Kevlar is kevlar. The thickest kevlar could be stopped by a handgun. Try stopping a AP round with any body armor. An exo skeleton could wear hard bodied synthetics, designed to deflect a bullet more often than a dead stop.
Well, I think your analogy is off. The little man isn't threatening us, he's threatening our little brother, unprovoked. Personally I'd knock his block off and enjoy it, but whatever. You let little man bully everyone and eventually someone else is going to get hurt, for no good reason at all. People remember you had the opportunity to stop him, and wonder why you didn't take advantage of it. How about this analogy. You say you're sorry and buy little man a beer, he buys you a beer and you think everything is hunky dory until you discover there's poison in your beer, and death is imminent.
You're wrong about us not being able to afford a war. A ground war is one thing, and the largest price there is troop morale. If troopers are dieing left and right, nobody will fight the war. A second ground war would likely require a draft. An air war is dirt cheap in comparison, it's quick and easy.
Long ago they cancelled the nuclear bunker buster research, but I think they went ahead and developed it as a "black" project, I read something to make me think that a while back. It certainly would be useful in a apocalypse scenario. Another option we may have already (but may not consider using for it's strategic importance) is the so-called "finger of god" which is a tungsten rod launched from outer space, capable of penetrating the deepest bunkers.
It's definately a messy situation, there's no guarantee an air war would work, and if it does, Iran is likely to continue to pursue nuclear weapons, with deeper bunkers. The situation would likely escalate. But if we do nothing, as you are advocating, Israel is determined to stop them because they're the one's who are most likely to get nuked. They have stated their determination publicly. If Israel attacks Iran it will turn into an ugly mess and we will have to get much more involved than a quick and dirty air strike. That's probably what Iran wants is a ground war with Israel.
On a side note, did you see the Iranians claimed to have the fastest torpedo's in the world yesterday? We developed more advanced, faster torpedo's decades ago but quit testing them for the "save the whales" crowd. They are extremely hard to aim, nearly impossible to use active guidance, have a very small warhead. Not capable of destroying our war ships. They also tested some shitty missile saying it can evade radar and counter-measures. I'd like to see it put to the test, heh heh.
I was thinking about this earlier. If you made a suit that assisted in lifting 10 times your normal capacity, it would be inherently dangerous. Twice your normal capacity is not likely to kill you as easily. It would be a pretty simple trick to make the thing lift more, just put in a different gear ratio, or a variable speed/torque transmission where you need it.
The real use of this, which they don't mention, is war fighting. You know those Japanese are obsessed with mecha destroying each other, and the thing would allow a normal infantry unit to wear very heavy armor, capable of protecting from roadside bombs and what not. You know the U.S. military is all over this, 80kg of armor goes a long way!
Well, look at the history of the region, Christian/Islamic prophecies, and statements coming from Iran's president. If they wanted nuclear weapons to secure their future, there is no need to threaten the destruction of Israel, in fact, it hurts their efforts toward stability. I'm convinced they would use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel. Right now it looks like the policy is simply that "Iran will not have a nuclear weapon" and if diplomatic means fail, then a military strike will prove necessary.
I'm all for diplomacy, but it appears you're ruling out military preemption, which would certainly be a mistake. Diplomacy works a lot better when military preemption is on the table, and it doesn't work to bluff all the time, sooner or later you've got to throw down, so to speak.
Uh, "liberal propaganda" is a Fox News phrase that doesn't make much sense in any country but in the US.
It makes perfect sense, think about it. You know what propaganda is, liberal propaganda is a subset of that.
Yes, you're a moron. I could be wrong about your drug addiction. Just say "I'm not a drug addict" and I'll believe you. Something tells me you want to argue to benefits of marijuana and that nonsense.
Acting wrong knowingly under wrong premises is usually worse than acting late but rightly
I don't know where you get a generalized notion like that, but in this case it is the exact opposite. The problem is clear as day. If you allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, they are very likely to use them! Look at recent threats made against Israel. You think that's just hot air? If, at some future time, we decide that Iran is wreckless and dangerous, it is too late to do anything about it!
Well, that is a very good summary of the level of US foreign politics the world got used to.
