And because I'm picky, I'll have to reply to my own post (this is what happens when you post in a rush) -- LAX has runways 24(R/L) and 25(R/L), and 6(L/R) and 7(L/R).
Airports have multiple runways (and land both ways on one runway) to mitigate the effects of wind. So, for example, when the Santa Ana winds are blowing at LAX, all flights take off on runways 7(L/R) & 8(L/R) instead of 25(R/L) & 26(R/L), so they are going into the wind.
When airports are built, the runways are oriented relative to the most common winds in the area, so the crosswind component is relatively small. A 30kt crosswind component is enormous, and found very rarely.
While there are many good examples of pork-barrel acquisition programs (military vehicles or otherwise), the HMMWV isn't one of them. It's meant to be a (better) replacement for the Jeep, not an APC. The erector-set look is probably a direct result of its requirement for logistical supportability and interchangeable components.
We HAVE TO attack other countries because we NEED their stuff
"Stuff" is a subset of our interests, and in a military context a very small one at that. It's an order of magnitude more expensive to go to war to get "stuff" than it is to simply buy the "stuff".
The U.S. has a long history of propping up governments -- some of which were nasty dictators -- to contain the spread of communism and, by extension, the influence of the U.S.S.R. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), the long-term consequences of such actions makes them seem shortsighted. However, propping up governments seemed to be pretty effective and expedient for most of the ~50 yrs of the Cold War. I'm not trying to be an apologist for past wrongs, just trying to show how those past decisions supported legitimate and important strategic aims.
We should be creating governments that americans would be willing to live under
You, me, and the Secretary of State seem to agree. Condi (from speech in Cairo):
For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither.
Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.
Yes it is good to have enough weapons to deter someone bad from attacking, invading or destroying you
What do you consider an attack? Does somebody have to directly destroy your troops / invade your land? Weapons are one of the array of tools used to defend the interests of a nation. These interests include, but aren't limited to, integrity of territory, freedom of navigation, strategic interests of allies, and vital economic interests. Aggressors don't always stand up and say, "Hello, I am going to attempt to f*** with you now, I declare war". Sometimes they willingly harbor terrorists, or annex a neighboring state and mobilize the 4th largest army in the world to the Saudi Arabian border, or shoot surface-to-air missiles at your aircraft attempting to enforce a no-fly zone that they agreed to.
A problem today is certain American enemies know full well that they can't go toe to toe with the U.S. in conventional or strategic war... They have proved in Iraq that they can spend millions of dollars on asymmetric weapons and tie up the U.S. military in knots, which is spending billions a month, and which has hundreds of billions of weapons most of which are useless in urban guerrilla warfare.
The US military is subordinate to and follows the wishes of elected representatives, who ultimately are elected by the people. You want more troops to come home alive? Well, then we can't just overwhelm the enemy with numbers. You'll have to buy better training. You want a fast war, rather than a protracted conflict? Okay... but fighter aircraft aren't exactly sold below sticker price. Oh, yeah, you'll also need AWACs crews to support the fighters, maintainers to support all the aircraft, and you'll have to build a tent city to house everyone. You want to reduce civilian casualties? Break out that checkbook - those smart bombs cost a premium. Oh, yeah, there will also be an additional charge to deploy and maintain that GPS constellation to guide those bombs.
Asymmetric warfare isn't some mysterious, secret terrorist weapon. It's warfare with blatant disregard for the lives of civilians (or your own soldiers, for that matter), and using information to turn the fickle opinion of an electorate with a culture of free expression, while brainwashing your own people in madrasas.
Used in specific ways, conventional weapons can be an extremely effective counter to guerilla warfare tactics -- reference Linebacker II. For many reasons, we don't always choose to use them in those ways.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all for paying for enough weapons to defend the U.S. but the U.S. military is completely beyond that today. Its is a cold war relic turned in to an preemptive, offense tool for dominating the world and that flies in the face of what many people want the U.S. to be.
