Slashdot Mirror


Military Uses 'Bat-Hook' To Tap Power From Lines

Zothecula writes "As soldiers are fitted out with more and more electrical sytems to extend their capabilities, they become increasingly dependent on the power needed to run them. Since soldiers in the field don't always have ready access to an electrical outlet when they need to top up the batteries, the US Air Force has developed a device that taps directly into the electricity flowing through overhead power lines ... a kind of bat-hook for real-life superheroes."

282 comments

  1. DO NOT try this at home folks by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You might think you are a real-life superhero, but you are probably not.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..At least not for long.

    2. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Power of... BURNED TO A CRISP!

                                                   

    3. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      How often does this type of power theft cause the early demise of the thief? Many copper thieves kill themselves off every year, and they don't always target live power lines.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Cost of doing business as a RLSH. Join up, kill or be killed, be fearless, live dangerosly, accomplish great feats, don't complain when you are suddenly deep within enemy territory and wikileaks suddenly publishes your name and operational methods. Occasioally, killing the enemy works out both ways.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    5. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll see about thatxxxxxBZzxXxzxZXZX**bzzzzz**

    6. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      This ranks right up there with jumping off the roof -with a cape- hoping to fly.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by jgtg32a · · Score: 1
    8. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try this at home, and you might just be a superhero:

      THE FLASH

      (at least briefly).

      Seriously: DO NOT TRY THIS!

      Even residential lines are many tens of thousands of volts, and will flash-fry you!

    9. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously: DO NOT TRY THIS!

      If I may be the voice of opposition for a second:

      PLEASE TRY THIS! And stream it live. I'm REALLY bored.

    10. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      You might think you are a real-life superhero, but you are probably not.

      So you're tellin' me there's a chance...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    11. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      Oh, there is a difference between power lines, residential and .... ? ;)

      and here i thought all those big transmission wires were using the same voltage... Just for simplicity's sake ;)

    12. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by davester666 · · Score: 1

      That's our military. Our shining light to the world. An example of excellence.

      And now, also an electricity thief.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by hitmark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      could work, if the cape have strands of some material or other that will go rigid when electrically charged.

      Tho it would be more like a hang-glider then actually flying unless one also pack some kind of miniature jet or rocket.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    14. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You seem to have given this some serious thought. That's a bit worrying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Nope, just happened to read about such materials recently. And someone jumping from a balloon with a set of wings and engines strapped to his back. Then my brain gets a trigger to makes me plug these together.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    16. Re:DO NOT try this at home folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually its about 4400 to 7200 volts on primary, 120 to 240 on the secondaries and high-lines are usually 49k+. That being said any one of those is enough to seriously burn, maim, and/or kill you. So stay off the wires.

  2. Prior art? by thomaswp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is prior art in Indian cities I believe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4802248.stm

    1. Re:Prior art? by eyenot · · Score: 3, Funny

      India's economy is so strong that half of its electricity is FREE!

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:Prior art? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Prior art in Mexico as well - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327515/posts Please don't tell me the US Military actually spent MONEY to DEVELOPE this technology.

    3. Re:Prior art? by brainboyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you smoking? You can't make a claim like that and expect it to be believed without sources. Most (all?) power plants have crews monitoring voltage and frequency output and responding by bringing generators on or offline depending on the needs of the grid.

    4. Re:Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they spent MONEY to DEVELOP the technology.

    5. Re:Prior art? by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Since I doubt many of India's power systems have things to handle the potential of overload (like street lamps in a majority of the outlying city areas,) I think they'd be happy enough to have the extra draw on the grid to keep the voltage semi-regular.

      That's one reason why the USA has so many streetlights, after all. A great deal of our power stations run unthrottled and so to prevent our lines ending up over 130v and frying everything we put extra draw on the grid. This is also a reason why the government will be slow to adpot LED technology for major road and lot lighting, unless we come out with solutions that are drawing that much power (defeating the whole purpose and adding more light scatter.)

      Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, yet you feel compelled to post anyway.

    6. Re:Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be a claim that you're making? Should I believe it?

      EDIT: okay, too funny, my CAPTCHA word is "SOURCE"

    7. Re:Prior art? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I just finished attempted negotiations with California to start using my LED lighting in their street lights. They won't move to LED lights, specifically for the reason I just stated, as it was stated to me exactly like that. I would suggest you try actually talking to the people in charge of things like this, instead of clamoring for free information with a minimum of effort on your part to obtain such information.

      Also,coal-powered stations do not have the capability to just be shut down or rapidly brought back up, what are you smoking to think only one type of power generation plant exists?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Prior art? by leucadiadude · · Score: 1

      I work at a real life central station baseloaded power plant that puts out 2250+ MW.

      You sir, are an idiot.

    9. Re:Prior art? by tibit · · Score: 1

      In other words: they bullshitted you, and you ate their bullshit and didn't even wink. Kudos.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't appear to have stopped you in the past, either.

    11. Re:Prior art? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862830&cid=34191364

      Looks like someone else has a clue. Looks like you don't.

      Again, some generators MUST spin 24/7. Some plants are incapable of stopping power generation on a whim (like coal-fired plants) and thus you need to add load.

      Not everyone is on a smart grid. Lots of Southern California most certainly is not unless you're hooked into the newest HVDC line.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:Prior art? by Khyber · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Right, you don't work at a coal-fired steam power plant which is incapable of suddenly dropping power output, and which directly powers a small town. You probably work at a distributed power station, where you DO have the option of control. Congratulations on being part of 8% of the globe. Now get your head out of that narrow little world and see that just because you have it doesn't mean everyone else does.

      You, sir, are an assumptive and naive ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do. However it is hardly an ideal solution to do this. A number of smaller generators are usually used to handle changes, but a major change would require bringing down a big power plant (Not good). This is why, in Western Australia at least, the power company provides free power to major industry (mainly mines) on the caveat that if they need the power for the grid they will take it away instantly. It is better for them just to have the reserve, and take the cost associated with making that extra power.

    14. Re:Prior art? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Oh boy. Look, all generators that are tied into the grid have to be spinning and synchronized unless they feed a DC transmission line. Synchronization in a legacy powerplant may take say half a day, so you can't just stop the machinery and restart it when you want to -- true.

      When a generator is running and synchronized, the rotational speed is pretty much constant. Then the torque at the shaft between the turbine and the generator is proportional to the load power. As the load power goes down, you decrease the steam pressure, and the torque goes down to match that. The voltage on the output can be kept quite constant as long as you have proper control systems -- it used to be hard when things were adjusted manually or with simple PID controls, but nowadays you can have an optimal controller that will fully exploit the operational envelope of the plant. An additional factor is load balancing between powerplants.

      A generator is typically followed by a step-up transformer system, and those have switchable taps that are used to do additional voltage regulation.

      In nuclear-powered plants, I presume it's easy to dump full rated power into the cooling system. While it's inefficient, you should be able to idle the generators while the reactor is at 100% thermal power output. In normal operation you have to dissipate 30-50% of heat output anyway, so it's not like doubling or tripling the cooling demand is a big deal, IIRC.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  3. New tech but not new idea by jcrb · · Score: 1

    The addition of the spike to get through insulated lines is a nice addition, but I don't know that its really needed, some how I imagine the places where this will get used don't bother with such things as insulation. Its a common practice to steal power in 3rd world countries to just toss a cable over the nearest powerline. I've seen pictures of streets in slums where the powerlines just look like spaghetti from all the cables just draped over them.

    --
    -jon
    1. Re:New tech but not new idea by jcrb · · Score: 1

      the post "Prior art?" has exactly the image I was thinking of

      --
      -jon
    2. Re:New tech but not new idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post pics or it didn't happen.

      I've seen some pics of spaghetti but that was just the normal over wiring I thought.

      PS the spell cheker in FF sucks.

    3. Re:New tech but not new idea by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you WILL need the spike. This is NOT designed for tapping in to the high voltage distribution lines, but the low voltage residential lines that feed individual buildings.

      If you didn't have insulation on these cables, then the live & ground would just short out at the source as they are twisted together.

    4. Re:New tech but not new idea by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      If you didn't have insulation on these cables, then the live & ground would just short out at the source as they are twisted together.

      Actually you get two hots and a neutral. You derive ground from, well the ground.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    5. Re:New tech but not new idea by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but as far as this device is concerned, there only needs to be one hot and one uninsulated neutral/ground (which is to all intents & purposes, electrically the same in most installations).

      My point was that where this device is tapping electricity from, the live conductors are definitely insulated.

    6. Re:New tech but not new idea by karnal · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see how you get two hots and a neutral out of 2 wires.

      --
      Karnal
    7. Re:New tech but not new idea by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You could do it by using an earth return:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return

    8. Re:New tech but not new idea by Hertzyscowicz · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is a system has a part in ensuring the continuity of respiration for soldiers (as well as the discontinuity of respiration for soldiers on the other side), so being prepared for an unlikely scenario is a bonus.

  4. Retrieval? by falldeaf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After you throw the hook over a line and jab it into the insulation, how do you take it back off? I didn't see the video address this and the shape of it doesn't seem like it'd be easy to get back down?...

    --
    check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
    1. Re:Retrieval? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why are you worrying about that?!

      The *real* issue is that there's going to be a HOLE in the INSULATION. The extremely-high-pressure electricity is going to SPEW OUT. The whole CITY will be FLOODED with electricity, unless someone turns off the MAIN VALVE.

      Conserve energy - prevent electricity leaks.

    2. Re:Retrieval? by falldeaf · · Score: 1

      there's going to be a HOLE in the INSULATION.

      Not to take a joke seriously but since the spike is a razor blade, the damage to the insulation is probably minimal.

      --
      check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
    3. Re:Retrieval? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If the wire is in good condition. If it's old, degraded and rusting on the inside it might just snap :>

    4. Re:Retrieval? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I hate it when my copper rusts away like that man.

    5. Re:Retrieval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After you throw the hook over a line and jab it into the insulation, how do you take it back off? I didn't see the video address this and the shape of it doesn't seem like it'd be easy to get back down?...

