Advances in Military Technology

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My link

With this new stuff, the casing is not shrapnel, it is part of the explosive. Rather neat.

[x493x 446]

I saw on the news that the US made a real-life IronMan that could fit a guy in it and make lifting 200 lbs like lifting 2 lbs. Only problem was that he had to be plugged in to work.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I saw on the news that the US made a real-life IronMan that could fit a guy in it and make lifting 200 lbs like lifting 2 lbs. Only problem was that he had to be plugged in to work.

Getting close to portable Waldo's. Now they need a good portable power supply.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[x493x 446]

Yay, a newer, better, more powerful way to kill people. Wonderful.

Barbarossa

Yes, isn't that what we need more of, ways of killing people.

[Alejandro24 575]

Yay, a newer, better, more powerful way to kill people. Wonderful.

Barbarossa

Ídem. Why the need to develop more guns? Isn't enough the actual ones? But, great, the war is a great bussiness, pity for only one and not for everbody. There are some advances in military technology that worth, but another are just ridiculus and only show a human shame.

[TekindusT 3,809]

If you think on it, major inventions we use everyday were created as military advances in their era. The typical examples: the Internet as we know it was (partly) born from the ARPAnet project from DARPA, the aviation saw its revolution during WWII...

It's that sad, but in the future we'll be using in a way or another these explosives for deeper and cheaper mining or whatever.

[Terring 6,473]

U.S.A. has a lot of military industries that need a lot of "food" in order to survive. The more wars, the more money for them. They can find plenty of "reasons" for new wars, as well as making fake reasons as well. In 2010, U.S.A. spend 7 billion dollars in scientific research, 18,6 billions in N.A.S.A., 46,7 billions in education and 663,7 billions in weapons!!! Wars brings happiness to few and pain to the rest. Disgusting!

TekindusT: And don't forget the radar that saves many people, as well as the futuristic technology of the railgun that can be very useful in transportation. But killing people is not something that we should be proud.

  Edited August 19, 2011 by terring  

[hym 358]

U.S.A. has a lot of military industries that need a lot of "food" in order to survive. The more wars, the more money for them. They can find plenty of "reasons" for new wars, as well as making fake reasons as well. In 2010, U.S.A. spend 7 billion dollars in scientific research, 18,6 billions in N.A.S.A., 46,7 billions in education and 663,7 billions in weapons!!! Wars brings happiness to few and pain to the rest. Disgusting!

The US did not spend $663.7 billion "for weapons." That is the Defense Department budget for maintaining the entire military, which includes, among other things, paying military service personnel and providing them their service benefits.

[Sim shady 12]

U.S.A. has a lot of military industries that need a lot of "food" in order to survive. The more wars, the more money for them. They can find plenty of "reasons" for new wars, as well as making fake reasons as well. In 2010, U.S.A. spend 7 billion dollars in scientific research, 18,6 billions in N.A.S.A., 46,7 billions in education and 663,7 billions in weapons!!! Wars brings happiness to few and pain to the rest. Disgusting!

The US did not spend $663.7 billion "for weapons." That is the Defense Department budget for maintaining the entire military, which includes, among other things, paying military service personnel and providing them their service benefits.

Regardless of whether or not the money was directly spent on weapons, it is an undeniable fact that it represents a huge amount of the government's money devoted to war and killing. It is unnecessary. Imagine what condition the United States would be in if the proportions of the federal budget for education and research were inverted with military spending. I see a better world.

  Edited August 19, 2011 by Sim shady  

[hym 358]

Regardless of whether or not the money was directly spent on weapons, it is an undeniable fact that it represents a huge amount of the government's money devoted to war and killing. It is unnecessary. Imagine what condition the United States would be in if the proportions of the federal budget for education and research were inverted with military spending. I see a better world.

You couldn't invert those numbers and have any kind of effective military. The states could sue the federal government on grounds of failing to live up to its Constitutional mandate to provide them with an effective military. Furthermore, look at the budget breakdown and you'll find that around 67% of the US's military budget is used to pay personnel and keep them trained, maintain existing "assets," and the like. Weapons procurement and development is a small portion of the US budget overall.

Just for fun, consider this:

In 2010, weapons R&D was basically $80 billion. We were spending $110 billion a year on Medicare back in 1990. We spend quite a bit less on weapons tech than most people seem to think we do.

[Alejandro24 575]

U.S.A. has a lot of military industries that need a lot of "food" in order to survive. The more wars, the more money for them. They can find plenty of "reasons" for new wars, as well as making fake reasons as well. In 2010, U.S.A. spend 7 billion dollars in scientific research, 18,6 billions in N.A.S.A., 46,7 billions in education and 663,7 billions in weapons!!! Wars brings happiness to few and pain to the rest. Disgusting!

Disgusting? Partly yes, partly no.

No because is their money, the US-americans only know how to spend their money, is their sovereignty as a nation, and of course they have the right to invest in the deffence of their nation, altough they are good killing people in another countries and bad protecting their own people in their own territory.

Yes because is simply: they are in the middle of a crisis, a crisis that is costing the worldwide stability, and they still thinking in war, and spend money in that issue instead to invest it that could bring solutions. And exactly, the war brings happiness to a few and pain to the rest. Maybe the situation could be easy if the US goverment respect the sovereignty of other nations.

[Sim shady 12]

But why is it even necessary to maintain such a large standing army? Let us consider the military expenditures officially on the books in 2010 for the U.S: $ 698,105,000,000. Let me repeat that. $ 698,105,000,000. First of all that is a tremendous sum of money when you consider the discouraging fiscal situation that the U.S. is in. Now the second largest output of military expenditures falls to China at $ 114,000,000,000. The U.S. spends almost 7 times more than the next country in the world on its military. There is no way around it, that is too much money.

I got my numbers from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

[hym 358]

But why is it even necessary to maintain such a large standing army?

There are many reasons for wanting to keep a large military. A large military stationed around the world has significantly more global reach than a smaller one. Another is treaty agreements; we have made agreements with multiple nations to keep X amount of troops stationed there for defensive purposes. Another major reason is for threats; when you possess the ability to squash another nation like a bug, the mere threat of force can be enough to get them to comply. (People can complain all they want about how that is unacceptable behavior for nations to be engaging in, but the hard reality is that threat of annihilation is sometimes necessary to get people to stop the shenanigans.)

Let us consider the military expenditures officially on the books in 2010 for the U.S: $ 698,105,000,000. Let me repeat that. $ 698,105,000,000. First of all that is a tremendous sum of money when you consider the discouraging fiscal situation that the U.S. is in. Now the second largest output of military expenditures falls to China at $ 114,000,000,000. The U.S. spends almost 7 times more than the next country in the world on its military. There is no way around it, that is too much money.

For the record, it is a little over 6 times high, not 7 times.

[Jelendria 3]

Lot's of consumer goods used to be military applications.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Lot's of consumer goods used to be military applications.

Yes, it is amazing how much research and development goes on when the country is at stake. However, don't look now, but your empire is falling. The only thing missing in the large standing army is the mercenaries.

Then there is the destruction of the family unit

The loss of the "state" religion

The large number of welfare clients

The circuses (television)

And we haven't yet had the gladiatorial contests unless you count professional sports. These are getting to be blood sports.

Took the Roman Empire about 700 years to die of all this, but before Caesar, it had survived about 600. All gone by about 700 C.E.

Imperialism, this time, has taken a strange form, eh?

And the time-line seems to be about 70% shorter.

[Cobraroll 138]

Hmm... explosives who are their own casing?

Sounds good for anti-materiel weapons (no, not antimatter), as you get more force to twist, bend, break and loosen parts that are vital for the functions of the car, building, missile, aircraft, or whatever.

Still, I think the good ol' frag grenades are more useful in most cases. A 155 mm artillery shell has a kill radius of about 75 metres due to the explosive force salsaing the innards of anybody who stand too close. Yet, the shrapnel remains deadly up to four hundred metres away. Splinters and shrapnel is way more lethal than the shock wave at longer distances, and are vital when it comes to punching holes in armour, for instance when targeting ships and tanks, or when you want to "clear" an area. Still, this looks like it could prove useful.

Also, explosive rounds for the M16? Not going to happen, the Geneva conventions are in the way.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I gather these missles are not naval artillery shells, but bunker busters. It is probably best if the whole thing goes into the explosive force when it comes to making a shambles of the interior of a structure. Anyone inside would be killed by the concussion anyway.

Grenades and artillery shells are anti-personnel weapons. This is a different kettle of iron shards.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Our country is certainly on a decline, like I said earlier, the apex of our civilization was cerca 2000 AD (give or take a century).

[TekindusT 3,809]

Our country is certainly on a decline, like I said earlier, the apex of our civilization was cerca 2000 AD (give or take a century).

Time for the Chinese...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Our country is certainly on a decline, like I said earlier, the apex of our civilization was cerca 2000 AD (give or take a century).

Time for the Chinese...

One of the predictions of Lourdes is that the yellow race will hold sway in the world for a single day before Armageddon. Isn't religiion wonderful?

If you want to get a good perspective into the mind of the Chinese peasant, of which they are mostly, read The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. Even though the Chinese elite is forging themselves into the appearance of a western economy, the mass of their people are not necessarily in tune with this. Most of them want a little patch of land to grow food, a full belly, and a warm wife. For seven thousand years, it has been like this in China, and the inertia is very great. Emperors come and go, but the people remain.