Many people in the U.S. want their government to protect their interests. An assured energy supply is one of those interests. Did you type your post on a computer? Did you drive today? What about those lights all over your neighborhood, burning away all night -- they make you feel safer, right? Do you get your food from a grocery store (that's all delivered by truck, you know)? Do you want to make sure you can do the same tomorrow? You can spin it however you want, call it "dominating the world" or "nation-building" (though I dare say the current situation in Iraq is more akin to the latter -- promoting stability by building a new democracy in a culture to which the concept is foreign is the essence of doing things the hard way). The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you can get diplomats together to talk and hold hands, there will always be a need to use the military in more than a defensive role to protect our interests. Feel free to move to Europe if you want to send your soldiers out under a NATO flag instead so you can feel better about it.
Sure.
Situation 1:
Driver runs initial checkpoint. Checkpoint team attempts to fill car with bullets before car closes to effective suicide blast range.
Situation 2:
Driver runs initial checkpoint. Checkpoint team blinds driver. Driver is unable to navigate serpentine blast barriers and crashes.
The (notional) probability of somebody dying in situation 2 is less than in situation 1.
A human is a flexible, general purpose machine. A robot is a specialized machine. Sure, you can build a robot that can do one function (slowly) that a human could do, but that means for every function you need to build a new robot (or add a component onto your existing one).
With a human, you need to solve the problem of supporting the system - air, heat, food, water, etc. While this problem is by no means easy, the key is that you only need to solve it once.
As I recall, a friend of mine (and aero engineer) told me the Ka-50 had problems in certain flight regimes due to the downwash of the top rotor corrupting the air flow in the area of the bottom rotor
The Russians are extremely intelligent, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that US / NATO military power relies heavily on over-the-horizon information systems and space sensors.
the US was woefully unprepared for the "war" they're fighting now
By who's measuring stick? The Monday morning quarterbacks'? While there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, and some previous decisions and shortcomings have come back to bite us (degradation of HUMINT capability, not enough Arabic speakers), in terms of casualties vs a subjective "amount of progress made" the recent conflicts on record (Afghanistan and Iraq) sure beat previous major counterinsurgency operations -- such as the Soviets in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the French in Vietnam, and the US in Vietnam -- by a long shot. How? Well, you can start with closer ground-air coordination, GPS-guided munitions, UAVs, etc., all of which don't exactly appear overnight.
the US military are still stuck in their cold war way of thinking, and still don't have any real ideas on how to effectively confront terrorism
There is still an appreciable chance of conventional war in the future, so I wouldn't entirely write off "cold war" knowledge yet. There are changes happening in the military to respond to terrorism that aren't readily apparent on CNN. For example, if you compare Basic, or better yet pre-deployment training now to how it was three years ago, things have changed significantly. Or, Google "quadrennial defense review".
Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there
The bar or restaurant isn't responsible for ensuring you are safe to drive home, you are (the general "you", not the parent poster). I'm too tired to type out a rant on the degradation of personal responsibility in Western culture, so please just imagine one here [X].
While in places like the UK and Australia unemployment is low and economies are doing good, in America there is one of the weakest dollar's ever and unemployment is high with workers getting screwed every day. It is so abundantly clear that this guy is screwing over the US, yet people just voted him in again!
It seemed like your last paragraph was parroted exaggeration from a non-credible source. Being a fan of facts myself, I decided to check out the OECD Standard Unemployment Rates (PDF link). While Australia and the UK do indeed have lower unemployment than the US, but the disparity (a delta of a few tenths of a percent) is not to the level that your remark connotes. This leads me to the conclusion that you, Sir, are talking (posting?) out of your ass.
The parent is either totally off topic, or extremely short-sighted.
Terrorism is today's war. You fight today's war (by and large) with the weapons you already have. Procurements of new weapon systems are to prepare for tomorrow's war.
Let's not forget about the Internet, nuclear power, and the airplane.