      That's a good question. As you said the shape does not look like it'd be easy to remove from the ground. My initial thought was to get some slack in the cable and then snap the lower end as if cracking a whip to pop the head up and off the power line. But given the angle of the slot in the head and the angle of the cable connection to the head I think my idea would actually make it pull up tighter on the power line if it weren't already as tight as it could be. Perhaps the connection to the head is some time of pull release that frees the cable but leaves the head attached? Or maybe removal of the head from the power line isn't something they've worked out just yet.

    6. Re:Retrieval? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It'll be degrading and rusting once that insulator gets compromised! :3

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Retrieval? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      I hate it when my copper rusts away like that man.

      He formed a thin oxide layer to resist further corrosion, surely?

    8. Re:Retrieval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing electricity with The InterTubes

    9. Re:Retrieval? by ciaohound · · Score: 1

      Holey insulation, Batman!

      --
      Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    10. Re:Retrieval? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Copper? Overhead power lines on a budget are often made of iron or a low-grade steel. It's much cheaper, and power doesn't care about signal degredation.

    11. Re:Retrieval? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you may know this, but most high-voltage lines (the ones going to your house, etc) don't even HAVE insulation. Typically only the communications (telephone, television, fios, etc) have insulation. The power lines are the TOP wires on the poles and are almost always bare.

      In Canada (and 99% sure in US) anyways, other countries may vary.

    12. Re:Retrieval? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I don't have high voltage lines going to my house, do you? The lines that lead to my house carry 240V and they are insulated. Since the feed wires to my house are all twisted together, they have to be insulated.

      The lines on the power pole across the street appear to be uninsulated. I dunno what voltage they run, but it must be some medium voltage..600V? 2400V? 7200V?

      But I doubt my neighborhood power poles (or yours) are "high voltage" by the Electrical company's standards. It depends who you ask, but typically High Voltage is > 38KV.

    13. Re:Retrieval? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Why would you take it down?

    14. Re:Retrieval? by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      FREE energy for the masses !!! this is great yet another triumph for the military Huzzzah!!!

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    15. Re:Retrieval? by falldeaf · · Score: 1

      Why would you take it down?

      Erm, like, a specific scenario? What if power stopped flowing through the lines you were leeching from. Or if you needed to go to multiple places and didn't have an infinite number of Bat-Hook power line taps. Or if the country that you invaded had a super strict home owners association and after they saw your hap-hazard bat hook hanging from their power lines you got a written warning with the possibility of a steep fine if you didn't take it down in the requisite amount of time.

      --
      check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
    16. Re:Retrieval? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      As far as getting caught, I assume you just unhook the other end. And it's not like people move their homes very often, I doubt you'd need many Bat-Hook Power Line Taps(tm).

    17. Re:Retrieval? by gryllotalpa · · Score: 0

      Try the primary lines of about 14kilovolts which have no insulation. You'll need high-voltage gear and a distribution transformer and it's better if the method of capture is automated coming from a van. The isolated 230-kilovolt transmission lines will be more challenging.

      Local crooks in PH have tried stealing the primary lines and hung dead on the spot. They don't cost much since there will never be copper. The transformers are bigger deals but they're not only electrically hot, they're really hot and heavy.

      We should try taking on lightning while nobody still stakes a claim on it.

    18. Re:Retrieval? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant "high" as in "more than the phone line". They are usually 220 (or 240 depending on your standard). It's only the VERY top wires (at the top of the pole) that are uninsulated, that's why they put them so high in the first place.

      Once they leave the pole for your house, they usually put insulation on them (cause they go lower as they go over to your house).

  5. I did not expect it from *them* by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Army? Yes.
    Marines? Sure.

    The Air Force? I wasn't expecting that!

    How far do the Air Force guys get from airplanes and hangars and runways? It seems like they don't really have the same type of "field" that the land based grunts do.

    1. Re:I did not expect it from *them* by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      "My plane broke down, I just need some juice to get the engine started again"

    2. Re:I did not expect it from *them* by spoonist · · Score: 1

      It's for when the Chair Force guys are out on the golf course so they can power their Crackberries.

  6. Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 0, Troll

    No military should be considered superheroes. They just glorify violence and legalized murder.

    --
    http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    1. Re:Yeah right. by jcrb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You post this on Veterans day? Pitty I already posted in this thread and can't use my mod points :(

      --
      -jon
    2. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It was unintended, but yes. I'll post it every time there is a story on /. that glorifies the military, because that is a surefire way to get us back to Manifest Destiny and the Cold War policies where we invaded countries at the drop of a hat

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    3. Re:Yeah right. by bongey · · Score: 0, Troll

      You live in a fantasy land, ask Papa Smurf to have Tinkerbell to give some more pixie dust.
      Throughout history the use of force was needed to stop worse evil,Hilter and Nazi's come to mind.
      Grouping them all together and calling them all murders, shows your just a dick and need to shut up.

    4. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never said they weren't necessary, but we shouldn't revel in their actions. And yes, like you say, sometimes they are doing what they do for the greater good. Many times it is just needless interventionism though.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    5. Re:Yeah right. by zhong-guo-1 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      There's no reasoning with hardcore statists, they are too far gone. The cognitive dissonance between patriotism and objective morality is too much to handle, so they go with patriotism. iraqbodycount.org ~100,000 documented civilian deaths. What is going to come of that? How many people did the US piss off.

    6. Re:Yeah right. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      I don't know anyone in the military who's come back to tell me how awesome it was killing people in afganistan.

      Call of Duty games glorify violence and murder. Movies glorify violence and murder. Politicians glorify violence and murder. To my experience, the people in the military themselves are just people doing a job and hoping to stay alive.

    7. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll agree with you on your second set of statements, but just because they're doing their job doesn't excuse them. They are invading a country where they aren't wanted and are murdering people.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    8. Re:Yeah right. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No military should be considered superheroes. They just glorify violence and legalized murder.

      I'm sure that's exactly what those prisoners at Auschwitz thought when Allied soldiers showed up. That's certain one particular example, but nearly every war in history has been fought for far more complex reasons than simply because a bunch of guys were bloodthirsty.

      Unfortunately you have a simplistic and unrealistic impression of how the world works.

      Soldiers don't do any of the things you suggest. The entertainment industry (ironically pacifist) glorifies violence and the government defines policy regarding death and/or murder.

    9. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't have a simplistic and unrealistic impression of how the world works. I never stated a cadre of beliefs, you are simply assuming - for the sake of rational debate you, and everyone else, should stop doing that when you encounter an opinion you don't like.

      As I stated in another comment - "I never said they weren't necessary, but we shouldn't revel in their actions. And yes, like you say, sometimes they are doing what they do for the greater good. Many times it is just needless interventionism though."

      Yes there are complex reasons, but the use of force is supposed to be a last resort rather than the second option.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    10. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Manifest Destiny was bigotry as a governmental policy. It had nothing to do with glory and everything to do with greed and racism.

      The Cold War was political, not military, hence the "cold" part. The Military-Industrial Complex enjoyed it, but that was more about the industrial greed and less about anyone the military was invading.

      We don't invade countries at the drop of a hat.

      At least, not when Republicans are out of power.

    11. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Blaming the military when it's the politicians is not a way to role-model rational behavior.

    12. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're not going to give them a parade, then you need to pay them more.

    13. Re:Yeah right. by tgd · · Score: 1

      You're looking at it wrong. Criminals just glorify violence and illegalized murder.

    14. Re:Yeah right. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Blame the one (politicians) wielding the sword, not the sword itself.

    15. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're still fighting via a military force. Who exactly is the current Hitler that we're using to justify our current weapons commercials?

    16. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States

      I'm not sure offhand, but weren't the democrats in power for much of the cold war?

      And I know it wasn't a specific war, but there were many invasions to keep Communism from spreading. Which is ridiculous - let communism spread if people like it. Other countries have rights too.

      And if the public didn't see glory in the military, they wouldn't join or support the military and we would not feel it was our right to invade other countries.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    17. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's your fault for being a lazy asshole.

    18. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, like you say, sometimes they are doing what they do for the greater good. Many times it is just needless interventionism though.

      You realize that the military doesn't get to choose, don't you? You, as a civilian, are supposed to be protecting them from pointless wars.

    19. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Again, who did we invade at the drop of a hat during the Cold War?

      Viet Nam?

      Ike.

      Korea?

      Truman, but since there was an invasion going on that wasn't us, it doesn't fit your drop-of-a-hat model.

      if the public didn't see glory in the military, they wouldn't join or support the military

      Possibly, but not a good thing. We need a military, and you've admitted as much in other posts.

      and we would not feel it was our right to invade other countries

      That doesn't follow at all. We wouldn't feel we had the capacity to invade other countries, but the belief in the right to do so is independent of the capacity. You're making the assumption that a strong military invokes blood lust. Which is asinine.

      If you want to prevent future wars, learn how they really start. Hint: it's nothing to do with having too many soldiers.

    20. Re:Yeah right. by bongey · · Score: 1

      I never said they weren't necessary, but we shouldn't revel in their actions. And yes, like you say, sometimes they are doing what they do for the greater good. Many times it is just needless interventionism though.

      The needless interventionism isn't something propagated by people down the chain of command. They are just doing there job, a rough job at that. Usually they are thousands of miles from home in some foreign land, just following orders. And the way I looked at it when I was there.
      If some screwed up Muslim, that misinterprets the Quran, decides he wants to kill Americans. I would rather they come Afghanistan or Iraq and try to kill me or my fellow soldiers, then have those same misfits kill someones husband,wife or child that had no chance to defend themselves, just because they were American. I would rather die, then them , at least I would have a fighting chance.