I know it makes a lot of people angry that the United States is the lone superpower. That's fine. You can't please everybody! It may only be coincidence that the United States happens to be the best country in the world, more people want into our country than any other. Go figure. Reminds me of when OJ Simpson ran from the law, people went and stood on the freeway to cheer him on. Go Juice go! Stick it to the man!
Who installed the brutal Shah in Iran in 1953 for 25 years because the elected (nationalist) leader nationalized your oil-company?
We did. Around that time the entire world was changing, great Britain was granting independence to all of their off-shore colonies. We're not the same country we were 50 years ago, neither is the world the same place. Time you quit dwelling on the past. I am never expecting to hear asinine comments like that, from anybody, yet I am constantly bombarded with them. You never hear people in the public sphere say "Remember what America did 50 years ago?" to support their argument for inaction, nevermind what we did 60 years ago, and the political precendent that WW2 set in terms of foreign policy, and what that means for the action vs inaction argument.
Personally, I think an Iran left alone by the US, or engaged diplomatically and culturally, will be far more likely to change that an Iran under threat of force. Cornering an animal only makes it more dangerous.
You may be right, but in this case that is not the pressing issue. It's whether or not Iran can be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Taking into account what their leaders have been saying lately, and their support for terrorism. A military strike on Iran is bound to cause social unrest (much moreso than Iraq, who's people are "exhausted by war" as you put it), but that's the price for national security.
No, "doomsday scenario" is not synonymous with "bad news". The simple definition is "the complete destruction of earth and or humanity". None of those could be misconstrued as the Apocalypse.
Watch the day after tomorrow to see what I'm talking about. Too much water vapor in the atmosphere could very well be our destruction, and may account for Mars evolution.
The notion that you think you can authoritatively say what is going to happen to a system as obscenely complex as the atmosphere is ridiculous.
I never said I was for or against. I agree with you 100%, I'm skeptical also. What I said was, whether or not it's real, I think even if we are faced with proof that if we continue to live the way we do we will kill ourselves in 50 years, then we will continue doing the exact same thing and kill ourselves anyways. The fact that they are looking for a doomsday scenario as unavoidable as "too much water vapor in the atmosphere" makes it even less appealing to pursue those theories.
I may have omitted it here but not elsewhere. In hindsight there have been mistakes. This is an attempt to fix them. I don't think this would have fixed itself, like some have suggested ("Let the chips fall as they may").
Sure I took history, but most of my knowledge comes from private reading. When I go to the bookstore, I pass by the history and biographies to see if anything catches my eye. WW2 is particularly interesting.
I never made anything like a comparison between Hitler and Hussein. I was comparing two situations where action vs. inaction made a hell of a difference.
If you honestly believe all hope is lost, then I pity you. Watch and learn. Remember your foul attitude at this point, and in 10 years look back on it and wonder to yourself, "What was wrong with me then?" You sound more like a religious fanatic with your doomsday predictions.
Next step is to show Iran who's boss. Crack down on this form of political crime. No country in the world wants fascist Iran to have a nuke. The fact that you blame their attempts to aquire nuclear weapons on America shows exactly who you are. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, child. I could turn this asinine discussion on you by saying that it's the rest of the world's fault for this attitude that inaction (codeword diplomacy) is the solution to everything. You've all made it known that America is the only country willing to use preemptive military action, and we are preoccupied right now, they are taking advantage of this situation. Think about this for a second. Would Iran still be working on a nuclear weapon if we hadn't gone into Iraq? Would Iran continue to enrich uranium and defy international condemnation and peace efforts if the rest of the world had taken UN security resolutions seriously back when it mattered?
Cold fusion? How am I to have a rational discussion with someone who is on drugs all the time?
If you can't identify a difference between what's going on right now and mistakes that were made in the past, then you need to take a step back, forget all the bullshit floating around in your head, and start fresh. I have no doubt there were mistakes made in the past, but your argument lies on three incorrect assumptions, 1. that any intervention is always bad intervention, 2. that all countries are naturally inclined to right themselves of any political turmoil and 3. that the state of one country politically doesn't have any bearing other countries, near or far. Think about those three things.
