backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by rsmech.. on Sep 7 at 2:28 PM


NASA's X-43A piggy-backed to a Pegasus space-launch vehicle became one of the world's first successful scramjets in 2004 -- it achieved nearly Mach 10 for approximately 10 seconds.  (Source: NASA)
China throws its weight behind a hypersonic scramjet missile

In late December, DailyTech brought you information on the Pentagon's intention to further the development of the scramjet-powered X-51A hypersonic cruise missile.

Given the principles on which the scramjet engine is based, the X-51A cannot reach its top speed under its own power. In current design proposals, the X-51A is to be carried aloft via a B-52 Stratofortress and hustled to supersonic speeds via a booster rocket. Once optimal velocity is achieved for the scramjet to function, the 14-foot X-51A would then cruise to Mach 5+ (3600 MPH+) under its own power.

The latest reports from Boeing suggest that the X-51A will make its first flight tests during 2009.

In the mean time, China is working on a scramjet missile prototype of its own. The missile would be capable of reaching Mach 5.6. In order to further develop its scramjet program, China has already built a Hypersonic Propulsion Test Facility (HPTF).

The Laboratory of High-Temperature Gas Dynamics, which is located at the HPTF, is "devoted to the fundamentals of hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics including detonation phenomena, supersonic combustion, chemical reactions, shock-wave/vortex interactions and thermal-chemical flow characteristics," according to Aviation Week.

"China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the U.S. and field disruptive military technologies that could, over time, offset traditional U.S. military advantages," stated a 2006 Pentagon Quadrennial Review.

If its scramjet program succeeds, China will likely have hypersonic global-strike capabilities within 20 to 30 years.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Defense! Defense!
By vortmax on 9/4/2007 12:03:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If its scramjet program succeeds, China will likely have hypersonic global-strike capabilities within 20 to 30 years.


It looks like we have 20-30 years to upgrade and perfect that laser defense system...




RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Kcmack on 9/4/2007 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, lasers = lightspeed weapons. As long as they get the targeting software right they should be able to kill anything that can fly in a atmosphere.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By FITCamaro on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By SoCalBoomer on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By ZmaxDP on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Shadowself on 9/4/2007 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 4
"And it seems like all those secrets the Clinton administration let get away to the Chinese are coming back to bite us in the ass."

It was not the "Clinton administration" that let things slip to China. It was commercial companies allowed to do business with China with explicit instructions and requirements that certain pieces of information not be provided to the Chinese as delineated in the export control rules and laws.

The commercial companies did not follow these rules or laws. In one case the U.S. commercial company even left technical manuals with explicitly restricted data out in the open and unattended by U.S. personnel -- allowing the Chinese personnel in the area free access to them without any control what so ever.

The various companies involved were charged with export control violations and ultimately fined (but not enough IMHO).

The "Clinton administration" did everything correctly up until when the final penalties were levied. Then they were too easy on the guilty. They should have been harsher -- but at that time the information had already gotten away, and there was no getting it back.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Rhaido on 9/4/2007 4:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
"It was not the "Clinton administration" that let things slip to China."

One (not I) might argue that the DNC was responsible for sending a top contributor to communist China, Loral Aerospace, in order to help them build better ICBMs. I choose to hold Clinton himself responsible for what I consider (extremist opinion warning) to be traitorous actions over many years by Clinton. Clinton did many things to assist data gathering for communist China. Many examples exist if you care to pursue. Here is one:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_rpt/sgo-sir/1...

"Despite his modest position and the fact that he was purposely excluded from any real policy work at Commerce, Huang received classified intelligence briefings, and he appears to have met often with high ranking White House officials, including, on occasion, the President himself."

Huang had a level of security clearance that was highly unusual if not precedent-setting for an employee his level working at the Department of Commerce. Huang received debriefing from the CIA several times at the DoC and he was given access to CIA documented Asian intel.

Good read: Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake
http://www.amazon.com/Year-Rat-Edward-Timperlake/d...


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Crank the Planet on 9/4/2007 7:22:27 PM , Rating: 3
Does anyone remember the "12" nuclear missiles in China pointed at US. Cities? Clinton went over there under pressure from the American people to have them pointed somewhere else. What happened after that was a complete media blackout of the subject. Not one word about where those missiles are pointed now and I guarrantee you they are still pointed at U.S. targets. And do you know what china got? Most Favored Nation Status by Bill Clinton. Ever been to Walmart lately? Or any other store? Do you see where the products are made? Everything is made in frickin' china. It is actually very rare now to see anything made in any other country- even Mexico! I'm glad there's one thing china can never duplicate- Don Julio "1942" Reserve

There are only a handful of products made in USA anymore. Nothing from China can compete from what we produce. The quality is just not there.

Patton was right, we should have marched right through russia and kept kickin' Commie @$$ all the way to china.

By the way, I just think any government that has the goal of world domination should be "replaced" ;)


RE: Defense! Defense!
By alifbaa on 9/4/2007 9:26:39 PM , Rating: 3
So, by your logic, all those "high quality" items that China replaced with "low quality" items at a far lower price have left an unmet demand for "high quality" items produced in the US? It sounds like you need to get into business, my friend. There is a ton of money to be made.

Perhaps the other possibility could be that manufacturers got tired of paying US workers (literally) 20x the salary of a Chinese worker to do the same job?

The FACTS are that it costs a lot of money to build a new factory overseas, hire and train a workforce, and continually ship product back to the United States. Unless there were a way to produce the SAME product FAR cheaper, companies would never think of moving outside the United States. The other FACT is that free trade/globalization have given all of us a tremendous pay raise over the last ten years while also helping the people of China to grow economically as well.

