The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

Anyone who's seen a FOD check on an aircraft carrier realises how retarded one helicopter doing this is, let alone a squadron. Chunks of shit fall off those bridges every day just due to age. Not to mention idiot pedestrians actually TRYING to hit one with a beer bottle. One big enough piece of debris into the jet intake and you're in the river.

This was good... and then the dude said "I got a bottle of metho"

and I fucking lost my shit completely... lol

This is the paradox of modern politics.

These people are fucking morons of the highest order. They're poorly educated idiots spouting complete nonsense that has zero basis in reality.

In a sane world, we'd ignore them as lunatic outliers. They're not new; they've been here forever, they just change the nonsense.

The problem is that we now live in a world where the most powerful man in the world actively encourages these people, if not explicitly, then at least implicitly with his own brand of deranged paranoia.

The fundamental issue is that internet is great at connecting people, and it doesn't discriminate between connecting Bronies, small-town homosexuals, fans of William Shatner's music, political dissidents in oppressed countries or people who indulge in insane conspiracy theories.

There's no putting that technological genie back in the bottle (and even if we could, the cost would be too great IMO).

So what to do about that?

If we ignore them, they thrive underground and if we give them "airtime" their ranks are bolstered.

I really don't have an answer for this.

One thing I do agree with that annoying douchebag on, is that you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. If 3D printer gun models are out there (and I don’t doubt they are) it’s going to be very difficult to stop that information for spreading.

I'd call that a beer bottle tip. Common scoring technique in the College leagues.

Never thought I would ever be uninterested in a Fallout title.

"Online survival RPG" my ass. Cheaters, griefers and bottle cap miners...

"Adrenaline, if only it could be bottled."

Your video, This bottle is going to go into that can over there, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

By "just fine" I meant surviving, which for natural animals as groups today is actually doing far better than most.

Is it a bad thing that there are no more stone age tribes? By my estimation, absolutely. I value diversity for many reasons, but mostly as a safety net against the totally unpredictable. For some unfathomable reason, something about being pure stone age might be advantageous.

I 100% agree about the option part, but offering them that option itself destroys their world viewpoint and eventually their civilization, proven time and time again with other tribes.

I honestly don't think there is a "right" answer, any course of action (or inaction) has it's own inherent dilemmas and moral traps. As a probable last example of unadulterated natural humanity, conservation seems to be paramount....but that's just like, my opinion man. ;-)

Edit: maybe I was over influenced by ' The Gods Must Be Crazy'....I thought clearly things were better without that coke bottle.

I buy a 1 litre coke zero then reuse it for a water bottle for a few months until it gets lost or cracks form or something. I laugh at people buying those ridiculous aluminum and unbreakable plastic water bottles. They're just making a statement. My bottle costs me $.10 if I lose it, not $20.

*promote the chili
Side note - just received a bottle of The Last Dab - looking forward to really try it out...

Speaking from experience...do not try this with a full bottle of syrup. Boiling sugar and melted plastic are harder to get off your face than a little egg.

Your video, Australian TV Host Nearly Killed By Coke Bottle Rocket, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.