      Your comments are just extreme prejudice, almost as bad as being an racist. Your just lumping all military actions and people together and saying they are like X.

    21. Re:Yeah right. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Military is the only profession where part of your job description is to give your life for others if necessary. Not to mention that it's a very hard job and for not that much money. I think they deserve a bit of credit, considering that they protect your interests as determined by the politicians that you elect, who are actually the ones who control what our military does and who they invade or not invade. If you disagree with a particular war, fine, blame the politicians who started it. By calling the soldiers murderers, you are no better than the ignorant hippie pieces of shit who spat on the crippled Vietnam veterans and called them baby killers.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    22. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No I'm not - but by choosing to join the military you are supporting 'preemptive murder'. You are going over there and killing people who (I assume) you strongly suspect are a threat to you. Unfortunately that threat is subjective - the only time I'd say you are justified in killing someone is self defense. Unfortunately, YOU ARE THE INVADER and they are defending themselves from you, not the other way around. By attacking them you are only inciting more hate toward your country and inspiring the populous there to come over and kill us here.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    23. Re:Yeah right. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I never said they weren't necessary, but we shouldn't revel in their actions."

      That depends on the specific action. It is good that violence is effectively and usefully applied to some people.

      Effective application of violence is selected for by evolution, both biological and social. Our taboos against specific sorts of violence are useful for the maintenance of social order, but lets not pretend those taboos are more important than the evolutionary imperative of dominance and the survival imperative of killing violent competitors intent on doing the same to us, or that we do not have the natural rights we acknowledge in the rest of the animal kingdom.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    24. Re:Yeah right. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Until they're preventing the same happening to you, or others. Then you'd be happy for them.

    25. Re:Yeah right. by bieber · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a difficult distinction to make when the sword has volunteered itself, knowing exactly how it was to be wielded. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single member of the military today who hasn't had the chance to get out since the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, which means that every one of them bears full responsibility for the decision to take part in those occupations. "Oppose the war, support the troops" is a great politically correct sentiment at all, but it's not logical at all when the troops all chose to participate in the war.

    26. Re:Yeah right. by bieber · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of firefighters? They lay down their lives for others all the time, and their job description doesn't include killing. If you disagree with either of our current wars, then you must logically disagree with the soldiers fighting it, because every single one of them volunteered to serve or continue serving while those conflicts were ongoing. You can't very well claim "Well, I didn't sign up for this", when you did in fact sign up while you knew it was going on.

    27. Re:Yeah right. by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 0, Troll

      "No I'm not - but by choosing to join the military you are supporting 'preemptive murder'."

      This statement is so flawed I don't know where to begin. You obviously have no real idea why folks chose to join the Armed Forces. There are numerous relief missions that take place every year. Believe it or not, the military does help people regardless of your narrow, and incorrect, view.

      Secondly, based upon the above statement, if you pay your Federal Income Taxes, then you support it as well.

      For the record, it's the policy that dictates mission. Period. Showing off the 'cool toys' that the military has at their disposal to keep themselves and other safe during a mission is not glorifying.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    28. Re:Yeah right. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Fine line there chief. I almost joined the Air Force Reserves as a loadmaster, as I wanted to help on peaceful/humanitarian missions moving supplies to where they're needed (I dig logistics quite a bit). Once you're in for X number of years, what happens when the political winds change and some asshole like Bush is in charge? You don't get to opt out all of a sudden just because the "contract" has materially changed.

      Oppose the war, support the good the armed forces has the capability to do.

      I don't know of any not-for-profit that has access to the logistics system the US military has (and no, Fedex doesn't count).

    29. Re:Yeah right. by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      It makes me sad that you were modded as flamebait.

      You're totally right. Hate on the politicians and leadership, but the individuals who actually pick up a rifle and go off to war deserve nothing but respect. It's a high stress job, we ask them to do things that no person should ever have to do. Some of those guys snap, make mistakes and do things that we wished they hadn't. The vast majority handle that burden with honor and class.

    30. Re:Yeah right. by bieber · · Score: 1

      Right, but I'm not talking about people who signed up a month before 9/11 and suddenly found themselves involved in an invasion they had no choice in. We've been in Afghanistan for what, nine years now? And a couple less for Iraq? Is there seriously anyone who hasn't had the chance to get out by now?

    31. Re:Yeah right. by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Taking personal responsibility scares people. It's much easier to blame things on soldiers than by accepting responsibility for letting our elected officials get away with empire building.

    32. Re:Yeah right. by Genda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I blame is the Military Industrial Complex, the politicians that pander to it, the ex-pentagon/military officers that retire to cushy jobs lobbying for the Industrial Giants that have raped and pillaged our government (and the tax payer in particular), and the self serving representatives who have played at war for no other reason than to justify pumping the vast majority of America's resources into this immoral, objectionable, enterprise.

      Soldiers are men and women (most from poor economic situations) who have chosen for the most part to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of defending our nation in war, and healing our nation in times of disaster. For these people I have nothing but the greatest of respect. The sad fact is that in the most recent conflicts we've fought, the largest single cause of death or injury is not from the enemy, but all the problems and mishaps that come from moving large numbers of young people around with weapons, and having them live in constant state of near terror. Our leaders have done a piss poor job of protecting and honoring our soldiers. While publicly honoring our fighting men and women, the last administration cut funding for critical medical care to returning soldiers, and failed to make absolutely certain that those soldiers were being properly taken care of. Every expert on the subject has proclaimed the need for providing our soldiers with psychiatric counseling and care to alleviate PTSD and ease them back into civilian life. To this day, such service is being virtually ignored. The one thing in our military most neglected by our representatives, has consistently been our soldiers. Its an insult to their sacrifice.

      Our country spends more on it's weapons of mass destruction, than the next top 27 military countries on the planet combines. Simply said, it's killing us. The sane answer would be to create a small highly mobile team of experts with insanely advanced cutting edge military technology, so at the first hint of trouble, they could make powerful tactical strikes. We live in a time when the greatest threat to America, is not hostile nations, but rogue international organizations (usually religious or politically based.) Our current military is almost useless in the face of that kind of enemy. We could keep a relatively small arsenal of ICBMs, for larger global threats. Dismantle the rest, reduce our army/navy/marines/air force to 10% of it's current size, and then outfit that 10% with space age technology. We build a robotic, fly by wire fighting force, so the number of soldiers in the field are reduced by another 90%. Finally we make certain we have a huge National Guard (in particular, we could cycle huge numbers of non-violent men and women out of prisons) to ensure our safety in case of a catastrophic event either natural or man-made.

      In doing this, we still have the strongest militarily on the planet, but it costs us 80% less, its orders of magnitude more mobile, easier to scale and apply to specific situations, and for Americans, less likely to be the source of needless casualties on the field (ours or theirs.)

      Of course it would demand that we change our focus from making a buck, to doing the right thing, serving our nation, promoting the common defense, and ensuring domestic tranquility. It saddens me to see that our greed centric society has made suffering, moral degradation, and religious fanaticism the gross national product.

    33. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Erm, what? If you want to help people, then join the Peace Corps, or some other volunteer organization. That's not hard to understand.

      And yes, I paid my taxes, and no, I don't like that I had to. Hence stating my point of view and trying to convince people of my opinion. I plan on leaving the states once I am done with my PhD in Nuclear Engineering, unless things have gotten better.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    34. Re:Yeah right. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You're entitled to you opinion. But only because of that military.

    35. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there are, there are grunts who brag about how many VCs or Iraqis they shot. Ever seen a Vet scream at a Japanese/Vietnamese/Korean/Arab person on the street? It's not nice.

    36. Re:Yeah right. by tophermeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are invading a country where they aren't wanted and are murdering people.

      And we are responsible for sending them there.

      Own up to the fact that we have let our political leadership run wild with our recent wars. The military answers to Civilian authority. Soldiers very literally have no ability to refuse their orders. This is ingrained in them from the moment they enter basic training. Civilian authorities like that because it means we can send these guys to do our bidding while publicly denouncing the horrendous necessity of their existence.

      They are doing exactly what our political leadership is asking them to do. Our political leadership is elected by people like you and me. You can't put those atrocities on them without accepting equal responsibility for allowing it to happen.

      But if it makes you feel good about yourself to shit on these guys on Veterans day, go right ahead.

    37. Re:Yeah right. by zhong-guo-1 · · Score: 0

      Both Bush and Obama said the following "I'll go with what the commander on the ground says is best" Fucking google it.

    38. Re:Yeah right. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Military is the only profession where part of your job description is to give your life for others if necessary

      I think there are policemen and fire fighters who would disagree with you.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    39. Re:Yeah right. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Both Bush and Obama said the following "I'll go with what the commander on the ground says is best" Fucking google it.

      Both Bush and Obama promised tax relief and all kinds of other bullshit they had no intention of delivering, like pretty much all of their predecessors. When you have a point, make it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:Yeah right. by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      The troops can choose to participate as the "sword" of you will, hoping that they can have a positive effect on their country. While someone who signs up for the military now is most likely going to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, it doesn't change the fact that our armed forces are there to protect us, even if that isn't what our leaders task them to do.

      I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to risk their life to try to make our country safer, and whether or not they actually make us safer is irrelevant, so long as their intention is to protect us.

    41. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're making the assumption that a strong military invokes blood lust.

      something about having a hammer and only seeing a lot of nails maybe?

      Parity tends to produce cooperation, overwhelming superiority tends to produce arrogance towards those you are superior too.

      Do you seriously thing we would have invaded Iraq if we didn't know our military could kick the crap out of them? (note this is different than actually planning for the consequences of *after* kicking the crack out of them which we didn't do either).

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    42. Re:Yeah right. by endymion.nz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Own up to the fact that the United States is constantly at war, even if they haven't actually declared war since WWII. It's what you do. Yours truly, the rest of the world.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    43. Re:Yeah right. by bieber · · Score: 1

      So basically what you're saying is that exercising sound ethical judgement is a bad thing, and that you consider it respectable for a person to sign up to take part in an oppressive foreign occupation because their motive may be to "protect us?"

