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."
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
There is prior art in Indian cities I believe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4802248.stm
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
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!
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.
You post this on Veterans day? Pitty I already posted in this thread and can't use my mod points :(
-jon
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?
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!
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Each of those three AC wires still has potential relative to ground. They only need to tap into one and use an appropriate transformer.
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!
Blaming the military when it's the politicians is not a way to role-model rational behavior.
If you're not going to give them a parade, then you need to pay them more.
You're looking at it wrong. Criminals just glorify violence and illegalized murder.
Blame the one (politicians) wielding the sword, not the sword itself.
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.
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
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.
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!
Anyone else see this and get a flashback for Thicknet Vampire taps?
Code softly but carry a big magnet.
"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."
Until they're preventing the same happening to you, or others. Then you'd be happy for them.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're entitled to you opinion. But only because of that military.
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.
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.
:(){
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.'"
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.
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
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!!!
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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/
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/
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/
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/
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.
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/
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"
"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/
"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/
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.
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...
"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?!?
I meant transformer since power lines aren't 220 and the saws they were using were.
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
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
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
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
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
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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!
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.
I thought the same thing. Maybe it's not enough like batman, dunno.
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.
> 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)...
Going off his sig... I don't think the parent is old enough to vote.
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.'"
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
You know, every so often I wish there was an administrative override to (Score:6, Insightful).
Fun fact, that's how science works. Except of course they check their sources better. Maybe. You just peer-reviewed his findings.
I suspect the OP is trailing a coat there and hoping someone will step on it.
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
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
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
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
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
Chip?
Orwell was an optimist.
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.