There should have been no Civilian Air Breathers in that zone, there was a damned war on.

Both sides are at fault here, once again the Americans cant keep their damned noses out of problems that aren't theirs to begin with, and civilian planes in a war zone.

>> ^qualm:
" I was proud to serve my country(...)"
Not to pick on you, kronosposeidon; actually I raise the question because you seem like a thoughtful person; but what do you really mean that you are proud to serve your country? Are you saying that you basically agree morally with US exceptionalism and the imperial project, and are proud to have played a minor role in keeping the rest of humanity at bay through the constant threat of military force?
Do you think American lives are more valuable than the lives of people in other countries?
Who did you serve?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
are you just a troll?

Yes, you make a blanket statement that the average criminal is a murderer or a rapist, and label them 'animal' and 'less than human', and I have the nerve to throw your very own words back at you. I am quite the troll indeed.

>> ^jubuttib:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
As long as there are people, there will never be peace. Live with it.




Thanks for missing the point entirely dude.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
I agree that the progress we've made as a society on things like curing cancer and ending hunger is despicable, but that kind of progress can only be made through peace.

As long as there are people, there will never be peace. Live with it.

Oh, and while I do agree that this is a great piece of engineering, I still hate seeing your hard earned cash put into something so ridiculously useless. You've already got the greatest army in the world. Even if you stopped developing new stuff to kill people with, you still would have the best army in the world after 20-30 years, easily. This kind of pointless use of resources just makes me sad.

This is a needless system as mentioned before. Someone up in The US Navy wants a new toy. Someone else needs a military defense contract. Someone else needs to develop his weapons system.

This what I hate about Future Weapons they never really discuss how exactly this new system is better, more efficient or more cost effective then the current solutions offered and fielded.

How exactly is this justified in the current era of fighting asymmetrical warfare in places like Iraq? Resources should be flowing into more efficient bliztkreig type small specialized units, training for Urban combat environments, specialized armor for combat units and so on and so forth.

Yet from my viewpoint the military is just spreading into all fields at once instead of focusing on fighting the wars it will fight tomorrow rather then 50 years from now.

This is a pretty cool site:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_nav_per-military-navy-personnel

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
Does anyone really think a force attacking the US would use a Navy?


Not if our the US Navy is packing that kind of heat.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
criminals are animals

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I've been in detention loads of times


I was going to call you an imbecile, but I think I will settle for 'animal' instead.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-gun advocates seem to live in a world where if guns were abolished, crime would follow suit. It wouldn't, you damn well know it.


While I'm anti-gun on the idea that not every single civilian (or any) should have a weapon which has only one purpose, and that is to kill, I'm not anti-gun when it comes to the protection of civilians. I'll also jump up and point out that all humans are infallible, and police officers and military personnel do not fall outside that category. There may be times when "lethal force" is required in dire circumstances, however, alternative weaponry would be more prudent. More forms of "non-lethal", as it were, devices would benefit.

Another idea about helping solve crime in North America would be to stop treating criminals like animals, or as if they were less than human. If you arrest a criminal, throw him in a prison cell, treat him like a number, and not a person, you'd be lucky, incredibly lucky, if he became rehabilitated. Ask any troubled youth who's been in something as harmless as detention, would it stop him from doing something wrong again? Or did the experience make him or her more angry "at the system"?

Back to the point of the video though: There are always alternatives for "defensive weapons" than the sort of lethal variety you see on display here. We are at a sufficiently advanced stage of technology where using directed blunt force to stop something is not required all the damn time.

Much like how torturing terrorists to "defend a nation's security" lowers that nation to the levels of which they are fighting against, so does using terrible instruments of death against people who instill fear into you with threats of death.

You aren't the bigger man just because your rifle barrel is larger than theirs.

>> ^gorgonheap:
>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
Does anyone really think a force attacking the US would use a Navy?

Not if our the US Navy is packing that kind of heat.


Its a clever gun, brought to you by the *british
as far as validity for owning using or making these things, well, thats a different story, but in the same way as you look at a $10000 coffee table and think "needless" you can look at most arms stuff and argue "needless" - more could be spent better etc etc...

The point is, at least for me, with these promo style piece is like it or not, that it's a clever system, and an example of good engineering

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No, it's all as simple as this: So long as there are people that are willing to attack us, we need a way of defending ourselves. So long as we have the technology to defend ourselves better than we could yesterday, we should do it.


Defending? Think about the last hundred years and the countless wars the US has engaged in during that time. Would you say that the country comes off as the defender rather than the aggressor? Wars are always sold to the people on the grounds that they "are necessary" or else this or that malign force will threathen their way of life, but that is propaganda, not reality.

Fear is the most primaeval instinct and as such cannot be reasoned with, which is why it's such a convenient tool for leaders.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No, it's all as simple as this: So long as there are people that are willing to attack us, we need a way of defending ourselves. So long as we have the technology to defend ourselves better than we could yesterday, we should do it.


So who exactly is willing to attack the US in such manner that can be defended with military force? Terrorism can't be beaten with guns...

>> ^gorgonheap:
Well excuse us for being so beneath your mighty solutions to world problems. Perhaps when you live in an ideal world your ideal wishes will be granted.


Interplanetary/Interstellar travel for exploration, new discoveries, new knowledge, and, oh, I don't know, an alternative place for our species to live. We could face the future facts and understand if we continue to breed as we do, and consume resources as we do, we won't last all that long on this rock. And before someone gets wise and says "oh so then we can just go and ravage another world", no that's not what I'm suggesting either.

I fail to see how building yet another efficient device at murdering people "helps" our planet, or our species.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
And wait a second! You also must be a poor, delusional low-brow, because you're you've obviously just watched this.


That I did, however I didn't giggle with delight at the idea of that weapon being used in any manner whatsoever. Be it in a time of war, or even a demonstration. Nor did I think about how "cool" it was, etc. I merely find such instruments to be completely unnecessary. If anyone sees a reason for such a thing to exist, I'd love a detailed explanation as to why. Same sort of explanation would be nice for the existence of something like this. Also; the reason "to defend our country/people/way of life" reasons I don't quite accept as legitimate. There's more than enough horrific weapons to do such things.

Just imagining someone being hit by such devices makes me cringe and doubt the longevity of the human race that much more.

Then again, you could say these are the deluded opinions of a humanist that likes the imaginary idea of peace, so you could just go ahead and cast them aside.

>> ^Raigen:
The standard response for seeing such a waste of ingenuity, resources and money should be:
Still no cure for Cancer.
No stem cell treatment.
No interstellar travel and interplanetary colonisation.
No end to poverty.
No end to hunger.
Oh yeah, and no end to poor, deluded, low-brows that sit at home watching this tripe going "heh, ehehehe, hehehehe, hehehe, it went 'bang' and blowded something up".
I won't downvote, but I certainly won't upvote.


Oh, right. I forgot that NASA'a Jet Propulsion Laboratory doesn't exist. And for someone who thinks we need to focus on Humanity's problems (hunger, cancer, poverty) What the fuck do we need intersteller travel for?

>> ^Raigen:
The standard response for seeing such a waste of ingenuity, resources and money should be:
Still no cure for Cancer.
No stem cell treatment.
No interstellar travel and interplanetary colonisation.
No end to poverty.
No end to hunger.
Oh yeah, and no end to poor, deluded, low-brows that sit at home watching this tripe going "heh, ehehehe, hehehehe, hehehe, it went 'bang' and blowded something up".
I won't downvote, but I certainly won't upvote.

Well excuse us for being so beneath your mighty solutions to world problems. Perhaps when you live in an ideal world your ideal wishes will be granted.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
Does anyone really think a force attacking the US would use a Navy?

You know what the Navy does now? Patrols the ocean, pulling over boats and checking for license and registration. Also, they provide artillery support for land-based forces.

I wonder how much it cost to give that demonstration...