export customers - nice stuff: Supersonic Torpedoes, anti-sat weapons, intelligent missile clusters (like the SHIPWRECK missile), supersonic anti-ship weapons (like SUNBURN). The development of Hypersonic weapons leaps ahead of supersonic weapons were we have lagged.
Anyone think Putin will ratchet back Russian military development and exports if we do? How will he hold on to the North Pole if he does? (ok, satire)
The biggest threat is one you are not ready for. Drop one axis of defense (hi-tech for instance) to focus on another (like terror) and the threat profile switches. Balance in all things.
BTW: In all fairness (this is not a vote of support) this administartion has cancelled more Cold War programs (Crusader or Commanche for instance) than any other administration has.
That's pretty pathetic.
Is it reasonable to assume that a large scale space war using high-explosive satellite killing missiles could cause a cascade failure of not just spy sats - but all sats (or a large portion of them)? The ISS is apparently the most heavily shileded spacecraft in orbit, and it can only handle hypervelocity impacts of 1cm in size or smaller. A bunch of spy satellite bits whizzing around might be kind of hard to manuver away from. I imagine it might take weeks or years for the full effects of a massive sat war to become realized. Worst case, could a bunch of space junk flying around in every usable orbit at high speeds essentially shut down space? Something as small as a paint chip can have devastating effects.
http://www.wstf.nasa.gov/Hazard/Hyper/debris.htm
> to allow them to deploy against and take out anti-satellite launch sites before the enemy can fire their missiles.
Which would require the device and/or operators to known it's going to happen so far ahead of time that not even the attacker knows for sure yet. Mach 6 would still take hours to get from the US to any major missile launching sites elsewhere. An anti-sat capable solid fueled platform could get from storage to flight in under an hour, far less if it's stored on its launcher.
The US anti-sat missile launcher was an F-15. Other countries could easily do something similar. Unless we could see underneath their planes, we'd need mind reading to know what they're planning. IIRC, the CIA shut down its remote viewing program, and I don't see it on the DARPA budget.
Perhaps the USAF is expecting anyone intending to launch an anti-sat will oblige us and use some cumbersome behemoth that requires construction and fueling for launch prep, as well as using a payload section that couldn't be mistaken for something else, like say a weather satellite or exatmospheric scientific sounding rocket.
The statements made in TFA were intended for mass consumption by sheeples who'd be impressed since they wouldn't know how long the spokesdroid's nose had gotten. The USAF knows better as do the other countries. But it sure sounds cool.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"What makes you think we can't do it as well as or better than they do?"
230+ years of watching government fuck up everything it touches.
And why, oh WHY, would you allow your government ANY hand in your healthcare choices? Doesn't it worry you that such a system can be used to punish malcontents? Or are you ignoring that inevitable reality because you like the idea of "free" healthcare?
And how come the privacy wonks famously disappear when nationalized healthcare is discussed? Doesn't it bother you that your private health information can be used for more than treatment choices? It should, because it will.
Now go ahead and tell me it won't happen. I could use the laugh.
Such a system seems quite dangerous to deploy, since it would inevitably be assumed to be targeting nuclear launch sites (no difference between an ICBM and an anti-sat rocket). Because of its speed to target, an opponent would have no choice but to launch immediately if he saw the slightest hint that you were *preparing* to deploy these puppies.
That's what the leaders of Europe said about Germany, and the leaders of Asia said about Japan, hell, it's what the Romans said about the Visigoths. If we just leave them alone and ignore them they'll leave us alone. We were leaving them alone when they attacked us on 9-11. We'd been ignoring them for decades as they bombed embassies, hijacked planes, killed innocent citizens around the world. Ignoring a danger does not make it go away. It makes you an easy target.
Here's a neat clip of the predecessor of the X-51 hypersonic missile's scramjet engine being test fired, too bad it doesn't have sound but it's still neat.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Any fifth grader could refute your moronic assertion. When you make such a patently absurd statement as "The only land the US has taken is for cemeteries for their dead soldiers.", you don't get to bitch about someone not going to the trouble to "refute" it.