Also your view of warfighting is not current. America learned a lot from our failure with the Vietnam war, we are launching more and more high-bandwidth communication satellites and UAV drones to get a real good idea of where the enemy is at any given moment. We will become better and better at fighting wars like this. I predict sometime in the future if a bomb goes off in a "red zone" we can trace the bomb back to where it originated using surveillance backlogs. Terrorists can't carry on in a situation like that. We created a stable government in Germany and Japan following WW2, Japan has really run with it, Germany was hindered by the Berlin wall for a long time. Both are perfect examples of success, and really have nothing to do with Vietnam. We weren't nation building in Vietnam, we were looking for a military surrender, which was bad policy.
Had I said America was the only country that had anything to do with Hitler's defeat, that would have been a blanket statement. As it is, we were the sole contributing factor to Hitler's defeat, without U.S. intervention, the world would be a different place.
Being able to predict the weather is one benefit, I'll give you that. But the article is talking about water vapor satellites, it sounds like these experiments will be preoccupied with the global climate change crowd.
You haven't lived long enough. You can't bluff everybody. We're over here in America making bigger better bunker busters to use against Iran. We make it public. If Iran wants to see us use them, it's all up to them. What's your bright idea? Economic sanctions???? *laugh*
I simply state that if it weren't for America's ACTION (vs. inaction) that Hitler would have taken over europe. Like I told another poster, there's no excuse for the 2 years of inaction, wasted time while hundreds of thousands of europeans fought and died while we enjoyed life over here. I visited St. Petersburg (then Stalingrad) to see firsthand, I know what I'm talking about and I certainly get filled with emotion when I think about stalingrad.
If only I could "reply all" to all the negative feedback. I know the facts, probably better than you do. We sat by and did nothing for a long time, until someone finally realized "hey, if hitler wins in europe, he is going to come over and get us next... we'd better stop him RIGHT NOW!" There's no excuse for waiting that long. We simply didn't want to go to war, the public supported inaction, and so that's what we did.
Same situation in most places around the world right now. There is turmoil brewing in the middle east and nobody but the US and a few of our allies is doing anything about it.
There have been spy satellites with sensors on the homeland for decades.
I actually want to have cameras up and down the street I live on, recording every waking moment, so that if someone breaks into my house there's a record of it. It's common sense really, and you sound like you're sticking up for criminals and terrorists.
Thank you George Orwell for spawning generations upon generations of nutcase conspiracy theorists.
Personally I think the only thing earth observation satellites will ever do is predict doomsday scenarios, nothing more. They will never have any impact on civilization. In that sense, earth observation is more politicized than the international space station even. Every doomsday scenario in history has thus far turned out to be wrong.
The notion that we can actively affect earth's climate is ridiculous.
I say we get launch costs down and start building massive, massive projects in outer space. Inter-planetary cruisers, asteroid mining operations, giant orbiting greenhouses and what not. Start building city in the sky, make it possible for average joe to save a half mil and live in outer space. Then you can do all the earth observation you can handle.
You contradict yourself. If you think drugs should all be legal, despite the harm they do, then how can you not be in favor of gun rights? You're inconsistent. I think your hate is driven by outside forces, it certainly isn't rational. You probably couldn't point out a few positive things America has done for the world, like when we stopped Hitler, ended world war 2, freed people from the shackles of communism in east germany and former soviet states. Other countries are guilty of inaction.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate your political rant. Really.
You're wrong about us not being able to afford a war. A ground war is one thing, and the largest price there is troop morale. If troopers are dieing left and right, nobody will fight the war. A second ground war would likely require a draft. An air war is dirt cheap in comparison, it's quick and easy.
Long ago they cancelled the nuclear bunker buster research, but I think they went ahead and developed it as a "black" project, I read something to make me think that a while back. It certainly would be useful in a apocalypse scenario. Another option we may have already (but may not consider using for it's strategic importance) is the so-called "finger of god" which is a tungsten rod launched from outer space, capable of penetrating the deepest bunkers.
It's definately a messy situation, there's no guarantee an air war would work, and if it does, Iran is likely to continue to pursue nuclear weapons, with deeper bunkers. The situation would likely escalate. But if we do nothing, as you are advocating, Israel is determined to stop them because they're the one's who are most likely to get nuked. They have stated their determination publicly. If Israel attacks Iran it will turn into an ugly mess and we will have to get much more involved than a quick and dirty air strike. That's probably what Iran wants is a ground war with Israel.
