The U.S. has the biggest baddest military ever, fuck yeah!
Comments
-
What I would find bothering, appart from the fact that the US spends more than the next 10 countries combined (though I wouldn't believe that china hands out real numbers) is that so so much money is going into really questionable weapons :
enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy life and the planet as we know it a few hundred times
cluster bombs which obviously suck more for civilians than the enemy military if dropped anywhere but in a training camp
mines
biological weapons, because let's face it, we don't really master all that shit and no one can say if it won't do more harm than necessary.
What really bothers me is that a shitload of money (and for all countries, though the us spends more) goes to producing weapons designed to kill civilians and not destroy the enemy military. It's like the nuclear bombs in japan, I dislike the notion of killing civilians to pressure a government in admitting defeat. Civilians generally don't like war, want nothing to do with war and would just like everyone to calm down, have a beer (with or without alcohol depending where you are) and shut up.0 -
Kann wrote:enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy the planet a few hundred times
You can't actually destroy the planet, even with all the nukes detonated at once. Unless, by destruction, you mean making it inhospitable to life, then you might have an argument.
The planet itself would keep on truckin'!0 -
69charger wrote:You can't actually destroy the planet, even with all the nukes detonated at once. Unless, by destruction, you mean making it inhospitable to life, then you might have an argument.
The planet itself would keep on truckin'!
Yes, I should edit that to "destroy the planet as we know it", because even after a nuclear war the planet would still harbour life and keep on tuckin'.0 -
Kann wrote:What I would find bothering, appart from the fact that the US spends more than the next 10 countries combined (though I wouldn't believe that china hands out real numbers) is that so so much money is going into really questionable weapons :
enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy life and the planet as we know it a few hundred times
cluster bombs which obviously suck more for civilians than the enemy military if dropped anywhere but in a training camp
mines
biological weapons, because let's face it, we don't really master all that shit and no one can say if it won't do more harm than necessary.
What really bothers me is that a shitload of money (and for all countries, though the us spends more) goes to producing weapons designed to kill civilians and not destroy the enemy military. It's like the nuclear bombs in japan, I dislike the notion of killing civilians to pressure a government in admitting defeat. Civilians generally don't like war, want nothing to do with war and would just like everyone to calm down, have a beer (with or without alcohol depending where you are) and shut up.
The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.Peace through superior firepower!0 -
ProvidenceHunter wrote:WWI
WWII
At the beginning of both of those wars our military was ill equipped and under manned. Soldiers got killed because of a weakened military.
After war you should cut some military spending after a war but not to the extent the US did and probably will do after this war.
Study US military history.
Why do i need to study us military history to understand the 2 World wars? I have a feeling studying any form of american history would be an eye-opening lesson in propoganda.
World war 1 they fought for maybe 1 1/2 yrs max at the end of 5 yr war. The rest of the time they didn't give a shit.
World war 2 they sat on their hands for 2 yrs before giving a shit. They went into the war in the middle of a great recession and came out the other end the richest country on the planet.
Work that into your sense of moral superiority.
Maybe you're saying that had america had the greatest army on the planet at the time then none of it would have happened. america were pretty much nothing at the time. Germany built the major military power of the time and used it to attempt World domination. They failed thru horrendously bad tactics.
Fast forward to today, america has built the major military power of these times (with money indirectly earned from their "friends" unfortunate situations in th late 30's to the mid-fifties) and is using it to attempt World domination. They will fail because of arrogance and lack of discipline.
There will always be war while there is a country willing to rationalise attempted domination. Generally, large parts of a country does not and will not lie down at the feet of bullies.
Using these wars to rationalise what you are is strenuous at best.
The rest of the western World learned a great lesson from these wars, america learned there was much to be gained from war it seems.
To suggest that the World hasnt moved on from any of this is to try only to rationalise your own "third person" blood lust.0 -
ProvidenceHunter wrote:The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.
america is the only "civilised" country not to agree to relent in the use of anti-personnel mines and scatterable mines. Not sure how much the "official stance" is worth, but having worked closely to the american army and seeing close hand their rules of engagement i would say it means sweet fuck all.
The term "destroy the World" is over used, but as far as humankind is concerned, its not too far off the mark.
Bring your nose down out the air.0 -
i recommend you rent a japanimation flick called "memories" there are three stories made by three japanese animators. if you've seen animatrix one of the directors of the animatrix is one of these directors from memories. and there is another japanimator... otomo is his last name... he directed akira (which i also recommend you watch) otomo has the last story on memories... it's about an entire city who's sole purpose is to create missiles and tanks aimed at destroying an unknown enemy... it's really cool... anyways, your post reminded me of it. go watch it.my2hands wrote:i am being serious. everyone is always so proud of our military strength, so i want to know why. thats all.
to me, it seems to be to be a silly idea for humans to direct most of their wealth at developing/maintaining more effective ways of killing each other and destroying what they have built. and then to blindly pump their fist in pride, wothout really looking at the much larger picture and long term impact on the human species.This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.0 -
Specifics wrote:Why do i need to study us military history to understand the 2 World wars? I have a feeling studying any form of american history would be an eye-opening lesson in propoganda.
World war 1 they fought for maybe 1 1/2 yrs max at the end of 5 yr war. The rest of the time they didn't give a shit.
World war 2 they sat on their hands for 2 yrs before giving a shit. They went into the war in the middle of a great recession and came out the other end the richest country on the planet.
Work that into your sense of moral superiority.
Maybe you're saying that had america had the greatest army on the planet at the time then none of it would have happened. america were pretty much nothing at the time. Germany built the major military power of the time and used it to attempt World domination. They failed thru horrendously bad tactics.
Fast forward to today, america has built the major military power of these times (with money indirectly earned from their "friends" unfortunate situations in th late 30's to the mid-fifties) and is using it to attempt World domination. They will fail because of arrogance and lack of discipline.
There will always be war while there is a country willing to rationalise attempted domination. Generally, large parts of a country does not and will not lie down at the feet of bullies.
Using these wars to rationalise what you are is strenuous at best.
The rest of the western World learned a great lesson from these wars, america learned there was much to be gained from war it seems.
To suggest that the World hasnt moved on from any of this is to try only to rationalise your own "third person" blood lust.
What do you mean "third person" blood lust?
I am not talking about the reasoning for going into those wars or how long we took before deciding to go. I am simply talking about the state of our military and military funding at the beginning of both of those conflicts.
There is no propaganda in saying that compared to other nations at the time our military was fucked up. There is no propaganda in saying that after war military funding is cut and most of the time way to much, leaving our military fucked up and unprepared for the next war.
You need to study US history to understand the condition of our military at the beginning of both those and most all conflicts the US has been involved in.
I am saying that if our military had been better at the time less soldiers would have died when they went into battle.
I am trying to rationalize having a large well funded military because of future threats. I don't think we should gut the military much like we have done in the past after war and leave ourselves unprepared for the next threat. Do you not under stand this?
But you are probably one of those retards that thinks the US makes up threats for some "industrial military complex" to make profits for some secret organization of old fat white people. So I am probably wasting my time.america is the only "civilised" country not to agree to relent in the use of anti-personnel mines and scatterable mines. Not sure how much the "official stance" is worth, but having worked closely to the american army and seeing close hand their rules of engagement i would say it means sweet fuck all.
This really has nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons.
If the official stance of the US was to not use anti-personal mines we would not use them.The term "destroy the World" is over used, but as far as humankind is concerned, its not too far off the mark.
Bring your nose down out the air.
Wrong.Peace through superior firepower!0 -
ProvidenceHunter wrote:What do you mean "third person" blood lust?
I am not talking about the reasoning for going into those wars or how long we took before deciding to go. I am simply talking about the state of our military and military funding at the beginning of both of those conflicts.
There is no propaganda in saying that compared to other nations at the time our military was fucked up. There is no propaganda in saying that after war military funding is cut and most of the time way to much, leaving our military fucked up and unprepared for the next war.
You need to study US history to understand the condition of our military at the beginning of both those and most all conflicts the US has been involved in.
I am saying that if our military had been better at the time less soldiers would have died when they went into battle.
I am trying to rationalize having a large well funded military because of future threats. I don't think we should gut the military much like we have done in the past after war and leave ourselves unprepared for the next threat. Do you not under stand this?
But you are probably one of those retards that thinks the US makes up threats for some "industrial military complex" to make profits for some secret organization of old fat white people. So I am probably wasting my time.
This really has nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons.
If the official stance of the US was to not use anti-personal mines we would
not use them.
Wrong.
No i don't understand, you're using the 2 great wars that happened 80 and 70 yrs ago to justify a military in todays World, it has no relevance because the rest of the civilised World, barring Britain, has moved on and learned the lessons.
More than 20 million allied soldiers died in ww2 alone, so unless you are suggesting that a military in excess of this number is necessary then no, i don't understand.
Professional militaries have not fought the major wars, people stand up when need be.
The major threat that is antagonising people now is america. That is the next fight for the world, you want to hear that? you have few friends left and we don't like you that much.
Apart from america, there is China which has a billion people and has never looked far beyond its own borders to cause trouble, barring some horrendous
civil rights (in excess of 1 Billion people remember, not all going to be good) is a very wise place. Russia, well we'll see, we'll deal if we need to. A handful of radical countries that are riled at this point mainly by american arrogance, again if we have to fight them so be it.
Oh and of course i wouldnt want to leave out the Mexican drug lords that have been mentioned previously here, they reportedly have machine guns, maybe 2 each.
I don't believe for one minute that the us government is stupid enough to think that its actions are going to bring positivity to the World so, yes I believe there are other reasons, but i don't necessarily think they are all fat.
yes i am retarded if that means that i believe war serves normal people no benefit and therefore there are other reasons that are neither transparent nor benign.
War is inevitable, while there are people fearful enough to believe that its inevitable because of others and not themselves.
War is inevitable because of you.
wrong about the nukes? enlighten me some more?0 -
ProvidenceHunter wrote:The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.
1 - the official stance of the us is to not develop biological weapons but continue research on biological weapons on a defensive view. Same to me, but it's a matter of opinion
2 - Hiroshima at the end of the year 1945 counted 140000 (edit : civilian) deaths directly linked to the bomb (immediate deaths or very high levels of radiations leading to deaths in under 4 monts). How can 140 000 deaths be a "greatly exagerated" effect?? Todays bombs are much more powerful than in 1945, how is this exagerated?0 -
Kann wrote:1 - the official stance of the us is to not develop biological weapons but continue research on biological weapons on a defensive view. Same to me, but it's a matter of opinion
It is not a matter of opinion. There is a difference between developing small amounts of biological agents for research and turning agents into weapons.
The stance is also that we will never use biological or chemical agents.2 - Hiroshima at the end of the year 1945 counted 140000 (edit : civilian) deaths directly linked to the bomb (immediate deaths or very high levels of radiations leading to deaths in under 4 monts). How can 140 000 deaths be a "greatly exagerated" effect?? Todays bombs are much more powerful than in 1945, how is this exagerated?
All of those people were in the blast area or very close downwind. There are not enough weapons to cover the earth in blast area. There fore not enough to kill every one. There would not be any nuclear winter. No mass radiation contamination.
Some of todays bombs are more power full some are not. Todays bombs leave less fallout.Peace through superior firepower!0 -
Specifics wrote:No i don't understand, you're using the 2 great wars that happened 80 and 70 yrs ago to justify a military in todays World, it has no relevance because the rest of the civilised World, barring Britain, has moved on and learned the lessons.
You cannot be serious. Do you know history at all. I used those 2 wars because they are more recent and familiar to show how the US Army has been unprepared because people felt the last war was the last one we would ever be in.More than 20 million allied soldiers died in ww2 alone, so unless you are suggesting that a military in excess of this number is necessary then no, i don't understand.
I am suggesting we maintain a strong well funded military that is always looking for better weapons.Professional militaries have not fought the major wars, people stand up when need be.
The major threat that is antagonising people now is america. That is the next fight for the world, you want to hear that? you have few friends left and we don't like you that much.
Of course America is the bad guy.Apart from america, there is China which has a billion people and has never looked far beyond its own borders to cause trouble, barring some horrendous
civil rights (in excess of 1 Billion people remember, not all going to be good) is a very wise place. Russia, well we'll see, we'll deal if we need to. A handful of radical countries that are riled at this point mainly by american arrogance, again if we have to fight them so be it.
Oh and of course i wouldnt want to leave out the Mexican drug lords that have been mentioned previously here, they reportedly have machine guns, maybe 2 each.
How many times do I have to say this. Yes there is no current threat(except islamic fascist) to the US. But things change. The military should be ready for a possible threat 10 to 15 years from now.I don't believe for one minute that the us government is stupid enough to think that its actions are going to bring positivity to the World so, yes I believe there are other reasons, but i don't necessarily think they are all fat.
yes i am retarded if that means that i believe war serves normal people no benefit and therefore there are other reasons that are neither transparent nor benign.
So the slaves, jews, muslims getting slaughtered by slobadon milsovich, did not do not benefit from war. They were better off before some one strong enough to fight for them did just that.War is inevitable, while there are people fearful enough to believe that its inevitable because of others and not themselves.
War is inevitable because of you.
Because I believe in defending my self and country war is inevitable. I guess you are right in a sense. If no one fought back there would be no war. I know you are going to twist this around.wrong about the nukes? enlighten me some more?
There are not enough nukes to kill humankind off. Not even close.Peace through superior firepower!0 -
ProvidenceHunter wrote:......
No, I'm not going to twist anything around, we live in different Worlds. You deal with your paranoia, I'll deal with what i have to when i have to.
By the by, i'm not against war per se, i served in my army because the ultimate sport turns me on a little, my skills and drills against your skills and drills, winner really does win. However, this takes courage, building militaries that destroy the worlds of peaceful people takes none and are usually designed by people that never have, or ever will even think, of putting themselves on the front line.0 -
Specifics wrote:No, I'm not going to twist anything around, we live in different Worlds. You deal with your paranoia, I'll deal with what i have to when i have to.
By the by, i'm not against war per se, i served in my army because the ultimate sport turns me on a little, my skills and drills against your skills and drills, winner really does win. However, this takes courage, building militaries that destroy the worlds of peaceful people takes none and are usually designed by people that never have, or ever will even think, of putting themselves on the front line.
Ok. I'm not for war per se. I just believe in being prepared for the worst. I don't think that wanting a strong military means you want war and like to destroy stuff just for fun or profit.Peace through superior firepower!0 -
All you pacifistic euro-liberal types need to remember one thing: When aliens invade this planet and try to suck all of our blood, who are you going to call to save your asses?0
-
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.0 -
ProvidenceHunter wrote:
All of those people were in the blast area or very close downwind. There are not enough weapons to cover the earth in blast area. There fore not enough to kill every one. There would not be any nuclear winter. No mass radiation contamination.
Some of todays bombs are more power full some are not. Todays bombs leave less fallout.
I wonder who to believe. 49,000 researches from over a 190 countries (that what the AGU consists of)...or you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare#current_concerns
Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. [2]
Okay, well 50 "fat boys" could fuck us up pretty bad. well good thing we don't have that number. Wha...oh shit. I just found this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arsenal
There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that almost resulted in the U.S. or USSR/Russia launching its weapons in retaliation for a supposed attack.[5] Additionally, during the Cold War the U.S. and USSR came close to nuclear warfare several times, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As of 2006, there are estimated to be at least 27,000 nuclear weapons held by at least eight countries, 96 percent of them in the possession of the United States and Russia.0 -
Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:I wonder who to believe. 49,000 researches from over a 190 countries (that what the AGU consists of)...or you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare#current_concerns
Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. [2]
The excerpt says the study was presented at the meeting. It does not say they all agree on its results.
The nuclear winter idea has be prover wrong. I didn't just come up with this.Okay, well 50 "fat boys" could fuck us up pretty bad. well good thing we don't have that number. Wha...oh shit. I just found this.
Wow. Become more informed before you post. The first 2 bombs were called "Little Boy", and "Fat Man".
Little Boy's blast was estimated between 12-15 kilotons.
Fat Man's blast was estimated to be around 21 kilotons.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was done by the Russians. They claimed it was a 100 megaton blast. Most believe it was only a 50 megaton blast.
Lets do some math. If a kiloton = 1000 tons of TNT the total yield of 50 (lets go with "Fat Man" he was bigger) Fat Man's that could fuck us up pretty bad would be 50*21= 1000 kilotons or 1 mega ton.
Lets take that 1 mega ton and times it buy 50 to equal Russia's bomb.
1000kilotons*50 = 50000 kilotons or 50 megatons. I wonder how many Fat Mans would it take to equal the Russia bomb and see if it is more then the 50 that would fuck us up pretty bad.
50000 kilotons/21 kilotons = 2381..... oh shit thats a little more than 50 Where is this cooling that is suposed to take place. If only it only take 50 to cause as much as the artical leads you to believe we should be really fucked.
Not to mention all of the nuclear test blasts the US, Russia, and France. Have done.
If the 50 Fat Mans were droped on population centers the death toll from the blast would be very high but there would be no nuclear winter. There would be no mass continental radiation contamination.
I am not saying all to to be like pro nuclear weapons and nuclear war I am doing it because there are a lot of myths about nuclear weapons and to be an asshole a little.
Just because they are scary does not mean you should not know more about them and there effects.Peace through superior firepower!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help