The Cadillac system, offered between 2000 and 2004, used a passive infrared camera for night vision, which was displayed on the windscreen using a heads up display. Actually a whole list of expensive cars have had this option available since Cadillac and Raytheon introduced it.

I don't think it would necessarily work well in heavy fog, which is what this new research is targeting.

Just imagine how much money they'd waste on that program!!! The $1000 Raytheon pizza times 316 million anyone?

At least you'd get pizza though.

Just to state the obvious: given the number of attacks by drones and cruise missiles on the area between Boston and North Carolina over the last decades, I'd say this pair of blimps is welfare for Raytheon and a means to intensify surveillance on people in the area covered by them.

Wiki snoopage purports that the Brit boat the Victoria was almost taken-out by some IRA bombs planted on-board during construction, one of which detonated and caused enough damage to delay her commission a few years. OH, and it's got one of those Terminator/Raytheon Phalanx robots on the deck, the autonomous, death from below incoming sky-turd zapper

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

i figured it best to bring the convo to your page.
i have derailed enough threads this past week alone.
would be impolite and rude to keep tramping through the china shop willy nilly.

i think i am starting to understand where you are at.
of course i am presuming,but im gonna go with frustration.
anger and outrage to what is being done to the people of syria.

i can relate to that.it is an outrage.
it is heartbreaking.

we disagree on how to proceed.
i am not here to change your mind.

i am here to talk to you as a man.
to maybe help you understand how your passionate posts may be perceived.
your last one i found impertinent,insulting and rude.

if i had to paraphrase this is how i read your last comment on the raytheon post.
"how can you all be so fucking blind?are you all a bunch of fucking pussies?dont you SEE what that man is doing?and you fucking pansies want to talk? you are all retarded,stupid and have no idea what is going on!"

i deleted half my commentary because it really was just me ripping you apart.
and that would not be fair to you and it would be just as insulting.
your post really pissed me off.
but we have talked before.
we disagree more than agree but we have always been civil and i appreciate the time you take to respond.

so the point of me coming to your page is to point out that you are talking to actual humans.
you called me a pussy.
you implied that this situation only bothers you and anybody who came to a different conclusion in regards to how to proceed in syria was not getting the plot.
was that your intent?
did you actually MEAN to imply that anybody who disagreed with a military resolution was a pansy?

well..i dont think so.
i think you are just really passionate about this and frustrated that nothing is being done.
outraged at the violence being perpetrated upon innocent people.

i feel ya.i truly do.
and i would be willing to bet the very people you chastized as being weak in their approach feel you as well.

the first thing we need to address is the fact we are all armchair quarterbacking.we have no influence nor power to dictate what happens in a country on the other side of the planet.
so basically all our bickering and arguing is a cathartic release for a situation that is horrid,horrifying and complicated.

the second is really just questions i would like to ask (and you could promptly tell me to go fuck myself).

1.how would a limited strike upon assads regime change anything that is happening on the ground?

this is really the only question you have not answered and to me it is pivotal in understanding your logic.

i have my suspicions but i await your answer.
and my apologies if i cam across snarky.
i was angry at the time.
till next time.
namaste.

Use these to get to all those caches of cameras and watches those pesky temple monkeys steal from tourists
Cure barking dogs
Peeping-Toms in NYC ditch their hi-rise telescopes for octorotors with advanced imagery GPS powered by GooglARPA, a Division of Raytheon.
Who needs private detectives any longer?

That fella who cooked that candy bar in his pocket standing too close to the magnetron???...That wasn't the only candy that got cooked in his trousers!!-His claim to fame?? Senior VP of Raytheon when he died in 1970.

This is me in the bathroom whipping my hair taken with an L3 Thermal-Eye X200XP Thermal Imaging Infrared Camera (Y'all should getcha one a these babies!).... Check that aura, Dora.

>> ^entr0py:

If they manage to shoot down any small rockets or mortars with that thing, at ranges greater than existing systems, then I'll be impressed. But as for UAVs, 1. Enemy UAVs are not a problem at the moment. 2. If they ever are a problem they can easily be given a reflective paint job that would protect against this laser.


Once you can track a moving target using photon laser based technology, it isn't hard to adapt it to other systems, like focused microwaves which aren't easily reflected. And in reality, it is hard to keep the shine needed on an airborne system traveling through normal atmospheric conditions. In reality, I think it is the lack of indirect fire, and the problem of blooming that keeps directed energy technology from becoming the end all of weapons. With that said, close proximity target interdiction is where directed energy weapons shine.

Once inside the building, they barricaded themselves in and set to work. Equipment used to make weapon components were trashed and computers, filing cabinets and office furnishings were thrown out of the windows. Once they were done they calmly waited for the police to arrest them. Two activists who supported them outside the factory gates were also on trial. All of the defendants have argued that what they did was not only morally necessary but crucially that it was legal. U.K law allows the commission of damage of property to prevent greater crimes.

Two of the accused, Simon Levin and Chris Osmond have extensive experience of working in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement. Chris Osmond told the court that ’the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza at that time meant it was imperative to act’. He cited the words of Rachel Corrie, the U.S activist who was killed by an IDF bulldozer in Rafah, as an inspiration. The court heard a passage of Corrie’s diary ’I’m witnessing this chronic insidious genocide and I’m really scared, this has to stop, I think it is a good idea idea for all of us to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop’.

During the trial the court heard not only from the defendants themselves but from Sharyn Lock, who was an international human rights volunteer in Gaza during Cast Lead. She was inside Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City when it was attacked with white phosphorus. She concluded her evidence by saying that she had no doubt that those who armed the Israeli Air Force ’had the blood of children on their hands’. The jury saw footage of the air attacks on the UNWRA compounds where civilians were sheltering and have been given an edited version of the Goldstone report.