Finally, you say we should have marched from Germany to China, but you think any government with the goal of global domination should be replaced? Where in the deep, dusty recesses of your pea-sized brain do you even begin to square those two statements?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of China, its oppression, or its aggressive stance towards its citizens and neighbors. I just don't think any of your arguments are either persuasive or cogent.



RE: Defense! Defense!
By roadhog74 on 9/4/2007 11:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Er i am pretty sure you can study physics in china.

Most of the advances in physics are published in
international peer reviewed journals.

So you don't need to spy on the US to uncover the secrets
of the universe.

Didn't Australia successfully launch a scram jet missile
before the US anyway?


RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 12:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
A Laser in the vacuum of space travels at Mach 874,030. You do the math.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Zurtex on 9/4/2007 12:37:25 PM , Rating: 3
Lasers are light, light = 299'792'458 metres per second exactly

Mach 5.6 is about 1'905.6 metres per second


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/4/2007 2:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yet you yourself asked the question


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/4/2007 2:21:59 PM , Rating: 3
Well objectively you can not assume the education level of a random person on the internet to be great. Especially when Internet age is growing younger. My little brother surfs on forum and such.

It's not hard to find someone who doesn't know speed of light on the web.
I thought your comment was very harsh. They were trying to help by answering in nice wordings


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:08:17 PM , Rating: 4
Your best bet is to assume people are stupid and explain everything. More often than not you will be correct in this assumption. Most of us know that and we tend to explain stuff now :)


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but your missing a key step here. Many people are infact afraid to ask questions for fear they may appear stupid for not knowing. This has been a long standing problem in many of the technical and scientific fields. It's a paradox, oh yes indeed. You also need to step back and stop looking at it from your eyes. Think of the "average" intelligence person you know, now figure that half of the people are less intelligent than him. Gear your thinking to making sure you cater to those below his level. Explaining what you are talking about becomes a necessity now.

Above all, remember that people are afraid for any number of reasons of looking dumb and asking questions about higher level concepts you talk about. People don't want to look stupid by asking (In most cases), so save them the humiliation or letting them get lost by simply explaining as you go.

I can tell you first hand if I didn't explain all of the high level work I do to my co-workers and people outside my team, I would be looked at like some sort of freaky alien with people around me without a clue as to what I'm doing and why. Many of my co-workers who are many years my senior in this field are downright afraid of asking questions for fear that they may look stupid to our superiors. This is a real problem that I have faced in most of my teams past and present. You yourself may be highly intelligent with a grasp of many of the higher level concepts, but you need to remember you are a minority in this facet


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt I'm more intelligent than most... and I ask questions continuously... I want to know information and I think asking questions is a sign of humility (in a sense) because you admit you're not omniscient (All knowing, ha!). It's probably just the way I was taught and so far it hasn't really failed me.

I do see what you're saying though. It's like a gift to those who are ignorant and are unwilling to ask.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your logic behind asking questions is just fine, I wish more people had it. You will find that by asking questions continuously you will end up with a greater understanding of factors in play in many scenarios. An edge many of your co-workers will not posess because they do not ask questions repeatedly to attain a greater understanding of the subject matter at hand. Most people don't mind explaining concepts, but many are just too ego tripped or fearful to ask.

quote:
It's like a gift to those who are ignorant and are unwilling to ask.

Pretty much. We explain it in terms everyone can understand, they save face by not having to ask and appear ignorant, everyone wins. It's more of a political tactic if anything (Especially in corporate politics ugh).


RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 3:35:30 PM , Rating: 3
Actually its like when someone calls tech support and asks a misleading and very badly worded question; a question that would lead tech support to think you are a dope. Tech support then attempts to help, but is then berated for not being able to read minds. Btw, you are not tech support in this example.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 3:55:00 PM , Rating: 1
Like if I were to call Time Warner and say "Hey, my cable modem gives me an IP address but I can't get to the internet."
They say "Is it plugged in." and I say "Well it gives me a proper IP address."

I think your use of "misleading" is way off. The question can be read two ways. The way I intended it (using the term "laser" to describe the entire light-based weapon) or using the term "laser" as only one tiny part of the entire light-based weapon and assuming that people don't like that lasers are in fact focused light and that light itself travels at the speed of light.

So if you want to be picky, my mistakes are:
1.) Assuming that everyone knows what a laser is
2.) Using conversational English instead of spelling everything out

Lasers have been around my entire life and if there are people in first-world countries younger than 30 that don't know that lasers are light, then I am truly shocked. Hopefully the education system isn't that bad...


RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 4:07:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Hey, my cable modem gives me an IP address but I can't get to the internet."


I fail to see how this could be read two ways. You posted a question that every replier interpreted the same way. You then made fun of those who couldn't understand what you meant to say(ie everybody but you). Maybe you should reconsider your skills in "conversational English"

quote:
So if you want to be picky, my mistakes are....

Your third mistake was posting in this thread.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 4:24:02 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe my conversational English skills aren't the best... By the way I hold conversations is "we" talk... and if something I said doesn't make sense, others ask. I respond with clarification... It works the same way when I'm on the other side.

I haven't made fun of anyone here. Other than my sarcasm with the Cpt Obvious thing I've been completely honest and above board. I'm telling you where I'm coming from and what I mean (clarifying for people who think it's not clear enough). AND I'm standing up for myself... (God forbid!)

You said say I'm unwilling to admit or apologize... I've admitted and I've even apologized for my unintended harshness pointed out rather nicely by someone else. I ask you what "wrong" have I done and I have no response from you other than being critical and super nitpicky about imperfect language.

Do you think if someone were to examine every post of yours (or any one else) that you've only shown perfect language, perfect tact, perfect generosity, and kindness? I don't think so. It seems you've switched from replying reasonably to my comments to replying based on your opinion of me.

