*military

Adding video to channels (Military) - requested by thesnipe.

^Duh.

Future Weapons is a very cool program.

^ So cool you forgot to vote?

Sorry, MG. Done.

I like watching this show because the host realizes that not all new technology in terms of military advances comes from the united states. Some of the platforms showcased like the enw German artillery system and the Israeli rifles are top-notch, and at times far surpass those of "western" systems

^Agreed. I saw the one with the German artillery system, and being a former Marine that was a cannoneer (Hence the name MarineGunrock), I was blown away at how awesome it was.

And I was just playin', rotty

there's like a hundread problems with this ;-/

size of capacitors, time to charge them, forces on a metal ship, terminal velocity of the bullets.

besides, "all your eggs in one basket" comes to mind


edit: and while im at it... do we *really* need more ways to kill each other ?

Oh good! More money and human effort wasted on pointless weapons programs. Sure glad our tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

My thoughts exactly StukaFox - another multi-billion expenditure for destroying "soft targets" don't we have enough ways to kill people yet? But yeah - fuck funding health care or post-natal care for new moms. This is a great use of your tax dollars.

My high school physics teacher worked on developing railgun technology a while ago. According to him, the single most difficult problem was not capacitor size, charge time, or anything like that, but rather the fact that, with a very large rail gun (the kind that the military wants), the rails would be forced apart every time the gun is fired because of the equal and opposite reaction of the magnetic propulsion, or the rails would melt because of friction. One solution to this problem was creating metal vapor inside the gun to close the electrical circuit, allowing the projectile to be fired without physical contact with the rails.

A very neat concept, and we ended up building a mock-up of a rail gun in class. Best high school physics class ever.

OTOH, from a societal standpoint, I feel that Dag is right, this is an insane waste of money.

Indeed, this is still interesting from a technical viewpoint, but the US army sure has all the technology ready. Basically, as we saw with Iraq, they can simply take out an entire country in three weeks. the trick is building it up again, and here, mach 8 weapons are of little use.

People who are bashing military technology should stop and think that much civil technology ultimately traces its origin from military technology. Rail gun technology might have applications for launching satellites from Earth or spaceships from the surface of other planets with less gravity and atmosphere.

'Soft targets'. Yup, human beings are pretty soft in this context. Especially the ones we don't like.

I suppose instant death from a mach 8 projectile is preferable to dying slowly from shrapnel wounds or third-degree burns, let alone NBC effects.

cybrbeast - what a compelling argument! We should develop more and more ingenious ways to kill people on the offchance that one day they'll have a non-violent use. Maybe you were playing devil's advocate, but of all the dumb, cliched arguments in favour of war, that's one of the worst.

I'm not sure cybrbeast is advocating war, just saying that, of the insane amounts of money the defense department spends on developing new and interesting ways to kill ourselves, some actually comes to good use.

Obviously spending that money directly on civil uses would be a better idea, but I guess I'll take what I can get.

Thanks cheese, I'm indeed not supporting war. But I am saying technological developments can come from the military. Of course it would be better if money was put directly into civil research but under US government military funding the only way many scientific programs can get funding. The Cold War brought lots of technical innovation, just look at the whole space race.

Haggis, cyberbeast is right. It is this kind of technology that the JPL (Jet propulsion Labs, NASA's engine research arm) is looking into. With that kind of launch, there is no need for large launch craft or expensive fuels.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

The "trickle down effect" of military technology is often cited - but you know - so what? There's no reason the billions need to go to something like this. It's amazing how many times NASA's budget has been slashed - and yet these kinds of fabulous projects just seem to keep going.

Hey how about a giant microwave "death blender" that can turn a whole city's population into blood pudding in 5 seconds. Sure - here's a few billion for that.

Well, dag, satire aside, have you heard of the Active denial System? It's a device mounted to a HMMWV(Humvee)that emits a "pain ray" of microwaves. It causes the skin to get really hot, really fast. But when the target moves out of the area of effect, the skin is immediately cool again.

MG, that's my point exactly - if it has those applications, invest in those applications.

Technology doesn't care about ethics. It will get developed anyway, regardless of its intended use. As a society, we *should* care about ethics, and allocate resources accordingly.

You want better launch systems, communication networks, medecines? Fine. Invest in science, and science education. Don't invest in weapons on the basis that they may one day have a peaceful use and then pretend that all the death and pain was worth it. That's bass ackwards.

Like it or not, under any foreseeable US government army research will get a shitload of money. Much much more than any civil science program. I think the technology is a bright side to that.
I even think investing in military technology is still a good investment regardless of technology. Because I think a government should do anything to prevent war, but if you have to go to war I'd rather do it with modern weapons and minimum casualties.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Like it or not ...

I choose "not". The military industrial complex - companies like Bechtel and Haliburton feed and promote the notion of "shock and awe" but the product usually just delivers a heap of misery to both sides.

Arms companies have been promoting and lobbying for military action from the US for a long, long time.

Yes, the military industrial complex is certainly very evil. The documentary Why We Fight gives a good view on it.
However I'm just glad that something positive can come from the war machine.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well, the world certainly needs glass-half-full people like you - we probably have enough cranky old cynics. (like me)

Actually I'm pretty cynical, but mostly about politics and society. I am however a positive technocrat

i am not a big fan of arguments that start "like it or not"

i mean i am sure some of my ancestors were saying "like it or not, the king is the king, so we all must do what he says, and isn't it nice when he rides around in his golden carriage, at least we get a nice parade to look at"... and then some people said "fuck this" and we got parliamentary democracy.

True MINK, but I don't think any realist thinks that the American electorate will rise up in revolution any time soon. Your "democracy" would really need a thorough shake up, seeing as it's a two party only system, where the parties almost look like two sides of the same coin.