Politics / opinion aside, I think too few people realize that military technology often translates into useful civilian technology. The corollary to beating swords into plowshares is better swords make better plowshares.
The military aircraft you mentioned cannot fly without computer feedback controllers because they are designed to be naturally unstable. This is what makes the F-22 / F-16 / F-18 fantasically maneuverable, and enables the B-2 to fly without vertical control surfaces.
I'm pretty sure the A380 (or 777, which also uses fly-by-wire) wasn't designed with those types of properties.
Actually, there has been one recorded air-to-air kill with a laser guided bomb. From http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html:
14 Feb: Bennett-Bakke. This was the famous laser-guided-bomb kill. The helicopter was on the ground at the time that PACKARD 41 released the GBU-10, but took off while the bomb was in flight. The WSO kept lasing the helicopter anyway, and the bomb guided straight through the rotor disc, destroying the Hughes 500 instantly. The kill was witnessed by a Special Forces team on the ground.
I wouldn't define the attack on Pearl Harbor as an act of terrorism either -- it was a surprise attack (IIRC a surprise attack is considered a legitimate tactic given that it fulfills certain conditions - i.e., not conducted under guise of a white flag) against a military target to achieve a military objective. Additionally, the combatants (the Japanese) were uniformed and separate from the civilian populace.
People often cite a gray line between "resistance / freedom fighting" and "terrorism". I think it's a lot more distinct if you evaluate actions according to the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict (which is, admittedly, a U.S. creation derived from a variety of treaties / customs):
military necessity - attacks limited to strictly military objectives (note this doesn't necessarily mean a military target must be spared if attacking it will cause civilian casualties)
proportionality - only using the amount of force necessary to accomplish an objective
distinction - discriminating between lawful combatants and the civilian populace (this is the test that most terror attacks fail -- they attack civilian and military targets indiscriminately)
Think of the massive Apollo rockets. Now consider how teeny-tiny the Apollo orbiter was, compared to the massive Apollo rockets.
Now imagine an Apollo rocket that has to go way, way further, and carry a vehicle that can keep men alive for months instead of days.
The bulk of propulsion is used to escape the clutches of earth's atmosphere. The additional propulsion required to coast to Mars is (relatively to the entire quantity) small. In addition, I'd guess that we won't use the same technology as Apollo. Think nuclear reactors and ion engines. A form of nuclear propulsion constantly accelerating a craft to Mars would also cut down on the months of time we currently need to coast there.
Also, with the experience we've gained from in-orbit assembly of the ISS, I would also guess that we might be able to launch a spacecraft in components rather than all at once.
Now think about what you do when you get there - the moon is low-G and no atmosphere. Mars is more like earth - and we don't use little bitty landers to land on earth, we use giant-ass space shuttles, runways, and launch platforms.
The "giant-ass space shuttle" was an overcomplex monstrosity built by a group of people that couldn't escape winged flight paradigms. Just to point out how things have changed, the upcoming Delta IV heavy will have a payload capacity greater than that of the STS.
From the rumblings I've seen / heard / read, the CEV will be more like an Apollo capsule. Also, you don't need to land your entire craft on Mars. You just need to get your people, scientific equipment, and whatever you need to escape the atmosphere down there. All of the support equipment for the trip back can remain in orbit.
I'm not going to comment on the political thread to this discussion, but I'd suggest not labeling the technological hurdles as insurmountable outright.
The world would be a much more peaceful place if people and countries stayed out of each other's god damn business.
You must mean the world would be a more peaceful place for you. If I recall correctly, we did a pretty good job of staying out of Rwanda and Sudan, and it was a helluva lot easier to calmly count skulls and dig up mass grave sites after the fact than to deploy troops and take incoming fire.
This highlights a central conflict in government operations:
How can you be both efficient in operations, and accountable to the desires of the People?
There are plenty of government acquisitions programs (present and past) that have come in on cost, on schedule, and performing to spec. Most of these are/were limited in dollar amount (reduces regulatory oversight requirements) and/or political visibility.