So tell me what I did "wrong" and who I put down.
quote:
Your third mistake was posting in this thread.
Thanks... I simply don't view that as a mistake. I'm not sure what that means... could you clarify that? Are you being snide... or saying it was a real mistake? Guess that could be taken a couple different ways.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 8:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Now your just trolling ss284. Let it go, I already had an intelligent discussion clarifying assumptions being made by all parties in this thread.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 1:01:28 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe I should rephrase that for people who automatically assume the rest of us do not understand the obvious (such as the speed of light being faster than that of a missile).

Do the lasers require a significant period of time on target to burn through and can the mechanism that puts it on target keep up with the average speed of a missile traveling at those speeds? Obviously an object is easier to track if traveling parallel to the laser (less lateral movement).


RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 1:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
You call that a rephrasing? Maybe you should have asked this question originally, because your first question (which was totally different) made it seem you didn't understand the obvious.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/4/2007 2:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Your original question verbally and grammatically mislead to such answers. You had no right to blame people with bad answers when your original question was badly worded.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By timmiser on 9/4/2007 2:38:39 PM , Rating: 5
Face it. You had no idea that lasers travel at the speed of light and now you are pretending that you knew all along. You sound like a little whining kid with your "Thank you capt obvious" crap. Grow up and don't be so embarrassed that you didn't know that.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 3:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I actually have no problem apologizing for wrong or admitting ignorance.


I would have to disagree with this statement, seeing as you have done neither.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense! Defense!
By timmiser on 9/4/2007 4:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I actually did know

Wait a minute... Didn't we already cover this?

quote:
But thanks for confirming that you think people are generally stupid. That's a general attitude I really can't stand.

Nah, I never said or implied people... I was just referring to you. :)


RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My question is not verbal, it's written. Should I jump all over you because you said it was verbal?


"Verbally" refers to language as a whole. You should jump all over yourself.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By ss284 on 9/4/2007 4:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong, and you were the one originally nitpicking.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/4/2007 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
To answer your rephrased question:

If a laser is made powerful enough (much more powerful than now), which we have not yet had the technology yet

In Terra Watts range, it has potential to vaporize anything within milliseconds

Such a laser though may be too bulky. If we can have perfect mirrors then sweeping the beam to target would be feasible than moving the bulky barrels to track and target.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 2:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
With a powerful enough light based weapon you could even just turn it on and place it in the path of the missile and let the missile "run into" it.

I'm really asking about right now. I've not heard of any existing light based weapon that can destroy a target quickly. My understanding is that they weaken the metal and the stress of flying through atmosphere destroys the missile. That's assuming it can be hit with the weak "laser" light based weapon. I doubt you could field a flock of flying light based weapon platforms before a missile such as this could strike if it were within a reasonable distance. Even if the platform were already in the air, could it swivel fast enough?

Maybe a light-based weapon on the ground could be designed with enough power to do the job. Maybe it would take multiple beams to cut down one missile traveling at that speed.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
New national Border is made entirely of light, not a single person has gotten past, wait a second, i'm now recieving reports that a man with a mirror has made it through.

Anyways, are there not materials that would either reflect or deflect enough of the energy that lasers wouldn't be effective, and if so what is the kind of power level would just instantly melt those kinds of materials?
Over 9000?


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder how hard it would be to simply make a shiny missile... :)

Missile, defense=missile ($1Mil)
super fast missile, defense=light-based weapon ($1Bil)
super fast missile with mirrors, defense="ohh crap" ($0)


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
A laser in the megawatt range would burn through a mirror as if it wasnt even there. Anything above 600-700 Kilowatts would likely burn through a mirror in seconds. Mirrors reflect VISIBLE light, but lasers are not based in the visible light spectrum.

It is possible to develop materials to reflect specific light spectrums, but one to reflect every possible one we might use for weapons would be difficult at best.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 4:27:49 PM , Rating: 1
> "Mirrors reflect VISIBLE light, but some lasers are not based in the visible light spectrum.

Corrected. The most common lasers are all in the visible spectrum, though others are both below and above this range.

One SDI-based initiative investigated fission-pumped gamma-ray based lasers. You certainly won't find a mirror that's going to reflect that.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/5/2007 2:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A laser in the megawatt range would burn through a mirror as if it wasnt even there.


That's why I had the word "perfect" mirrors in my post.
Which makes me intrigued.

Laser stands for Light Amplification by Spontaneous Emission of Laser

That Spontaneousness is achieved by a light cavity with 100% reflective mirror at one end and 99.9% on the other. Light leaking ut of that 99.9% mirror is the laser beam.

If the megawatt laser burns though the 100% cavity mirror, there will not be laser at all as the device will destroy itself.

How's the 100% reflection in one end of laser cavity achieved for a powerful laser then?


RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/5/2007 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I meant to say Light Amplification by Spontaneous Emission of Light lol


RE: Defense! Defense!
By AnnihilatorX on 9/5/2007 2:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Damn I must be tired

Light Amplification by Spontaneous Emission of Radiation sorry

Maybe I shouldn't ignore the confirmation next time
My apologies


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on a number of different factors.

-Power output of laser (Megawatt range would likely be sufficient)
-Type of laser (Chemical, Solid State, etc..)
-Wavelength

Primitive lasers were suseptible to things like reflection, but modern lasers arent based in the visible light spectrum. It is concievable to design a metalic alloy to reflect specifc wavelengths, but the exact wavelength and power setting of any U.S. based laser weapon would be classified at the highest level. I also assume it could be adusted across a range of settings and across the light spectrum so that it would be difficult if not impossible to block.

It would make for an interesting arms race around laser based weaponry though.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 3:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like Star Trek. How many times did then set the phasers to rotate through a set of frequencies... Seems like every other episode. The Borg would then learn to rotate the shields so that you only really got one shot before the Borg would also block that frequency.

fun stuff.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 4:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
> " I also assume it could be adusted across a range of settings and across the light spectrum so that it would be difficult if not impossible to block."