I'm beginning to see why you post as AC.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Quote : "How the fuck is the LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD supposed to "keep out of other countries' business"?
There is a difference between being the largest economy of the world, and the largest bully. Nothing in being the largest economy of the world force you to have a big army, and a big nuclear arsenal beyond what is necessary for retaliation, and certainly nothing force you to invade other country which never heard of you, and nothing force you to blackmail other country against producing cheaping anti aids drug (a pet peeve of me, international treaty allow it for emergency situation but the US blackmail a lot of country against doing this, or even retaliate). The fact is that the US seems to be quite trigger happy and forget what diplomacy is. If it was not the case, you would not have so-unhappy-ally and falling out with decades old ally. In case you don't remember you had a lot of support a few years ago before you decided to squander it into what i would call bullying Iraq. Nobody ask you to be isolationist. But sometimes, sometimes, it would be nice if you could leave people which are not disturbing you alone in their own FUCKING country. And I am not even speaking of Irak alone. Nicaragua. Chile. Panama. And so on. You are part of the world, but most of the time your extern politic amount to "do whatever we say or we crush you, crush you so bad you won't believe it".
Remember kids, respecting others [person,country] goes into a long way to get respect back. Bullying other make you a nice target. And spitting on your friend make you look like an idiot.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You know it's coming.
We need to nuke those slant-eyed yellow-skins back to the stone age where they belong. And while we're at it, disembowel anyone at Wal-Mart making more than $30,000 per year with a hot, dull butter knife for doing business with those chinks. That'll weed out the working folk employed there. Time to add some chlorine to the Chinese gene pool.
Furthermore, should the US spy satellite network be brought down, the Mach 6 recon flight systems would be capable of filling in.
What about if their GPS network is brought down?
> Any fifth grader could refute your moronic assertion.
Go on then. Or are you smart as a fifth grader?
TR3. Operational.
And you'll notice, you didn't answer my questions, you just spouted your opinion about abuses. It was fun to read, but ultimately worthless.
"Nothing in being the largest economy of the world force you to have a big army"
Except that other countries would want to forcibly acquire said economy, which moots your point totally.
You fail. Badly.
What happened to lasers? With those, you get killed at the speed of light.
Now we're only going for a bit faster then the speed of sound?
Someone's losing fucking ground here.
What an appalling lack of reading comprehension. Didn't even make it past the first sentence, did you?
It's not my job to educate you. If you're actually this clueless, googling "manifest destiny" would be a good start for you. Do your own homework.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"Thats not an economic relationship it's a bullying militaristic threat."
The fact that you can't see these as two ends of the same spectrum shows exactly why you're sitting at zero. The only thing obvious in your statement is your naivety.
Crucifixion's a doddle.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'd like to point out that the original rebuttal that was quoted by you could have had a better counter. After all, AC referenced land in his rebuttal, as though that had anything to do with the quoted item, when the OP never said a damn thing about land.
"Little is much when little you need."
If someone is going to claim I missed the point, then fail to make said point in their post, they failed. If they make a point which is totally mooted by an obvious problem in their logic, they fail.
There was no flamebait in that post, and you're a terrible moderator, and frankly, a coward.
Since when were Russia and China the "enemy"? Those are fairly harsh words, not ones to just throw around, even hypothetically.
Whoa, let's be fair. Don't hate the car because the driver sucks:
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
"They just don't realize it yet." Uh huh. They OBJECTIVELY have the best standards of care in the world and have had their programs going for decades. When are they going to "realize" it?
"230+ years of watching government fuck up everything it touches." You're absurd. Government has fucked up the military? It's fucked up the road system? Boy, I sure hate driving on that Eisenhower Interstate system, don't you? Government fucks up the sewers and sanitation? Please pull your archlibertarian head out of your ass and think.
Why are we allowing HMOs and insurance companies to make healthcare choices? Why are we allowing them to make LIFE OR DEATH DECISIONS based on the fucking profit motive? We don't do it in this country with ANYTHING ELSE life-or-death -- JUST health care because so many politicians' best buddies happen to be health care execs.
