Yeah, but sure it's not as dangerous as Salvia.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dude-Tries-To-Make-A-Peanut-Butter-Sammich-on-Salvia

Upvote for 60,000 Gs.

Does anyone really think a force attacking the US would use a Navy?

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


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

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.

>> ^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...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'zumwalt, littoral, class, coast guard, fuse, timed' to 'zumwalt, littoral, class, coast guard, fuse, timed, military porn' - edited by sometimes

>> ^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.

>> ^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?

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

>> ^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.

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.

Make love not war you two :-D I'd like to look at it as "speak softly and carry a big stick" . We can work on stem cells, cancer, aids, poverty, and twinkies once we are nice and safe behind our exploading weaponry, deliverable through any/all means necessary. WOULD YOU LIKE SOME BOMBS WITH THAT? :-D

Jesus, how long do we have to wait until we get some real battlemechs with laser beams around here?

>> ^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...

Raigen,

In case you were wondering why this gun is important and useful, take a look at the targets they used - the main usage for this gun is defensive - the threats it was designed to take out are incoming missiles (2:35) or an incoming explosive laden speedboat (Remember the USS Cole?).
This is called "active defenses" and helps save lives.

>> ^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.

>> ^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

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zonbie.

The reality of life is that there are people who are willing to kill you without hesitation or a second thought. Simply because you live in a place they don't like, practice a religion they don't believe, or your skin is the wrong color.

Now you may want to lay down peacefully, beg for your life, or run. Personally I want to defend my family and friends. And if making a smarter weapon that can minimalize casualties on both sides, that's fine by me.

Your entitled to your wants of modern cures for problems that have been around for thousands of years, that's great. We may not now how to stop cancer but we have the technology now to stop people who want to kill many simply out of hate and ignorance. Why not use it.

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.

>> ^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.

Not all guns have only one purpose. Mine has a few, actually. I like target shooting. It's just fun. And when it's hunting season, I can kill me some deer with it for a tasty treat. And should someone try to break in my house - well, he might end up regretting it.

And I've been in detention loads of times. Not once did I "hate the system" for it. I fucked up, so I paid the price.

And criminals are animals (some aren't of course) but the murderers and rapists sure the hell are. Anyone with such little regard for their fellow human I would say is less than human. More like scum.

I hate no video host more than this one.

>> ^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.

Same, sure I like guns, but I refuse to upvote for anything demonstrating a waste of taxpayer money.

I'm an imbecile and an animal? Is there any logical explanation of that? Or are you just a troll?

Sci-fi weapons for a sci-fi invasion scenario.

"But Mr. President, what if giant flying hamsters from Zortglib V swooped down from the skies and attacked our ships with Weapons of Mass Dee-struc-shun! We gotta be ready!

Instead of ships maybe they should mount these on skyscrapers and national monuments.

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.

8½ tonnes baseball... that would be one hell of a game. You don't want to be the pitcher in that game.

To quote Rembar: "Although people are often loathe to see them this way, gun combat is far more common than any other type of combat in today's world, and is by far the most commonly practiced martial discipline."

I don't want to get in to an argument over the educational value of this video but I don't think that there's anything wrong with taking a healthy interest in it. This thing can shoot freaking missles out of the freaking sky. Like Zonbie said, that's pretty impressive from an engineering standpoint alone.

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.

>> ^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.

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




Thanks for missing the point entirely dude.

If we don't keep developing this kind of stuff, then the US will lose its military hegemony. US forces are now concentrated on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. While the prospect of direct military confrontation is low, there exists the possibility of someone starting armed conflict either against our allies or in a way that is detrimental to the US.

Once it becomes clear that the US lacks the power to enforce its will militarily, we will lose a great deal of the military hegemony that we have thus far. Once that happens, it stands to reason that we will have less ability to influence treaties and organizations in ways that benefit us, and so the EU and China may well overtake us in the global economy.

Hence, it is to our benefit to make it very clear to the rest of the world that we can kick your asses with both hands tied behind our back.

This, if you were wondering, is why we still have such abject poverty in areas of the US. Our leaders believe it is more important to maintain global hegemony rather than to feed people who are starving.

>> ^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.

NO, I make a blanket statement that the rapist and murderer are animals. "And criminals are animals (some aren't of course) but the murderers and rapists sure the hell are."

Learn how to read next time, please.

no matter what we do to try to end world hunger or any other "world peace" shit we try to cure, there will always be pain and suffering...it is the way of mankind and it's all that man is capable of is destruction.
we may try to make the better of the world but there are always others that try to do the worst for the world for the sake of money.
"those with power will always try to gain more power."