Recently elected member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also gave evidence supporting the decommssioners, saying that the democratic process ’had been exhausted’ as far as the factory was concerned.

On January the 17th 2009 the bombs had already fallen relentlessly on Gaza for three weeks. Massive, passionate demonstrations and pickets had been held in many cities around the country and the world in protest against Israel’s war crimes, but to no avail. A growing sense of helplessness was grabbing hold of the movement as the Palestinian body count stood at over 1400 and counting. 300 of the dead were children. It was against this background that the “citizen’s decommissioning” of EDO MBM/ITT took place.

EDO/ITT is an arms manufacturer, based in Brighton since 1946. They were acquired along with the rest of EDO Corporation by the multinational arms conglomerate ITT in December 2007. Their primary business is the manufacture of weapons systems such as bomb release mechanisms and bomb racks. This includes crucially the manufacture of the VER-2 Zero Retention Force Arming Unit for the Israeli Air Force’s F16 war planes.

Over the years, EDO have consistently denied supplying Israel, and despite over fifty court cases campaigners were not able to properly expose the links between the factory and the IAF. However the serious nature of the charges against the seven (the factory sustained nearly £200,000 of damage and may not have recommenced production for weeks) means that for the first time courts took the argument that EDOs business is fundamentally illegal very seriously.

Paul Hills, the Managing Director of EDO MBM, spent his five days on the witness stand last week being confronted with all the evidence gathered by campaigners over the years –evidence which exposes a complex network of collaboration between British, American and Israeli arms companies and the way in which their deals are clouded in secrecy. The Decommissioners were able to present Mr Hills, for the first time, with a dossier of evidence showing how EDO MBM use a front company in the U.S.A to indirectly supply components for the F 16 to Israel. Under U.K law the supply of weapons components that might be used in the Occupied Territories is actually a crime.

After hearing Hills’ explanations of his company’s business practices, Judge George Bathurst-Norman said that, despite Hill’s denials of dealing with Israel, it was clear that their was enough evidence to justify a genuinely held belief they did. He also offered the opinion that End User Certificates required for arms export licences were “ not worth the paper they are written on” as they can be easily manipulated.

There is a history of juries in British courts finding anti-war activists not guilty when they attack machinery used in war crimes. In 1996 four women from Trident Ploughshares decommissioned a Hawk jet that was about to be shipped to Indonesia – they were found not guilty. In 2008 the Raytheon 9, who damaged a factory in Derry supplying weapons to Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war, were acquitted by a jury and only two weeks ago a group of nine women carrying out a similar action at Raytheon during the Gaza attacks were also found not guilty by an unanimous jury.

On Friday, the jury found Simon Levin, Tom Woodhead, Ornella Saibene, Bob Nicholls, Harvey Tadman, Elijah Smith and Chris Osmond not guilty of “Conspiracy to Cause Criminal damage” by unanimous verdict in Hove Crown Court.

Chris Osmond said “This action was taken because of EDO MBMs illegal supply of weapons to the Israeli military. We brought the suffering of ordinary Palestinians into a British courtroom and confronted with the evidence they took the brave decision to find that our actions were justified.”

The decommissioners’ stance made it clear to companies like EDO that they can no longer count on not being held to account for their actions. There are now a growing number of people in the international community who are willing to risk their own liberty to stand up for the people of Gaza and to challenge Israel’s war crimes through whatever means possible.

there ya go tsquire1, one for the bronzies...

It seems to me that the super-heating of the ionosphere from Alaska with high voltage by the Navy and Raytheon may be able to convince the nay-sayers that the cause is man-made. "NEXT UP: Government declares rationing of oxygen for senior citizens AND, Sun taken in for questioning after extreme flare-up with third planet."

>> ^Rotty:
This really isn't news worthy; obammy has already demostrated that he's a diplomatic moron. What, no iPod for Akihito?
There are more relevant reasons to slam this Banker boy:
1) No immediate plans to leave Iraq. What happened to the nine month plan?
2) Additional deployments to Afghanastan; more dead Americans fighting the elite's wars.
3) Filling his admnistration with the same thugs that have consistently corrupted and looted America.
4) Other than banker bailouts, he hasn't done SHIT for the economy.
5) No changes in banking regulations that led to the last economic meltdown.
6) Other than creating a few thousnad jobs in his native state, he hasn't done SHIT in creating jobs.
As a matter of fact, other than touring the planet, he hasn't done a fucking thing.
The only CHANGE he's interested in is the change in your pocket.


If you cut out the diplomacy slam and all the childish name calling, I would have to agree with much of this fellow's post.

The bank bailout is a moot point because anyone in office would have bailed them out. Maybe not Ron Paul, but certainly McCain! After all, Bush bailed out Bear Sterns in Feb 2007 and McCain did whatever Bush did so...there you go.

I voted for Obama because he said he'd...

1) end the war,
2) go after those that committed war crimes (admittedly, Biden said this not Obama, but still)
3) not have any lobbyist on his cabinet (for the post of Deputy Secretary of Defense he nominated William J. Lynn III, the top lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the biggest companies in the military-industrial complex)
4) follow the rule of law. Meanwhile, the suspension of habeas corpus is still in effect for many "enemy combatants" and warrantless wiretaps at the NSA are still going like the energizer bunny.

He has done some good things. He at least tried to introduce a public healthcare option (it's unfortunately DOA on the Senate floor), he reversed some environmental policies, and, well, he's not Bush. But that's not really enough for me.

Downvote this comment if you like but everything I've pointed out is the truth.

It's one exception for one guy -- the incumbent #2 at the Pentagon -- not a U-turn. Obama put additional restrictions on Lynn's ability to make decisions involving Raytheon for the following year.