      In real life, it's actions that matter, not words. The tons of propaganda we get dumped on us daily about how the military is "protecting us" doesn't change the fact that they are not, in fact, protecting us, but rather enforcing our control over foreigners we have no business controlling. When you sign up for the military, you sign up for what they're doing, good or bad. The fact that they theoretically could do something good doesn't change the fact that you're signing up in the here and now for the bad.

    44. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "I'm sure that's exactly what those prisoners at Auschwitz thought when Allied soldiers showed up. "

      The Japanese-Americans would have been glad to be liberated from their American-run Concentration Camps too if the Germans had won the war.

    45. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Grenada and Panama: What did I say about Republicans?

      Dominican: We were there to prevent the place from imploding. We didn't invade just to show off our boys in uniform.

    46. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      We invaded Iraq because W and his co-conspirators planned to invade Iraq all along. Nothing to do with glory and the military; everything to do with their personal ambitions and finding a way to put a trillion dollars in Halliburton's hands.

    47. Re:Yeah right. by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      So basically what you're saying is that exercising sound ethical judgement is a bad thing

      I think it's pretty clear that is not what I am saying.

      you consider it respectable for a person to sign up to take part in an oppressive foreign occupation because their motive may be to "protect us?"

      Yes. If their motivation for signing up is to "protect us", then I have a great deal of respect for them. My respect for people willing to give their lives to serve others is not dependent on whether or not the services they provide do us good.

      Consider the following scenario. Alice is crossing the street right as an oncoming bus approaches. Bob sees this, jumps in the middle of the road, and pushes Alice out of the way.
      Whether or not the bus stops (meaning whether or not Alice was in any real danger). If Bob's intention was to give up his life to save Alice's, then I would have respect for him.

      In real life, it's actions that matter, not words.

    48. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not disagreeing your statement. But I don't think they would have done it if we didn't have the overwhelming military superiority we had over Iraq.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    49. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Soldiers are men and women (most from poor economic situations) who have chosen for the most part to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of defending our nation in war, and healing our nation in times of disaster.

      Um, a bit less on the soldier-hero stuff. Volunteer soldiers are generally naive and confused kids who recruiters promised whatever and fooled, they think they're going to have fun, be rough-and-tough heroes, get laid and make money. Many are ex-cons, drug addicts, and nutcases. When they all transition from "active" to "veteran", i.e., spent and used, they sometimes figure out it wasn't quite like they were told.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    50. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Military is the only profession where part of your job description is to give your life for others if necessary.

      You meant "where you professionally kill and get paid for it are not breaking the law, in the name of corporations, are not allowed to ask questions, and in any case you and everyone must repeat you are a hero - or else".

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    51. Re:Yeah right. by zhong-guo-1 · · Score: 0

      You seem to have a comprehension problem. blair1q stated: it's not the military's fault, it's the politicians. I stated: the president makes decisions based on the word of the military. From out of left field you emit some random bullshit about how presidents don't do the things they say they will, and then proceed to imply my statement was pointless. Here's a new point, Go back to the top of the thread read it and then reply you stupid cunt.

    52. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes two to tango. At the very least the soldiers are enablers. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that without all those volunteers they couldn't fight their wars. There'd be armed insurrection if they ever tried to reinstitute conscription in the USA. Those of us who haven't already moved to Canada would be on the next bus.

    53. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      It makes me sad that you were modded as flamebait.

      You're totally right. Hate on the politicians and leadership, but the individuals who actually pick up a rifle and go off to war deserve nothing but respect. It's a high stress job, we ask them to do things that no person should ever have to do. Some of those guys snap, make mistakes and do things that we wished they hadn't. The vast majority handle that burden with honor and class.

      Drug traffic, people traffic, sabotage and the like are executed with honor and class, too. Don't agree? Look at all the antihero movies, mob movies. People love criminals. Being a successful criminal is grand, chic, elegant, world class, jet-set. Wealth, respect, smarts, freedom.

      Don't get your morals from the media, look for some people who actually help society, likely in health or education, and talk to them.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    54. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Easy to claim "greater good" when you're the one with the weapons, the media, and the money. Poor schmucks who get screwed with lies, bullets, and trauma doing the dirty work later get some combo of a measly check, endless shrink sessions, aimless lives, jail, and a ditch,

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    55. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      So we should have overwhelming military superiority over nobody?

      That's rather a problem, since it would mean we should have on the order of the smallest army on the planet, which would leave about 190 other armies larger and better-equipped than ours.

      In case you hadn't noticed, this planet isn't all country club. There are street-gang countries out there that would gladly take advantage of a weakness. Nothing to do with military glory. Simple business, to them.

    56. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      The needless interventionism isn't something propagated by people down the chain of command. They are just doing there job, a rough job at that. Usually they are thousands of miles from home in some foreign land, just following orders. And the way I looked at it when I was there.

      In the US, military work is volunteer. There is a choice involved. Nobody is forced. Nobody is a victim. Even after signing up, those who just leave, at worst get some jail time and loses some measly privileges, nobody is shot and beaten for abandoning the military. And many do it for money, for love of weapons, and of violence. This stuff about all soldiers being selfless, patriotic, wonderful, heroes, and people loving creatures is a bunch of baloney put out by every government in the world for obvious reasons - to make them and their families give up their life and critical thinking for all the usual us-versus-them lies.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    57. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      "No I'm not - but by choosing to join the military you are supporting 'preemptive murder'."

      This statement is so flawed I don't know where to begin. You obviously have no real idea why folks chose to join the Armed Forces. There are numerous relief missions that take place every year. Believe it or not, the military does help people regardless of your narrow, and incorrect, view.

      Secondly, based upon the above statement, if you pay your Federal Income Taxes, then you support it as well.

      For the record, it's the policy that dictates mission. Period. Showing off the 'cool toys' that the military has at their disposal to keep themselves and other safe during a mission is not glorifying.

      Yeah, everyone joining the military *really* wanted to do humanitarian work. The military are really all about humanitarian work. Are you one of those shrills put out to pacify the American ideas about their military with endless war-is-the-real-peace-sounding lies?

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    58. Re:Yeah right. by h00manist · · Score: 1

      "I was just doing my job." -- That's a big whitewash of a lie. Well, you took the job, kept it, and trained for it, and accepted it. Plenty of "jobs" are to create harsh and miserable and humiliating situations, and people accept them. I told you have no right to treatment, I put you back out on the street, I gave you a fine, I evicted you from your home, I locked you in your cell, I told you to please step aside so I can search you. Everyone just "does their job", but nobody makes everyone miserable in a ruthless society.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    59. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Parity tends to produce cooperation

      Except for the many times where it instead produces bloody world wars and arms races. Interesting that this should come up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rememberance_Day . Parity in the early 1900s resulted in an entire generation ground into hamburger.

      As for arms races, I give you: the cold war. Most of the hot wars the US ended up in have been direct consequences of the cold war, too - arms races often lead to small proxy wars. In fact, it's hard to think of any recent wars that weren't deeply related to the cold war. (Iraq II would be the *least* related, but that's still directly tied in to Iraq I, which is directly tied into Iraq-Iran, which was definitely tied into Cold War war machinations...).

      You would think that military asymmetry would be worse, but, barring outright aggressive wars of territorial conquest, we don't see many big-stomps-little wars in isolation. We see them as proxy wars that result from other competing nations that are at military parity. Part of it may simply be statistics: at parity, either side could attack the other, but with asymmetry, only one side could plausibly start trouble.

    60. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Not saying anything of the sort. But with overwhelming superiority comes responsibilities that we don't wield it simply because we have it to wield.

      Human nature is what it is, self reflection to know that is something we can strive to never forget.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    61. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And I'll give you this:

      Which would be worse? lots of small proxy wars, or global nuclear war?

      Would. You. Like. To. Play. A. Game.?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    62. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Somehow replied to my own comment instead of yours.

      So here's mine:

      Not saying anything of the sort. But with overwhelming superiority comes responsibilities that we don't wield it simply because we have it to wield. Human nature is what it is, self reflection to know that is something we can strive to never forget.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    63. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      we don't see many big-stomps-little wars in isolation.

      Wanna take a look at that statement from, say, any eastern block country? they got pretty well run over simply because Russia/USSR could.

      barring outright aggressive wars of territorial conquest

      Um, most wars are about territory and the resources that come with it aren't they?

      What would you say about the Colonial times? overwhelming force by the occupiers didn't exactly restrain them. Britain had territories on every continent for about a century. Not like the natives would really stop it.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    64. Re:Yeah right. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      How about the people who volunteered themselves for the National Guard?

      This might just be me, but shouldn't the National Guard be guarding the nation? As in staying in the goddamned country? Instead they are being used to supplement forces in other countries. Isn't that what the Reserves are for?

      I recall when Katrina hit we were at a severe logistical disadvantage because a goodly chunk of the National Guard of many nearby states were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan:

      Governors in several states have raised concerns about the Guard's long-term overseas deployments. That's especially true in the West, where a busy fire season may be in store because of drought; Guardsmen have been used to fight fires.

      The Guard staffing shortage was an immediate concern as Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, because about 6,000 Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard troops were deployed in Iraq at the time. That left about 12,500 Guard members available in the two states for hurricane relief.

      Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050917-stretched-guard.htm

    65. Re:Yeah right. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of firefighters? They lay down their lives for others all the time, and their job description doesn't include killing.

      Lies! Lies and deception!

      How many poor young fire elementals, djinni, and wisps died at the hands of a firefighter's hose? MURDERERS!

    66. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Own up to the fact that the United States is constantly at war, even if they haven't actually declared war since WWII. It's what you do. Yours truly, the rest of the world.

      Own up to the fact that humanity is constantly at war, even if specific individuals aren't personally fighting at a specific moment. It's what people do. What you can do when things go bad is: choose a side. Often abstaining from that choice IS a choice that results in deaths.

      If you believe that militaristic injustice is happening, then sitting at a computer in new zealand does not make you morally superior. It merely means you chose inaction, automatically letting whoever you think is wrong win. Or, at the very least, letting other innocents die to stop them.

    67. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I prefer arguing over who needs thumping after we ensure nobody can thump us while we're arguing.

      Because hamstringing ourselves just to avoid the argument is a good way to end up without the right to decide.

    68. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well there's your irony.

      We do have world-busting superiority of force projection.

      And yet, we seem only to get into fights in the sandlot.

      Ergo, as I keep saying, simply having the power does not lead inexorably to using it.

    69. Re:Yeah right. by arc86 · · Score: 1

      I think a practical goal would be to find ways for the US government to shift its military-industrial-complex spending away from weapons and war machines and encourage those companies to develop and sell peacetime technologies that will allow them to keep their technological edge. For example, instead of making fighter planes Lockheed could make rockets and space shuttles. Kind of the opposite of car companies being re-purposed to build tanks in WW2.

      I just think that the military industrial complex has too much lobbying power to let itself get cut off from government funding. Some might also argue that we need to maintain the capacity to build weapons in case we ever need them in the future. I think it would be great if we could fund companies that take the sharpest minds and put them to work solving challenging problems for the benefit of mankind. And if war does break out we can take the minds off those problems and put them back to work figuring out the highest-tech way to blow people up.

    70. Re:Yeah right. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well, no, Russia/USSR had major political goals in expanding into Europe after WW2. Considering they were pretty much there already, having been the ones fighting WW2 on that half of the continent, it wasn't much of a stretch to just say it's theirs and keep it, or to come back and take it again to spread their ideology. Still not merely a matter of having power and nowhere to use it.

      What they did in South Asia was about access to shipping for their resources. Money, not military. They were, in fact, desperate. That little war pushed their economy over the edge, and losing it caused the end of Soviet Communism.

      As for the Revolution, the British definitely did not have overwhelming force in the Colonies. They barely had any to start with, and when the war heated up and they shipped more over, it still wasn't overwhelming. That worked greatly to our advantage.

    71. Re:Yeah right. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Russia/USSR had major political goals in expanding into Europe after WW2

      I'd call having a large buffer between you and your enemy a pretty valuable resource, wouldn't you? So yes they took/stayed there for the resource. Wasn't like the locals had an ability to throw them out.

      What they did in South Asia was about access to shipping for their resources. Money, not military.

      again, access to shipping is a *huge* resource. Kinda why we took islands going across the Pacific in WWII (and yes I know the air fields were just as, if not more important). We needed places to stage and ship supplies rather than come all the way from Hawaii. Resources are basically money in any fashion you define since they by definition convert into money when traded or used.

      the British definitely did not have overwhelming force in the Colonies.

      Colonial period is more than just the US Colonies, just fyi ;-) And they did have overwhelming force compared to the native Americans, guns vs bows you know. Much like the Conquistadors and their Central/South American invasion. Metal armor does wonders against a sword or arrows.

      Not really sure what we're arguing about, you seem to think I mean to hamstring the US military and I've clearly never said that. I said that by having massive overwhelming force we need to make sure we don't wield it simply because it's an 'easier' way to do things than sitting down and hammering out compromises or doing things because a leader wants too.

      Iraq is the most recent example of this. Simply no justification for us going there. We haven't invaded N. Korea, yet they pose a significantly bigger risk due to the nukes. Why? because they have the nukes and our overwhelming force can't stop them from being used before we take over.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    72. Re:Yeah right. by AnonGCB · · Score: 1

      "U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, convinced of the defeat of the Loyalist forces and fearing the creation of "a second Cuba""

      Yeah, to prevent it from imploding. Right.

      And I never mentioned parties being important - the important thing is that we did it.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    73. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As would the secret service.

    74. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots and remote controlled planes can't get you guys oil.

    75. Re:Yeah right. by gknoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet, they still do a (mostly) thankless job, at great personal risk, which you or I would be unwilling to do. Much of what they do is good, some of what they do are for reasons which we might disagree with... they're still courageous.

    76. Re:Yeah right. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, soldiers that decide they don't really enjoy killing other people don't normally have the option of choosing a different job. Joe Grunt doesn't get to say, "I want to transfer to an intelligence job" or "I quit" - he must follow orders. Many are the stories of the job changing after they sign up (e.g., people in reserves who ended up serving in Iraq/Afghanistan for more years than they expected). You or I have the luxury of finding another job, they don't.

    77. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he didn't mean that. And neither did you, as much as you want to.

    78. Re:Yeah right. by sdguero · · Score: 1

      Going off his sig... I don't think the parent is old enough to vote.

    79. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to save the military millions, if not billions? (muhahahaha)

      Fire everyone in Finance and hire USAA to run that.

      Fire everyone in Supply and hire Walmart to run that.

      Fire everyone in IT and hire Google to do that.

      Fire everyone on the Uniform Board and hire Nike or Underarmor for PT gear and Cabella's for camouflage to do that.

      There would be an insane amount of money left over once you get rid of 3/4s of the non'ers running around choking us to death with bureaucracy.

      As far as the rest goes we don't need cutting edge we just need something that is better than what we had yesterday. Personal gear is a perfect example. Ever since basic and special pay (a soldier's paycheck) went up and units could buy their own basic gear individuals have been driving the improvement of the basic kit at a blistering pace once the bureaucrats and coorporate suppliers were removed from the picture.

      A smiliar thing could be done with advance pieces of equipment. Do we need F-22's when there is a new varient of the F-15 available with stealthier qualities and brand new engines and avionics, for a 1/5 the price that can beat the old F-15? Why do we need to develope a new Humvee (unarmored utlitliy vehicle) to outfit all the branches when off the shelf quad cab pick-ups from which ever manufacturer would easily fill the need for 1/3 the price. Cheaper gear means you can get your utility out of it and then throw it away after 5 years and get the latest and the greatest (and cheapest) instead of nursing it along for 20-50+years.

      The bleeding edge is great and all, but I'll take what ever is the latest and the greatest that falls into the best bang for the buck andy day of the week. Bleeding edge looks really cool in the movies, but rarely ever goes over that well in the really real world.

    80. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military is the only profession where part of your job description is to give your life for others if necessary.

      Be careful of using absolutes. What about the secret service? That's not a military organization.

    81. Re:Yeah right. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I stated: the president makes decisions based on the word of the military.

      You stated that the president stated that he makes decisions based on the word of the military. Who has the comprehension problem? You don't even know what you said.

      From out of left field you emit some random bullshit about how presidents don't do the things they say they will, and then proceed to imply my statement was pointless.

      Well, at least you've reached a junior high level.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    82. Re:Yeah right. by zhong-guo-1 · · Score: 0

      oh shit, you're right.

    83. Re:Yeah right. by Confusador · · Score: 1

      You know, every so often I wish there was an administrative override to (Score:6, Insightful).

    84. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you're right, we shouldn't be angry at the military, we should take it out on their political masters.

      Why, I'm so angry I'm going to... going to... VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY!!!

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

    85. Re:Yeah right. by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I think you'll find that a lot of actual Veterans are pretty anti-war too.

      Acknowledging the sacrifice of those who have died in wars does not mean you have to agree with all wars in the first place.

      I wouldn't insult people serving and dying in Afghanistan now, although I happen to think it's a pointless and unwinnable war that will end for us pretty much as it did for the USSR back when they last tried it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    86. Re:Yeah right. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Oppose the war, support the good the armed forces has the capability to do.

      In the case of humanitarian/diaster relief missions the good they can do has nothing to do with being armed though.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    87. Re:Yeah right. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Terrorists give up their lives for a cause they believe in Does this mean you respect them too?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    88. Re:Yeah right. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Much of what they do is good, some of what they do are for reasons which we might disagree with... they're still courageous.

      Terrorists are courageous too (unless you define courage as "doing brave things unless you're a terrorist"). That doesn't mean they're admirable or right.

      Courage is not in itself a sign of good ethical behaviour. I doubt that all Nazis were cowards, but they were still despicable.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    89. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By calling the soldiers murderers, you are no better than the ignorant hippie pieces of shit who spat on the crippled Vietnam veterans and called them baby killers.

      Except that 90% of Vietnam veterans said they received a friendly welcome and the spitting was an unconfirmed myth.

    90. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I have to choose between pretending all soldiers are bad, and being demonized as "one of those longhairs that spit on our returning soldiers" or pretending all soldiers are good, and be demonized as a warmonger and a party to torture and rape?

      Why can't we admit that soldiers are human beings, with the usual distribution of idiots, geniuses, sadists, philanthropists, and every other type of human? NEWS FLASH: Soldiers sign up to kill people - usually in the name of a greater good, like feeding their families or defending their country, but sometimes just because they are bloodthirsty dickheads.

      When will we get past the open acceptance of these lies, that characterize all soldiers are either devils or angels?

    91. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's part of the deal when you sign up. You join the military, you become a gun in the hand of the ruthless, greedy liars who make policy. Anyone who kids themselves that they can join the army and be guaranteed a nice cosy job warming the general's slippers in Washington is a fucking idiot.

      And even if you could so what? So you're working behind a desk in the army's payroll department back in the fatherland rather than shooting brown people in the face in Iraq - that makes you no less culpable. You're still part of the same machine, you're still enabling all the killing that goes on abroad.

      Fuck the lot of them. They're not heroes. The best of them are deluded kids with misplaced ideas of patriotism, or desperate kids who couldn't see any other career opportunities. They have been exploited and turned into weapons to do evil. I feel sorry for these ones, but they are still a part of the problem, and they all signed up for this voluntarily. They all knew beforehand (or had the opportunity to find out) what war is like and what this particular war was all about. You right wingers like to talk about personal responsibility, well here it is.

