NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.battelle.org/navy/railguns.pdf

The electromagnetic rail gun which is being developed for employment in the Navy's next class of destroyers, the DDX, allows the entire ship's power output to be directed into an acceleration device which will shoot a projectile at anywhere from Mach 7 to Mach 16 clear out of the earth's atmosphere onto targets hundreds of miles away. They will be devastating.
To put things in perspective, our current 5-inch gun has a muzzle energy of 10 megajoules. ... In contrast, naval rail guns will achieve muzzle energies from 60 to 300 megajoules. ... Research indicates that a notional first-generation naval rail gun could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles at a rate of greater than six rounds per minute.

... An important advantage of rail guns is the ability to exploit the high kinetic energy stored in the projectile ... One test demonstrated that the release of the rail gun projectile's kinetic energy alone would create a 10-foot crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet.
Since the shells will be solid darts, a destroyer will carry 10,000 rounds in its current magazine space... .

Of course, there still remains the old-school problem: 40-foot craters are only useful if there used to be a target underneath them. I cannot wait to see how (in)accurate this humongous uber-cannon is, when it's harnessing that much energy and going that insanely fast.

How do they keep the heat from friction down? Most materials wouldn't survive long going that fast through the air.

Awesome!

I cannot wait to see how (in)accurate this humongous uber-cannon is, when it's harnessing that much energy and going that insanely fast.

It shouldn't be a problem. It sounds like they've already solved the shell ablation and rail wear parts of the problem. A cheap inertial guidance system will take care of the rest.

This certainly sounds interesting. I wonder when it will be operational and deployed.
I wonder if they will be able to make a more portable version for use against armored vehicles and bunkers.
I wonder if it can be altered to target anything out of our atmosphere-like the ateroids they predict will come close or strike the earth eventually? It sounds like this technology might make diverting or destroying a threat like that possible.

YAY, the return of the dreadnought (eventually).

(Now, if only it could hit submarines).

This certainly sounds interesting. I wonder when it will be operational and deployed.
I wonder if they will be able to make a more portable version for use against armored vehicles and bunkers.
I wonder if it can be altered to target anything out of our atmosphere-like the ateroids they predict will come close or strike the earth eventually? It sounds like this technology might make diverting or destroying a threat like that possible.

The problem for a version small enough to fit in a tank would be the size of the power-plant. You need a lot of energy to make the projectile move that fast, and that means a very powerful generator. Currently that means big, or atomic. And that's a whole new set of problems.
For the asteroid, I think you would need a lot more mass for that, which means far more power. It would still be possible using the same technological principles, but I doubt it will be Earth based.

The problem for a version small enough to fit in a tank would be the size of the power-plant. You need a lot of energy to make the projectile move that fast, and that means a very powerful generator. Currently that means big, or atomic. And that's a whole new set of problems.
For the asteroid, I think you would need a lot more mass for that, which means far more power. It would still be possible using the same technological principles, but I doubt it will be Earth based.


It sounds like we have the basics in place to develop this. And I'm sure theu could have a satellite or space station deployed to support this. Once they get it out of the earth's atmosphere, it doesnt matter how much it weighs. It doesnt sound so far-fetched.

It sounds like we have the basics in place to develop this. And I'm sure theu could have a satellite or space station deployed to support this. Once they get it out of the earth's atmosphere, it doesnt matter how much it weighs. It doesnt sound so far-fetched.
Mass is not weight, and it would still matter. The more mass there is, the harder it is to get it to move.

But yes. The basics are there.

The problem for a version small enough to fit in a tank would be the size of the power-plant. You need a lot of energy to make the projectile move that fast, and that means a very powerful generator. Currently that means big, or atomic. And that's a whole new set of problems.

The army is already working on that, and they're headed in the right direction. In the meantime, the navy will have a relatively easy time of taking what the army has already done and adapting it for use on surface combatants.

The navy has wrestled for a very long time now with the problem of providing naval surface fire support for troops on the ground. They tried repeatedly to decommission the Iowa-class battleships because they're too expensive to operate, but every time a new conflict appeared, they had no other options but to refurbish them and put them out to sea. This rail gun solves the problem beautifully. It can be deployed on multi-role surface combatants who already support 5-inch guns, and a carrier battlegroup will be able to drop ordnance on target with a greater result than a group of battleships. The extended range means they can support troops further ashore than ever before. Brilliant.

The idea of something that can place 10,000 40-ft wide craters anywhere 250 miles inland and can't be defended against (other than sinking the ship) is rather frightening.

I would imagine that if fitted with GPS, it would be terribly accurate against stationary targets.

Almost sounds like a weapon of mass destruction, except it doesn't make anything glow in the dark.

The idea of something that can place 10,000 40-ft wide craters anywhere 250 miles inland and can't be defended against (other than sinking the ship) is rather frightening.

I would imagine that if fitted with GPS, it would be terribly accurate against stationary targets.

Almost sounds like a weapon of mass destruction, except it doesn't make anything glow in the dark.

Especially if you are a small island nation, I should imagine.

But really, is this anything that can't be accomplished today with aviation assets? Granted, using carriers it takes a lot longer, and is a lot more expensive, but I don't see it as any huge step forward in the general ability to 'break' things.

If anything, a system like this would reduce the total amount of damage, because it is more likely to hit fast mobile targets first time, instead of using repeated strikes.

Also, cynically, it does look more like an excuse for the Navy to maintian it's capital ship strength during a period of increasing emphasis on litoral war, as well as bolster their pitch fot the 'new' and 'all electric' warship, than eanything else. So I wonder how much will ever come of it.

Probably cheaper than flying all those aircraft missions. Probably a lot faster to get rounds on target as well.

Also, cynically, it does look more like an excuse for the Navy to maintian it's capital ship strength during a period of increasing emphasis on litoral war, as well as bolster their pitch fot the 'new' and 'all electric' warship, than eanything else. So I wonder how much will ever come of it.
Maybe it can be developed as a railgun to space. Put a big one of these on a mountain-side and use it to launch payloads into orbit.

http://www.battelle.org/navy/railguns.pdf

The electromagnetic rail gun which is being developed for employment in the Navy's next class of destroyers, the DDX, allows the entire ship's power output to be directed into an acceleration device which will shoot a projectile at anywhere from Mach 7 to Mach 16 clear out of the earth's atmosphere onto targets hundreds of miles away. They will be devastating.
To put things in perspective, our current 5-inch gun has a muzzle energy of 10 megajoules. ... In contrast, naval rail guns will achieve muzzle energies from 60 to 300 megajoules. ... Research indicates that a notional first-generation naval rail gun could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles at a rate of greater than six rounds per minute.

... An important advantage of rail guns is the ability to exploit the high kinetic energy stored in the projectile ... One test demonstrated that the release of the rail gun projectile's kinetic energy alone would create a 10-foot crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet.
Since the shells will be solid darts, a destroyer will carry 10,000 rounds in its current magazine space... .
Hmm...
You know, during World War II the Germans had this weird, almost Freudian fascination with "railroad cannons"- VERY high caliber artillery mounted on railway tracks. The most famous of them was the Dora cannon (fittingly named after the developer's wife ;)). To say that it was huge would be a hell of an understatement. The thing weighted 1,350 tons and shot 7.1 tons Armor-piercing shells over a distance of 40 km. The crew numbered 2000 people, transporting that thing took 25 trainloads (in parts of course) and six weeks to assemble it before operating. During the siege of Sevastopol, the Dora cannon had destroyed an ammunition depot which was built as absolutely invulnerable to conventional weapons- 100 feet under the sea bottom. That is, the shells had to penetrate the sea till its bottom, then 100 feet of hard surface, and then defeat a fortification built of very thick reinforced concrete. Awesome power.