AWACS stands for Airborne Warning And Control System, and is used to monitor aircraft in combat. The ground equivalent is JSTARS. Both are (very sophisticated) military technologies that are, to say the least, overkill to be used to enforce traffic laws.
All the police have to do is time your vehicle between two points of known distance while perched in a light aircraft. The only technology they need is a stopwatch.
Slashdot Mirror
And because I'm picky, I'll have to reply to my own post (this is what happens when you post in a rush) -- LAX has runways 24(R/L) and 25(R/L), and 6(L/R) and 7(L/R).
Airports have multiple runways (and land both ways on one runway) to mitigate the effects of wind. So, for example, when the Santa Ana winds are blowing at LAX, all flights take off on runways 7(L/R) & 8(L/R) instead of 25(R/L) & 26(R/L), so they are going into the wind. When airports are built, the runways are oriented relative to the most common winds in the area, so the crosswind component is relatively small. A 30kt crosswind component is enormous, and found very rarely.
While there are many good examples of pork-barrel acquisition programs (military vehicles or otherwise), the HMMWV isn't one of them. It's meant to be a (better) replacement for the Jeep, not an APC.
The erector-set look is probably a direct result of its requirement for logistical supportability and interchangeable components.
"Stuff" is a subset of our interests, and in a military context a very small one at that. It's an order of magnitude more expensive to go to war to get "stuff" than it is to simply buy the "stuff".
The U.S. has a long history of propping up governments -- some of which were nasty dictators -- to contain the spread of communism and, by extension, the influence of the U.S.S.R. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), the long-term consequences of such actions makes them seem shortsighted. However, propping up governments seemed to be pretty effective and expedient for most of the ~50 yrs of the Cold War. I'm not trying to be an apologist for past wrongs, just trying to show how those past decisions supported legitimate and important strategic aims.
You, me, and the Secretary of State seem to agree. Condi (from speech in Cairo):
Perspective indeed.
What do you consider an attack? Does somebody have to directly destroy your troops / invade your land? Weapons are one of the array of tools used to defend the interests of a nation. These interests include, but aren't limited to, integrity of territory, freedom of navigation, strategic interests of allies, and vital economic interests. Aggressors don't always stand up and say, "Hello, I am going to attempt to f*** with you now, I declare war". Sometimes they willingly harbor terrorists, or annex a neighboring state and mobilize the 4th largest army in the world to the Saudi Arabian border, or shoot surface-to-air missiles at your aircraft attempting to enforce a no-fly zone that they agreed to.
The US military is subordinate to and follows the wishes of elected representatives, who ultimately are elected by the people. You want more troops to come home alive? Well, then we can't just overwhelm the enemy with numbers. You'll have to buy better training. You want a fast war, rather than a protracted conflict? Okay ... but fighter aircraft aren't exactly sold below sticker price. Oh, yeah, you'll also need AWACs crews to support the fighters, maintainers to support all the aircraft, and you'll have to build a tent city to house everyone. You want to reduce civilian casualties? Break out that checkbook - those smart bombs cost a premium. Oh, yeah, there will also be an additional charge to deploy and maintain that GPS constellation to guide those bombs.
Asymmetric warfare isn't some mysterious, secret terrorist weapon. It's warfare with blatant disregard for the lives of civilians (or your own soldiers, for that matter), and using information to turn the fickle opinion of an electorate with a culture of free expression, while brainwashing your own people in madrasas.
Used in specific ways, conventional weapons can be an extremely effective counter to guerilla warfare tactics -- reference Linebacker II. For many reasons, we don't always choose to use them in those ways.