Very few lasers are tunable across a wide range. I don't know of any serious consideration being given to a tunable laser for missile defense purposes. Dye lasers are tunable, but far too low power. A free-electron laser might eventually be a candidate, but not anytime in the next few decades.

Its generally going to be an easier problem to either design for a fixed frequency for which common materials have a low albedo, or simply increase the power to the point where some degree of reflectivity won't prevent target destruction.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/5/2007 8:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
My point would be several different lasers based on the ground. Firing whichever would have the greatest effect on the missile fired. I agree it would be very difficult to change the frequency they are running on.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/2007 3:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
If we can track and destroy an ICBM in launch phase with a megawatt class laser. Which is the goal of the ABL program which is granted an unproven but promising technology. Why would it take a laser that is one million times more powerful to destroy a hypersonic missile in level flight?

How about we do this. Shoot a missile in front of the target missile. Load this missile with 500 pounds (227 kilos) of 1/4 (5mm or so) ball bearings. Let the hypersonic missile fly into a cloud of ball bearings. The target missiles own speed would create the impact energy to destroy it.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 3:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't any intercepting missile need to be "hypersonic" missile? I guess a cloud of bearings would be like a force field.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 4:34:08 PM , Rating: 1
> "Wouldn't any intercepting missile need to be "hypersonic" missile?"

Not at all. It merely needs to be fast enough to get from its launch site to some arbitrary point in the missile's path, before the missile itself strikes the target.

Obviously faster interceptors can protect a larger area, which is why kinetic kill vehicles are typically designed to be launched on high speed interceptors.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By HrilL on 9/4/2007 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
How could they not be? I mean light can travel around the earth 7 times in a second. If they can track a missile going that fast then a laser will be able to take it out. And that would be pretty much the only option since an interceptor missile would have to go like Mach 10 to intercept it and I don't see that happing.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 1:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
Assuming you can put the laser on the target at that speed... can you hold it there long enough to render the missile ineffective?

Anyone know the answer to this or are there just a bunch of "duh, light is teh fastest!" comments?


RE: Defense! Defense!
By OoklaTheMok on 9/4/2007 3:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
It could be potentially difficult to keep the laser locked onto the target depending on the maneuverability of the target. In addition to the laser, there would also have to be an illuminator to track and keep a "lock" on the target to guide the tracking on the laser. If the target is maneuverable enough to evade, or even periodically evade, the illuminator, then it will be very difficult to keep the laser on the target for long enough to destroy to target.

Then lets add in the potential for implementation of reactive armor for a potential missile target. Either through a form of diffusion of the laser energy, or by detection of the laser which causes evasive maneuvers.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt anything moving that fast could maneuver...
A missile like this would really do some damage, even if they just put a super dense core on it and let the kinetic energy to the job.

It almost sounds like a doomsday weapon.

Maybe someone needs to invent a "force field" that is always on to stop any object from entering the airspace.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By MGSsancho on 9/4/2007 1:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
there is a system called Nike-X that was made to shot these missiles down. spirit was part of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_%28missile%29
and there is the helios rocket that could accelerate at 100Gs and blow up an ICBM when it was 20,000ft from the surface. im trying to get a helios link. only thing coming up is the wing plane built by nasa and a french rocket =(


RE: Defense! Defense!
By roadhog74 on 9/4/2007 10:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that a laser is the wrong type of weapon for this it would require pin point target-ting.

data from object to tracking station say 500ms
tracking station to central station say 500ms
processing data < 100ms
data from central to appropriate installation say 500ms

roughly 1.5 - 2 from target aquisition to firing at mach
5 that is roughly 1.7 km.

sure the software can extrapolate path to fire the weapon,
but you need to hit and all the missile has to do to avoid being hit is hit a pocket of turbulence.

so if i was firing the missile i would program it to travel
in the jetstream. random jitter would make it almost
impossible for the laser to hit and the difference in air
pressure inside the jetstream versus out side probably
make it impossible to target.

A better weapon to intercept would be a mach 10
interceptor missile which gets close and unleashes a
mass of shrapnel. similar to the sidewinder missile.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By idconstruct on 9/5/2007 12:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
those are terrible pings for a military network...

hell, i get 20ms to colorado from michigan... and thats just standard comcast


RE: Defense! Defense!
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/2007 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not if Hillary gets into the White House. She will roll over like a tired puppy for her friends the Chinese. Then we will have like half that time. It is like the Clintons are trying to say thank you for inventing gunpowder or something.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 3:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
that was a good invention though, gotta hand it to them.


RE: Defense! Defense!
By djkrypplephite on 9/4/2007 4:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
I say we destroy China while we still have the upper hand. I'd be down with that.


Defense budget
By OddTSi on 9/4/2007 12:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
And people wonder why we have such a large defense budget. As I've said before, you can't let your guard down and let your (potential) enemies catch up.




RE: Defense budget
By mcturkey on 9/4/2007 12:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
This is the reason all those "Why do we need this? We're the best in the world!" folks in Congress are idiots. We're the best in the world because we keep innovating and researching and improving things. If we stop, the rest of the world will keep moving right along.

If we stop, some day we're not going to be the primary superpower, or perhaps not even a superpower at all. And then, our national freedom goes away, and we might find ourselves being told what to do by the UN, and not having the power to actually ignore them.


RE: Defense budget
By Moishe on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense budget
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/4/2007 1:20:59 PM , Rating: 4
Define freedom, please, and then compare your said freedom with some other nation's "lack of freedom".

Besides, a nation does not need to have a great military power in order to build a "happy society".
Many countries in europe are not militarily that strong, but have better economical and educational and life quality indicators than the USA has.

Or about China itself... They can have all the military power they want, and that won't warrant their populations any more freedom at all. Hell, they still keep banning web sites which contain things their government doesn't want people to become knowledgeable about.

Military power gives you defensive and offensive power, and that's all. No assumptions about the society's behaviour should be made at all.


RE: Defense budget
By EndPCNoise on 9/4/2007 2:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Re: DeepBlue1975
Define freedom, please, and then compare your said freedom with some other nation's "lack of freedom".

American freedoms are clearly defined in the preamble, the U.S. Constitution, and most importantly, the Bill of Rights. Many nations lack these clearly defined freedoms. If you are an American, you are a pathetic example of an American to say the least.

Besides, a nation does not need to have a great military power in order to build a "happy society".
Many countries in europe are not militarily that strong, but have better economical and educational and life quality indicators than the USA has.


1) You clearly need to study up on your history. For thousands of years, long before the U.S. even existed, nations have used their military might to protect economic interests and trade, and their sovereignty.

2) Europe has an enormously strong military backing. Most people are familiar with it, as it's common knowledge, but clearly you are not. It's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO, of which the good ol U.S. of A is the most powerful military backer.

Or about China itself... They can have all the military power they want, and that won't warrant their populations any more freedom at all. Hell, they still keep banning web sites which contain things their government doesn't want people to become knowledgeable about.

Freedoms comes at an extremely high price, they are earned with the blood of those who fought for and died for them. Freedom will be lost by complacent and ignorant people, like yourself, if it is not protected by each new generation. People like DeepBlue1975 reap the benefits of these freedoms, and yet do nothing to protect them. Your above statement regarding the Chinese government only supports my argument.

<Your mommy> "Wake up johnny, johnny wake up. Time to grow up and leave your Utopian, socialist fantasyland, and join the rest of us in the real world."

Put down your "happy, green cigarettes", and pick up a book for a change you bleeding-heart liberal.


RE: Defense budget
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/4/2007 4:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
As you don't have logical arguments to counter what I said, you insult and disrespect me.
Who between the both of us does need to get a better education?
What freedom are you talking about, if you can't even respect the freedom of others to have different opinions than yours?

The only rational thing you said is "military power to back...", not to offend or assault. If you didn't realize yet, societies and the worldwide economical scenario have changed a lot in the "last thousands of years".
It's not smart any longer to call people who think different than you names.

And... Of course I know about the NATO, but do you know that europe is not a single country, and that many of those 26 countries that build up the NATO hasn't such a big military power by itself?

As for you, that think so highly and proudly of your own knowledge, here I got you some little bit of "ignorant information" from, the universally free ignorance WWW killer: enter the wikipedia entry about Luxembourg's military force:

[quote]
The military of Luxembourg consists of a solitary branch: the army, which is commanded by a colonel; Luxembourg has no navy or air force. The army has been an all-volunteer force since 1967.[1] It has a current strength of approximately 450 professional soldiers, about 340 enlisted recruits and 100 civilians, and a total budget of $120 million. The army is under civilian control. The Commander-in-Chief is the Grand Duke, but day-to-day responsibility for defence matters is vested in the Minister for Defence, currently Jean-Louis Schiltz (since February 23, 2006),[2] under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration.

Luxembourg has participated in the Eurocorps since 1994, has contributed troops to the UNPROFOR and IFOR missions in former Yugoslavia, and participates with a small contingent in the current NATO SFOR mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Luxembourg army is integrated into the Multinational Beluga Force under Belgian command. Luxembourg troops have also deployed to Afghanistan to support ISAF. Luxembourg has financially supported international peacekeeping missions during the 1991 Gulf War, in Rwanda and, more recently, Albania. The army also has participated in humanitarian relief missions such as setting up refugee camps for Kurds and providing emergency supplies to Albania.
[/quote]

Well... Not enough?
Here's more, this time about Switzerland:

[quote]
On May 18, 2003, Swiss voters approved the military reform project "Army XXI" to drastically reduce the size of the Swiss Army. Starting in January 2004, the 524,000-strong militia was pared down to 220,000 conscripts, including 80,000 reservists. The defence budget of SFr 4.3 billion ($3.1 billion) was trimmed by SFr 300 million and some 2,000 jobs are expected to be shed between 2004 and 2011.
[/quote]

If you haven't got it yet, I tell you that my point is that regardless of treaties like the NATO, on a just-one-country- basis, some of them decide not giving their military forces as much importance as some others do, and even then, that doesn't prevent them from being rich nations.

PS: I am American, because I live in a country that's situated in a continent called America, but no, I'm not from the US _OF_ America. You call me ignorant and you don't even get that you take for granted things that haven't any other basis than a very bad use of the language. It's ok if in USA people use to call themselves "Americans", but it's not OK for you to forget that being American could mean that you are from a country that's not the USA...

Well... let's see how many other names can you call me now, but try being less predictable, as ignorant, junkie and pathetic are used all over these forums any time someone disagrees with anyone else.
But calling me "liberal" to insult me was surely original and funny. ;)


RE: Defense budget
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 6:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "Well... Not enough? Here's more, this time about Switzerland..."

Err, Switzerland has a population of 7 million people. On a per-capita basis, its military of 220K people is far larger than that of the United States, which has a military some 6 times larger, but a population 42 times larger.

> "enter the wikipedia entry about Luxembourg's military force:"

I'm not sure what you believe this proves. Luxembourg could easily dispense with its military entirely. It would still be protected by NATO. Costa Rica, for instance, abolished its military half a century ago...secure in the knowledge that, should it ever be invaded, the US would quickly move to defend it.

Luxembourg's military doesn't exist to protect the nation from armed invaders...its a symbol, no more, used to give the nation some measure of prestige by cooperating in UN and NATO actions.



RE: Defense budget
By EndPCNoise on 9/4/2007 7:49:24 PM , Rating: 1
Re: DeepBlue1975

As you don't have logical arguments to counter what I said...What freedom are you talking about

If the freedoms (written in plain English) in the U.S. Preamble, The Bill of Rights, and other amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not support logical arguments about freedoms, then hippie, I don't know what would for you. In fact hippie, many modern day, democratic nations have adopted (copied) the U.S. Constitution to use as their nations' constitution.

If you didn't realize yet, societies and the worldwide economical scenario have changed a lot in the "last thousands of years".

Look hippie, there are basic, fundamental, principles of modern civilization and society that still hold just as true today as they did five thousand years ago. Nations still have to protect their economic interests and trade, and their sovereignty. (Duh)

And... Of course I know about the NATO, but do you know that europe is not a single country, and that many of those 26 countries that build up the NATO hasn't such a big military power by itself?

Hippie, the intention of NATO is to protect its member nations and their interests. (Duh...go smoke another bowl.)

Hey hippie, while you were researching Luxembourg (rather than the U.S. Constitution) did you see that the country is less than 1000 sq. miles in size with less than 1 million people. It's no wonder why they would have a small military force. (Duh) Luxembourg is near the heart of Europe, and would likely be protected by NATO nations. (again Duh)

Hippie, you are on some good dope. So what if Switzerland had military cutbacks. The U.S. has had several defense spending cuts, downsizing, and base closures (especially after the Cold War ended), so has Russia, and many other nations around the world, so what. Does this imply the military of Switzerland, U.S., Russia, or other nations are insignificant or no longer required hippie? (Duh)

Probably because you are a dope-smoking, acid-dropping, brain-fried, hippie, you were the only person on this forum thread who needed clarification of my use of the word "American". (Duh)

Hey hippie, ask the people of Hong Kong if they are more happy under their relatively "new" Chinese government than their previous government.

Here's another one hippie. Ask China, who has literally hundreds of missiles pointed at Taiwan, if they need a military. Better yet hippie, ask the people of Taiwan. China has hundreds of missiles pointed at Taiwan, makes public threats to attack Taiwan, and holds regular military exercises to attack Taiwan. Ask the Taiwanese if they need a military. ok hippie?

Go on and live in your Utopian, socialistic, bleeding-heart liberal, acid trip, fantasy world, while the rest of us live in reality.


RE: Defense budget
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/5/2007 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 1
You skipped the point that a country the size of Luxembourg can exist now with no military power at all.
That same country wouldn't be able to exist some thousand years ago, or could it?

Again, my point is not at all about saying that military power is needed or not.
I'm talking about the fact that a country's army's strength does not directly imply anything about how that country's society behaves internally.

More examples, and lets see if you, who apparently can't read and understand a whole sentence, finally get to understand what the hell I'm talking about, because as of now you're only countering arguments that I didn't make at all in my original comment:

1- China has a huge army, but their population is not free.
2- Switzerland can cut the cost of its army, and their population does not loose any freedom, that doesn't even stop them from being one of the top countries from a GBP per capita standpoint.
3- Canada's forces are not so highly ranked, and their population enjoys quite a bit of freedom, even compared to most countries in the world.

My point is, and I say it again so you can finally get the fucking meaning of it and then, if you want to argue, at least argue based on what I say and not on what your parrotish mind is suggesting you that I'm saying:

A country can have a huge army, and its population be "free" or not.
A country can have very small forces, while having a "free" population or not (well, a country with little forces can't make people loose their freedom so easily).

As I said from the beginning: no assumption should be made about the behaviour of the underlying society based solely on their military forces.

That last statement is what you started and keep arguing about, and yet I have to read a single logical refusal from you, pointing directly to that which is and the only point I'm making, a simple one that you can't understand at all!

Who's behaving like a massive pot smoker? Me, making a single logical point, or you, that not only are talking about things you assume I said though never did, but also can't discuss such a dead silly fact without insulting?

I don't even know why the hell I keep trying to explain you what I'm saying, when it's obvious that you won't understand and will keep idiotically bashing and countering with arguments that have nothing to do with what I say...

Masher2:

My examples were only to support my initial post, not to say that armies should or not exist.


RE: Defense budget
By EndPCNoise on 9/5/2007 2:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
Re: DeepBlue1975

I clearly see now that you are nothing more than another internet forum thread TROLL, and what you are doing is called TROLLING.

You're going to have to find someone else to feed you.


RE: Defense budget
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/5/2007 4:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
No surprise at all in such an answer. You come out of arguments, then all you can do is a personal attack he who thinks different than you do.
If people like you are to determine a free country, I would not touch that country even with a 10 mile long pole.

There are people who agree with you but don't have the need to call names in order to speak their minds out.
Look at Masher2's post, he disagreed me and pointed out what he saw as a flaw of my part, without any need of bashing at all.


RE: Defense budget
By rsmech on 9/4/2007 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Military power gives you defensive and offensive power, and that's all.


Do you like the freedoms you have now? Almost every nation in history has had to defend it themselves or with the help of others. With a strong military or ally of a free people they can secure these rights. If a European nation in the future came into a struggle for their freedoms the US would be there for them, if they weren't the other side would have China on theirs. Take your pick.

quote:
They can have all the military power they want, and that won't warrant their populations any more freedom at all.


You are so true with only half of the statement. A strong military doesn't give any more freedoms, it SECURES THEM.


RE: Defense budget
By cbo on 9/4/2007 11:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
They have no military because we are their military. Thus allowing them to reinvest their GDP into people pleasing programs like free/low cost college or universal health care. It is funny, now that Russia is not communist and doesn't have thousands of T 72's lined up against the iron curtain, America is now deemed as the belligerent state in Europe's eyes. I am no war warmonger and I respect the social programs they have over there but let us remember that all of this came at a sacrifice. And for the most part foot the bill.


RE: Defense budget
By cbo on 9/4/2007 11:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
we footed the bill.

sorry I get so patriotic at times.


RE: Defense budget
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2007 1:52:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is the reason all those "Why do we need this? We're the best in the world!" folks in Congress are idiots. We're the best in the world because we keep innovating and researching and improving things. If we stop, the rest of the world will keep moving right along.


The folks in that political party only do things in a reactionary mode, they do nothing proactively . Only when fallen behind, will there be a cry for "let's correct this!" and "let's look forward to solutions and not point fingers on why it got this way" (unless it was the other party's fault in which case investigation of the fault will be MORE important than correcting the problem).


RE: Defense budget
By xzc145 on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense budget
By FITCamaro on 9/4/2007 12:32:51 PM , Rating: 3
Accidents happen you ignorant prick. And there will always be radicals in the military who do things outside the chain of command.

Tens of thousands of soldiers in the field and people like you generalize our entire military based on the actions of a few rogue soldiers and a few isolated accidents.


RE: Defense budget
By rcreyes on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Defense budget
By TheDoc9 on 9/4/2007 12:54:26 PM , Rating: 3
man you've been watching some serious propaganda


RE: Defense budget
By Ducking on 9/4/2007 12:59:43 PM , Rating: 3
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? That's a highly inflammatory statement to say that American soldiers are killing civilians for no reason.


RE: Defense budget
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 1:14:36 PM , Rating: 4
Do you think if American marines had been at Srebrenica there'd of been a massacre?

What about Rwanda, where the UN proved it can run at the speed of light and allowed the worst loss of human life since WW2 to go unchecked?

And how about the UN's failure to do Lebanon any semblance of good? Oh, all its secular democratic politicians are getting assasinated by Syrian thugs but let's not antagonize Syria/Iran, we might actually have to fight a little!

At least someone was fighting and dieing to try to contain Soviet power in Vietnam. Where was everybody else? Oh, thats right. Cowering under our nuclear umbrella and hoping it doesn't actually rain.

Be intellectually honest with yourself and check historical facts. Friendly fire is a mere fraction of what it once was, and American troops are among the best behavied and well versed in human rights in the world. If there's more reports of screw ups by US troops, ever consider that perhaps its because we're the only nation that really bothers to use troops? Perhaps if we had some help in places like Afghanistan we wouldn't even need to rely on air raids, but, alas, for most our "allies" the potential for urban combat is too much to stomach.


RE: Defense budget
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 3:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what you are saying, but that last part kind of irks me wrong, we are not the only nation in Afghanistan, we just have the most because we have to most interest there. Though it seemed like NATO kind of stepped up to the plate in serbia very recently. There are more places than just iraq iran and afganistan


RE: Defense budget
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 6:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Our "allies" in Afghanistan have drawn my ire as so many of them refuse to allow their troops to be assigned to areas where the Taliban has a strong presence. In other words, they would like to not look like total cowards, but they know they wont get re-elected if any body bags pile up so they need to keep their men in the back-water. Countries that do allow their men to do a little work, like Canada, are constantly teetering on the brink of complete withdrawal. Last I heard the British may increase their presence, but they're about the only ones even pondering it and support for Afghanistan is pretty low domestically in the UK as well.

I agree with the rest, though. Sure, there are NATO and UN peacekeepers deployed around the globe, and some of them somewhere I'm sure are doing a decent job. My main point was that the world has yet to see troops much more disciplined and effective as the USA's, and whining about the occasional friendly-fire incident or troopers that snap is just misguided.


RE: Defense budget
By FITCamaro on 9/4/2007 2:10:41 PM , Rating: 1
Where do you get your news? Al Jizira? Or however its spelled?

Yes rogue Marines have capped a few civilians outside of orders and the law. And have been prosecuted. Those tens of thousands of Iraq civilian casualties though so far have all been killed by fellow Iraqis, terrorists, and Iranians. If not for US Forces in the area, the casualties would be far higher.


RE: Defense budget
By Combatcolin on 9/4/2007 12:54:55 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is that they just keep happening.

And then nothing is done about it.


RE: Defense budget
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
When you figure out how to make 18, 19 and 20 year old kids fresh out of high school perform flawlessly under intense conditions, or simply how to get them to not act like teenagers, all after having been away from family, friends and legitimate McDonalds' for a year or more, some times several deployments in a row, send General Petraeus an e-mail, k?


RE: Defense budget
By retrospooty on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Defense budget
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 1
Now there is an idea.... I think most of the U.S. would agree that our family and friends don't need to die to support this kind of expansion of freedom. I think the idea of expanding freedom is a great idea especially in the dark ages of the middle east, BUT I think that it should be mostly a last ditch effort.

Accountability:
Every last cent of foreign aid (of any kind) should pulled from anyone who does not support a true democratic freedom. Giving millions to organizations that hate the U.S. is not wise. If someone gets a cent and spends it wrong or cannot account for it... you stop all aid. There is a lot of power in that and it would remove a lot of situations. Make em work for it.

I think that the U.S. stands with one hand giving money to corrupt entities who use it to fund anti-American activity. Simultaneously with the other hand they spend money to fight that entity. The two hands should be linked, one not undermining the other.


RE: Defense budget
By rsmech on 9/4/2007 5:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
our military should be used in defense, if we are attacked, or at least threatened


Attacked! what about 911 what was that? I'll assume we don't agree on who to go after so you tell me who you would have sent the military after? If attacked you say it's justified.

Or threatened! You don't feel that we have or are being threatened still? If so who do you go after?


RE: Defense budget
By retrospooty on 9/4/2007 11:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Attacked! what about 911 what was that? I'll assume we don't agree on who to go after so you tell me who you would have sent the military after? If attacked you say it's justified.

Or threatened! You don't feel that we have or are being threatened still? If so who do you go after?"


OMG, where do I even start... What does 911 have to do with Iraq ? nothing !!! Osama did that, and is still hiding in Pakistan (according to our best intel), agreed we should get him, but Iraq has nothing to do with it.

As far as being threatened, we are not by Iraq, nor did they have any WMD's.

We ARE being threatened by individual, and small groups of islamic fundamantalists, and our being in the middle east is fueling their anger and will make matters worse. We need to get the hell out of there.


RE: Defense budget
By rsmech on 9/5/2007 12:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
You really didn't need to answer, I've heard it before. So you're suggesting going into Pakistan? If not you still haven't figured out a solution. As far as being threatened you think if we just leave all will be well just like the day before 911. You need to close your eyes a little tighter to not see the truth.


RE: Defense budget
By retrospooty on 9/5/2007 9:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, i wasn't saying we invade Pakistan, nor do nothing, but Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we are to go after those who perp'd 9/11, then Iraq is not the way.

Now that we are there, as an occupation, we are giving the psycho fundamantalists in all Arab countries a beacon to hate, and a reason to attack.

You say you have heard it all before... Perhaps people are trying to knock some sense into you. Talk about opening your eyes, try it. You are listening to the fear pushers like a coward rather than thinking like a man.


RE: Defense budget
By rsmech on 9/7/2007 2:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now that we are there, as an occupation


You seem to imply that an occupation is bad. Do you not look at history? Did we not occupy Germany, Japan, South Korea? I bet the Nazi's, imperialists, and communists psycho's hated us also, but it worked. Too bad we didn't occupy Vietnam also, we just lost the political & social will & left. You tell me what worked in history & what didn't.


RE: Defense budget
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 6:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
I was opposed to going in to Iraq, but unlike the left, I recognize when situations change and don't get caught on the past.

We're there. We broke it. Foreign fighters are ravaging and killing indiscriminately. Foreign powers (Iran) are actively trying to make Iraq a satellite nation.

If you hit a women pedestrian in a car and she's injured but alive do you say to yourself "Oh crap, this might be expensive and costly to me personally, time for me to get the hell out of here?"

We've made a committment to Iraq and now history will judge us by if we fulfill it now. Additionally, thanks to the power vacuum, like it or not it's now the main front against islamic fascism in the Middle East.

I'd like to be out of there as much as the next guy; I've got friends in the Army that've been deployed already and will soon be going back for rounds two and three. Osama calls us a "paper tiger" as it is, and the worst thing we could do is prove it.


RE: Defense budget
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 2:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
The only real reason why you don't see this as widespread with other countries forces is because other countries are letting the U.S. foot the bill and do 99% of the fighting.

Oh and also, the media in general hates the military and every bad thing gets overblown to twenty times reality while good stuff is barely mentioned. Don't you think that for every bad person there are about 10,000 people doing good deeds and never getting credit? Why does the news only show the bad stuff? It's because you don't make money talking about a boy scout helping grandma across the street or a church community giving food to the homeless day in and day out for years. That stuff is boring.


RE: Defense budget
By Xenoterranos on 9/4/2007 12:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
If the U.S govt can pigeonhole entire populations with singular descriptives based on the actions of a few radicals, why can't the general U.S. population do the same to the military, based on the same criteria? Seems, if not fair, at least poetically just.


RE: Defense budget
By Moishe on 9/4/2007 1:14:05 PM , Rating: 1
If you're the type who will not distinguish the differences between death in war and death in terrorism, than frankly there is no help for you.

Assuming you're talking about Arabs, the U.S. works hand in hand with most Arab governments. I think if there is any profiling done it is not based on Arab, but based on Islam... Islam has set a pretty easy pattern to follow.

* there is no overall pattern or methodology in the US military that you can point to that indicated that most soldiers would kill for no reason.
* You can easily say that where you find Islam you find purposeful and intentional killing on a wide scale.

There are huge differences, but those are the obvious ones.


RE: Defense budget
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 1:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
* You can easily say that where you find Islam you find purposeful and intentional killing on a wide scale.


Just to further support your general post, even the most staunch warhawks make the disctintion between Islam in a general sense and Islamic extremists and Islamic facsism, etc, whatever they may call the most radical elements. Turkey, for example, is both Muslim and moderate/secular.

Not to say our policy earlier wasn't lacking in regard to being flexible enough to play the complicated Middle Eastern groups against each other, but it's far from a one-size fits all approach.


RE: Defense budget
By xzc145 on 9/6/2007 8:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
Accidents, perhaps. Ignorant, definately not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Use_in_...

23% Friendly fire casualty ratio in the 1st Gulf War, that's almost one quarter!

16% In WW2...that's 21,000 'isolated incidents'

Comparatively speaking, the American has the worst friendly fire record in history. Full Stop.


RE: Defense budget
By maven81 on 9/5/2007 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not see that the huge military budget creates an arms race in the first place? I mean is it conceivable that these (potential) enemies would have no interest in developing such technology had we not developed it first? For instance the Soviets did not have a nuclear program until the start of the manhattan project, and clearly weren't on the brink of a similar weapon as it took 4 years and massive resources to catch up. The Chinese are now forced to beef up their military to "catch up" as you say. Why do they need to catch up in the first place?
If the biggest threat to our existance right now is indeed islamic extremism, then the budget should be going towards improving regular ground forces... supplying every soldier with good body armor, armored trucks, etc. What does spending billions of dollars on missile defense accomplish towards that goal, other then alienating other countries into developing even more powerful weapons? how would a defense system cope with say not one but dozens of targets if the chinese decide to develop warheads like that? Shooting 1 target is hard enough, what if there were 50? All with different trajectories?


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki