Us working on new weapon!

[FSPilot 0]

and your comment would be better off as a PM than as a post in this thread. please take a note of this for next time.

awww, don't tell him to PM me please.

That's the last thing I want, people tend to think the mods aren't looking when they PM you. Makes for interesting conversation.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]actually, the whole thread started going into discussion of politics, thus offtopic.

and your comment would be better off as a PM than as a post in this thread. please take a note of this for next time.

if people want to discuss the politics of weapons race, please start another thread.

Roger that.

Note taken  

Someone start a thread I cant think of a topic  

Quote[/b] ]awww, don't tell him to PM me please.

I think he meant I should have PMed him. I will answer to the rest in the new thread.

This is nothing new but I think its atleast as scary as that new gamma bomb. Dont be calmed by the "Non-Leathal" in the headline.

[FSPilot 0]

This is nothing new but I think its atleast as scary as that new gamma bomb. Dont be calmed by the "Non-Leathal" in the headline.

Simply stunning. Even when we come up with ways to NOT kill people, including the enemy, you still criticise us.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Simply stunning.  Even when we come up with ways to NOT kill people, including the enemy, you still criticise us.

The intention behind it might be good but you have to admit the technology is pretty scary since it can be used in other ways than good ?

-Edit spelling

[Akira 0]

My. I leave for a few hours and see how the topic has deteriorated.

I think the real issue here should be Bush's reversal of the decades of arms containment. New nukes, mini-nukes, energy weapons, SDI, Gamma-Ray bombs, huge military spending increases to the detriment of other, more worthwhile and needy programs.

Bush is producing weapons that's main purpose seems to be the mass killing of large populations with minimal enviromental impact. Bravo. But when was the last time terrorists gathered in a group large enough to justify a Gamma-Ray bomb? When was the last time a terrorist launched an ICBM at the US? When was the last time a terrorist hold-up in a bunker requiring a mini-nuke? They hide in caves and amongst the population. Half these programs, given under the auspicious of "protection from terrorism" would have absolutely no effect on terrorist M.O. Bush is building Weapons Of Mass Aggression. That is the only reason for the weapons and their associated by-products and systems. I personally don't want my country to be the next Napoleanic France, or Nazi Germany. Attacking and killing under the flag of expansion and harvesting of resources, people too scared to raise a voice in protest. You don't think it is happening? Take a look around.

The main problem with my fellow American's being the instant defensiveness that comes with criticism of a flawed foreign policy that states the world wants to be like us. The problem isn't our COUNTRY. The problem is the administrations. The problem is the mindset I see is still prevalent in some of the posts here. Our country is by far better than the way it has acted.

I think the Onion article says it best, and is sadly too true.

"New Bomb Capable Of Making 10,000 New Terrorists"

Get Bush and cronies the hell out of Washington before a new Imperialism takes control. And I guarentee it won't be good for this country.

[EiZei 0]

Global stability was boring anyways.

[denoir 0]

I think the real issue here should be Bush's reversal of the decades of arms containment. New nukes, mini-nukes, energy weapons, SDI, Gamma-Ray bombs, huge military spending increases to the detriment of other, more worthwhile and needy programs.

Bush is producing weapons that's main purpose seems to be the mass killing of large populations with minimal enviromental impact. Bravo. But when was the last time terrorists gathered in a group large enough to justify a Gamma-Ray bomb? When was the last time a terrorist launched an ICBM at the US? When was the last time a terrorist hold-up in a bunker requiring a mini-nuke? They hide in caves and amongst the population. Half these programs, given under the auspicious of "protection from terrorism" would have absolutely no effect on terrorist M.O. Bush is building Weapons Of Mass Aggression. That is the only reason for the weapons and their associated by-products and systems. I personally don't want my country to be the next Napoleanic France, or Nazi Germany. Attacking and killing under the flag of expansion and harvesting of resources, people too scared to raise a voice in protest. You don't think it is happening? Take a look around.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

See any names you recognize:

NAC: Statement of principles

Quote[/b] ]

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Signed by:

Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer    William J. Bennett   Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen    Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky    Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg    Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle    Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz

[drewb99 0]

Eeevil.

[InqWiper 0]

If you want to go off-topic go here and save this thread from its fate.

[Skul 0]

Do you suppose it's human nature to destroy ourselves? It's the only reason for Weapons of Mass Destruction, for scientists have found out that the world is finite!

Scientist #1: "Hey guys, the world is fucked. It won't last another 120,000 decades!"

Scientist #2: "Hmmm... well, since we're all fucked anyway, let's build a super-ultra-mega-death bomb which causes an anti-matter explosion and creates a black hole in time itself!"

Scientist #1:"Good. And if that doesn't end the human race?"

Scientist #2: "I'll come up with another clever-sounding, pseudo-scientific, meaningless sentence."

Scientist #1: "Prodigious! Let's get to work!"

Everything that scientists release to the world causes death and destruction. I bet there are a million things that could help mankind (1% chance of them creating such a thing), but those bastards are keeping it from us. I wonder how long it'll take 'em to end the world? They probably want Terminator to come true...

[Gareth Gates must die]

[blackdog~ 0]

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I am too lazy to read all 4 pages.

There are other uses for this type of weapon, for example, in the event of an asteroid or meteorite or whatever you call them coming towards the earth.... we could laser beam them! So there...

I could've used better wording, but I didn't feel like it...

[Mister Frag 0]

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I am too lazy to read all 4 pages.

There are other uses for this type of weapon, for example, in the event of an asteroid or meteorite or whatever you call them coming towards the earth.... we could laser beam them! So there...

I could've used better wording, but I didn't feel like it...

No, there are no other uses for it.

It's designed to kill living cells, so at best you could hope to sterilize something that is already is the cold vacuum of space. In other words, it would be pointless.

[InqWiper 0]

I think he was talking about the gamma bomb

[FSPilot 0]

InqWiper

Quote[/b] ]The intention behind it might be good but you have to admit the technology is pretty scary since it can be used in other ways than good ?

You can use a toothbrush in other ways than good, that doesn't make it scary.

This gamma bomb is not some doomsday weapon that will destroy the world. It's not as powerful as a nuclear bomb, but more powerful than a conventional bomb, and leaves relatively little fallout. So we won't have to use nukes which are overkill and leave lots of fallout.

[Mister Frag 0]

I think he was talking about the gamma bomb  

So was I. The gamma bomb, much like the neutron bomb, doesn't pack a great deal of explosive power, it kills using radiation.

Needless to say, a rock or chunks of ice in space don't care much about radiation, so a gamma bomb wouldn't be a practical tool to destroy an asteroid that is threatening Earth.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]So was I. The gamma bomb, much like the neutron bomb, doesn't pack a great deal of explosive power, it kills using radiation.

Oh ok. I thought you were talking about the bio weapon because I thought the gamma bomb had some explosive power. The reason is that Im not very educated about this kind of weapon and I read stuff like this

Quote[/b] ]

I read about this a few days ago. It is based on an isotope of an element Hafnium and emits huge amounts of gamma rays. Like someone said its purpose is to ''blur'' the lines and allow small shells of massive explosive power, instead of the 10 kt mininukes available from the 70ties

Quote[/b] ]You can use a toothbrush in other ways than good, that doesn't make it scary.

This gamma bomb is not some doomsday weapon that will destroy the world.  It's not as powerful as a nuclear bomb, but more powerful than a conventional bomb, and leaves relatively little fallout.  So we won't have to use nukes which are overkill and leave lots of fallout.

Damn this confusion  

I was talking about the bio weapon that I linked to that I said I though wasnt any less scary than this gamma bomb.

[FSPilot 0]

Damn this confusion  

I was talking about the bio weapon that I linked to that I said I though wasnt any less scary than this gamma bomb.

I still don't see how you're afraid of a non-lethal weapon, especially compared to something called a "gamma bomb".

[Mister Frag 0]

My toothbrush is a bioweapon...

[VerySolidSnake 0]

Guys if it wasn't for nuclear bombs, there would be many more wars. Bigger weapons prevent wars, because of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction)

[Mister Frag 0]

They prevent really BIG wars (at least so far). They do nothing for regional or low-intensity conflicts.

[Vladmir 0]

The thing is were all dirty. Every country. Even your Sweden Denoir (With all due respect). The sinking of the Estonia comes to mind. All of us. You can't point fingers just at us, but point them at yourselves also. Sorry to open old wounds, bu I don't like my country being Blamed as a whole for the mistakes of a few. Also, do you even know what we did to get Al-quaeda to hate us? We supported Israel, we are "Infidels" Against the principles of their Religion, Our embargo against Iraq. Wow, what justification to kill thousands of innocents.

We don't intentionally kill civilians, and we try our damndest not to, but accidents happen. No matter who you are YOU ARE HUMAN.

Just some things to think about.

And I just gave you one more person to hate.

http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000094.html

[denoir 0]

The thing is were all dirty. Every country. Even your Sweden Denoir (With all due respect).

Absolutely, we're selling weapons to everybody in the world more or less indiscriminantly. I never claimed that we were angels. On the contrary, we've done far more killings in our history than you have. That doesn't justify anything though.

Quote[/b] ]The sinking of the Estonia comes to mind.

Not sure that I follow. How does a ferry accident relate to this?

Quote[/b] ]Also, do you even know what we did to get Al-quaeda to hate us?

Of course, and it's not the silly reasons for what your article says.

"Al Qaeda hates the United States, in large part, precisely because it is not run by a Taliban-style regime. "

Ha! That's no better than "they hate us because they are jelaous of our feedom and lifestyle". That's an explanation that could be expected from a five year old.

If you want a good analytical explanation, I recommend you read the book "Why Do People Hate America?" by Merryl Wyn Davies and Ziauddin Sardar. It gives a very good insight in how after WW2 America has managed through a consistent and intentional foregin policy have alianated the Arabs.

[FSPilot 0]

Not sure that I follow. How does a ferry accident relate to this?

( Svenska | English )

(click on "Estonia Reports" or "Estonia Rapporter" in the left table)

For once I get to see Denoir defend a Swedish conspiracy theory! *readies video camera*

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

If you want a good analytical explanation, I recommend you read the book "Why Do People Hate America?" by  Merryl Wyn Davies and Ziauddin Sardar. It gives a very good insight in how after WW2 America has managed through a consistent and intentional foregin policy have alianated the Arabs.

Didnt the French and British play just as large of a role in alianating the Arabs as the US? I remember a show I watched about a british author who fought with the arabs in WW2 and tryed to help them get an independent Arab nation or something but he died before he got to see it happen. Do you know who I am talking about? shit, I cant remember his name.. maybe someone will know who I am talking about

[Mister Frag 0]

Are you talking about T. E. Lawrence, aka Lawrence of Arabia?