"And why, oh WHY, would you allow your government ANY hand in your healthcare choices? Doesn't it worry you that such a system can be used to punish malcontents?" No one is going to allow that. Social Security isn't used to "punish malcontents."
Here is my favorite part of your ridiculous libertarian rant: "And how come the privacy wonks famously disappear when nationalized healthcare is discussed? Doesn't it bother you that your private health information can be used for more than treatment choices?" LULZ. You honetly think this isn't happening RIGHT NOW? Why do you think the (ineffective) HIPAA was passed? Because EXACTLY this is already happening. At least with national health care some kind of democratically-driven transparency can be enforced.
+++ATH0
27 years is a long time to project computer technology, yes. But for most technology? Not so much. Certainly a new 2008 Toyota Corolla, for example, is a much better car than a new 1981 Corolla, but much of the basic technology is fairly similar and reasonably forseeable from 1981, if you were in tune with the latest thinking in automotive technology. There's a few things you might not have anticipated -- built-in MP3 players, GPS navigation -- but you would be pretty much spot on if you predicted that you'd be using EFI, aluminum heads, fuel injection, et cetera, all the stuff the 1981 engineers thought would be in the future.
For that matter, I would be greatly surprised if Toyota wasn't thinking about their 2008 Corollas in 1981. You need to plan stuff out that long if you want to do things like acquire land for new factories, build the factories, install robots, hire and train workers, and put together a complicated assembly process. That stuff can't be done in six months (unless you're the government with infinite amounts of other peoples' money to spend).
Even if you're the government, when you build something really complicated that pushes the envelope, you still need a lot of time to go from sketches on a napkin to actual hardware. The F-22 fighter jet, for example, which is just coming into service now, began planning in 1981 (coincidentally, just about 27 years ago).
Even for computer technology, a more precise statement would be that 27 years turns out to have been too long a time to predict what would happen over the past 50 years. In the decades before the semiconductor revolution, advances in computing technology -- slide rules, adding machines, etc. -- were slow and fairly predictable. Furthermore, we do not know how much longer the revolution will continue generating amazing new stuff.
Most revolutionary technologies release a burst of innovation, but after the initial discovery is mined out, progress slows again. When efficient, cheap internal combustion engines were introduced in the 1880s, they revolutionized many aspects of society. Canals were abandoned and railroads exploded. Horses disappeared and cars and highways and traffic accidents appeared. The heavier-than-air airplane appeared and it became possible to cross the country in hours instead of days. Similar massive changes followed the introduction of AC electricity mains around the same period. Someone could be forgiven for predicting that the revolution would never stop, and there would be wild and amazing discoveries and inventions in electricity and engines right on through the 1950s. Indeed, Jules Verne's Nautilus is something like that. But of course, this is not what happened. The initial wave of discovery with respect to internal combustion engines and electricity in wires faded, and progress now is back to being slow and evolutionary. Much the same thing is probably bound to happen in computing, but we don't know when. There will come a time when it will be as easy to predict what computers will be like in 20 years as it is now to predict what an internal combustion engine or electric motor will look like in 20 years.
Excellent point. I guess I was so overwhelmed by the sheer stupidity of his statement that I missed that relatively subtle distinction.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Apparently, the best three years of your life were in kindergarten. Of course, the decade in elementary school was a blast, too. How'd it feel to be the only kid in school old enough to drive - when you were in the 4th grade? Did the school have any problems finding you a parking spot? :-)
Get this, dumbass: when you make a claim that something is easy to refute, then you have to actually refute it.
Or you're talking out your ass.
Off course, what with your brain being down in your nether regions, talking out your ass would take up a lot less of your nervous system's obviously limited bandwidth, so maybe it would be best for you to continue to talk out your ass. If you used your mouth, that might block the nerve signals to your heart or lungs.
But then again, it's not like cutting you off from oxygen could kill any brain cells....
