It's about time. Daily Radar was one of the most fanboyish and unprofessional gaming sites on the web. It's about time they were put out of their misery.
Well, the Tomahawk cruise missile is basically the same deal, only it's not reusable. We can give them new targets in mid flight, the new ones are equipped with video cameras for surveillance purposes and for armed recon missions where they circle and attack targets of opportunity, and they're also equipped with an identification system which lets them compare landmarks to stored images to attain a level of accuracy where they occasionally flew between buildings during the Gulf War, makinf turns at intersections, and finally hitting their intended target within feet of the programmed point. A neat fact is that the Iraquis actually managed to block a few of our Tomahawks by setting up steel plates between buildings, which the occasional Tomahawk would crash into, as it was not a preprogrammed obstruction.
Of course, you were probably talking about reusable, unmanned fighter planes, which are not yet in existence, but I have no doubt they'll have working prototypes soon (if they don't already).
These things are ridiculously cool; I had the opportunity to see them in action when DARPA came out to give us a brief at the Naval Academy about some of their niftier declassified projects. Basically, they fit in little metal launching containers, which tesselate so you can fit a couple of them into a box, and then you just hit a button and they automatically launch and circle to a crusing altitude. You can then access live video feed, and issue commands using its onboard GPS and maps. One scenario they gave us was a number of Marines in an urban battlespace want to get recon on a parallel street a few blocks up. They laucnh one of these, and they can program it to perch on an overlooking building and give them constant video of any enemy forces over there. They can also be programmed to crash and destroy themselves away from their original launching site if they come into contact with chemical or biological weapons, as to not infect our troops, and they can also be mass launched from an also autonomous UAV (much like the Global Hawk in the article) to quickly get total, live battlefield surveillance without ever putting pilots at risk. Unfortunately, the one they brought out to demonstrate had a fatal crash into a light post while making its inital ascent to cruising altitude, but nevertheless; these things are super cool.
Actually, the EP-3E is equipped with some of our most sophisticated electronic surveillance gear, and I believe the plane in question had recently recieved an upgrade to a more advance electronics suite. I forgot where I heard it, but it essentially represents a loss on the level of when one of our U2s was shot down over Russia (incidentally, the U2 actually was a spyplane, built for stealth and undetectability. The EP-3E is a lumbering monster that was actually converted from a submarine killer). Also, it did have a self-destruct mechanism of a sort; it's equipped with a system that wipes the contents of all their recordings and computers. However, it would be impractical and/or unsafe to install an explosive self-destruct mechanism that would destroy sensitive equipment, which is why the provide several helpful fireaxes. It's also worth noting that usually an EP-3E shouldn't be in a position where it could be captured. It's not meant to fly over hostile territory, and ditches very well in water, but in this case the second Chinese fighter forced them to land on Hainan.
Keep in mind that you guys are the most trigger happy people in the world. Maybe Hitler would have used it but nobody else.
I answer most of the other stuff in a post further down, but I couldn't let this one go. Do you really think DeGaulle would have resisted using the nuke? Not a chance. Churchill? Possible, but I think if it would have ended the war he would have been as ready to use it as Truman was. And if you think that Stalin would have refrained, you're being delusional.
1. Some evidence of political stabilization means nothing. Countries like North Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Iran as well as all other Muslim fundamentalist nations will always be a threa to the US, and it is only a matter of time until they all develop the technology to hit us with an ICBM. N. Korea and China are already getting very close. An SDI system (the Boeing is a TMD system, not SDI, btw) would basically invalidate all of their nuclear technology while ours would remain viable, putting them at a large strategic disadvantage and ensuring we never have a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario again.
2. Taking the US on in any military theater is suicide, but that didn't stop Saddam Hussein or Milosevic, and there's no reason to believe it will necessarily stop others, particularly when in some cases you're dealing with fundamentalist countries where logic like that is irrelevant. Also, an attack of one nuke probably wouldn't be answered with an overwhelming nuclear holocaust, rather we'd probably make a brutal assault with conventional forces.
3) How will nose mounted laser deal with a missile heading for it's lower back end?
The laser system isn't designed to shoot down air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles, it's designed to provide a TMD, a theater missile defense for our surface forces. It would most likely be used to target cruise missiles like the SCUD and similar weapons. As for suitcase bombs, they aren't nearly as large of a threat to the nation as ICBMs. If we had developed nuclear weapons without ever developing a real delivery system (strategic bombers, ICBMs) they would never have become as large of an issue. While it's still technically possible that a warhead could be smuggled in and then detonated, it isn't a very reliable delivery method, and also one nuke is nothing compared to a shower of dozens of ICBMs all delivering MIRV warheads with close to a dozen independent nukes each.
4) The only way a missile shield would be a dangerous thing is if another country had one that might use it to launch a nuclear attack while staying mostly safe from any counterattack. In the hands of the US, while it might cause other nations to worry, it would not be a security issue. Keep in mind that there was a period of time when only the US had the nuke and no one else did and could have essentially taken over the world. How many other countries could have resisted temptation like that? Not many.
5) $60 billion is not much to pay for security from nuclear attack. Also when you consider how under funded the military is at the moment and how much we pour into our worthless and redundant public school system in comparison, I think the choice is obvious. Hopefully with Bush in office with Cheney as VP and Powell as SecState, we'll see an SDI program implemented shortly.
Wars happen, it's just the way things are, and a TMD (theater missile defense) is an invaluable defensive weapon to minimize military and civilian casualties. While our current foreign policy is pretty gay, you can't be the largest superpower in the world and not get your hands dirty from time to time.
Slashdot Mirror
Cowboy Bebop has no nudity.
It's about time. Daily Radar was one of the most fanboyish and unprofessional gaming sites on the web. It's about time they were put out of their misery.
Well, the Tomahawk cruise missile is basically the same deal, only it's not reusable. We can give them new targets in mid flight, the new ones are equipped with video cameras for surveillance purposes and for armed recon missions where they circle and attack targets of opportunity, and they're also equipped with an identification system which lets them compare landmarks to stored images to attain a level of accuracy where they occasionally flew between buildings during the Gulf War, makinf turns at intersections, and finally hitting their intended target within feet of the programmed point. A neat fact is that the Iraquis actually managed to block a few of our Tomahawks by setting up steel plates between buildings, which the occasional Tomahawk would crash into, as it was not a preprogrammed obstruction.
Of course, you were probably talking about reusable, unmanned fighter planes, which are not yet in existence, but I have no doubt they'll have working prototypes soon (if they don't already).
These things are ridiculously cool; I had the opportunity to see them in action when DARPA came out to give us a brief at the Naval Academy about some of their niftier declassified projects. Basically, they fit in little metal launching containers, which tesselate so you can fit a couple of them into a box, and then you just hit a button and they automatically launch and circle to a crusing altitude. You can then access live video feed, and issue commands using its onboard GPS and maps. One scenario they gave us was a number of Marines in an urban battlespace want to get recon on a parallel street a few blocks up. They laucnh one of these, and they can program it to perch on an overlooking building and give them constant video of any enemy forces over there. They can also be programmed to crash and destroy themselves away from their original launching site if they come into contact with chemical or biological weapons, as to not infect our troops, and they can also be mass launched from an also autonomous UAV (much like the Global Hawk in the article) to quickly get total, live battlefield surveillance without ever putting pilots at risk. Unfortunately, the one they brought out to demonstrate had a fatal crash into a light post while making its inital ascent to cruising altitude, but nevertheless; these things are super cool.
Actually, the EP-3E is equipped with some of our most sophisticated electronic surveillance gear, and I believe the plane in question had recently recieved an upgrade to a more advance electronics suite. I forgot where I heard it, but it essentially represents a loss on the level of when one of our U2s was shot down over Russia (incidentally, the U2 actually was a spyplane, built for stealth and undetectability. The EP-3E is a lumbering monster that was actually converted from a submarine killer). Also, it did have a self-destruct mechanism of a sort; it's equipped with a system that wipes the contents of all their recordings and computers. However, it would be impractical and/or unsafe to install an explosive self-destruct mechanism that would destroy sensitive equipment, which is why the provide several helpful fireaxes. It's also worth noting that usually an EP-3E shouldn't be in a position where it could be captured. It's not meant to fly over hostile territory, and ditches very well in water, but in this case the second Chinese fighter forced them to land on Hainan.
Mmmm, it just wouldn't be /. without blind and pig-headed military bashing, wouldn't it?
Maybe because they were all pretty good games.
You're ALL wrong. It wasn't Austria, it was the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
"Gotta go, I'm having an old friend for dinner."
Sheesh, are we a bit nationalistic or what?
Yeah, you could say that.
Keep in mind that you guys are the most trigger happy people in the world. Maybe Hitler would have used it but nobody else.
I answer most of the other stuff in a post further down, but I couldn't let this one go. Do you really think DeGaulle would have resisted using the nuke? Not a chance. Churchill? Possible, but I think if it would have ended the war he would have been as ready to use it as Truman was. And if you think that Stalin would have refrained, you're being delusional.
1. Some evidence of political stabilization means nothing. Countries like North Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Iran as well as all other Muslim fundamentalist nations will always be a threa to the US, and it is only a matter of time until they all develop the technology to hit us with an ICBM. N. Korea and China are already getting very close. An SDI system (the Boeing is a TMD system, not SDI, btw) would basically invalidate all of their nuclear technology while ours would remain viable, putting them at a large strategic disadvantage and ensuring we never have a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario again.
2. Taking the US on in any military theater is suicide, but that didn't stop Saddam Hussein or Milosevic, and there's no reason to believe it will necessarily stop others, particularly when in some cases you're dealing with fundamentalist countries where logic like that is irrelevant. Also, an attack of one nuke probably wouldn't be answered with an overwhelming nuclear holocaust, rather we'd probably make a brutal assault with conventional forces.
3) How will nose mounted laser deal with a missile heading for it's lower back end?
The laser system isn't designed to shoot down air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles, it's designed to provide a TMD, a theater missile defense for our surface forces. It would most likely be used to target cruise missiles like the SCUD and similar weapons. As for suitcase bombs, they aren't nearly as large of a threat to the nation as ICBMs. If we had developed nuclear weapons without ever developing a real delivery system (strategic bombers, ICBMs) they would never have become as large of an issue. While it's still technically possible that a warhead could be smuggled in and then detonated, it isn't a very reliable delivery method, and also one nuke is nothing compared to a shower of dozens of ICBMs all delivering MIRV warheads with close to a dozen independent nukes each.
4) The only way a missile shield would be a dangerous thing is if another country had one that might use it to launch a nuclear attack while staying mostly safe from any counterattack. In the hands of the US, while it might cause other nations to worry, it would not be a security issue. Keep in mind that there was a period of time when only the US had the nuke and no one else did and could have essentially taken over the world. How many other countries could have resisted temptation like that? Not many.
5) $60 billion is not much to pay for security from nuclear attack. Also when you consider how under funded the military is at the moment and how much we pour into our worthless and redundant public school system in comparison, I think the choice is obvious. Hopefully with Bush in office with Cheney as VP and Powell as SecState, we'll see an SDI program implemented shortly.
I'm pretty sure when they say "make the engine do messy things," they mean "blow up."
Wars happen, it's just the way things are, and a TMD (theater missile defense) is an invaluable defensive weapon to minimize military and civilian casualties. While our current foreign policy is pretty gay, you can't be the largest superpower in the world and not get your hands dirty from time to time.