On a side note, did you see the Iranians claimed to have the fastest torpedo's in the world yesterday? We developed more advanced, faster torpedo's decades ago but quit testing them for the "save the whales" crowd. They are extremely hard to aim, nearly impossible to use active guidance, have a very small warhead. Not capable of destroying our war ships. They also tested some shitty missile saying it can evade radar and counter-measures. I'd like to see it put to the test, heh heh.
The real use of this, which they don't mention, is war fighting. You know those Japanese are obsessed with mecha destroying each other, and the thing would allow a normal infantry unit to wear very heavy armor, capable of protecting from roadside bombs and what not. You know the U.S. military is all over this, 80kg of armor goes a long way!
I'm all for diplomacy, but it appears you're ruling out military preemption, which would certainly be a mistake. Diplomacy works a lot better when military preemption is on the table, and it doesn't work to bluff all the time, sooner or later you've got to throw down, so to speak.
Uh, "liberal propaganda" is a Fox News phrase that doesn't make much sense in any country but in the US.
It makes perfect sense, think about it. You know what propaganda is, liberal propaganda is a subset of that.
Yes, you're a moron. I could be wrong about your drug addiction. Just say "I'm not a drug addict" and I'll believe you. Something tells me you want to argue to benefits of marijuana and that nonsense.
Acting wrong knowingly under wrong premises is usually worse than acting late but rightly
I don't know where you get a generalized notion like that, but in this case it is the exact opposite. The problem is clear as day. If you allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, they are very likely to use them! Look at recent threats made against Israel. You think that's just hot air? If, at some future time, we decide that Iran is wreckless and dangerous, it is too late to do anything about it!
Well, that is a very good summary of the level of US foreign politics the world got used to.
I know it makes a lot of people angry that the United States is the lone superpower. That's fine. You can't please everybody! It may only be coincidence that the United States happens to be the best country in the world, more people want into our country than any other. Go figure. Reminds me of when OJ Simpson ran from the law, people went and stood on the freeway to cheer him on. Go Juice go! Stick it to the man!
Who installed the brutal Shah in Iran in 1953 for 25 years because the elected (nationalist) leader nationalized your oil-company?
We did. Around that time the entire world was changing, great Britain was granting independence to all of their off-shore colonies. We're not the same country we were 50 years ago, neither is the world the same place. Time you quit dwelling on the past. I am never expecting to hear asinine comments like that, from anybody, yet I am constantly bombarded with them. You never hear people in the public sphere say "Remember what America did 50 years ago?" to support their argument for inaction, nevermind what we did 60 years ago, and the political precendent that WW2 set in terms of foreign policy, and what that means for the action vs inaction argument.
Personally, I think an Iran left alone by the US, or engaged diplomatically and culturally, will be far more likely to change that an Iran under threat of force. Cornering an animal only makes it more dangerous.
You may be right, but in this case that is not the pressing issue. It's whether or not Iran can be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Taking into account what their leaders have been saying lately, and their support for terrorism. A military strike on Iran is bound to cause social unrest (much moreso than Iraq, who's people are "exhausted by war" as you put it), but that's the price for national security.
We refers to humanity, they refers to those who would advocate NASA cut manned space exploration to do more earth observation missions.
Watch the day after tomorrow to see what I'm talking about. Too much water vapor in the atmosphere could very well be our destruction, and may account for Mars evolution.
The notion that you think you can authoritatively say what is going to happen to a system as obscenely complex as the atmosphere is ridiculous.
I never said I was for or against. I agree with you 100%, I'm skeptical also. What I said was, whether or not it's real, I think even if we are faced with proof that if we continue to live the way we do we will kill ourselves in 50 years, then we will continue doing the exact same thing and kill ourselves anyways. The fact that they are looking for a doomsday scenario as unavoidable as "too much water vapor in the atmosphere" makes it even less appealing to pursue those theories.
That sounds remarkably similar to the Iraq war strategy. "Replace THEIR leadership with worthy individuals, the rest will follow".
There is no bright idea coming from you. Admit it. You're a moron.
I may have omitted it here but not elsewhere. In hindsight there have been mistakes. This is an attempt to fix them. I don't think this would have fixed itself, like some have suggested ("Let the chips fall as they may").
I never made anything like a comparison between Hitler and Hussein. I was comparing two situations where action vs. inaction made a hell of a difference.
If you honestly believe all hope is lost, then I pity you. Watch and learn. Remember your foul attitude at this point, and in 10 years look back on it and wonder to yourself, "What was wrong with me then?" You sound more like a religious fanatic with your doomsday predictions.
Next step is to show Iran who's boss. Crack down on this form of political crime. No country in the world wants fascist Iran to have a nuke. The fact that you blame their attempts to aquire nuclear weapons on America shows exactly who you are. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, child. I could turn this asinine discussion on you by saying that it's the rest of the world's fault for this attitude that inaction (codeword diplomacy) is the solution to everything. You've all made it known that America is the only country willing to use preemptive military action, and we are preoccupied right now, they are taking advantage of this situation. Think about this for a second. Would Iran still be working on a nuclear weapon if we hadn't gone into Iraq? Would Iran continue to enrich uranium and defy international condemnation and peace efforts if the rest of the world had taken UN security resolutions seriously back when it mattered?
Cold fusion? How am I to have a rational discussion with someone who is on drugs all the time?
Also your view of warfighting is not current. America learned a lot from our failure with the Vietnam war, we are launching more and more high-bandwidth communication satellites and UAV drones to get a real good idea of where the enemy is at any given moment. We will become better and better at fighting wars like this. I predict sometime in the future if a bomb goes off in a "red zone" we can trace the bomb back to where it originated using surveillance backlogs. Terrorists can't carry on in a situation like that. We created a stable government in Germany and Japan following WW2, Japan has really run with it, Germany was hindered by the Berlin wall for a long time. Both are perfect examples of success, and really have nothing to do with Vietnam. We weren't nation building in Vietnam, we were looking for a military surrender, which was bad policy.
Had I said America was the only country that had anything to do with Hitler's defeat, that would have been a blanket statement. As it is, we were the sole contributing factor to Hitler's defeat, without U.S. intervention, the world would be a different place.
Being able to predict the weather is one benefit, I'll give you that. But the article is talking about water vapor satellites, it sounds like these experiments will be preoccupied with the global climate change crowd.
You haven't lived long enough. You can't bluff everybody. We're over here in America making bigger better bunker busters to use against Iran. We make it public. If Iran wants to see us use them, it's all up to them. What's your bright idea? Economic sanctions???? *laugh*
I simply state that if it weren't for America's ACTION (vs. inaction) that Hitler would have taken over europe. Like I told another poster, there's no excuse for the 2 years of inaction, wasted time while hundreds of thousands of europeans fought and died while we enjoyed life over here. I visited St. Petersburg (then Stalingrad) to see firsthand, I know what I'm talking about and I certainly get filled with emotion when I think about stalingrad.
Same situation in most places around the world right now. There is turmoil brewing in the middle east and nobody but the US and a few of our allies is doing anything about it.
I actually want to have cameras up and down the street I live on, recording every waking moment, so that if someone breaks into my house there's a record of it. It's common sense really, and you sound like you're sticking up for criminals and terrorists.
Thank you George Orwell for spawning generations upon generations of nutcase conspiracy theorists.
If AI was smart enough to fly an airplane, why aren't they flying airliners?
Unions.
The notion that we can actively affect earth's climate is ridiculous.
I say we get launch costs down and start building massive, massive projects in outer space. Inter-planetary cruisers, asteroid mining operations, giant orbiting greenhouses and what not. Start building city in the sky, make it possible for average joe to save a half mil and live in outer space. Then you can do all the earth observation you can handle.
You contradict yourself. If you think drugs should all be legal, despite the harm they do, then how can you not be in favor of gun rights? You're inconsistent. I think your hate is driven by outside forces, it certainly isn't rational. You probably couldn't point out a few positive things America has done for the world, like when we stopped Hitler, ended world war 2, freed people from the shackles of communism in east germany and former soviet states. Other countries are guilty of inaction.
This is getting spooky!
occasionally a door doesn't get latched successfully and comes open by itself
You're going to get yourself killed!
What you should do is weld the doors shut so that nobody can get in OR out. Two birds with one stone, you see.