The thing was, this cannon was too much of a headache to transport and maintain, could only be aimed at large targets and could only destroy them in a direct hit (upon hitting the ground, the shells usually dug a bore so deep that the explosion couldn't even throw any dirt out, let alone shrapnel). During the whole of the war, it fired no more than 50 shells, destroying three or four targets. It simply wasn't worth the invested effort and resources.

Something tells me that the above mentioned rail gun bears a lot of similarities with the Dora ;)

But really, is this anything that can't be accomplished today with aviation assets? Granted, using carriers it takes a lot longer, and is a lot more expensive, but I don't see it as any huge step forward in the general ability to 'break' things.

It's faster and cheaper, and these reasons alone make it worth its weight in gold.


If anything, a system like this would reduce the total amount of damage, because it is more likely to hit fast mobile targets first time, instead of using repeated strikes.

A system like this isn't particularly useful for fast, mobile targets. But it would free up air assets to deal with targets of that type.

Also, cynically, it does look more like an excuse for the Navy to maintian it's capital ship strength during a period of increasing emphasis on litoral war, as well as bolster their pitch fot the 'new' and 'all electric' warship, than eanything else. So I wonder how much will ever come of it.

You're contradicting yourself here. NSFS (naval surface fire support) is a key ingredient in the litoral battlefield. The marines need to be able to call in artillery support while they work to establish a beach head. Until they establish that beach head and can safely finish landing their own vehicles to do the job, the navy has to do it.

With the emphasis on litoral warfare, and the serious need for a better alternative to the Iowa class, this project can't help but go forward, full steam ahead.

Hmm...
You know, during World War II the Germans had this weird, almost Freudian fascination with "railroad cannons"- VERY high caliber artillery mounted on railway tracks. The most famous of them was the Dora cannon (fittingly named after the developer's wife ;)). To say that it was huge would be a hell of an understatement. The thing weighted 1,350 tons and shot 7.1 tons Armor-piercing shells over a distance of 40 km. The crew numbered 2000 people, transporting that thing took 25 trainloads (in parts of course) and six weeks to assemble it before operating. During the siege of Sevastopol, the Dora cannon had destroyed an ammunition depot which was built as absolutely invulnerable to conventional weapons- 100 feet under the sea bottom. That is, the shells had to penetrate the sea till its bottom, then 100 feet of hard surface, and then defeat a fortification built of very thick reinforced concrete. Awesome power.

The thing was, this cannon was too much of a headache to transport and maintain, could only be aimed at large targets and could only destroy them in a direct hit (upon hitting the ground, the shells usually dug a bore so deep that the explosion couldn't even throw any dirt out, let alone shrapnel). During the whole of the war, it fired no more than 50 shells, destroying three or four targets. It simply wasn't worth the invested effort and resources.

Something tells me that the above mentioned rail gun bears a lot of similarities with the Dora ;)
Except for the fact that a rail gun isn't mounted on a railroad train, it can be mounted on a ship. A rail gun has a higher rate of fire. Rail gun projectiles can be guided to their targets, and rail guns won't be much more expensive than traditional guns.

Probably cheaper than flying all those aircraft missions. Probably a lot faster to get rounds on target as well.


And no pilot training. Thats a tremendous ongoing expense. Reduce the number of 50 million dollar planes and the possible loss of a downed plane and pilot. Reduce the need for search and rescue operations.

The intimidation factor might be the biggest advantage. As long as we are the only ones with it.

Think about this:

Instead of building ICBMs with nuclear warheads, build a land-based railgun that can get a solid guided GPS guided projectile up to an appropriate Mach number.

Press a button. Shell leaves the launcher (powered by nearby nuclear reactor), flies 10,000 miles, comes down right on what you want to hit.

Repeat once per second.

You won't even need to deploy a ship to some part of the world to take immediate action. So, if we take the Sudan problem as an example, let's say the UN wants the massacres to stop, and authorizes the US to send them a message.

So we shell their government buildings, airfields, and military bases into unrecognizable rubble in a few minutes. Then, we issue demands.

The intimidation factor might be the biggest advantage. As long as we are the only ones with it.


HA! like that worked for nukes.



really, all this spending on things that kill things is a horrible waste, why not spend it on things to help people?

Think about this:

Instead of building ICBMs with nuclear warheads, build a land-based railgun that can get a solid guided GPS guided projectile up to an appropriate Mach number.

Press a button. Shell leaves the launcher (powered by nearby nuclear reactor), flies 10,000 miles, comes down right on what you want to hit.

I like my idea of a railgun to space better.

There have been railgun tests in Switzerland too some years ago. It'll be the new arms race of the future, now that nukes are old fashioned and biological and chemical weapons stop being trendy...

I like my idea of a railgun to space better.

Yes, I do too. It has a dual use, especially the large one. But you know which one they will build first.

HA! like that worked for nukes.



really, all this spending on things that kill things is a horrible waste, why not spend it on things to help people?
Weapons in the right hands do help people.

The intimidation factor might be the biggest advantage. As long as we are the only ones with it.

Not being stupid, but even I could make a VERY primitive railgun with some electromagnets, two lengths of copper tube and a big spike.

Not being stupid, but even I could make a VERY primitive railgun with some electromagnets, two lengths of copper tube and a big spike.
And would it shoot a few kilograms of material 300 miles at M7.5?

Not being stupid, but even I could make a VERY primitive railgun with some electromagnets, two lengths of copper tube and a big spike.

Not a very effective one, I might add. Nor one that could be used more than once, unless it was very weak.

Not a very effective one, I might add. Nor one that could be used more than once, unless it was very weak.

Not the point. The point is that if a teenager can make a railgun, there's very little chance of anyone being the sole posessor of that kind of technology.

EDIT:You're forgetting the miracle of gaffer tape.

HA! like that worked for nukes.



really, all this spending on things that kill things is a horrible waste, why not spend it on things to help people?


This sounds like it will have the destructive force nearing that of nukes, but without the unwanted fallout. Nukes did one thing-with mutually assured destruction and our ability to counter strike under almost any circumstances, no one else has used nukes.
I think it is helping people when a total defeat is almost assured and when surgical precise strikes can neutralize our enemy with very small civilian deaths or damage to their property. Thats a help. Also-the duration of warfare would be reduced. Quicker victory, less innocent casualties-thats good.

Not the point. The point is that if a teenager can make a railgun, there's very little chance of anyone being the sole posessor of that kind of technology.

The trick is not in the gun, it's in the power supply. Making a compulsator that can handle millions of amps released in a millisecond (and a gun that won't melt when you do so) isn't easy.

It's probably not something that can be kept secret from other advanced nations, but keeping it out of the hands of some nations would be easy.

There would also be less concern as far as the maintenance that nukes need, the possibility of accidents are probably lower. The refining of weapons grade material is most expensive and dangerous to secure. this could be reduced or eliminated.

Not the point. The point is that if a teenager can make a railgun, there's very little chance of anyone being the sole posessor of that kind of technology.

Most countries can make a primitive rocket, that doesn't mean that all of them can put satellites in orbit. There's a very big difference between building a small model and a big workable item.

This sounds like it will have the destructive force nearing that of nukes, but without the unwanted fallout.

I think that's a gross overestimation of the capabilities of this weapon. It won't be accomplishing anything a few Tomahawks or a flight of bombers can't already do. It'll just do it cheaper and with less reaction time.

I think that's a gross overestimation of the capabilities of this weapon. It won't be accomplishing anything a few Tomahawks or a flight of bombers can't already do. It'll just do it cheaper and with less reaction time.


And less hesitation to use it. There wont be the same fretting over wether to use it or not.

Weapons in the right hands do help people.

That "right hands" definitely do not belong to any single person or group of people. US having that railguns is no better than Bin Laden having them, which is also no better than <insert country name here> having them. Eventually, they'll be used against innocents to gain political power or to inflict political damage.

Also I don't think being able to build weapons is being "advanced".

That "right hands" are definitely do not belong to any single person or group of people. US having that railguns is no better than Bin Laden having them, which is also no better than <inset country name here> having them. Eventually, they'll be used against innocents to gain political power or to inflict political damage.

Also I don't think being able to build weapons is being "advanced".

It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological society to be able to build technologically advanced weapons.

The Pakistanis, for example, despite having trained scientists, and despite having studied for years, were unable to come up with the final design for an atomic bomb, and required direct help from China on the design. Obviously, bright enough to hire help, but not bright enough to solve basic engineering problems in physics on their own.

Also, it's not rational to assign moral equivalence between the US and Bin Laden.

That "right hands" definitely do not belong to any single person or group of people. US having that railguns is no better than Bin Laden having them, which is also no better than <insert country name here> having them. Eventually, they'll be used against innocents to gain political power or to inflict political damage.

Also I don't think being able to build weapons is being "advanced".
The US having weapons is no better than Bin Laden having them? Ok, no sense talking to you.

If Bin Laden had access to an unlimited supply of advanced weapons, approximately 5 billion people would die overnight in a frenzied orgy of killing - intended to wipe out every non-Muslim on earth.

Then he would proceed to go through the Muslim population, with a zeal of religious killing not seen since the Spanish Inquisition, but on a scale of millions.

I would bet that in the end, there would only be about 50 million people left on earth.

Moral equivalence? Those are his stated goals. To kill all non-Muslims, and to cleanse the Muslim population of apostates.

Unfortunately, weapons are a necessity with mankind and free will. If the US has the most advanced weapons, thats suits me fine. If wherever you are cant get up the technology or resources to build them, thats even better with me.

If Bin Laden had access to an unlimited supply of advanced weapons, approximately 5 billion people would die overnight in a frenzied orgy of killing - intended to wipe out every non-Muslim on earth.

Then he would proceed to go through the Muslim population, with a zeal of religious killing not seen since the Spanish Inquisition, but on a scale of millions.

I would bet that in the end, there would only be about 50 million people left on earth.

Moral equivalence? Those are his stated goals. To kill all non-Muslims, and to cleanse the Muslim population of apostates.

Yes-its safe to say just being muslim isnt enough to satisfy him. You'd have to be his specific type of muslim.

It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological society to be able to build technologically advanced weapons.
Correction:It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological army to be able to build technologically advanced weapons.
Society, is something totally different. An example: It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological society to be able to cure cancer.


Also, it's not rational to assign moral equivalence between the US and Bin Laden.
Depends on the perspective, both kill innocents without any proper reason. One believes he is saving the world with destroying the guilty, and other believes he is saving the world with destroying the guity (right, they think the same).

And no confusins here, with "US" I do not mean people in it, I mean the decisive governing units.

If Bin Laden had access to an unlimited supply of advanced weapons, approximately 5 billion people would die overnight in a frenzied orgy of killing - intended to wipe out every non-Muslim on earth.

Then he would proceed to go through the Muslim population, with a zeal of religious killing not seen since the Spanish Inquisition, but on a scale of millions.

I would bet that in the end, there would only be about 50 million people left on earth.

Moral equivalence? Those are his stated goals. To kill all non-Muslims, and to cleanse the Muslim population of apostates.

Well ok, Bin Laden might be a bit far fetched, since the casualties are incomparable... Try Saddam instead.

And so the United States turns another page in the transition of the pasts Science Fiction and the futures reality.

Awesome! :cool:

Correction:It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological army to be able to build technologically advanced weapons.
Society, is something totally different. An example: It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological society to be able to cure cancer.


Depends on the perspective, both kill innocents without any proper reason. One believes he is saving the world with destroying the guilty, and other believes he is saving the world with destroying the guity (right, they think the same).

Actually, if an army could come up with new weapons tech on it's own without any outside input from the outside one would almost have to consider said military machine to be a society in it's own right. Also, no society can cure cancer however we can occasionally eradicate it and still save the host.


Your definition is technically correct, but define guilty for both based soley upon who they state they want to destroy or eradicate. In which case they are not nearly equatable unless you are a pacifist.

The problem for a version small enough to fit in a tank would be the size of the power-plant. You need a lot of energy to make the projectile move that fast, and that means a very powerful generator. Currently that means big, or atomic. And that's a whole new set of problems.
For the asteroid, I think you would need a lot more mass for that, which means far more power. It would still be possible using the same technological principles, but I doubt it will be Earth based.

Unless the satellite is incredibly massive, the kickback will throw it out of orbit.

Well ok, Bin Laden might be a bit far fetched, since the casualties are incomparable... Try Saddam instead.
Again, not the same thing. Saddam wanted to kill anyone who opposed him. Last time I checked Bush wasn't advocating for the destruction of the UN General assembly and the entire French government.

Unless the satellite is incredibly massive, the kickback will throw it out of orbit.
So base it on the moon.

Also, no society can cure cancer however we can occasionally eradicate it and still save the host.

Currently right, what if all that resources were spent on cancer cure, instead of a weapon? IMHO, that would make that society far more advanced.

Unless the satellite is incredibly massive, the kickback will throw it out of orbit.
Well, I wasn't concerned with the Earth being thrown out of orbit, but with moving an object massive enough to deflect an asteroid coming towards Earth. That requires a lot of power.

I don't think such a system would be Earth-based because on top of having to move such a big mass you would also have to fight gravity.

To move Earth you would need a lot lot lot more mass.

Currently right, what if all that resources were spent on cancer cure, instead of a weapon? IMHO, that would make that society far more advanced.

Electromagnetic technology can be used against cancer? How, blast a piece of metal through tumors?

Please just drop the cliche bitching about military research, alright?

Currently right, what if all that resources were spent on cancer cure, instead of a weapon? IMHO, that would make that society far more advanced.

Not if they're taken over and slaughtered because they don't have the means to defend themselves.

Again, not the same thing. Saddam wanted to kill anyone who opposed him. Last time I checked Bush wasn't advocating for the destruction of the UN General assembly and the entire French government.
And Saddam is not captured because he was opposing US? Actions do not matter, ideass do. All of them (Every country, Every Terrorist, etc) has the same idea on mind: "Absolute world dominance". Some try this with economical improvement, some with killing people, some with both. NONE tries this with social welfare.

Electromagnetic technology can be used against cancer? How, blast a piece of metal through tumors?

Please just drop the cliche bitching about military research, alright?
I didn't say the same technology, I said resources used (probably a few Billion $). And I'm not against military research, I am against weapons research. That's quire a difference here. For example: radar systems, and defense systems (i.e. patriot missiles, If I recall correctly, these were to shot down other missiles only.) are military research, but not weapons.

Building weapons is nowhere near defending. It's like holding a hammer in your hand, hoping that noone will punch you in the face.

I didn't say the same technology, I said resources used (probably a few Billion $). And I'm not against military research, I am against weapons research. That's quire a difference here. For example: radar systems, and defense systems (i.e. patriot missiles, If I recall correctly, these were to shot down other missiles only.) are military research, but not weapons.

Building weapons is nowhere near defending. It's like holding a hammer in your hand, hoping that noone will punch you in the face.

I've taught women to carry guns. They hold them in their hands, and the men that used to punch them in the face have stopped. In fact, they stay well out of range.

A great improvement.

Building weapons is nowhere near defending. It's like holding a hammer in your hand, hoping that noone will punch you in the face.


More like not throwing a punch because you know you'll get your skull caved in.

its one of the ammendments to the 10 commandments: "Those who have the weapons,make the rules".

I've taught women to carry guns. They hold them in their hands, and the men that used to punch them in the face have stopped. In fact, they stay well out of range.

A great improvement.

Sometimes it works, right... But it does not save you from all peril. US had millions times more weapons than Usame had when 9/11 happened, did it save those innocent people?

Sometimes it works, right... But it does not save you from all peril. US had millions times more weapons than Usame had when 9/11 happened, did it save those innocent people?

That was because we were playing nice. Now we're not. Notice the difference?

This certainly sounds interesting. I wonder when it will be operational and deployed.
I wonder if they will be able to make a more portable version for use against armored vehicles and bunkers.
I wonder if it can be altered to target anything out of our atmosphere-like the ateroids they predict will come close or strike the earth eventually? It sounds like this technology might make diverting or destroying a threat like that possible.

For that we can call Harry Stamper,A.J. Frost, Rock Hound, Bear, Oscar, Max, and Chick.

That was because we were playing nice. Now we're not. Notice the difference?

I clearly see the difference. It's like, having a hammer in hand, and bashing everyone you are suspicious in the head. The hammer is no more for defending.

I also noticed "we" part. So I ask another question, would it be still good if China was the first to build that Railgun?

For that we can call Harry Stamper,A.J. Frost, Rock Hound, Bear, Oscar, Max, and Chick.


Not a bad movie, but still more far-fetched than this weapon. And I'm not terribly concerned about an asteroid, because until now, there was nothing to do about it. Scientists periodically scare us all with predictions on how likely it is. Now it sounds like we have the start of technology that could actually be used against it.
Imagine that the awful, feared and loathed United States could devise and create something to save the whole human race-even those pitted against us?(oh wait-we already cured smallpox)

I clearly see the difference. It's like, having a hammer in hand, and bashing everyone you are suspicious in the head. The hammer is no more for defending.

I also noticed "we" part. So I ask another question, would it be still good if China was the first to build that Railgun?


No-the US is only "bashing" those who are screaming for it. And not all of those at that. When I say "WE" I mean the US, as thats where I am. And, No-I dont want China to ever build it-do you? Does anyone else here want them too? Of course not. I'm perfectly fine if we are the ones to develop it. keep it and not share it with anyone else. Ask Tiawan,Japan, Russia or India or Tibet if they'd like to see China with it.

It's faster and cheaper, and these reasons alone make it worth its weight in gold.

I didn't dispute that. I was, in fact, suggesting that it wasn't 'too much power', however, because we can already achieve the same effect.




A system like this isn't particularly useful for fast, mobile targets. But it would free up air assets to deal with targets of that type.

Read the paper. It actually does speak to evanescent targets, citing probable improved performance over air-strikes.



You're contradicting yourself here. NSFS (naval surface fire support) is a key ingredient in the litoral battlefield. The marines need to be able to call in artillery support while they work to establish a beach head. Until they establish that beach head and can safely finish landing their own vehicles to do the job, the navy has to do it.

No, I am actually not. I am saying that the navy is trying to retain the primacy of the heavy ship type - and thus a slice of the budget pie - by arguing for a weapon which is no doubt extremely useful in litoral warfare. To suggest however, this is the only tactical option is ridiculous.


With the emphasis on litoral warfare, and the serious need for a better alternative to the Iowa class, this project can't help but go forward, full steam ahead.

The Iowa class hasn't been in service for years. In any case, anphibious landings don't require that type of support per se anymore.

No-the US is only "bashing" those who are screaming for it. And not all of those at that. When I say "WE" I mean the US, as thats where I am. And, No-I dont want China to ever build it-do you? Does anyone else here want them too? Of course not. I'm perfectly fine if we are the ones to develop it. keep it and not share it with anyone else. Ask Tiawan,Japan, Russia or India or Tibet if they'd like to see China with it.

Anyone else in the world outside US is just thinking the same way for US having railgun. What makes US having that railgun better than any other country having it, excluding the fact that you feel safer because you live in US (for example in China 2 Billion people would feel safer, and that is not a valid argument)?

How do they keep the heat from friction down? Most materials wouldn't survive long going that fast through the air.

The answer is simple my friend, with the new tech. America(Bush led) invades more oil rich countries and in turn, gets more money

Then they can spend $10,000 per shell with space shuttle heat shields

http://www.battelle.org/navy/railguns.pdf

The electromagnetic rail gun which is being developed for employment in the Navy's next class of destroyers, the DDX, allows the entire ship's power output to be directed into an acceleration device which will shoot a projectile at anywhere from Mach 7 to Mach 16 clear out of the earth's atmosphere onto targets hundreds of miles away. They will be devastating.
To put things in perspective, our current 5-inch gun has a muzzle energy of 10 megajoules. ... In contrast, naval rail guns will achieve muzzle energies from 60 to 300 megajoules. ... Research indicates that a notional first-generation naval rail gun could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles at a rate of greater than six rounds per minute.

... An important advantage of rail guns is the ability to exploit the high kinetic energy stored in the projectile ... One test demonstrated that the release of the rail gun projectile's kinetic energy alone would create a 10-foot crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet.
Since the shells will be solid darts, a destroyer will carry 10,000 rounds in its current magazine space... .

Eraser Anyone?

Eraser Anyone?
I don't think that blue smoke effect will appear here ;).

Anyone else in the world outside US is just thinking the same way for US having railgun. What makes US having that railgun better than any other country having it, excluding the fact that you feel safer because you live in US (for example in China 2 Billion people would feel safer, and that is not a valid argument)?

That's a very "Surface" argument, actually. It presumes Western Morality where it does not necessarily reside. The only preventative against a Chinese conquer-the-neighbours jag, is their inability to move their forces intercontinental, and the lack of adequate long-range weapons systems. This would solve one problem, and they're already solving the other with material improvements to their Naval force-projection and Logistical supply systems.
As for two billion people feeling 'safer'... No. See, the biggest threat to the average Chinese Civilian, is not a foreign threat, it's their own government.

That's a very "Surface" argument, actually. It presumes Western Morality where it does not necessarily reside. The only preventative against a Chinese conquer-the-neighbours jag, is their inability to move their forces intercontinental, and the lack of adequate long-range weapons systems. This would solve one problem, and they're already solving the other with material improvements to their Naval force-projection and Logistical supply systems.
As for two billion people feeling 'safer'... No. See, the biggest threat to the average Chinese Civilian, is not a foreign threat, it's their own government.

China is an example, specifically chosen for it's bad reputation. The core question is "What makes US having that railgun better than any other country having it?"

Sometimes it works, right... But it does not save you from all peril. US had millions times more weapons than Usame had when 9/11 happened, did it save those innocent people?
Did you happen to notice we haven't been hit since we retaliated? Notice as well that the USSR never attacked us.

Anyone else in the world outside US is just thinking the same way for US having railgun. What makes US having that railgun better than any other country having it, excluding the fact that you feel safer because you live in US (for example in China 2 Billion people would feel safer, and that is not a valid argument)?
China won't attack the US, nor will the US attack China. We have nothing to fear from each other because we are both rational nations who don't want to try to live through a nuclear holocaust. The nations who are uneasy about US weapons are scumbag nations like N. Korea, Sudan, Iran, etc.

Correction:It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological army to be able to build technologically advanced weapons.
Society, is something totally different. An example: It certainly is a sign of an advanced technological society to be able to cure cancer.


Depends on the perspective, both kill innocents without any proper reason. One believes he is saving the world with destroying the guilty, and other believes he is saving the world with destroying the guity (right, they think the same).

And no confusins here, with "US" I do not mean people in it, I mean the decisive governing units.
ok
1. first of all its the governing units that decide to create and mostly hire scientists to develpo the weapons, not the army directly, for example, the manhattan project
2. u r saying now the bush has the same murderous tendency as osama which is totally not true,
final word.. get ur facts straight

China is an example, specifically chosen for it's bad reputation. The core question is "What makes US having that railgun better than any other country having it?"

Depends on the country. The UK can be trusted with them. Likewise much of Western Europe probably could, Canada, Australia, and likely Japan.

North Korea is another matter. Sudan? Any halfwit with an AK can get a hold of it. And so on and so forth.

Have the defensive implications been considered? (I can't get the link to work =/) Having a half dozen of these a hundred miles behind a front line is going to be a hell of a kick in the teeth for those on the other side.

Did you happen to notice we haven't been hit since we retaliated? Notice as well that the USSR never attacked us.
And everyone attacked "you" before "your" retaliation everyday? When was the last terrorist strike before 9/11?

And I notice other ~200 countries that never attacked "you", is it because "you" have awesome weaponry? And I notice no one attacks <pick a country in Europe>, not even terrorists strike, does that mean they have better weapons?

This is just logically invalid as:
Sun is hot, fire hot, therefore sun is fire. (Explanation: therefore this looks valid, and although there is a corrolation, sun is not fire.)

Maybe it can be developed as a railgun to space. Put a big one of these on a mountain-side and use it to launch payloads into orbit.

it would be much more cost effective to place it in a easilly accessible location. simply because the energy saved by putting it on say mount everest would be a small amount of the total. add the cost of construction, maintance and personel.

Not a bad movie, but still more far-fetched than this weapon. And I'm not terribly concerned about an asteroid, because until now, there was nothing to do about it. Scientists periodically scare us all with predictions on how likely it is. Now it sounds like we have the start of technology that could actually be used against it.
Imagine that the awful, feared and loathed United States could devise and create something to save the whole human race-even those pitted against us?(oh wait-we already cured smallpox)

I'm sure somehow some would rationalize that our action to save the planet was illegal... probably we wouldn't get sanction from the UN or some red-tape issue like that.

I'm sure somehow some would rationalize that our action to save the planet was illegal... probably we wouldn't get sanction from the UN or some red-tape issue like that.
who gives a crap, ur saving the world KEY WORD "WORLD" as in not for ur own benift

Read the paper. It actually does speak to evanescent targets, citing probable improved performance over air-strikes.


Ahem.

"Employing unconventional technologies to extend the range of naval guns, then, could provide the precision of fire needed to liberate tactical aviation assets to focus on conducting strikes against more challenging pop-up, mobile, and relocatable targets, particularly when information about the targets is less than perfect."

No, I am actually not. I am saying that the navy is trying to retain the primacy of the heavy ship type - and thus a slice of the budget pie - by arguing for a weapon which is no doubt extremely useful in litoral warfare. To suggest however, this is the only tactical option is ridiculous.

I have to wonder what "heavy ship type" you are arguing for, considering that this weapon would be deployed on cruisers, destroyers, and fast frigates... and the navy appears to be shying away from the largest of that group (cruisers) in favor of smaller ones (destroyers).

The fact that this equipment makes the heaviest ship type (battleships) irrelevant seems to have escaped your attention.


The Iowa class hasn't been in service for years.
The Iowa class last saw action in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. To give you an idea how long the navy has wrestled with this problem, the Iowa class were first deactivated prior to the Korean War. Afghanistan is a land-locked nation, and the second invasion of Iraq was supported by mutiple land-attack access points, so a beach landing was not necessary or desirable.

To this day, two Iowa class battleships are required by Congress to remain on the navy's registry (Iowa and Wisconsin), and the navy is required to keep their hands on enough spare parts, tech manuals, ordnance, etc. to support them both in an operational capacity. That requirement was specified in the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, and does not expire until the navy has deployed an acceptable alternative... expected between 2003-2008.

The navy has been experimenting with rocket-assisted munitions since then, but as you can see from the article on rail guns, they offer a better alternative.

In any case, anphibious landings don't require that type of support per se anymore.

I couldn't imagine trying to send marines up a fortified beach without it. And apparently, neither can the navy, or Congress. When a marine spotter calls in an artillery strike, it lands in just a few minutes. The alternatives simply can't respond that quickly.

China is an example, specifically chosen for it's bad reputation. The core question is "What makes US having that railgun better than any other country having it?"

Historically, the U.S. has already demonstrated its cultural policy with regards to having a monopoly on a pivotal weapon. Before 1949, we had the Atom Bomb. In fact, we had enough by 1947 to glass every major military concentration east of the Rhine to Moscow.
We also had the Air-Force lift capacity to use it.

In 1949, the Soviets set off their first bomb-we could still have eradicated them, having at that time several hundered completed units and thousands more in production. (as well as hundereds if not thousands of forward-deployed delivery systems in the form of the 8th and 11th air force bomber wings...)

Americans, as a whole, would much rather not fight, or conquer people if they don't absolutely have to.
We prefer 'Talk' to 'blow 'em up', but we will blow them up if talking doesn't work...after a LONG period of talking.

China??? Hmmm... Tibet. the Korean Conflict. Missile testing over Taiwan...

What would Iran do? What did the Europeans do in Africa and Asia when they had firearms, and the Natives did not? Germany had ballistic missile tech, and jets, what did they do when they had the only jet-combat-aircraft in the world?

So far, the history shows that when one power has a monopoly, it tends to use that force immediately... unless it's the U.S. We had the bomb when nobody else did-we did not use that power against anyone but the nation we'd already been fighting a war to the knife with for four years, and then, we neither waited until we could glass the whole country (which was an option that Truman looked at), we used it twice, and never used it again-even when we knew we'd be facing the Russians sooner, rather than later.

Depends on the country. The UK can be trusted with them. Likewise much of Western Europe probably could, Canada, Australia, and likely Japan.

North Korea is another matter. Sudan? Any halfwit with an AK can get a hold of it. And so on and so forth.

Have the defensive implications been considered? (I can't get the link to work =/) Having a half dozen of these a hundred miles behind a front line is going to be a hell of a kick in the teeth for those on the other side.
What makes a country trustable?
And have you ever considered what does the people in the untrustable countries think of yours?

It's all point of perspective, sometimes people are too near to see the facts. Everyone has enemies for some reasons, and mostly a whole country is blamed upon acts of a few people. This is why, people should never bould guns. Even being the majority, they cannot use the weapons correctly. See what some US soldiers did in Iraq. Maybe they were acting on their own, or maybe they were getting orders from someone, which at this point does not matter. What matters is the all those innocent lives lost. Whomever has the weapons, I can guarantee that that weapons will be used against innocent people. That is why, building a new weapon is not an advancement.

And everyone attacked "you" before "your" retaliation everyday? When was the last terrorist strike before 9/11?

And I notice other ~200 countries that never attacked "you", is it because "you" have awesome weaponry? And I notice no one attacks <pick a country in Europe>, not even terrorists strike, does that mean they have better weapons?

This is just logically invalid as:
Sun is hot, fire hot, therefore sun is fire. (Explanation: therefore this looks valid, and although there is a corrolation, sun is not fire.)
Well, let's see, we had the bombing of two of our embasies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, The first attempt at bombing the world trade center. All of those were Al Quaeda attacks. We tried the law enforcement method. It failed. We used military force, and eradicated many of Al Quaeda's assets, scrambled their command and control structures, seized their assets, and they've been unable to act against us since.

So far, the history shows that when one power has a monopoly, it tends to use that force immediately... unless it's the U.S. We had the bomb when nobody else did-we did not use that power against anyone but the nation we'd already been fighting a war to the knife with for four years, and then, we neither waited until we could glass the whole country (which was an option that Truman looked at), we used it twice, and never used it again-even when we knew we'd be facing the Russians sooner, rather than later.

And "you" used it against civilians, in a war that "you" were already winning. That's reassuring.

What makes a country trustable?
And have you ever considered what does the people in the untrustable countries think of yours?

It's all point of perspective, sometimes people are too near to see the facts. Everyone has enemies for some reasons, and mostly a whole country is blamed upon acts of a few people. This is why, people should never bould guns. Even being the majority, they cannot use the weapons correctly. See what some US soldiers did in Iraq. Maybe they were acting on their own, or maybe they were getting orders from someone, which at this point does not matter. What matters is the all those innocent lives lost. Whomever has the weapons, I can guarantee that that weapons will be used against innocent people. That is why, building a new weapon is not an advancement.

ok could u plz put ur brain bck in ur head because the soldiers in iraq r not killing innocents u dumbasshole, i have to admit some got killed in crossfire or misinformtion but it happens, anyway guns are for gaining liberty or protection, right now the us had liberated iraq, and i wonder with what, no not peace talks with the teletubbies, WEAPONS, these r terrorists not the powerpuff girs kid

And "you" used it against civilians, in a war that "you" were already winning. That's reassuring.

we werent winning, in fact we were in a tie of sorts, anyway, even thought the 2 a-bombs killed tons of ppl letting the war continue on wouldve killed a lot more amercins and japanese combined, the war couldve gone on for years, and japan might not be the technological powerhouse it is now and the us might have one of the wrst armys but look what happened instead

And "you" used it against civilians, in a war that "you" were already winning. That's reassuring.
Both cities contained significant troop concentrations, Command-and-control centres, and military related industries including ammunition plants. given the nature of the war, Hardly civilian targets. Combined casualties were less than one day of Dresden, for instance, or the firebomb raids on Berlin. They were about the same as the chinese casualties when Japan took Nanking in 1938.
The main difference being that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accomplished by a single aircraft each, rather than thousand-plane firebombing raids lasting days, which was the de-riguer in other parts of Japan at the same stage of the war.

This thread is REALLY depressing. How do so many seemingly normal Americans know so insanely much about weaponry designed to KILL people?

Well, let's see, we had the bombing of two of our embasies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, The first attempt at bombing the world trade center. All of those were Al Quaeda attacks. We tried the law enforcement method. It failed. We used military force, and eradicated many of Al Quaeda's assets, scrambled their command and control structures, seized their assets, and they've been unable to act against us since.

That WTC bombing was in 26.Feb.1993, which was 8.5 years before 9/11. Let's wait and see what the next 5 years will bring.

Edit: It may not be Al Quaeda, but someone else. It does not matter.

This thread is REALLY depressing. How do so many seemingly normal Americans know so insanely much about weaponry designed to KILL people?

i wonder y, maybe because we have one of the biggest and advanced armys in the world and y wouldnt we be proud that the us army could advance quickly,

This thread is REALLY depressing. How do so many seemingly normal Americans know so insanely much about weaponry designed to KILL people?

I know about it from the article. Apart from that, I used to be a fire controlman in the US Navy. Knowing so insanely much about weaponry designed to kill people was in the job description.

This thread is REALLY depressing. How do so many seemingly normal Americans know so insanely much about weaponry designed to KILL people?

It's our real National Pastime, and our only significant industry (that hasn't been outsourced offshore). Americans know so much about it, because it's one of the few areas we're just naturally good at. We're just-moral-enough to feel guilty when we do it entirely too well... and we're just moral enough that we don't want to.
What can you expect from a country founded by religious extremists, criminals, fortune-seekers, and people the really civilized countries got rid of as soon as they could?
Americans are bloodthirsty and civilized enough to be ashamed of it.

we werent winning, in fact we were in a tie of sorts, anyway, even thought the 2 a-bombs killed tons of ppl letting the war continue on wouldve killed a lot more amercins and japanese combined, the war couldve gone on for years, and japan might not be the technological powerhouse it is now and the us might have one of the wrst armys but look what happened instead

Ok. that "Justifies" killing a lot of innocents, along with "dense" military targets, and having the effect of radiation for generations. I think the Japanese kids that died with the bomb would think the same too, stopping the war that would lead more casualties. And I think you'd still think the same if you were Japanese, or it was Japan that bombed US.

Ok. that "Justifies" killing a lot of innocents, along with "dense" military targets, and having the effect of radiation for generations. I think the Japanese kids that died with the bomb would think the same too, stopping the war that would lead more casualties. And I think you'd still think the same if you were Japanese, or it was Japan that bombed US.

ok look u dumbass not only did nuking japan stop the war it also freed korea and opressive japanese tyranny there, i have a friend who is korean who disagrees witht the a-bomb but is happy the americans were there to use it, so stfu

This thread is REALLY depressing. How do so many seemingly normal Americans know so insanely much about weaponry designed to KILL people?
We're a different breed.

Actually, I've noticed most people on NS have an unusually large ammount of information about military matters. That applies to US citizens and others. Those who don't have much information aren't shy about faking it.

That WTC bombing was in 26.Feb.1993, which was 8.5 years before 9/11. Let's wait and see what the next 5 years will bring.

Edit: It may not be Al Quaeda, but someone else. It does not matter.
And the embassy bombings took place in between. 9/11/2001 to 4/14/2005 is well over three years with no attack. Plus we keep making it harder for terrorist cells to infiltrate and operate.

Plus we keep making it harder for terrorist cells to infiltrate and operate.
That's the whole point. Weapons are not used in that part. Having more weapons to kill more innocents (which is not the intended purpose maybe, but it will eventually happen) is not the correct way of action.

That's the whole point. Weapons are not used in that part. Having more weapons to kill more innocents (which is not the intended purpose maybe, but it will eventually happen) is not the correct way of action.
Sure it is. After seeing what happened to Afghanistan what regime wants to host the next non state actor who decides to pick a fight with the USA?

Hong Apoe, I don't think you'll live long in forums with that kind of attitude. You should consider joining people of civilized discussion, that can post their ideas in words, rather than rumblings with (words that are aimed to be)insults, even if they do not agree the previous person.

Ok. that "Justifies" killing a lot of innocents, along with "dense" military targets, and having the effect of radiation for generations. I think the Japanese kids that died with the bomb would think the same too, stopping the war that would lead more casualties. And I think you'd still think the same if you were Japanese, or it was Japan that bombed US.

If Japan had it, we wouldn't be discussing the morality of it, most likely the discussion would be whether Tojo should have waited to bomb all American cities, rather than only two or three at a time, since it would have saved thousands of japanese lives to wipe out millions of Americans instead of having to do it by hand, as they would have done.
Your attempts at moral equivalency are weak at best, and you apply the wrong set of cultural standards here-the Japs had no problem exterminating 'lesser races'-they were, in fact, working on a means to do precisely that through biological warfare. (Don't ask me, ask the Chinese, or the Koreans...)
The Nazis played at Racism, but Imperial Japan WAS racist-to a degree that would make the KKK look positively inclusive.

Hong Apoe, I don't think you'll live long in forums with that kind of attitude. You should consider joining people of civilized discussion, that can post their ideas in words, rather than rumblings with (words that are aimed to be)insults, even if they do not agree the previous person.

what so now ur saying ur the samrtass that will, u talk way 2 much

I know about it from the article. Apart from that, I used to be a fire controlman in the US Navy. Knowing so insanely much about weaponry designed to kill people was in the job description.Of course if you are from the military, you'll have expertise in this area, and I realize that there's a larger proportion of Americans in the army than here in Canada. But I don't know, in Israel, alomost everyone does at least 3 years in the military, and I don't here anyone saying I will teh pwn joo with my gunz!11. Its not discussed.
It's our real National Pastime, and our only significant industry (that hasn't been outsourced offshore). Americans know so much about it, because it's one of the few areas we're just naturally good at. We're just-moral-enough to feel guilty when we do it entirely too well... and we're just moral enough that we don't want to.
What can you expect from a country founded by religious extremists, criminals, fortune-seekers, and people the really civilized countries got rid of as soon as they could?
Americans are bloodthirsty and civilized enough to be ashamed of it. This makes sense, though I wouldn't call England in the 1600 particularly "civilized", I think all of the western world is concience-stricken for things that they can't be arsed to change.

If Japan had it, we wouldn't be discussing the morality of it, most likely the discussion would be whether Tojo should have waited to bomb all American cities, rather than only two or three at a time, since it would have saved thousands of japanese lives to wipe out millions of Americans instead of having to do it by hand, as they would have done.
Your attempts at moral equivalency are weak at best, and you apply the wrong set of cultural standards here-the Japs had no problem exterminating 'lesser races'-they were, in fact, working on a means to do precisely that through biological warfare. (Don't ask me, ask the Chinese, or the Koreans...)
The Nazis played at Racism, but Imperial Japan WAS racist-to a degree that would make the KKK look positively inclusive.

Since Imperial Japan was racist, destroying two of the cities with biggest population with nuclear weapons is justified?

Since Imperial Japan was racist, destroying two of the cities with biggest population with nuclear weapons is justified?

Wow... I could have sworn I dealt with this argument somewhere else...

No. The "NOT" butchering the whole japanese population through a ground-attack and continued firebombing because they were comitted (not just the military now..) to fighting to the last man-woman-and-child is what makes it justified. American Infantrymen in WWII found the worst fighting of the entire war in the pacific-because demoralized Japs didn't surrender, they attacked. My Japanese history-and-culture teacher was a little girl at the time in one of those towns I can't spell (and can't pronounce). She showed us pictures of her "National Defense Club"-cute little seven and eight year olds drilling with spears to attack the 'Yankees" when they land.

Fun fact: American Infantry inflicted ten-to-one casualties on Japanese soldiers during the island-hopping campaigns. It took five rounds on average to get one lethal hit on a soldier using the M-1 Rifle in the hands of an American Marine-against an enemy that used camouflage and night-attacks.

Estimated (Lowball) casualties for the landing were set at an optimistic 20,000. Now, ten japs per man, at 20,000 yeilds 200,000 dead japs-on average-and that's ONLY the trained soldiers.
Fighting civilians? MUCH higher. Figure closer to fifty-to-one. And don't think they wouldn't have fought. Japan has a multihundered year history of driving invaders back into the sea.

This does not include the use of Naval shore bombardment (Most Jap cities are on or near the coast), continued Aerial firebombing and strategic bombing... and then, land-based artillery supporting fires.

In other words, Millions of dead civilians instead of a hundered ten thousand.

Ok. that "Justifies" killing a lot of innocents, along with "dense" military targets, and having the effect of radiation for generations. I think the Japanese kids that died with the bomb would think the same too, stopping the war that would lead more casualties. And I think you'd still think the same if you were Japanese, or it was Japan that bombed US.
Question, have you ever seen Grave of the Fireflies?

And I notice other ~200 countries that never attacked "you", is it because "you" have awesome weaponry? And I notice no one attacks <pick a country in Europe>, not even terrorists strike, does that mean they have better weapons?

O___o Madrid, 3/11?

What makes a country trustable?
And have you ever considered what does the people in the untrustable countries think of yours?

It's all point of perspective, sometimes people are too near to see the facts. Everyone has enemies for some reasons, and mostly a whole country is blamed upon acts of a few people. This is why, people should never bould guns. Even being the majority, they cannot use the weapons correctly. See what some US soldiers did in Iraq. Maybe they were acting on their own, or maybe they were getting orders from someone, which at this point does not matter. What matters is the all those innocent lives lost. Whomever has the weapons, I can guarantee that that weapons will be used against innocent people. That is why, building a new weapon is not an advancement.

Fine. If you can convince all of the planet to simultaneously and completely disarm, I'll go along with it. Until that time we need the means to defend ourselves. 'Take all under Heaven intact' - if we just better than the enemy that's not happening. If we're so much better they don't even fight then we won as conclusive a victory as is possible, and moreover it's easier to rebuild.

It sounds like we have the basics in place to develop this. And I'm sure theu could have a satellite or space station deployed to support this. Once they get it out of the earth's atmosphere, it doesnt matter how much it weighs. It doesnt sound so far-fetched.

Actually, there's one rather large problem with placing such a weapon on a spaceborne platform such as a satellite or space-station.

Namely, Newton's third law.

It would be a giant pain in the ass, you'd have to maneuver like crazy to keep the massive recoil from throwing your platform out of it's orbit every time you tried to fire the thing.

Maybe once they come up with such a platform that incorporates propulsion systems such that they don't have to worry about depleting half it's maneuvering fuel just because they fired a shot...

HA! like that worked for nukes.


really, all this spending on things that kill things is a horrible waste, why not spend it on things to help people?

:LOL:

Yeah, Hitler really needed so much help, and Kim Jong Il could use a hand too. Maybe we should just give Zarkawi a lifetime supply of Twinkies, that'd make him like us!

ok could u plz put ur brain bck in ur head because the soldiers in iraq r not killing innocents u dumbasshole, i have to admit some got killed in crossfire or misinformtion but it happens, anyway guns are for gaining liberty or protection, right now the us had liberated iraq, and i wonder with what, no not peace talks with the teletubbies, WEAPONS, these r terrorists not the powerpuff girs kid

I would have have to ask you in this case to put the brains back in your head. A gun is a weapon. And as anyone can tell you, a weapon is usually designed to inflict maximum harm to a person/object. In the case of a firearm, for example say your average 9mm semi-automatic handgun. What is it primarily designed for? To inflict harm. That is its primary purpose.

You want to use it for protection or liberty? How? Why, by using the threat of lethal force or lethal force itself. But that doesn't change its sole purpose. To terminate lifeforms. Using it as a doorstop or lighter is just a misuse of its construed design. The same principle applies to anything which was designed to be used to cause deliberate destruction to lifeforms.

Semantics of liberty and protection are just decorations meant to make it seem nicer.

Please get your facts right.

Weapons are designed to kill or maim.

Unless they have the distinct designation of non-lethal of course.

I would have have to ask you in this case to put the brains back in your head. A gun is a weapon. And as anyone can tell you, a weapon is usually designed to inflict maximum harm to a person/object. In the case of a firearm, for example say your average 9mm semi-automatic handgun. What is it primarily designed for? To inflict harm. That is its primary purpose.

You want to use it for protection or liberty? How? Why, by using the threat of lethal force or lethal force itself. But that doesn't change its sole purpose. To terminate lifeforms. Using it as a doorstop or lighter is just a misuse of its construed design. The same principle applies to anything which was designed to be used to cause deliberate destruction to lifeforms.

Semantics of liberty and protection are just decorations meant to make it seem nicer.

Please get your facts right.

Weapons are designed to kill or maim.

Unless they have the distinct designation of non-lethal of course.

Weapons are weapons, and yes, they're designed to maim or kill. What you seem to be missing, is the difference in why they are used.

So long as some will use them for immoral purposes, to rob, to do murder, to extort, to rape... others must have them to stop these things. So long as some will use their weapons to make slaves of others, then some others must have weapons to stop them. Ghandi succeeded only because of the morality of the British culture would permit it-nonviolence has no effect on the truly brutal, or the Amoral. It merely smoothes their course.

Weapons are weapons, and yes, they're designed to maim or kill. What you seem to be missing, is the difference in why they are used.

So long as some will use them for immoral purposes, to rob, to do murder, to extort, to rape... others must have them to stop these things. So long as some will use their weapons to make slaves of others, then some others must have weapons to stop them. Ghandi succeeded only because of the morality of the British culture would permit it-nonviolence has no effect on the truly brutal, or the Amoral. It merely smoothes their course.

Actually, I never contested the reasons why they were used. I just wanted to point out that their primary purpose to Hong Apoe was the explicit killing and maiming of life forms. The ultimate goal of said killing or maiming, or the threat thereoff, is something that is left up to the wielder of the weapon.

An interesting print I saw on a person's shirt once in a show. I think it went along the lines of this.

"Guns don't kill people. I kill people"

While humorous in its idea, it is also quite true. A weapon is a tool explicitly designed for killing yes, but without a user, it is simply a lump of metal that cannot do anything on its own.

So I suppose in the end, it really boils down to who is behind the weapon and their intentions with it.

This doesn't surprise me at all.

Hell, considering what they do with that one rollar coaster's start up in Disney's California Adventure with just WHEELs... (interesting, when I first saw it, I thought it WAS an electromagnetic push.... it just seemed so horribly obvious...)

As for friction... eh. Ceramics.

This thread is REALLY depressing. How do so many seemingly normal Americans know so insanely much about weaponry designed to KILL people?

It was my job to kill people for 4 years.

Actually, there's one rather large problem with placing such a weapon on a spaceborne platform such as a satellite or space-station.

Namely, Newton's third law.

It would be a giant pain in the ass, you'd have to maneuver like crazy to keep the massive recoil from throwing your platform out of it's orbit every time you tried to fire the thing.

...
Maybe you could simultaneously fire a projectile of equal mass at the same velocity in the opposite direction. The recoil from one would cancel out the recoil of the other.

I would have have to ask you in this case to put the brains back in your head. A gun is a weapon. And as anyone can tell you, a weapon is usually designed to inflict maximum harm to a person/object. In the case of a firearm, for example say your average 9mm semi-automatic handgun. What is it primarily designed for? To inflict harm. That is its primary purpose.

You want to use it for protection or liberty? How? Why, by using the threat of lethal force or lethal force itself. But that doesn't change its sole purpose. To terminate lifeforms. Using it as a doorstop or lighter is just a misuse of its construed design. The same principle applies to anything which was designed to be used to cause deliberate destruction to lifeforms.

Semantics of liberty and protection are just decorations meant to make it seem nicer.

Please get your facts right.

Weapons are designed to kill or maim.

Unless they have the distinct designation of non-lethal of course.
Weapons kill. No argument here. But some people need killing. Hitler and his followers, Lil' Kim over in North Korea, UBL, and many more. Those people have caused the deaths of many innocents. I'm all for using every weapon at our disposal to kill those scumbags and others like them.

Maybe you could simultaneously fire a projectile of equal mass at the same velocity in the opposite direction. The recoil from one would cancel out the recoil of the other.

The only problem I can see with that is that the satelite will most likely be firing at an angle approximately 180 degrees from Earth. If you fire in the opposite direction as well........


Weapons kill. No argument here. But some people need killing. Hitler and his followers, Lil' Kim over in North Korea, UBL, and many more. Those people have caused the deaths of many innocents. I'm all for using every weapon at our disposal to kill those scumbags and others like them.

Before I comment on this, I want to ask first. UBL?

And the problem with the 'use every weapon at our disposal' bit is that usually you have tremendous collateral damage done. And besides, just as you hold that opinion regarding various heads of states, there are most likely others who hold similar views but with different heads of states.

You can't fling mud without having the stain on your hands. *shrug*

Either way, these kinds of opinions (this guy needs killing, etc) are thoroughly useless in terms of actually improving peoples lot in lives. Horribly short sighted with no planning in terms of execution and dealing with the aftermath.

Its all very easy to destroy. Building is a lot harder.

The only problem I can see with that is that the satelite will most likely be firing at an angle approximately 180 degrees from Earth. If you fire in the opposite direction as well........



Before I comment on this, I want to ask first. UBL?

And the problem with the 'use every weapon at our disposal' bit is that usually you have tremendous collateral damage done. And besides, just as you hold that opinion regarding various heads of states, there are most likely others who hold similar views but with different heads of states.

You can't fling mud without having the stain on your hands. *shrug*

Either way, these kinds of opinions (this guy needs killing, etc) are thoroughly useless in terms of actually improving peoples lot in lives. Horribly short sighted with no planning in terms of execution and dealing with the aftermath.

Its all very easy to destroy. Building is a lot harder.
1 The secondary projectile could be aimed at a point on earth that is expendable. Like North Korea. :D

2 Usama Bin Laden. Also we would use the appropriate weapons to minimize collateral damage. I wasn't clear in the original post. Sorry.

thats right people. metal gear. learn from snake and otacon.
thats all i got to say about this subject.

1 The secondary projectile could be aimed at a point on earth that is expendable. Like North Korea. :D

2 Usama Bin Laden. Also we would use the appropriate weapons to minimize collateral damage. I wasn't clear in the original post. Sorry.

1: You disturb me. Given the original purpose of firing the kinetic warhead into space was to destroy an asteroid that was on a collision course with the planet, you propose the devastation of a country and its people to make it functional?

"We're going to save the world. (Foolish belief. The actual effect would be the preservation of the current political setup and human lives, the planet will still be there if it failed. If it was big enough to completely obliterate earth, good luck building something to deal with that in the next 20 years)

"Its just that while we're saving it, we only need to rain destruction on a country or two."

I sincerely hope that post was not done in seriousness.

2: Who is Usama? Much noise has been made over one Osama Bin Laden, but Usama remains an unknown. Perhaps his lesser known cousin?

As for actually terminating said person, the current hunters have done a rather poor job of it I might say. Not to mention that the country that was turned upside down in the process is by almost all evidence, suffering from a severe case of neglect.

1: You disturb me. Given the original purpose of firing the kinetic warhead into space was to destroy an asteroid that was on a collision course with the planet, you propose the devastation of a country and its people to make it functional?

"We're going to save the world. (Foolish belief. The actual effect would be the preservation of the current political setup and human lives, the planet will still be there if it failed. If it was big enough to completely obliterate earth, good luck building something to deal with that in the next 20 years)

"Its just that while we're saving it, we only need to rain destruction on a country or two."

I sincerely hope that post was not done in seriousness.

2: Who is Usama? Much noise has been made over one Osama Bin Laden, but Usama remains an unknown. Perhaps his lesser known cousin?

As for actually terminating said person, the current hunters have done a rather poor job of it I might say. Not to mention that the country that was turned upside down in the process is by almost all evidence, suffering from a severe case of neglect.
I was kidding about blowing up N. Korea. That's what the laughing smiley was for. I guess something was lost in translation.

Usama and Osama are both acceptable ways to spell his name from what I've read.

Usama and Osama are both acceptable ways to spell his name from what I've read.

Hmmm, according to most of the initial media that came out, it was Osama. Possibly it degenerated over time.

Somewhere, out there, it is most likely the said person is either spinning in his grave or writhing in his sleep thinking "Stupid Infidels! I have spread terror and destruction, made them a mockery of the world. And they still can't spell my name right!!"

1:

2: Who is Usama? Much noise has been made over one Osama Bin Laden, but Usama remains an unknown. Perhaps his lesser known cousin?


Just for the record, I have seen both "Usama" and "Osama" used in print. I dont know if one is right and one is wrong, or both are acceptable, but I have seen both used in main stream periodical print.

Hmmm, according to most of the initial media that came out, it was Osama. Possibly it degenerated over time.

Somewhere, out there, it is most likely the said person is either spinning in his grave or writhing in his sleep thinking "Stupid Infidels! I have spread terror and destruction, made them a mockery of the world. And they still can't spell my name right!!"


Hopefully in the grave option. With no 75 virgins. With 75 pounds of raw pork shoved in his back door and a US Navy Seal knife in his heart.