Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


New
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Patriot wrote:

Education has its merits, but you cant deny that many Universities are Liberally biased.


Well, that depends on a few things.

First of all, it depends on your major.

Second of all, it depends on what you mean by "biased".
I would suppose that, if universities as a whole have a liberal bias, then reality itself must have a liberal bias too. Which kind of defeats the whole point of the word "bias".

Quote:

And secondly, I support my military.


As opposed to...what? The americans who want to beat and torture the members of their military?

You'll be hard pressed to find someone in the united states who doesn't support the health and well-being of american soldiers.

Quote:

Until you know what it is like to have to serve somebody besides yourself and risk your life, you really cant say shit.


Reality and logic disagree with you on that one.

Quote:

Just clarify this for me, are you saying that because of my so called "interest" in the military and opinions on education you are calling me a fascist?


He was speaking in terms of the extremes; the extreme boundary for the right is fascism. That doesn't mean that all right-leaning individuals are fascists, though.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:58 am    Post subject: Re: New Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:

The army takes em in at 17? I thought you had to be 18.


They'll take you at 17, if you have your parent's permission.

And these days, maybe they'll even overlook that one. They're having a somewhat tought time finding the requisite numbers of willing recruits.

Quote:

And don't be to hasty to reject what you hear. Especially if you in the ARMY at 17, they make you solider stupid. YOUR NOT wanted to think.


Very true. A good soldier doesn't think too much; a good soldier obeys.

Of course, they need to promote some form of critical thinking or another; stupid soldiers are just as bad as soldiers who question their orders.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:59 am    Post subject: Re: New Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:

The army takes em in at 17? I thought you had to be 18.


They'll take you at 17, if you have your parent's permission.

And these days, maybe they'll even overlook that one. They're having a somewhat tought time finding the requisite numbers of willing recruits.

Quote:

And don't be to hasty to reject what you hear. Especially if you in the ARMY at 17, they make you solider stupid. YOUR NOT wanted to think.


Very true. A good soldier doesn't think too much; a good soldier obeys.

Of course, they need to promote some form of critical thinking or another; stupid soldiers are just as bad as soldiers who question their orders.


Depends what your doing. If you just the average marine. They make you "combat smart" and "solider stupid". They pretty much drill things into you until they are reflex. They don't want you to be litteraly
"stupid" though i am sure they wouldnt really care otherwise fresh meat. But they don't want you to question what your told, it react only. If they say run you run, not say hey.. were being shot at here... this might be so good an idea. But if you start heading over into the more specialized Light Infantry, they want you "combat smart" and feild smart. Light infantry are expected to be dropped and with a main objective, almost govern themselfs to see that, that objective is completed. As long as it is withen certain limits.

Look at specialized rangers, seals, ect. Light infantry, better trained, alot more decision freedom.

Still each year war is moving away from infantry to tech. With airpower and new unmanned RV's this is starting to be fought like a 1990's Si-Fi.

For example, I work with a man who company does research and testing on millitary tech. What i am about to say isnt classified. Sadly there are many things he can't tell me, which is a little naggin at my brain. But you can probally check up on a few of these, they are public safe ( he calls things that have been released public safe).
FOR THE NAVY
1.) hopefully withen 20 years, the Navy will be getting a new Class of Destroyers. These are not your conventional ships boys, armed with 2 railguns that seem to have jumped right out of the enterprise. These babies lunch 5 foot rods of solid of metal at mach 5 for a range of up to 200 miles. Thereis no explosive, the force is kinetic. Hittin like a meteor these are fired by routing power from the ships engine (nuclear reactor) and also lacking size and harzard of explosive warheads, can be stored in massive amounts, with no chance of spontantious detonation. Also accuracy Is amazing, with the ability to drop one of these projectiles in a 10 foot wide circle from 200 miles away.


2. New "silet" torpedos. For our favorite little subbers. They have officialy successfully tested a bariccuda warhead. (sound familair, this was in Splinter cell though, thats not true, but the warhead s similar). These trops, do not have a conventional drive system. They are rockets in the water, and they travel in a self made cavity. (The speed creates O2 diffusion and creates a bubble kinda around the torp) this allows for super sonic speeds, or something down that lines. Which causes the torp to jump its cavitry and therefor no sound is picked up in front of the projectile. They never heard it coming. ( Also have better post-luanch conrol)

3.Em nukes subs. Upgrades on warheads.