      The worst of them are gung-ho jocks who jumped at the chance to play with guns and get paid for it. They see it as nothing more than a real-life game of Halo, and get off on being the guy with the high-tech combat equipment and body armour and helicopters beating up on a bunch of peasants. These are the motherfuckers who commit all the atrocities, and these ones do not deserve to be mourned when they come home in shoeboxes.

    92. Re:Yeah right. by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 1

      Chip?

      --
      Orwell was an optimist.
    93. Re:Yeah right. by bieber · · Score: 1

      The problem with your analogy is that Bob's actions were fundamentally caring and good in either case. A more appropriate analogy for our current engagements would be Bob going out and killing every bus driver he could find, because he considered them a danger to pedestrians, and he was willing to lay down his life to "protect" the public from that menace.

  7. Is this legal? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought tapping into power lines to steal electricity is illegal. In fact, even using an induction antenna to steal power is illegal. Will the military have a special contract with the power companies to let them do this?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Is this legal? by jolyonr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Will the military have a special contract with the power companies to let them do this?

      Probably not a big issue when you have a lot of guns and are invading the country in question.

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    2. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt they have a contract allowing them to bomb radar stations either. Somebody call the lawyers.

    3. Re:Is this legal? by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well the article says this is for special ops forces, which basically means that they are in Country X without an invitation, usually to kill people and break things. So recharging their iPhones seems to pale in comparison.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:Is this legal? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Probably not a big issue when you have a lot of guns and are invading the country in question.

      One of the first things they did in Iraq was to knock out the power. Currently, it's probably only useful in occupied countries with working electricity. I wonder if such a thing would be prohibited by either the Third or Fourth Amendments even overseas (I guess it depends whether you were "in a time of peace" for the Third Amendment and the seizure was considered "unreasonable" for the Fourth Amendment).

    5. Re:Is this legal? by L3370 · · Score: 1

      Free electricity--Spoils of war.

    6. Re:Is this legal? by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presumably it's for use mostly in other countries. Which means they'd better have 220v converters, or switching power supplies.

    7. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a case in Russia where an Army unit did not pay its electricity bills. After a while, the power company cut off the electricity.

      The Army unit responded by sending a tank to point its gun turret at a local power company office. The power was quickly restored.

      (news item from several years ago)

    8. Re:Is this legal? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Well the article says this is for special ops forces, which basically means that they are in Country X without an invitation, usually to kill people and break things.

      You do realize that the role most often played by Special Forces is training and advising indigenous military forces, right? Special Forces includes everything from Rangers to Delta and Dev Group. Ever read "Inside Delta Force"? At least half their time is spent training the military forces of other states, or protecting high value targets like embassies or diplomats. Most of the time they are present in another state, they are there with at least the tacit knowledge and acceptance of that government. Very rarely are they operating within the territory of a hostile foreign state unbeknown to that government.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:Is this legal? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I'd assume they're recharging radios, GPS devices, or even a Predator ground station, not an iPhone ;)

    10. Re:Is this legal? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To be fair, if they were operating in a hostile state... you probably wouldn't get to read about it. Maybe you are only seeing the operations they allow to be published?

    11. Re:Is this legal? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      He documents a mission protecting the US embassy in Lebanon during the 80s. If that isn't considered a hostile state, I don't know what would be.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    12. Re:Is this legal? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, killing people was much more illegal than "stealing" power. Priorities, man!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Is this legal? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Um, if you are at war with a country, do you really care if you are stealing electricity or now?

    14. Re:Is this legal? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      When you have invaded a nation, stealing a little of their power is not really a legal problem.

      If you are protecting your nation that has been invaded, stealing a little power is not really a legal problem.

    15. Re:Is this legal? by modecx · · Score: 1

      I'd assume they're recharging radios, GPS devices, or even a Predator ground station, not an iPhone ;)

      I wouldn't be so sure of that

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    16. Re:Is this legal? by hedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's possibly a war crime actually. You're not allowed to pillage, and one would assume that would mean using an occupied nations electrical grid against it as well. Now, if you're in their with the backing of the ruling power, I doubt very much that they'd appreciate you damaging their power lines in that fashion.

    17. Re:Is this legal? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might not care, but the Hague might. Stealing electricity for use in combat ops is almost certainly illegal. It's been criminal for some time to use pillaged resources against the owner. I'd assume that includes intangibles such as electricity.

    18. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, if you are at war with a country, do you really care if you are stealing electricity or now?

      Yes! You are, after all, engaged in combat with the government-run millitary of the country, not the privately-owned electricity company.

    19. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would they use this hook to charge there laptops for presentations?

    20. Re:Is this legal? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Generally, when invading a country, soldiers don't have to obey local ordinances. You'll notice the M1A1 doesn't stop for red lights, and J walking foot soldiers are rampant.

    21. Re:Is this legal? by idontgno · · Score: 1
      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    22. Re:Is this legal? by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      What are you doing going round invading nations though? That's a horrible pretense to develop any technology from.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    23. Re:Is this legal? by fandingo · · Score: 1

      Pillaging means removing resources from a location to enrich yourself. This is not pillaging because the resources are being used in the combat theater, and furthermore, they are not being used to enrich anyone.

    24. Re:Is this legal? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but last I heard, the US was not a member of the world courts, therefore, what would they care what the Hague says.

    25. Re:Is this legal? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, assuming that electric companies in said country are privately owned and not government ran.

    26. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hague might care? Well, damn. I've sure you've got all the Special Ops types quaking in their boots now.

    27. Re:Is this legal? by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      Well, as mentioned below the US does not recognize the Hague. But, I was interested in what the Geneva Conventions have to say about it and really, it seems to not be addressed. It is a complicated subject as different nations/states have their utilities controlled by governments and/or private organizations.

      If it was really an issue, I think it would have come up relating to invasion forces using local water systems and sewer systems as these functionally are no different that an electric utility. I can't recall any invading force using the local toilets coming up as a war crime.

      Pillaging relates to personal gain/profiteering, theft of captured soldiers personal effects, looting bodies or theft of opposing forces equipment for personal gain (i.e. Kelly's Heroes)

      http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

      http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

      "Part III. Captivity; Section 1. Beginning of Captivity, Art 18. All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents, shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment."

      I cannot find anything that restricts the capturing force's ability to apply the captured equipment (w/ the exception of certain medical equipment and medical circumstances) for their own purposes.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    28. Re:Is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been criminal for some time to use pillaged resources against the owner

      RTFA:

      the US Air Force has developed a device that taps directly into the electricity flowing through overhead power lines

      -1 redundant

    29. Re:Is this legal? by alanshot · · Score: 1

      ever hear the old saying "all is fair in love and war." ?

    30. Re:Is this legal? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Really? If it's illegal to capture resources and use them against the owner, we can throw out half the rulebook of military strategy. If I understand you correctly, it must be a new rule, because every conflict I've read about up to the Falklands had instances of this kind of thing, typically fuel and guns.

    31. Re:Is this legal? by tru3ntropy · · Score: 1

      Dear resident, We are writing to inform you that during the next three weeks Special Forces will be performing operations in your area; due to this you may experience power shortages, power surges, slit throats or bullets to the cranium. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter, Yours sincerely The power company

      --
      In Google we trust.
    32. Re:Is this legal? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      The upshot being; the most successful thieves have a lot of firepower and lawyers.

    33. Re:Is this legal? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I believe GP was joking.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    34. Re:Is this legal? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well the article says this is for special ops forces, which basically means that they are in Country X without an invitation, usually to kill people and break things. So recharging their iPhones seems to pale in comparison.

      You want to assassinate a local tribal leader? There's an app for that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:Is this legal? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      All the Special Ops types are supposed to be defending freedom, not breaking international laws.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. Re:Now.. by jittles · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go to South America. Poor people use them in places like Venezuela and Argentina to steal power for their shanty towns. It's quite common and not a new idea at all. Just don't get caught!

  9. Why use a wire? by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just grab through the air from overhead power lines.

    http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2004/360

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Why use a wire? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      These devices are for tapping into the insulated residential power lines. At less than 240V anywhere in the world, there is insufficient flux to inductively pull power any distance.

  10. It's a good thing... by N0Man74 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a good thing that they are just tapping in to get free electricity... rather than tapping into networks to get free music downloads, otherwise the U.S. Military could be liable for trillions of dollars.

    1. Re:It's a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just thinking finally, a ways to keep a charge on my iPhone for more than 4 hours.

  11. Does NOT work. by Ivan+Stepaniuk · · Score: 1

    In most places, even low voltage power lines are 3 phase, that's four wires, all insulated. There is a very-very limited use on this device. Also... if a special ops team is doing such a thing, they would rather climb to reach the wires and make a safe connection.

    --
    My other signature is a car
    1. Re:Does NOT work. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You get one wire and ground, you're golden. Doesn't work: tug on it some more. And no, special ops personnel who aren't supposed to be somewhere are typically going to avoid climbing up on poles.

      Special ops, not Mission Impossible.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Does NOT work. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, but any one of the phase wires will do. The device has a small spike on it to puncture the insulation.

    3. Re:Does NOT work. by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      Residential electricity (typically) doesn't use all three phases, they just tap one of the phases then lower the voltage via a transformer. The same can be done with this hook. All you need is one connection to one wire, with ground, and you're good.

      --
      Gone!
    4. Re:Does NOT work. by Ivan+Stepaniuk · · Score: 1

      Residential electricity (typically) uses a coaxial cable from the pole to your house. This is done to avoid taping, it's not a coincidence. As I have stated in another reply, the problem is that a three-phase wire would not even fit in that small hook.

      --
      My other signature is a car
    5. Re:Does NOT work. by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      A typical residential line of the type shown in the picture in TFA has 220V between the 2 insulated conductors, and 120V from either insulated conductor to ground (which is conveniently located near the person using this device).
      TFA even says the insulation piercing probe is one side of the circuit, and the metal body makes contact with the un-insulated messenger cable, which is typically ground/neutral.

      All of this changes in countries that don't use the north american power standard, though.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    6. Re:Does NOT work. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      What country are you in? This is not true anywhere in North America. Three phase power delivered from plant but residential power is only single phase except in rare cases. In the U.S., residential power is supplied as split phase 240 VAC delivered on two 120VAC lines and a neutral.

    7. Re:Does NOT work. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      True, their hook still looks limited to a fairly small range of wiring types though, it relies on the ground/neutral being bare and a phase conductor twisted in with it covered in fairly limited insulation. Probablly also limited in terms of the overall size of the bundle.

      It also looks prone to shorting if it grips the cable the wrong way.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  12. Don't confuse those who serve by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    with those who give the orders. Soldiers do. The vast majority (five nines thank you) are the best we have to offer. Why? Because they are willing to do what has to be done regardless of personal costs. I am a bit bias, I did four years back in the eighties, but honestly, these people are special in many ways. Most would never brag, most have core sets of values they really do live up to. They do far more than message board bitchers will ever do.

    Look, they aren't perfect, but I respect the least of them more than you.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Don't confuse those who serve by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      but honestly, these people are special in many ways.

      With the decline in recruitment and the subsequent reduction of requirements to where the army lets in high school dropouts and convicted felons, I wouldn't be surprised if they've also got a few of the special ed kids.

    2. Re:Don't confuse those who serve by zhong-guo-1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It doesn't matter what you think of me, I don't care. You didn't address my points: The military is bankrupting our country, our presence in other nations engender ill will. What you said is: "As long as your following orders, it's ok. Herp derp, Soldiers are special, therefore I'm special too because I served. You're a cucka face" Wake up bucko, this isn't space command of the 21st century. China is going to beat our ass with a 2x4, and they're going to do it without using military might. We're fucked if people don't come around and accept the inevitable transformations needed to compete with the singular vision of 1.2 billion people. xue zhong wen hai shi ni mei you dong shi

    3. Re:Don't confuse those who serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority (five nines thank you) are the best we have to offer.

      Number of US armed forces personnel: 1477896
      0.001% of 1477896 = 14.77869 people

      I am a bit bias

      No shit.

      Look, they aren't perfect, but I respect the least of them more than you.

      Now go read about Abu Ghraib.

    4. Re:Don't confuse those who serve by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      With the decline in recruitment and the subsequent reduction of requirements to where the army lets in high school dropouts and convicted felons, I wouldn't be surprised if they've also got a few of the special ed kids.

      I also served in the '80s and I saw three groups. A small group of professional operators, a group of kids looking for a way to make money for college, and a group who were given the choice of service or jail by a judge. I stayed in the special forces groups because the other two groups scared the crap out of me.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    5. Re:Don't confuse those who serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you said is: "As long as your following orders, it's ok. Herp derp, Soldiers are special, therefore I'm special too because I served. You're a cucka face"

      And yet it's still more sound than anything you've said.

  13. Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems odd if you ask me. Anytime the US military assaults a populated area the first thing to disappear is the power grid.

    Once they hold an area, they could just step into any building and get all the power they need. Who's going to say no?

    Seems this is designed to be used for clandestine operations, where they need a fairly substantial amount of power from a power system they know is still operational.

    But look at the size of the cable notch and you can see this is to tap into building feed lines (entrance lines), its not big enough for high tension lines, (which generally aren't rubber coated any way). Any line small enough to fit in that notch

    Does that mean this is planned for suburban/residential areas or locations where there are building feed lines overhead? Some of the images on the linked page seem to show this (the unshielded cable in the images being for suspension only, and the other two conductors for power).

    Yet that kind of entrance is not all that common in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, so one wonders if this isn't for domestic use in disaster relief situations where no one will begrudge them the power.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by blair1q · · Score: 1

      "High Tension"

      I.e., high-voltage.

      You're not going to run your laptop off of 100 kV.

      So yes, this is designed for the distal end of the grid.

    2. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anytime the US military assaults a populated area the first thing to disappear is the power grid.

      From TFA, this was requested by special operations critters. They and other secret squirrels are in, snooping around, way before the power grid is taken out by air strikes. This thingie is meant for them, not regular troops.

      Once they hold an area, they could just step into any building and get all the power they need.

      . . . if they hadn't destroyed the power grid as mentioned above. Oops. "Unpack the diesel generator, Scotty."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could run your laptop off a 100 kV line, just rig your coil around it to only deliver 1 mA of current and then trade them off through a transformer or even voltage divider.

    4. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by icebike · · Score: 1

      The odd thing is, you have to be very close to buildings to grab power off of their feed lines. Likely to be noticed. Unless they take over a rural dwelling, how could they install this without being caught? Any place they might use this is a place that would be very public and hard to get away with.

      And just how much power to special opps guys need anyway?
      It would be easier to steal power from someones car battery to recharge your stuff.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      You're not going to run your laptop off of 100 kV.

      Maybe once...

    6. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      If a bunch of special ops guys with guns want to steal power from a line before my power meter I think I will let them get on with it.

    7. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by icebike · · Score: 1

      I'd just hand them an extension cord.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have to disagree, as someone who has been on three combat deployments to Iraq as an infantryman. Nearly every building in and around cities has some kind of elevated power line coming in. The only places where you don't have power are super remote farming communities where people are basically living in tents or dirt-floor cinderblock buildings. The type of missions that drop you out there are typically not the type of missions that involve prolonged power requirements.

      Also, there are some rules of engagement considerations for just "going into someone's house" to charge up the radio batteries. You can't go into a house in Iraq without IP or IA, and a bench warrant from an Iraqi judge. And no, you can't just "phone one in." For units that post up at blocking positions at night, this could be a very discreet way to get power to amplify your manpack'ed radio and cut through the crazy RF soup that buzzes all over Baghdad. Vehicle mounted antennas and deck amps are functional, but when you go dismount you have to get creative.

      There are other interesting things that this could facilitate... like on-site RF jamming... who knows. :)

    9. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by random_ID · · Score: 0

      Or maybe we have military operations in more places than just Iraq, Afghanistan, and Home?

    10. Re:Odd, Dangerous, unlikely by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      (the unshielded cable in the images being for suspension only, and the other two conductors for power).

      Sorry, that's wrong.

      In the US the typical drop has three wires with split-phase 240V. The two insulated wires are the "hot" ones - 120V each to ground, 240V between them. The bare wire is both for support and for the "neutral" wire, which approximately at ground potential (if it hasn't broken, come lose at one end, had a connection corrode, ...).

      When you aren't pulling the same amount of current from the two hot wires the difference current appears primarily in the neutral wire - which may make it a bit "hotter" than ground due to resistive voltage drop. The neutral will typically be tied to the building grounding system at one point near the service entrance of each house and to the pole grounding system at the base of each pole containing a transformer that feeds it (and sometimes other poles as well). But the resistance of the dirt is high enough that the bulk of the neutral current flows through the drop wire.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  14. Does this Device Work on High Voltage Lines? by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't detail whether this is for tapping power from single phase household drops only, which I assume is the case ... or can it also be used to tap higher voltage lines?

    Ron

    1. Re:Does this Device Work on High Voltage Lines? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the low voltage based on the mention of overhead street power and the vertical hook-throwing range of a soldier.

    2. Re:Does this Device Work on High Voltage Lines? by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      Those could still hold anywhere from a few hundred volts to 9.6kV (At least over here in Norway).

      The knife looks a bit iffy too as it could easily cause a short between the insulated conductor and the wire/cable used to support it.. Not very covert if you take out the power in a neighborhood now is it >.

  15. Not untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you said is not at all untrue considering history. Moreover -- and the military crowd isn't going to like this -- I would hold that most military men are motivated more by self-interest rather than "love of the country" as every military claims. Obviously the US military fights in offense much more often than defense, and you just don't join an organization like that unless you're ok with their agenda. An agenda of offensive fighting doesn't attract people on the basis of "desire to serve" -- it attracts self-interest, from the top of the pyramid all the way down.

    However, you will be modded down to insignificance, given that groupthink and popular opinion outpowers the truth every time -- especially when the truth is hard to swallow.

  16. nearly useless by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

    This would only work on the low voltage line between the pole mounted transformer and the building it is connected to. Trying to use it on a transmission line, even a small one in the woods would result in high voltage being fed to the device and likely whoever is holding it. In this case why not plug into an outdoor outlet, or just go inside and borrow the use of an outlet., shelter, etc.

    1. Re:nearly useless by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You mean especially in a small woods. The transmission lines between cities tend to be much higher voltage than the ones in a typical city. The electric company tends not to obsess about hot spots on lines in the city the way they do those interstate transmission lines.

    2. Re:nearly useless by Fartypants · · Score: 1

      why not plug into an outdoor outlet, or just go inside and borrow the use of an outlet., shelter, etc.

      I'm guessing it's because there might not be an outdoor outlet and the people inside might either shoot you or act in such a way as to increase the chances that you'll have to shoot them. Seems like a better idea to just stay undetected outside, steal your juice and go on your way.

  17. Big Problem... by huzur79 · · Score: 1

    First thing the military does is take out power and other utilities during the first waves of attack, what power lines will be operational when ground forces move in after the air assaults. This is at best useful for special forces that are sneaking around in a country. Not in a situation like say invading like what was done in Iraq.

  18. Less weird than it sounds by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most Air Force critters aren't pilots. Plus, Air Force Para-Rescue as well as Forward Air Controllers are specialized grunts who happen to work for the Air Force. The military is full of weird situations like this. For example, the Army operates 119 vessels (we're not talking about inflatable rafts here).

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Less weird than it sounds by paiute · · Score: 1

      Most Air Force critters aren't pilots. Plus, Air Force Para-Rescue as well as Forward Air Controllers are specialized grunts who happen to work for the Air Force. The military is full of weird situations like this. For example, the Army operates 119 vessels (we're not talking about inflatable rafts here).

      As I recall, during WWII, the Japanese Army operated its own submarines because they hated the Japanese Navy too much to ask for a loaner when needed.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Less weird than it sounds by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Yeah if memory serves, their military was very territorial and did not play well together. I seem to remember reading that they refused to share knowledge between their flight schools, so Army and Navy aviators were completely incapable of sharing their experiences. Their Navy also maintained huge numbers of troops because they didn't trust the Army to fight on land.

      Of course, that's nothing compared to the complete separation between their military and diplomatic corps. That was literally two organizations with not clue of what the other was up to. Japanese diplomats were as surprised by Pearl Harbor as Americans.

    3. Re:Less weird than it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Army has more aircraft than the Air Force.

    4. Re:Less weird than it sounds by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Mostly chopper jockeys, unlike the Marines which operate almost everything short of of B-52 bombers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Marine_Corps_aircraft_squadrons ).

    5. Re:Less weird than it sounds by idontgno · · Score: 1

      That musta been an interesting phone conversation.

      Phone: Ring ring!
      [Japanese Ambassador to the US answers phone] Hello! Good morning, Admiral, how are things going in Tokyo? Oh, you're not in Tokyo? Aboard the Akagi, eh? Interesting.

      You did WHAT!??! Pearl HARBOR? WHEN?!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:Less weird than it sounds by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't they give some of them back then?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  19. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A piece of plastic containing a wire with a spike on it is hardly innovative or newsworthy.

    I worry about the outcome of a soldier trying to lassoe a high tension wire or compromising the integrity of power lines left exposed to moisture and oxidation as a result of being punctured.

    There is also an issue of soldiers breaking local laws by stealing power from wires that don't belong to them or worst of all assuming such energy sources would be available to them to use in the first place.

  20. Why not? by pavon · · Score: 1

    Each of those three AC wires still has potential relative to ground. They only need to tap into one and use an appropriate transformer.

    1. Re:Why not? by Ivan+Stepaniuk · · Score: 1

      You could do that, but If you look in TFA, the gap is just around 20mm wide, there is no way that blade will successfully puncture something like this regular stranded aluminum wire. As I have said, usage is very limited, not impossible. It would work on some street lighting lines if you are lucky, and that's it.

      --
      My other signature is a car
    2. Re:Why not? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      One thing I could see is having a "kit" of this sort of thing so you determine what the line type is ( by a combination of observation and knowing local standards) get the appropriate tap out of your kit, maybe set the blade depth and deploy it.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  21. Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heroes don't demand funding for their agenda, with the threat of violence (i.e. locking you in a cage) if you don't comply. That alone rules out any military action (or government action for that matter) from being "heroic".

    True heroism is a selfless act of altruism, not a demand for compensation or funding. Let's call a spade a spade: military service is a business, just like any other business.

  22. Real-life superheroes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does being a government employee who kills on demand make someone any sort of hero?

    1. Re:Real-life superheroes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, we've all had rough times at the DMV, but you should have warned that guy to take a number and sit down.

  23. Re:Now.. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 0

    They do it in India too. They had a hook at the end of a long pole. With a tiny inverter to power saws and other stuff. They were building a new Hotel.

  24. wrong way, right way, Army way by slashdotard · · Score: 1

    Once again, Army genius comes up with a half-assed and dangerous solution.

    From the article:
    "The power lines that run from the street to a house usually consist of one insulated wire that carries electricity to the house, paired with a bare wire that carries electricity away to complete a circuit."

    uh, what? I haven't seen any overhead drops that consist of less than two insulated cables and one bare one to carry the split-220 to the typical home, small business, street lamp, etc.

    If this device cuts into both insulated wires, there will be fireworks and they will blow any "covert op" they may be indulging in.

    There's the wrong way, the right way and the Army way. This is so not the right way.

    --
    me. --a by-product of public education
    1. Re:wrong way, right way, Army way by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Most countries use 230V single phase. One hot and one neutral/ground.

    2. Re:wrong way, right way, Army way by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      That reminded me of one of my favorite Simpson's dialogues:

      Homer: There's the right way, the wrong way and the MAX POWER way!

      Lisa: But isn't that just the wrong way, dad?

      Homer: Yes... but... faster!

  25. Anyone else... by Kalidor · · Score: 1

    Anyone else see this and get a flashback for Thicknet Vampire taps?

    --

    Code softly but carry a big magnet.

  26. Cheaper than solar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing, this will make power cheaper for consumers to harness than solar or wind!

  27. Why damage the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'd be better and safer to just wrap the line with an induction coil. Most of what they propose powering with it are low power devices and a direct contact induction coil would easily power them just off leakage.

    1. Re:Why damage the line? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing. Maybe it's not enough like batman, dunno.

  28. More useless devices by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Your tax dollars at work, because in war time there is always electricity flowing in the power lines everywhere. It's not one of the first, if not THE first, thing to go.../sarcasm

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:More useless devices by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, because these could only ever be of use during the initial push.

      I mean, look at Iraq! No power anywhere! ...

      (as well, you seem to be positing that this would only be of use when there is always power everywhere. that's hardly the case.)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  29. Service Not Available in Some Areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get Power Anywhere!*

    *Service not availble in areas with buried power lines, metal insulated lines, no power lines or knocked out power lines or power lines that are not compatible with the very specifically designed hook...

  30. Cool! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I want me one of those, for my electric car, seeing as I live near a power station and would be able to tap in directly to the lines to charge my car without paying!!!

  31. Pretty far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My nephew is part of a crew that sets up and maintains a mobile radar installation. He's not often in a base.

  32. Where is the"what could possibly go wrong" tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see post title.

  33. Re:Now.. by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Informative

    People have done it here too... we call it... stealing power.

    Yes, you can steal power from lines, you can even do it via induction.

    Also... inverter? You only use an inverter to go from DC to AC. It was probably a small power transformer.

    -Steve

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  34. Just One Problem: Power's Out in War Zones by bkmoore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On paper, nice concept. But just one minor problem: the power grid's most likely down, or was never built. I served in Iraq in 2006-2007 and again in 2008-2009. Even six years after invading the place, the central grid worked only sporadically. Most Iraqis had portable gasoline-powered generators. Other countries such as Afghanistan or Somalia probably never had a functioning electrical power system (outside of a few capitol cities). I was with the Marines in Iraq. We got by fine with batteries and some small utility generators. The only reason for tapping local power would be to run air conditioning, without which the Air Force is probably out of the fight. Second point is if US soldiers were to tap the local grid for power, guess who would be blamed for every power outage? It would drive unit commanders insane paying damages for spoiled milk every time the power went down. And we would pay to avoid controversy.

  35. watch those fingers by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    That slot looks just wide enough to accidentally snag your finger in. Add a twisting motion... ouch!

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  36. Is it really necessary? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    "Since soldiers in the field don't always have ready access to an electrical outlet when they need to top up the batteries . . . "

    This device works on the wires that run from a pole to a house. Why not just go in the house and use the outlets there? You're an armed soldier, for Christ's sake! Just take the power!

    And all of this assumes that the power distribution system is still working in a combat zone?!?

  37. Re:Now.. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    I meant transformer since power lines aren't 220 and the saws they were using were.

  38. Sniper iPhone App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2009/01/26/weekly11-BulletFlight-iPhone-app-aims-for-accuracy-with-military-snipers.html

  39. Split phase... by slew · · Score: 1

    > I'd like to see how you get two hots and a neutral out of 2 wires.

    In the USA we do it like this

    Of course it takes a local transformer tap to pull-out a neutral (and if the loads are unbalance you don't really get neutral), but that's how we do it over here (gotta save on that copper wire)...

    1. Re:Split phase... by karnal · · Score: 1

      So you still need a third wire for a neutral reference is what I was getting at - even if it's not run the whole way back to the pole, you need a wire to ground. So, that still makes it 3 wires to the equipment and not 2... but now I'm just being nit picky!

      --
      Karnal
  40. Re:Now.. by Skal+Tura · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    then say a transformer and not inverter.

    Sorry, but you just can't talk bs and come back with "well i was meaning that". It would be like you saying "Every human should be killed" and then saying you meant "Every human should be apple fanboys". sentences not necessarily in that order.

    Talk what you mean, not trash. (and what if all science would be written in your style of saying complete bollocks first?)

  41. But it would work just fine if ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    On paper, nice concept. But just one minor problem: the power grid's most likely down, or was never built. I served in Iraq ...

    But it should work just fine if the military was suppressing a domestic uprising in the US. B-b

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  42. that makes them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    murderers _and_ thieves

  43. Major General Smedley Butler, USMC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are aware of the root of the problem, but your solution is still based on chest-thumping militarism.
    A Marine with 34 years of service and 2 Congressional Medals of Honor had the solution to American expeditionary misadventures and he had it back in the 1930s.

    "War Is A Racket"
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm
    [...]the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives[...]

    How to smash this racket
    [...]conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories[...]and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time[...]get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

    gewg_

  44. Re:Now.. by Lazareth · · Score: 1

    Fun fact, that's how science works. Except of course they check their sources better. Maybe. You just peer-reviewed his findings.

  45. the issue with these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The issue with these hooks is, that they only work in the US.

    Most countries have either several wires (insulated or not) going to the house, or they put their cables under the ground.

  46. Real-life Superheroes? by dugeen · · Score: 1

    I suspect the OP is trailing a coat there and hoping someone will step on it.

  47. Re:Now.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but you just can't talk bs and come back with "well i was meaning that". It would be like you saying "Every human should be killed" and then saying you meant "Every human should be apple fanboys". sentences not necessarily in that order.

    "Every apple fanboy should be killed" would obviously be what was intended.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  48. Re:Now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All across latin america, in fact. They were doing this at least 14 years ago in nicaragua.