41–50 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on at least the first half of your statement. Although I'm not sure I'd say 'delusional' as much as - I don't know? - Jingoistic? Bombastic? I feel like I should be playing Command and Conquer to that sound track. At the end of the day, these are killing machines that are being designed to take human lives, and it does feel more than a bit inappropriate. I think that's what you're getting at with the latter h…
A friend overlaid an EDM track (Flux Pavilion if I recall) on the original test fire videos from several years ago when the prototype was located at the Virginia test site. I enjoyed the short piece of creative they remixed in the same way I enjoyed the Iron Man franchise. It’s a killing machine, but the engineer in me still deeply appreciates the advanced technology these systems are based on (energy/thermal managem…
So it's fine to stockpile chemical weapons as long as we don't use them because they're just a tool?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listened to it and agree it sounds very childish. Better would have been to have some intelligent narration, the story in a nutshell. How much energy is required for a railgun? What uses do they have that cannot be done with conventional artillery? what were some of the major challenges faced by the R&D team? All of that could have been explained in the audio track that was instead used for crappy Michael Bay actio…
One of the problems with existing Navy "gun ships" is that explosive ordinance can be a hazard to sailors and has to be handled very carefully. Additionally, it has to be stored very carefully. One of the things a railgun hypothetically allows is launching non-explosive inert projectiles. What happen when you launch a big hunk of steel at something 200 miles away travelling Mach 6? Another huge benefit is the speed a…
Is it a compelling weapons concept? Of course it is, you don't need explosives to shoot things that is pretty huge. Are wars bad? Of course they are.
That said, the concept has been around for a hundred years, so people are going to work on making a practical weapon out of it. Which means that at some point its going to be a component of a military action. And not having one of your own, will change the calculus of what you can and cannot do.
Am I supposed to celebrate the spending of untold billions on an unnecessary weapon of death while my Bridges and roads crumble, my health care system sucks and absolutely nothing is being done about, or to prepare for, climate change?? I'm not impressed
It'd be wonderful if it were indeed unnecessary. But the human species evolved in an environment where it was adaptive to seek power and dominance. Many individuals, groups, and nations still engage in that quest — even though in time it could lead to a very bad outcome (and might explain the Fermi Paradox [0]).
We could, of course, accept that others will achieve superior weaponry and that in due course we'll surrender to them. That doesn't sound so appealing. Unfortunately, the only practicable alternative, at least for now, appears to be to continue to compete in the arms race. It'd doubly unfortunate because there are so many more-constructive things that we'd prefer to spend the money on — if we had the choice.
EDIT: An analogy: I live in Houston, very near the Texas Gulf Coast. It'd be great if we didn't have to spend so much money on hurricane- and flood preparation; it's easy to think of better uses for that money. But if we didn't spend the money on hurricane- and flood prep, then we'd risk losing much of what we do have, to forces over which we have no control (at least not in the near term).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend overlaid an EDM track (Flux Pavilion if I recall) on the original test fire videos from several years ago when the prototype was located at the Virginia test site. I enjoyed the short piece of creative they remixed in the same way I enjoyed the Iron Man franchise. It’s a killing machine, but the engineer in me still deeply appreciates the advanced technology these systems are based on (energy/thermal managem…
>Condemn the action, not the tool. So it's fine to stockpile chemical weapons as long as we don't use them because they're just a tool?
Do you feel better about using a nuclear weapon over a chemical weapon? Why or why not? Once death is assured, we’re just arguing time and the experience.
War in general is terrible and merciless, and should be avoided at all costs. I can be a pacifist but still want to pull out all of the stops when the devil comes knocking.
As usual, I find the music in all of the linked videos delusional, as if this high-tech killing machine was created to astonish patriotic five-year-olds. For the sake of analogy, someone should overlay the same music to the engineering of a-bombs and gas chambers.
In the context of a new canon to be installed on the Navy's ships I think it fits pretty well. It does not sound nationalistic or over the top to me.
The other videos are on personal channels so they are inconsequential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on at least the first half of your statement. Although I'm not sure I'd say 'delusional' as much as - I don't know? - Jingoistic? Bombastic? I feel like I should be playing Command and Conquer to that sound track. At the end of the day, these are killing machines that are being designed to take human lives, and it does feel more than a bit inappropriate. I think that's what you're getting at with the latter h…
Jingoistic is exactly the word that came to mind as I watched the video.
See Vice's coverage of SOFEX on Youtube for a good showcase of delusion.
I find the physics of rail guns pretty fascinating. For something nominally invented in world war 1 (1918) which is now "only a few years" away from possible deployment. We are talking literally a 100 years later. We went from powered flight to flying in orbit in less time, think about that. Is it a compelling weapons concept? Of course it is, you don't need explosives to shoot things that is pretty huge. Are wars ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend overlaid an EDM track (Flux Pavilion if I recall) on the original test fire videos from several years ago when the prototype was located at the Virginia test site. I enjoyed the short piece of creative they remixed in the same way I enjoyed the Iron Man franchise. It’s a killing machine, but the engineer in me still deeply appreciates the advanced technology these systems are based on (energy/thermal managem…
>Condemn the action, not the tool. So it's fine to stockpile chemical weapons as long as we don't use them because they're just a tool?
Of course, the threat is only good if the nation doing the threatening is willing to use it, so the merits of stockpiling are still arguable. With that said, they were something of a tool for a while. It has been argued that Wilson lacked foresight due to his decision to drop nukes, but what would you have done? Would you have been willing to condemn a half-million young American men to die, given the choice?
It's the classic argument, debated since the time of Pericles: is a javelin gone astray responsible for a death?