Many people in the U.S. want their government to protect their interests. An assured energy supply is one of those interests. Did you type your post on a computer? Did you drive today? What about those lights all over your neighborhood, burning away all night -- they make you feel safer, right? Do you get your food from a grocery store (that's all delivered by truck, you know)? Do you want to make sure you can do the same tomorrow? You can spin it however you want, call it "dominating the world" or "nation-building" (though I dare say the current situation in Iraq is more akin to the latter -- promoting stability by building a new democracy in a culture to which the concept is foreign is the essence of doing things the hard way). The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you can get diplomats together to talk and hold hands, there will always be a need to use the military in more than a defensive role to protect our interests. Feel free to move to Europe if you want to send your soldiers out under a NATO flag instead so you can feel better about it.Sure. Situation 1: Driver runs initial checkpoint. Checkpoint team attempts to fill car with bullets before car closes to effective suicide blast range. Situation 2: Driver runs initial checkpoint. Checkpoint team blinds driver. Driver is unable to navigate serpentine blast barriers and crashes. The (notional) probability of somebody dying in situation 2 is less than in situation 1.
The number of these medals GWB has presented seems to be about consistent with Clinton: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_col umn_table/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_Recipients .htm
From a top level perspective -
A human is a flexible, general purpose machine. A robot is a specialized machine. Sure, you can build a robot that can do one function (slowly) that a human could do, but that means for every function you need to build a new robot (or add a component onto your existing one).
With a human, you need to solve the problem of supporting the system - air, heat, food, water, etc. While this problem is by no means easy, the key is that you only need to solve it once.
As I recall, a friend of mine (and aero engineer) told me the Ka-50 had problems in certain flight regimes due to the downwash of the top rotor corrupting the air flow in the area of the bottom rotor
why don't we wait for somebody to start building the things
Like this?
The Russians are extremely intelligent, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that US / NATO military power relies heavily on over-the-horizon information systems and space sensors.
the US was woefully unprepared for the "war" they're fighting now
By who's measuring stick? The Monday morning quarterbacks'? While there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, and some previous decisions and shortcomings have come back to bite us (degradation of HUMINT capability, not enough Arabic speakers), in terms of casualties vs a subjective "amount of progress made" the recent conflicts on record (Afghanistan and Iraq) sure beat previous major counterinsurgency operations -- such as the Soviets in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the French in Vietnam, and the US in Vietnam -- by a long shot. How? Well, you can start with closer ground-air coordination, GPS-guided munitions, UAVs, etc., all of which don't exactly appear overnight.
the US military are still stuck in their cold war way of thinking, and still don't have any real ideas on how to effectively confront terrorism
There is still an appreciable chance of conventional war in the future, so I wouldn't entirely write off "cold war" knowledge yet. There are changes happening in the military to respond to terrorism that aren't readily apparent on CNN. For example, if you compare Basic, or better yet pre-deployment training now to how it was three years ago, things have changed significantly. Or, Google "quadrennial defense review".
Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there
The bar or restaurant isn't responsible for ensuring you are safe to drive home, you are (the general "you", not the parent poster). I'm too tired to type out a rant on the degradation of personal responsibility in Western culture, so please just imagine one here [X].
While in places like the UK and Australia unemployment is low and economies are doing good, in America there is one of the weakest dollar's ever and unemployment is high with workers getting screwed every day. It is so abundantly clear that this guy is screwing over the US, yet people just voted him in again!
It seemed like your last paragraph was parroted exaggeration from a non-credible source. Being a fan of facts myself, I decided to check out the OECD Standard Unemployment Rates (PDF link). While Australia and the UK do indeed have lower unemployment than the US, but the disparity (a delta of a few tenths of a percent) is not to the level that your remark connotes. This leads me to the conclusion that you, Sir, are talking (posting?) out of your ass.
The parent is either totally off topic, or extremely short-sighted.
Terrorism is today's war. You fight today's war (by and large) with the weapons you already have. Procurements of new weapon systems are to prepare for tomorrow's war.
Let's not forget about the Internet, nuclear power, and the airplane.
Politics / opinion aside, I think too few people realize that military technology often translates into useful civilian technology. The corollary to beating swords into plowshares is better swords make better plowshares.
(if (or (= lisp practical) (= lisp common)) (monkeys-fly-out 'my-ass) (life-as-normal))
The military aircraft you mentioned cannot fly without computer feedback controllers because they are designed to be naturally unstable. This is what makes the F-22 / F-16 / F-18 fantasically maneuverable, and enables the B-2 to fly without vertical control surfaces. I'm pretty sure the A380 (or 777, which also uses fly-by-wire) wasn't designed with those types of properties.
meesa write guud new episodes for leeetle kiddies
Actually, there has been one recorded air-to-air kill with a laser guided bomb. From http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html :
14 Feb: Bennett-Bakke. This was the famous laser-guided-bomb kill. The helicopter was on the ground at the time that PACKARD 41 released the GBU-10, but took off while the bomb was in flight. The WSO kept lasing the helicopter anyway, and the bomb guided straight through the rotor disc, destroying the Hughes 500 instantly. The kill was witnessed by a Special Forces team on the ground.
I wouldn't define the attack on Pearl Harbor as an act of terrorism either -- it was a surprise attack (IIRC a surprise attack is considered a legitimate tactic given that it fulfills certain conditions - i.e., not conducted under guise of a white flag) against a military target to achieve a military objective. Additionally, the combatants (the Japanese) were uniformed and separate from the civilian populace.
People often cite a gray line between "resistance / freedom fighting" and "terrorism". I think it's a lot more distinct if you evaluate actions according to the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict (which is, admittedly, a U.S. creation derived from a variety of treaties / customs):
umm ... uh ... umm ... first post!!!
Think of the massive Apollo rockets. Now consider how teeny-tiny the Apollo orbiter was, compared to the massive Apollo rockets. Now imagine an Apollo rocket that has to go way, way further, and carry a vehicle that can keep men alive for months instead of days.
The bulk of propulsion is used to escape the clutches of earth's atmosphere. The additional propulsion required to coast to Mars is (relatively to the entire quantity) small. In addition, I'd guess that we won't use the same technology as Apollo. Think nuclear reactors and ion engines. A form of nuclear propulsion constantly accelerating a craft to Mars would also cut down on the months of time we currently need to coast there.
Also, with the experience we've gained from in-orbit assembly of the ISS, I would also guess that we might be able to launch a spacecraft in components rather than all at once.
Now think about what you do when you get there - the moon is low-G and no atmosphere. Mars is more like earth - and we don't use little bitty landers to land on earth, we use giant-ass space shuttles, runways, and launch platforms.
The "giant-ass space shuttle" was an overcomplex monstrosity built by a group of people that couldn't escape winged flight paradigms. Just to point out how things have changed, the upcoming Delta IV heavy will have a payload capacity greater than that of the STS.
From the rumblings I've seen / heard / read, the CEV will be more like an Apollo capsule. Also, you don't need to land your entire craft on Mars. You just need to get your people, scientific equipment, and whatever you need to escape the atmosphere down there. All of the support equipment for the trip back can remain in orbit.
I'm not going to comment on the political thread to this discussion, but I'd suggest not labeling the technological hurdles as insurmountable outright.
You must mean the world would be a more peaceful place for you. If I recall correctly, we did a pretty good job of staying out of Rwanda and Sudan, and it was a helluva lot easier to calmly count skulls and dig up mass grave sites after the fact than to deploy troops and take incoming fire.
This highlights a central conflict in government operations:
How can you be both efficient in operations, and accountable to the desires of the People?
There are plenty of government acquisitions programs (present and past) that have come in on cost, on schedule, and performing to spec. Most of these are/were limited in dollar amount (reduces regulatory oversight requirements) and/or political visibility.
You've seen too many Hollywood movies.
AWACS stands for Airborne Warning And Control System, and is used to monitor aircraft in combat. The ground equivalent is JSTARS. Both are (very sophisticated) military technologies that are, to say the least, overkill to be used to enforce traffic laws.
All the police have to do is time your vehicle between two points of known distance while perched in a light aircraft. The only technology they need is a stopwatch.