Did you google "manifest destiny" yet, genius?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If you can seriously equate the stuff that Saddam's thugs (and sociopathic sons) did to the state of civil liberties in the US, than you are so far out of touch with reality that nothing is going to get you back. Enjoy your indefinite stay in wacko land.
I knew people that were over there and saw what went on in those palaces.
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
In fact, most of us can't. Congratulations on being independently wealthy. We are not all so lucky.
+++ATH0
So barring a mad scientist destroy the world scenario, I don't believe satellite warfare is a real threat. It would be like poisoning a well that you drink from as well as the enemy.
If you're about to lose a war, you do what it takes to survive and ignore the long term consequences. Life without satellites is better than life without life.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I suppose I could part with one and still be feared.
Can you cite anything more recent than 1848 or so? Or do you have to dig back 160 years to make your point?
Can you tell me who the US-appointed governor is in the US territory of Japan, and when her term ends? Or if the people living in the US colony of South Korea will ever get any form of self-determination?
Let me guess: you're also one of the utter fucking brain-dead morons who cites the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition and other ancient history when trying to play moral equivalence games between Christianity and Islam.
I'd call you dumb as a post but I don't want to insult any poor young sapling with dreams of growing up, getting cut down, sent to a sawmill, and hewn into a post.
Also, if you hit your head above your left ear really, really hard, there's a good chance that the broken record in your skull spouting "manifest destiny" over and over will move on to the next groove. Yeah, I know it'll probably skip to "FDR knew all about Pearl Harbor before the attack!!!", but hey, you need to do something about it. Just make sure you use a big, high-quality hammer, though. A cheap one could shed some metal shards if you hit your head at an angle and don't whack that thick bone up there square. I'd hate for you to wind up literally blind, too.
Your figurative blindness is bad enough.
I didn't say
"instead of bitching about them and accomplishing nothing "
I said
"seek out solutions to our problems, instead of bitching about them and accomplishing nothing"
By MY logic, you should seek out solutions to your problems instead of making up spurious complaints and doing nothing.
You cherrypicking of my words is incredibly disingenuous and pathetic, and speaks to your willingness to lie in order to make your point.
I really don't care either way. As I said earlier, it's not my job to educate you.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The legendary SR-71 Blackbird, her kid brother the YF-12A interceptor, and the flexible, quick-shooting ASAT weapon. Why go faster? Hypersonic aircraft would run into even tighter restrictions flying in domestic airspace, fuel constraints, not to mention the logistics if the aircraft's requirements are so exotic it requires highly trained crews to maintain it.
"Kelly" Johnson, the father of the U-2/TR-1 and the Blackbirds, came up with a kinetic energy weapon that used no explosive in it. Dropped from 100,000 feet from a Blackbird bomber, the one ton device would have the kinetic energy of a large container freighter hitting at terminal velocity. No explosives whatsoever, just pure momentum. Couple that with a GPS guidance system and you'll have your own man-made meteorite that'll flatten whole city blocks from the impact alone, with pin-point accuracy.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
I read about all these new tech devices that keep coming out, but for what reason? National Security? If China or Russia wanted to attack the US, they will do it before the US has time to build such new weapon and weapon technologies. Russia and China and at one time Cuba (although they were backed by Russia) are the only true countries that the US fears when it comes to ICBM and/or other Nuke weapon technologies. Seems the race for world control is still going strong...
It's like the old war story about an army so massive that it couldn't be defeated by any known army of the time and yet it was wiped out by a simple disease.
So, you can't point to anything from post-1848?
No?
Why can't you point to areas of the globe that the US has appropriated, like France and Germany do with Alsace-Lorraine depending on who won the last war? How about taking a look at Poland's borders in 1939 and what they are today? What? Did Poland suddenly decide to move westward on its own?
Please - point to an equivalent example involving the US.
What? You can't? Why not?
Heck, even the colonies the US won from Spain in 1898 were freed to become independent sovereign nations within a few decades at most.
The Japanese Pacific island colonies were handed over to the US by the UN after WWII, and they're now free nations, with not one drop of blood shed.
You need to educate yourself away from your reflexive anti-Americanism.
But of course, you're too fucking stupid to even see it. It's just too easy to be a sheltered twit living in Mommy and Daddy's basement, never having anything at risk. It must win you points with your equally sheltered friends to "speak truth to power" as you rail against a government that you claim takes away all your freedoms. Yet no matter how evil you call that government, nothing ever happens to you.
Gee, maybe that's because you're WRONG.
You're a chicken shit. You only mouth off when it's safe.
A figuratively-blind waste of protoplasm.
Great rebuttal. Seriously though, whatever. You had to manufacture a point by removing a key part of the statement. You lost right there.
"spurious
Now who's making shit up?"
Dude, it's funny that you think you know what that means but don't.
From Wackypedia, In 1783 the United States made peace with, and gained recognition from, the British monarchy, and in 1784 the first American ship was seized by pirates from Morocco. Emphasis added, and in case the math is too hard for you, it only took them, at most, two years to attack.
These jackasses will attack anyone, anytime, for any reason.
Continuing, The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:
That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise. Again, I've added emphasis to the pertinent facts.
Now, consider that half the residents of this country spread shit and lies about this country. It makes them popular with the Eurotrash and Comintern crowds.
Even if the United States were to completely isolate, this lying by our own residents will prompt attacks. "The United States created AIDS." Should AIDS become rampant around Makkah, the liars will have provided a perfect pretense for an attack.
Just think, if stupid bitch Clinton is selected and Maddy Halfwit is again Secretary of State. "The United States killed a billion Iraqis," or whatever crap she'll make up. Another excuse.
I am afraid it will take another Sept. 11th before we get serious. And after that happens, it will be very unhealthy to be a Defeatocrat.
We're about to elect a fairly fresh Democrat Senator after an eight-year Republican administration and resurrect hypersonic jets (the X-15) and supersonic bombers (the XB-70). Will British music, long hair, and brightly colored clothes be next?
Ahh, AC post = you fail.
PPO's are by definition more expencive but less restrictive than HMO's. (http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/jobbasedcoverage/a/hmovsppo.htm) CHEAP PPO's provide shity coverage vs HMO's of the same cost.
On the off chance you posted AC by mistake and might otherwise miss this post.
Yes, actually, under several of the policies YOU DO. On this point YOU ARE WRONG. [citation needed]
Every form of US government assistance provides the option to pay more and seek other options. EX: Veterans Affairs, Medicade, Medicare, Tricare, etc. There are no options on the table that would restrict our ability to provide elective care at a higher cost. There are no bill in discussion that and world wide the vast majority of government sponsor healthcare provides options for private insurgence and private medical facilities.
PS: At this point you have provided zero evidence to support your claims so I can only assume you concede the argument.
If this weapons system can take out anti-satellite launch sites, then surely all the enemy needs to counter it is an anti-anti-anti-satellite weapons system?
Another hypersonic aircraft carried by a B-52
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Medium/EC65-885.jpg
These days it's planes vs rockets, tanks vs rockets and RPGs and aircraft carriers vs anti-ship missiles. In real combat, neither of the three kinds of offense stands any chance against state of the art defense systems.
I have excluded ICBMs because there are NO effective countermeasures, and there won't be any anytime soon.
Laser weapons are faster than mach 6 for sure.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"Why are we allowing them to make LIFE OR DEATH DECISIONS based on the [bleep] profit motive?"
I trust a company with a reputation to defend a lot more than the federal government when it comes to life and death. Look at the FDA.
Clearly, we have to find something better for our idiots governments to do other than creating a high-tech killing toys arms race.
I think it's time for a world-wide rev...<static> acck...<BANG!> <bzzzzzzz>
THIS TRANSMISSION HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR SAFETY. YOUR GOVERNMENTS ALWAYS HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART. LOVE AND BE PROUD OF YOUR GOVERNMENTS AND NEVER QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES. BE THE BEST OBEDIENT CITIZEN YOU CAN BE. THAT IS ALL.
TRANSMISSION ENDS.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies