Page 1 of 22

Go Navy!

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:18 pm
by Diogenes

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:29 pm
by Skipjack
I have seen that picture years ago. Are you sure that this is actually news?

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:45 pm
by Diogenes
Skipjack wrote:I have seen that picture years ago. Are you sure that this is actually news?


Did you follow the link? At the other end of the link it says:


A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.



And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.





Article is dated Dec. 10, so I regard it as news.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:47 pm
by KitemanSA
The article describes the picture as having come from a 2008 test (~11MJ) but the test today (no picture) was 33MJ. So, yes, old picture, new news.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:54 pm
by happyjack27
a projectile traveling so fast it sets AIR on fire.

i understand their main problem is cooling the darn thing after it fires (thus you've got to wait a long time between each firing) and making it durable enough to withstand firing multiple times. considering this, it seems odd that they're just going for more megajoules when they should be working on these things. though i'm supposed i'm not against the military making decisions wich delay adding weaponry to our already ridiculously out of proportion arsenal. i suppose in the meantime we'll just have to focus more on diplomacy. darn.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:22 pm
by rjaypeters
There is an alternate view which is too much in evidence: “Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, mankind should be thinking about getting more use out of the weapons we already have.”

Courtesy of Carey Sublette. Found here:

http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archi ... 6#more-959

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:27 pm
by Diogenes
happyjack27 wrote:a projectile traveling so fast it sets AIR on fire.

i understand their main problem is cooling the darn thing after it fires (thus you've got to wait a long time between each firing) and making it durable enough to withstand firing multiple times. considering this, it seems odd that they're just going for more megajoules when they should be working on these things. though i'm supposed i'm not against the military making decisions wich delay adding weaponry to our already ridiculously out of proportion arsenal. i suppose in the meantime we'll just have to focus more on diplomacy. darn.


Yeah, Obama, Carter, and Wikileaks has shown how well that works. :)

Right

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:40 pm
by bcglorf
happyjack27 wrote:a projectile traveling so fast it sets AIR on fire.

i understand their main problem is cooling the darn thing after it fires (thus you've got to wait a long time between each firing) and making it durable enough to withstand firing multiple times. considering this, it seems odd that they're just going for more megajoules when they should be working on these things. though i'm supposed i'm not against the military making decisions wich delay adding weaponry to our already ridiculously out of proportion arsenal. i suppose in the meantime we'll just have to focus more on diplomacy. darn.


Diplomacy is about negotiating terms that are more favorable to both sides than open war. Giving up America's military advantage is equivalent to ensuring proportional diplomatic compromises with other nations.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:44 pm
by happyjack27
Diogenes wrote:Yeah, Obama, Carter, and Wikileaks has shown how well that works. :)


don't know much about carter, but obama has shown himself to be pretty good at that stuff. i hope you're not holding him responsible for the craziness of leaders of other countries. that would just be irrational.

as for wikileaks, well that's a whole different story altogether. that's just part of the systemic shift in social power structures brought about by the internet. like it or not things are just going to get more and more transparent and de-localized, that's just an inevitable consequence of the technology.

Re: Right

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:47 pm
by happyjack27
bcglorf wrote:Diplomacy is about negotiating terms that are more favorable to both sides than open war. Giving up America's military advantage is equivalent to ensuring proportional diplomatic compromises with other nations.


oh no, how horrrible!

but seriously, i'm not talking about giving up the advantage, i'm just talking about it not having to be so egregious at the expense of about half the tax base. seriously, if every year every american spend half of what they gave in taxes on guns, we'd all be armed to the teeth. but that's what the government's doing with it.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:47 pm
by CaptainBeowulf
Indeed. Something that was known to the ancient Greeks, Chinese, and Romans, and re-learned by other major powers since, is that you don't negotiate from a position of weakness.

umm

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:57 pm
by bcglorf
but seriously, i'm not talking about giving up the advantage, i'm just talking about it not having to be so egregious at the expense of about half the tax base.

The two are one in the same. The history of human nature makes it very clear that might makes right is how our species works on a macro level. The good times are when the might is held by better people. Currently for all the US' flaws it's the nation I'd prefer to maintain it's position of might for a long time.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:57 pm
by rjaypeters
CaptainBeowulf wrote:...is that you don't negotiate from a position of weakness.
If there is a negotiation, must someone not be negotiating from at least a perceived position of weakness? Please pardon my pedantry.

Perhaps it is better to say: "Do not expect to achieve your objectives when negotiating from a position of weakness."

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:09 pm
by Skipjack
Did you follow the link? At the other end of the link it says:

Yeah I saw it after I made my post. The picture is still old though. The news is not really that newsworthy either. It is still just a prototype.
Also, I might be mixing this up, but I thought that I read somewhere about delays and budget problems on the project.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:16 pm
by Skipjack
On the amounts spent on weapons. I think that the US is the country that is fighting the most wars in the world right now, has been for a while actually.
Food for thought.
Also, I do wonder how long the US will be able to afford spending that much money on weapons. Meanwhile the country is falling behind in many areas of science. Education in the US is bad. All along the Chinese are winning economically without firing a single bullet.
Heck even arch enemy Taiwan signed a trade treatment with China just a few weeks ago. There is just no way around it anymore.
It is important to have a strong military, no question about it. But if you keep neglecting the other aspects of your country over it, you will ultimately decline economically and that means that you will loose anyway. In the long term an economically inferior US would not be able to keep up a strong military and the Chinese have lots of time.
Of course you can always try to maintain your economic strenght by winning wars and thus resources and industry from occupied nations. A country that does that cant be called morally superior though, can it?