THE AIR FORCE

1. I am sure you all know about the Raptor and other planes that may or may not exsist. The "Aurora" though the gov won't say anything, seems likea highley likely possibility.

2. The scramjet, wiki this for a nice long explanation. But this connects with an ultra high alltitude unmanned RV spy plane. That flys above radar, can take a picture of you taking a piss, and can literlly fly none-stop. Now have ability to refuel in the air. Also these babies get massive mileage to the fuel. Lighter unmanned.

3. Helicopters that might or might not exsist. Not much to say here... cept from what i hear, the millitary is possibley working on super choppers. Ulta silent, with irregular geonomics , like the stealth planes. THey are invisible to the ear and to the radar. Heavy payload impressive speed. ( This is not confirmed, just whats been going around)


THE GROUND FORCES.

1. Alot of the new tec is comming out for riot control. Watch out america. Though the Amoured division will hopefully be changing out the Abraham for a newer model in the upcomings 30's.


A SPACE ARMY????

1. Plans for an orbital space station with "combat" capabilities has shown up in popular science. Like the rail gun it uses kinetic energy as the payload. Gravitry baby, drop 11ft solid rods from space that impact and cause damage like a small nuke - fallout. No progress has been made to getting this up there. As they are not sure on a few things, mainly targeting and reloading the damn thing.


As you can see, the war on the ground is becoming less and less prelavent.

If you wanna hear some more and a few links ect, get back to me.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:15 am    Post subject: Re: New Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:

FOR THE NAVY
1.) hopefully withen 20 years, the Navy will be getting a new Class of Destroyers. These are not your conventional ships boys, armed with 2 railguns that seem to have jumped right out of the enterprise. These babies lunch 5 foot rods of solid of metal at mach 5 for a range of up to 200 miles. Thereis no explosive, the force is kinetic. Hittin like a meteor these are fired by routing power from the ships engine (nuclear reactor) and also lacking size and harzard of explosive warheads, can be stored in massive amounts, with no chance of spontantious detonation. Also accuracy Is amazing, with the ability to drop one of these projectiles in a 10 foot wide circle from 200 miles away.


Yeah, the DDX. They launch tungsten warheads. And the rails are superconducting. It makes me drool just thinking about it.

Quote:

2. New "silet" torpedos. For our favorite little subbers. They have officialy successfully tested a bariccuda warhead. (sound familair, this was in Splinter cell though, thats not true, but the warhead s similar). These trops, do not have a conventional drive system. They are rockets in the water, and they travel in a self made cavity. (The speed creates O2 diffusion and creates a bubble kinda around the torp) this allows for super sonic speeds, or something down that lines. Which causes the torp to jump its cavitry and therefor no sound is picked up in front of the projectile. They never heard it coming. ( Also have better post-luanch conrol)

3.Em nukes subs. Upgrades on warheads.


What exactly does that mean? The only way i know of, of using nukes for EM warfare, is a high altitude detonation. And that's nothing new. Plus, if they ever used that, it would be a shitstorm.

Quote:

THE AIR FORCE

1. I am sure you all know about the Raptor and other planes that may or may not exsist. The "Aurora" though the gov won't say anything, seems likea highley likely possibility.

2. The scramjet, wiki this for a nice long explanation. But this connects with an ultra high alltitude unmanned RV spy plane. That flys above radar, can take a picture of you taking a piss, and can literlly fly none-stop. Now have ability to refuel in the air. Also these babies get massive mileage to the fuel. Lighter unmanned.


The RV is interesting, but i think the scramjet is much cooler. I don't see why you'd need a scramjet for refueling such a thing, though. Unless it's flying at supersonic speeds, in which case it definitely isn't getting good mileage.

Quote:

3. Helicopters that might or might not exsist. Not much to say here... cept from what i hear, the millitary is possibley working on super choppers. Ulta silent, with irregular geonomics , like the stealth planes. THey are invisible to the ear and to the radar. Heavy payload impressive speed. ( This is not confirmed, just whats been going around)


I was under the impression that congress axed the funding for that. The one i heard about was the comanche helicopter.

Quote:

THE GROUND FORCES.

1. Alot of the new tec is comming out for riot control. Watch out america. Though the Amoured division will hopefully be changing out the Abraham for a newer model in the upcomings 30's.


A SPACE ARMY????

1. Plans for an orbital space station with "combat" capabilities has shown up in popular science. Like the rail gun it uses kinetic energy as the payload. Gravitry baby, drop 11ft solid rods from space that impact and cause damage like a small nuke - fallout. No progress has been made to getting this up there. As they are not sure on a few things, mainly targeting and reloading the damn thing.


Yeah. I doubt they'll have any real space-based weapons any time soon. No one seems to give a shit about making new/better heavy lifting stuff.

Quote:

As you can see, the war on the ground is becoming less and less prelavent.

If you wanna hear some more and a few links ect, get back to me.


I'm well aware of all of this, believe it or not. It's all on the internet and in magazines.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
i kinda stated that in the begging. That this is all public safe, with all these new security problems, some things that i may or may not know are better left hush hush.

Yah Scary shit comming out. I was a little suprised when i picked up an issue of pop science, and saw this in here. A few weeks earlier i was talking with my friend on these things.

And about the subbers, what you dont understand that new torp? Or the upgrades on the warheads?
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:

And about the subbers, what you dont understand that new torp? Or the upgrades on the warheads?


Warhead upgrades.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:

And about the subbers, what you dont understand that new torp? Or the upgrades on the warheads?


Warhead upgrades.


Natural Decay on the Warhead payloads. Changed it out, changed the megatonage. Newer missles, newer guidance. Untill the last 10 years, we have been carring Cold war warheads on the subs. Its really more of a tune up then a change.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Honestly, the US military isn't having trouble in Iraq because we don't have neough shiny gadgets that blow things up at a range of 200 miles. We invaded Iraq and brought down their military easily. The problem is occupying, and having enough men on the ground, marching the streets, to maintain order. My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific in WWII and he's been ranting about the use of Marines in Iraq as occupiers and police forces. Marines aren't trained for that, they're trained to take an area quickly and effectively and defeat a visible enemy force, then hold their ground until the tanks roll in. They're dying over there because they're being used incorrectly. I have friends joining the Marine Corps and they don't seem to understand that they're being trained to storm beaches and execute high speed combat missions and short term defense, and then sent overseas to police a large population and pacify a guerilla civil war. And all the rail guns, nuclear submarines, unmanned jets, and space lasers you can shake a trillion dollars at won't help them do it.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's because wars like iraq shouldn't happen. It was a bad idea to begin with; it's not surprising that the outcome is bad.

The newer sorts of weapons are designed to end a conflict quickly.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
True enough. That technology would be incredibly effective in a defensive war, you just can't occupy a country with it.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Honestly, the US military isn't having trouble in Iraq because we don't have neough shiny gadgets that blow things up at a range of 200 miles. We invaded Iraq and brought down their military easily. The problem is occupying, and having enough men on the ground, marching the streets, to maintain order. My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific in WWII and he's been ranting about the use of Marines in Iraq as occupiers and police forces. Marines aren't trained for that, they're trained to take an area quickly and effectively and defeat a visible enemy force, then hold their ground until the tanks roll in. They're dying over there because they're being used incorrectly. I have friends joining the Marine Corps and they don't seem to understand that they're being trained to storm beaches and execute high speed combat missions and short term defense, and then sent overseas to police a large population and pacify a guerilla civil war. And all the rail guns, nuclear submarines, unmanned jets, and space lasers you can shake a trillion dollars at won't help them do it.


Thats because we are no longer fighting an army, or a country. We are fighting individuals. Terrorism is the ultimate weapon as it turns your civilians into weapons. And this tech is really more intended for warfare on a large scale, for example if US got it brawling with China. (lets hope it doesn't happen, China has the population and just raw economic power to produce more then we could destroy: note this is what finally overwhelmed Germany in WWII).

Also terrorism doesn't have to follow the lines of conventional warfare. But when you have a proper army knocking on your door, i wouldn't mind a few shiney ships that can kick some ass.

And as for your marines, they are trained for riot control and populace control. Think of them as a jack of many trades. Just they aren't trained in counter-terrorism. They can fight an enemy, but an enemy that isnt really physical? How do you fight a man who is willing to die? People would fear a man if he has a gun, because he has the tool of death. But when your already willing to sacrifice your life that gun isn't so intimidating.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Docsmitter wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Honestly, the US military isn't having trouble in Iraq because we don't have neough shiny gadgets that blow things up at a range of 200 miles. We invaded Iraq and brought down their military easily. The problem is occupying, and having enough men on the ground, marching the streets, to maintain order. My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific in WWII and he's been ranting about the use of Marines in Iraq as occupiers and police forces. Marines aren't trained for that, they're trained to take an area quickly and effectively and defeat a visible enemy force, then hold their ground until the tanks roll in. They're dying over there because they're being used incorrectly. I have friends joining the Marine Corps and they don't seem to understand that they're being trained to storm beaches and execute high speed combat missions and short term defense, and then sent overseas to police a large population and pacify a guerilla civil war. And all the rail guns, nuclear submarines, unmanned jets, and space lasers you can shake a trillion dollars at won't help them do it.


Thats because we are no longer fighting an army, or a country. We are fighting individuals. Terrorism is the ultimate weapon as it turns your civilians into weapons. And this tech is really more intended for warfare on a large scale, for example if US got it brawling with China. (lets hope it doesn't happen, China has the population and just raw economic power to produce more then we could destroy: note this is what finally overwhelmed Germany in WWII).

Also terrorism doesn't have to follow the lines of conventional warfare. But when you have a proper army knocking on your door, i wouldn't mind a few shiney ships that can kick some ass.

And as for your marines, they are trained for riot control and populace control. Think of them as a jack of many trades. Just they aren't trained in counter-terrorism. They can fight an enemy, but an enemy that isnt really physical? How do you fight a man who is willing to die? People would fear a man if he has a gun, because he has the tool of death. But when your already willing to sacrifice your life that gun isn't so intimidating.


It may have changed since 1942... I was simply quoting directly from someone I know personally who went through Marine training and then used it.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Docsmitter wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Honestly, the US military isn't having trouble in Iraq because we don't have neough shiny gadgets that blow things up at a range of 200 miles. We invaded Iraq and brought down their military easily. The problem is occupying, and having enough men on the ground, marching the streets, to maintain order. My grandfather was a Marine in the Pacific in WWII and he's been ranting about the use of Marines in Iraq as occupiers and police forces. Marines aren't trained for that, they're trained to take an area quickly and effectively and defeat a visible enemy force, then hold their ground until the tanks roll in. They're dying over there because they're being used incorrectly. I have friends joining the Marine Corps and they don't seem to understand that they're being trained to storm beaches and execute high speed combat missions and short term defense, and then sent overseas to police a large population and pacify a guerilla civil war. And all the rail guns, nuclear submarines, unmanned jets, and space lasers you can shake a trillion dollars at won't help them do it.


Thats because we are no longer fighting an army, or a country. We are fighting individuals. Terrorism is the ultimate weapon as it turns your civilians into weapons. And this tech is really more intended for warfare on a large scale, for example if US got it brawling with China. (lets hope it doesn't happen, China has the population and just raw economic power to produce more then we could destroy: note this is what finally overwhelmed Germany in WWII).

Also terrorism doesn't have to follow the lines of conventional warfare. But when you have a proper army knocking on your door, i wouldn't mind a few shiney ships that can kick some ass.

And as for your marines, they are trained for riot control and populace control. Think of them as a jack of many trades. Just they aren't trained in counter-terrorism. They can fight an enemy, but an enemy that isnt really physical? How do you fight a man who is willing to die? People would fear a man if he has a gun, because he has the tool of death. But when your already willing to sacrifice your life that gun isn't so intimidating.


It may have changed since 1942... I was simply quoting directly from someone I know personally who went through Marine training and then used it.


No but you did bring up a very valid and true point. The marines are not trained to deal with whats going on in Iraq. Just not down your lines. Very few people are trained to deal with that.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites