thundercleese
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2009
- 38
- 0
- 18,530
- Status
danimal_the_animal
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2006
- 331
- 0
- 18,790
most technologies we're using right now came from military projects , why stop now ? to be honest , i not really happy with obama right now . he cut back fund for NASA and now cutting back military project ? i guess whatever it takes to pull the economy back up without legalizing drug which im strongly against .in the defense of the MKV , i think about the v-22 osprey . at the time it was developed , people thought it was a dangerous machine . it was a dangerous machine alright , but it takes blood and sweat to do amazing things .
lol, my post got removed. I said nothing offensive. Just wasnt very Obama friendly. I guess you guys support that tyrant. In a world where Islamic radicals seek to kill Americans simply for being American, cutting military funding is not a smart idea.
So much about this president is wrong. Killing the MKV project while other countries seek to create nuclear weapons makes me wonder what his true goal is. I dont trust him.
Btw, I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.
So much about this president is wrong. Killing the MKV project while other countries seek to create nuclear weapons makes me wonder what his true goal is. I dont trust him.
Btw, I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 1,456
- 0
- 19,310
While a lot of military technology is important, I would note that if the budget is to be balanced, military spending is going to HAVE to be cut. Everyone talking about the budget likes to speak about capping/trimming/eliminating "non-Defense discretionary spending," which covers a huge range of government programs, the court system, the government's own operations... But the fact is, the deficeits are reaching a level where they're soon going to EXCEED the combined value of all that spending. In other words, the US government could outright shut its doors on everything but the military, close down the Capitol and the White House, along with the courts, and the money saved would STILL not balance the budget. That's because the Defense budget is roughly half of all Federal non-mandatory spending. That's right, the DoD gets about as money as every other department of the US government combined.
Granted, the MKV would have a use... But it's also a question of WHEN it'd have a use. Whose longer-range ballistic missiles is it going to intercept? As someone with a pretty extensive background in WMDs, this is a rather interesting and important question.
North Korea's? Their nuclear weapons projects have yielded relative duds, that like all early A-bombs, are too massive to load on a missile. Plus, the range on their missiles is still too poor to reach anything other than South Korea and Japan, which are too close for the MKV to really reach anyway, ESPECIALLY South Korea.
Iran's? Iran doesn't have anything beyond short-range ballistic missiles. Their best range is that they could strike Israel. So chances are the MKV would be useless for defending Israel, too. Plus, of course, Iran still doesn't have a nuclear bomb yet, and it'd be years before they could make one small enough to fit their missiles.
Russia's? Well, if you cut through their claims, it turns out that they only a single Typhoon-class submarine in actual shape to go to sea and launch missiles, and it's been too busy with its silos full of dummy test drones for a new type of missile that won't see production for a long while. That leaves them with a number of dated Delta-class submarines, (again with only a tiny number in any shape to do anything) and perhaps a couple hundred functional land-based ICBMs... And we know Russia's infamous history of their rockets exploding on the launch pad.
China's? Well, last I checked, China had all of 10 longer-range ICBMs capable of striking... Alaska or SoCal, so no loss. 😛 Oh, they're also kept disassembled off of their launch pads, not in convenient silos that keep them ready to fire at a moment's notice. If they were assembling them with nukes, we'd have hours upon hours of time, plenty enough to run a sortie off of a nearby carrier to destroy the missiles before they could even be launched.
So, excepting the above, that leaves us with, uh, the UK and France? And I honestly don't expect the USA to go to war with either anytime soon. I mean, on one side you've got the UK, a very close ally... And on the other side, you've got France. FRANCE!
Yes, Robert Gates has announced that he's going to try to request a lot less money for the Defense Department this time around, potentially in hopes of curbing their ballooning budget; another casualty is that he's calling to cut off F-22 production after "only" around 200 or so, rather than the some 750+ that some wanted. Of course, this will likely meet opposition from some members of Congress, who like having all those millions of federal dollars going to plane manufacturers in their districts. So we'll see what happens.
Granted, the MKV would have a use... But it's also a question of WHEN it'd have a use. Whose longer-range ballistic missiles is it going to intercept? As someone with a pretty extensive background in WMDs, this is a rather interesting and important question.
North Korea's? Their nuclear weapons projects have yielded relative duds, that like all early A-bombs, are too massive to load on a missile. Plus, the range on their missiles is still too poor to reach anything other than South Korea and Japan, which are too close for the MKV to really reach anyway, ESPECIALLY South Korea.
Iran's? Iran doesn't have anything beyond short-range ballistic missiles. Their best range is that they could strike Israel. So chances are the MKV would be useless for defending Israel, too. Plus, of course, Iran still doesn't have a nuclear bomb yet, and it'd be years before they could make one small enough to fit their missiles.
Russia's? Well, if you cut through their claims, it turns out that they only a single Typhoon-class submarine in actual shape to go to sea and launch missiles, and it's been too busy with its silos full of dummy test drones for a new type of missile that won't see production for a long while. That leaves them with a number of dated Delta-class submarines, (again with only a tiny number in any shape to do anything) and perhaps a couple hundred functional land-based ICBMs... And we know Russia's infamous history of their rockets exploding on the launch pad.
China's? Well, last I checked, China had all of 10 longer-range ICBMs capable of striking... Alaska or SoCal, so no loss. 😛 Oh, they're also kept disassembled off of their launch pads, not in convenient silos that keep them ready to fire at a moment's notice. If they were assembling them with nukes, we'd have hours upon hours of time, plenty enough to run a sortie off of a nearby carrier to destroy the missiles before they could even be launched.
So, excepting the above, that leaves us with, uh, the UK and France? And I honestly don't expect the USA to go to war with either anytime soon. I mean, on one side you've got the UK, a very close ally... And on the other side, you've got France. FRANCE!
Yes, Robert Gates has announced that he's going to try to request a lot less money for the Defense Department this time around, potentially in hopes of curbing their ballooning budget; another casualty is that he's calling to cut off F-22 production after "only" around 200 or so, rather than the some 750+ that some wanted. Of course, this will likely meet opposition from some members of Congress, who like having all those millions of federal dollars going to plane manufacturers in their districts. So we'll see what happens.
mlopinto2k1
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 1,433
- 0
- 19,280
Sense Regan? = SINCE... Anyway, that device would prove to be useful on a WARHEAD which I am sure would require such powerful retro thrusts to manuever such a heavy intercept missile. On another note, at first, ignorant to the real use, I thought it was a crude version of a futuristic (star wars) type drone of sorts. If that was the case, actually seeing something like that being needed in my life span really scares the crap outta me. It would just seem way too advanced for our needs. We have not even researched more then 2% of our own oceans let alone land on the moon again. Now drones that burn tons of fuel? Thank you President Obama! Anyone that dislikes my hail to Obama can kiss my nuts.
mlopinto2k1
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 1,433
- 0
- 19,280
I hate to be rude but to comment on Hellbounds post, grow up. You are scared of being vulnerable in a country that has created it's own enemies. I would be too, I guess. I am not though, I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team just to prove a point that violence is NOT the answer. Some people really just think that is just a "STATEMENT"... noooo.... it is REALITY! I am sure the earth created humans to destroy it. Yea, OK!!!
Belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,545
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]AlexTheBlue[/nom]Hey genius... Pentagon = controlled by administration. They do as they're told, they're the puppet of the government, not the other way around. Not that hard to figure out who is behind the budget cuts here~[/citation]
Oh you MEAN just like Team Bush created the fake WMDs that were never there with FAKE intel, outted out a CIA agent and invaded a country based on lies killing over 4,000 Americans and severely injuring over 25,000? Yeah, REMEMBER that!
Don't forget the Torture that Team Bush Okayed. Breaking international law. We, the USA have jailed Amercans and Japanese for using water-boarding on prisoners. Hmmmm...
Every dead American from Iraq is on your hands.
Oh you MEAN just like Team Bush created the fake WMDs that were never there with FAKE intel, outted out a CIA agent and invaded a country based on lies killing over 4,000 Americans and severely injuring over 25,000? Yeah, REMEMBER that!
Don't forget the Torture that Team Bush Okayed. Breaking international law. We, the USA have jailed Amercans and Japanese for using water-boarding on prisoners. Hmmmm...
Every dead American from Iraq is on your hands.
mdillenbeck
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2008
- 504
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]AlexTheBlue[/nom]Hey genius... Pentagon = controlled by administration. They do as they're told, they're the puppet of the government, not the other way around. Not that hard to figure out who is behind the budget cuts here, or who cut out future Raptor orders. Or who cut the public safety officers' death benefits program, for that matter.But its OK to nationalize the banks and pour hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet, only to watch in wonder as unemployment rises, despite all that hot we-must-vote-without-reading-this-bill action.[/citation]
I'm not going to argue against your right to complain against the administration, and I am not going to call you unpatriotic like those of us who argued against the Bush administration were so labeled - I hope you actually learn from your experience though and learn to empathize with the other side.
I have to ask how much government administration or military experience you have? I won't lie, I don't have much - but I know several people in both. I cannot think of ONE agency that is nothing more than a puppet of the administration. True, most take the administrations view as a major guideline and in order to accomplish their goals they will compromise. The logic of the argument that they are mere puppets doing as they are told borders on the absurd.
As to your last point about voting on a bill they didn't read, what piece of legislation are you talking about? The PATRIOT ACT, where the new revision that was printed up the night before - and still warm off the presses - was voted on versus the copy given to all to peruse first? Or are you talking about almost every piece of book-sized legislation that congress needs to consider? Think about how much you actually read - most college students don't read most of their material, most adults only skip the start of an article, most people in the USA just don't read at all!
[citation][nom]waikano[/nom]Why are so many people voting negative on the Author of the articles first post. Looks like Tom's has a new format and that is they way it is. Don't see a need to vote negative on that, unless it's a reflection of the article.[/citation]
I think all the negative votes if for a strong bias in blaming Obama's administration for this. The article does nothing to show that link. There seems to be a growing distrust of Tom's journalistic integrity due to the fact that most "news" articles have subjective conclusions written into their titles and unsupported and subjective conclusions in the article itself. Combine that with unprofessional language and people reading what they thought was news get disgruntled.
Personally, I now view much of the "news" coming out of Tom's with the same suspicion as I would view something coming from a Rush Limbaugh or Air America broadcast. Its no longer news - its now blogging via news article plagarism.
======================================================
To all the Hawks in this forum who believe the vast majority of our taxes should go to military spending and are so outraged when a drop in the bucket goes to programs you consider "socialism", how do you think I feel about my taxes as a Dove?
I see the USA talking about how we need nuclear power to secure our energy future, but if Iran pursues the same goals it is seeking to create WMDs. Ironic considering we have one of the largest arsenals, largest military budgets, shown ourselves willing to use nuclear weapons against an enemy in a time of war, and willing to take unilateral action and violate the sovereignty of other nations.
How could the MKV be seen? Put it in light of China's recent missile test to knock out a satellite, then consider how a space capable vehicle that launches multiple drones capable of independent targeting could be applied in a time of war. This thing would have been a super satellite killer - and a great threat to other nations as an offensive weapon.
Furthermore, what is the key argument to why WMDs can't be used in a time of war? MAD - mutually assured destruction, or the fact that the enemy will retaliate and wipe you out. If the US develops a system where they can destroy incoming weapons, without MAD how will that affect our views on using nuclear weapons? Can that be perceived as a threat.
After 8 years of hostility and military action that only served to destabilize the world, I am glad to see the US returning to a more diplomatic and peaceful way. True strength does not come from being the bully on the block. Using violence or threat of violence to affect political change is terrorism, and thus if the US affect change via its military might then we will, in effect, become the largest terrorist organization in existence. Also, change under duress is often fleeting.
True strength comes from community building, from getting enemies to willingly make changes without the threat of violence or invasion. I find it very symbolic that our symbol of immigration and freedom, the Statue of Liberty, was closed off after 9-11. It was almost like us saying that after a handful of radicals killed a few people that we were closing up the USA and shutting down her foundational ideas. We admitted that democracy and an open society failed, and chose to move closer to a isolationist police state. The canceling of the MKV is another strong message to the world that we wish to reenter the global community and become good global citizens once again.
So, unlike so many, I am relieved that this program was canceled. Peace through mutual agreement, not through mutually assured destruction!
I'm not going to argue against your right to complain against the administration, and I am not going to call you unpatriotic like those of us who argued against the Bush administration were so labeled - I hope you actually learn from your experience though and learn to empathize with the other side.
I have to ask how much government administration or military experience you have? I won't lie, I don't have much - but I know several people in both. I cannot think of ONE agency that is nothing more than a puppet of the administration. True, most take the administrations view as a major guideline and in order to accomplish their goals they will compromise. The logic of the argument that they are mere puppets doing as they are told borders on the absurd.
As to your last point about voting on a bill they didn't read, what piece of legislation are you talking about? The PATRIOT ACT, where the new revision that was printed up the night before - and still warm off the presses - was voted on versus the copy given to all to peruse first? Or are you talking about almost every piece of book-sized legislation that congress needs to consider? Think about how much you actually read - most college students don't read most of their material, most adults only skip the start of an article, most people in the USA just don't read at all!
[citation][nom]waikano[/nom]Why are so many people voting negative on the Author of the articles first post. Looks like Tom's has a new format and that is they way it is. Don't see a need to vote negative on that, unless it's a reflection of the article.[/citation]
I think all the negative votes if for a strong bias in blaming Obama's administration for this. The article does nothing to show that link. There seems to be a growing distrust of Tom's journalistic integrity due to the fact that most "news" articles have subjective conclusions written into their titles and unsupported and subjective conclusions in the article itself. Combine that with unprofessional language and people reading what they thought was news get disgruntled.
Personally, I now view much of the "news" coming out of Tom's with the same suspicion as I would view something coming from a Rush Limbaugh or Air America broadcast. Its no longer news - its now blogging via news article plagarism.
======================================================
To all the Hawks in this forum who believe the vast majority of our taxes should go to military spending and are so outraged when a drop in the bucket goes to programs you consider "socialism", how do you think I feel about my taxes as a Dove?
I see the USA talking about how we need nuclear power to secure our energy future, but if Iran pursues the same goals it is seeking to create WMDs. Ironic considering we have one of the largest arsenals, largest military budgets, shown ourselves willing to use nuclear weapons against an enemy in a time of war, and willing to take unilateral action and violate the sovereignty of other nations.
How could the MKV be seen? Put it in light of China's recent missile test to knock out a satellite, then consider how a space capable vehicle that launches multiple drones capable of independent targeting could be applied in a time of war. This thing would have been a super satellite killer - and a great threat to other nations as an offensive weapon.
Furthermore, what is the key argument to why WMDs can't be used in a time of war? MAD - mutually assured destruction, or the fact that the enemy will retaliate and wipe you out. If the US develops a system where they can destroy incoming weapons, without MAD how will that affect our views on using nuclear weapons? Can that be perceived as a threat.
After 8 years of hostility and military action that only served to destabilize the world, I am glad to see the US returning to a more diplomatic and peaceful way. True strength does not come from being the bully on the block. Using violence or threat of violence to affect political change is terrorism, and thus if the US affect change via its military might then we will, in effect, become the largest terrorist organization in existence. Also, change under duress is often fleeting.
True strength comes from community building, from getting enemies to willingly make changes without the threat of violence or invasion. I find it very symbolic that our symbol of immigration and freedom, the Statue of Liberty, was closed off after 9-11. It was almost like us saying that after a handful of radicals killed a few people that we were closing up the USA and shutting down her foundational ideas. We admitted that democracy and an open society failed, and chose to move closer to a isolationist police state. The canceling of the MKV is another strong message to the world that we wish to reenter the global community and become good global citizens once again.
So, unlike so many, I am relieved that this program was canceled. Peace through mutual agreement, not through mutually assured destruction!
It doesn't even look real to me.
It moves along on a perfect axis from left to right without much sign of lateral boost or change of height. Hence why the unlevel netting is convenient for this production. The vertical thruster is thrusting yet the level of the machine hardly moves.
Call me an idiot - but I don't trust this vid.
Looks like a video game production setting too. How better to make the smoke blend in with the background and hide details that can't me masked so easily. 2 cents.
It moves along on a perfect axis from left to right without much sign of lateral boost or change of height. Hence why the unlevel netting is convenient for this production. The vertical thruster is thrusting yet the level of the machine hardly moves.
Call me an idiot - but I don't trust this vid.
Looks like a video game production setting too. How better to make the smoke blend in with the background and hide details that can't me masked so easily. 2 cents.
B-Unit
Distinguished
- Oct 13, 2006
- 1,836
- 1
- 19,810
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]I hate to be rude but to comment on Hellbounds post, grow up. You are scared of being vulnerable in a country that has created it's own enemies. I would be too, I guess. I am not though, I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team just to prove a point that violence is NOT the answer. Some people really just think that is just a "STATEMENT"... noooo.... it is REALITY! I am sure the earth created humans to destroy it. Yea, OK!!![/citation]
I hate to shoot down your hyper-inflated sense of worth, but your death would do nothing to prove violence isnt the answer.
Infact, it would likely do the opposite.
I hate to shoot down your hyper-inflated sense of worth, but your death would do nothing to prove violence isnt the answer.
Infact, it would likely do the opposite.
I think this thing is pretty useless. If you want a UAV that can hover--go with a helicopter! This thing is way too visible and makes way too much noise. It might scare somebody at first, but in the end, it would just make an easy target to pick off.
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]I hate to be rude but to comment on Hellbounds post, grow up. You are scared of being vulnerable in a country that has created it's own enemies. I would be too, I guess. I am not though, I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team just to prove a point that violence is NOT the answer. Some people really just think that is just a "STATEMENT"... noooo.... it is REALITY! I am sure the earth created humans to destroy it. Yea, OK!!![/citation]
Wow...just wow. My guess is you dont get it, and probably never will. If you are an American (and I hope you are not), in some countries you would be killed just for being so... The United States of America has always stood on the principals of freedom for all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from tyranny. And when you stand on such principals you will be hated by those who believe the opposite..and there are plenty of countries that do.
What I hate seeing is President Obama shaking the hands of these communist rulers that have no intention of giving in. Every time Obama gives these people attention, he smashes the hope of those people living there who want freedom. Trust me, I've served 25 years in the military and I've seen it.
So mlopinto2k1, you said "I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team".... Yes, go ahead and lay down your weapons. Become vulnerable. What will happen is you will die, and you will give the enemy a weapon to use.
I'm a proud American. I will never sacrifice my principals.
Wow...just wow. My guess is you dont get it, and probably never will. If you are an American (and I hope you are not), in some countries you would be killed just for being so... The United States of America has always stood on the principals of freedom for all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from tyranny. And when you stand on such principals you will be hated by those who believe the opposite..and there are plenty of countries that do.
What I hate seeing is President Obama shaking the hands of these communist rulers that have no intention of giving in. Every time Obama gives these people attention, he smashes the hope of those people living there who want freedom. Trust me, I've served 25 years in the military and I've seen it.
So mlopinto2k1, you said "I would lay down my weapons and take one for the team".... Yes, go ahead and lay down your weapons. Become vulnerable. What will happen is you will die, and you will give the enemy a weapon to use.
I'm a proud American. I will never sacrifice my principals.
LLJones
Distinguished
- Feb 28, 2009
- 141
- 0
- 18,680
I believe that the intended use was for missile intercept. The NG website shows quit clearly what the unit is intended for. http://www.northropgrumman.com/missiledefense/galleries/video.html Watch the video Kinetic Energy Interceptors: Land-Mobile and it shows exactly what the unit is for. I hope they have not cut funding for this project.
theangrygimp
Distinguished
- May 10, 2009
- 41
- 0
- 18,530
That did look pretty pathetic. Seriously, if your just wanting to take out several hostiles in a given small area, then you would just use a frag grenade. They are small, pretty light, and can be chucked like a small potato with good accuracy, and an expected time of detonation. I thought they would have been working on an actual flying drone, not this piece of junk looking thing. Seriously, we have small remote controlled helicopters, why can't thy just take that further, and keep all remote machines controlled by people for ethnic and moral decisions in combat. Have it destroy itself after so many min without connection to certified host controller, or whatever, but this is just not worth the investment that we gave unwillingly by means of our tax dollars.
warezme
Distinguished
- Dec 18, 2006
- 2,462
- 67
- 19,890
hmmm, seems you could do the same with multiple computer controlled miniature jet engines, like the ones used on model jet planes, they wouldn't be as dramatic and stay aloft longer than rockets, unless rockets were used on the proto type to test the computer controls with simple rockets.
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 1,456
- 0
- 19,310
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]In a world where Islamic radicals seek to kill Americans simply for being American, cutting military funding is not a smart idea.[/citation]
However, one must recognize that of the vast array of tools at the military's disposal, hardly all of them are suitable for a given task; in fact, no tool is really suitable for all tasks, and there is no task where all tools are suitable for it.
Hence, it's logical to find which tools are not needed for any of the tasks that the military will be facing now or in the future. The vast majority of the current arsenal was designed for the task of deterring and/or halting a massive army and air force that would sweep into Europe from the East. Since the USSR collapsed in 1991, this is a task that the military won't have to face. Hence, the tools designed to fight the USSR lack a purpose; it is best to re-direct resources (including funds) from there to other tools best suited for the current and future tasks on hand; the USSR is by no means remotely similar an adversary to terrorist organizations.
Likewise, cutting of overall military spending could hence be done without impairing America's ability to fight terrorism whatsoever, provided all the cuts were done to programs that had no role in the War on Terrorism, like, say, the MKV or the F-22. It's like overall welfare; if social welfare payment programs are cut, that doesn't pose a threat to Social Security.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]So much about this president is wrong. Killing the MKV project while other countries seek to create nuclear weapons makes me wonder what his true goal is.[/citation]
From my guess, he's trying to make a half-hearted stab toward balancing the budget in the future, or at least, to attempt to curb these massive budget deficits. Whether Mr. President follows through with them in the future remains to be seen; I must say I wasn't pleased with his proposed budget projecting that deficits would stop shrinking after a few years, rather than keep on shrinking until vanishing and becoming budget surpluses like we had happen in the late 90s.
As for nuclear weapons, there's a huge difference between making a nuclear bomb, and making a nuclear missile. A government's initial nuclear weapons will be massive; "Little Boy" weighed almost 4.5 tons, and "Fat Man" weighed 5.1. These masses are simply too high to place on a missile, and too weak the be sure that, once the high error level of crude ballistic missiles is taken into account, that their blast radius will even graze the intended target, making such ideas highly useless.
Hence, for now, by and far the best way of preventing nuclear threats to America is to make sure no threatening entities get the technology to threaten American in the first place. While a suicide bomber safely some distance from you with you shooting at them isn't a huge threat, a suicide bomber without any bombs is no threat at all.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom] I dont trust him.Btw, I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.[/citation]
Actually, you contradict yourself there. As you are a self-admitted military person, that would indicate that to you, protecting America is a very big priority, if not #1. Hence, if you truly believed in Bush, then yes, you were a fan of him.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]If you are an American (and I hope you are not)... I'm a proud American.[/citation]
Those two don't exactly go together too well. Americans (of which I'm one of the few who, through years of study, understands what it means, AND is actually proud of it, rather than a pseudo-American illusion like most are) are supposed to be very open to other people. One of the core principles is the idea that, in time, liberty can be brought to all people. It's a true aspect of American pride to see millions of people from all walks of life look at America, and wish to be Americans themselves, from the countless refugees of the world's conflicts, to those of Latin America, to even our more prominent immigrants; (like Arnold Schwartzenegger) they all have a desire to be Americans, too. And it is selfish, un-patriotic, and un-American to think anything other than that it is possible for everyone in the world to gain the same liberty, to think that there's not enough to share.
[citation][nom]theangrygimp[/nom]That did look pretty pathetic. Seriously, if your just wanting to take out several hostiles in a given small area, then you would just use a frag grenade.[/citation]
If you bothered to read up in the subject, you'd find that the MKV is NOT AN UAV. It is a type of anti-missile countermeasure. It is, proverbially, a "bullet designed to hit a bullet;" unlike cruise missiles, which travel at sub-mach speeds, nuclear ballistic missiles are among the fastest projectiles humankind has ever produced, as they are essentially spacecraft, just designed to strike a certain spot on the Earth, rather than to achieve orbit. At such speeds, taking out an incoming nuclear missile is a daunting task; you're talking about something zipping toward you at upwards of 10,000 MPH. It's not something you can take out with a cheap UAV or rockets; this is what the RIM-161 Standard Missle-3 is designed for, but it only has a single "kinetic warhead." (read: rocket-launched bullet) Meanwhile, most ICBMs carry multiple nuclear warheads, and often a lot of "penetration aids" (decoys, usually in the form of metallic balloons and chaff) packed in with it. These all reduce the odds of a single missile hitting the warhead, so the MKV was designed to counter that by being a multi-warhead missile, too.
However, one must recognize that of the vast array of tools at the military's disposal, hardly all of them are suitable for a given task; in fact, no tool is really suitable for all tasks, and there is no task where all tools are suitable for it.
Hence, it's logical to find which tools are not needed for any of the tasks that the military will be facing now or in the future. The vast majority of the current arsenal was designed for the task of deterring and/or halting a massive army and air force that would sweep into Europe from the East. Since the USSR collapsed in 1991, this is a task that the military won't have to face. Hence, the tools designed to fight the USSR lack a purpose; it is best to re-direct resources (including funds) from there to other tools best suited for the current and future tasks on hand; the USSR is by no means remotely similar an adversary to terrorist organizations.
Likewise, cutting of overall military spending could hence be done without impairing America's ability to fight terrorism whatsoever, provided all the cuts were done to programs that had no role in the War on Terrorism, like, say, the MKV or the F-22. It's like overall welfare; if social welfare payment programs are cut, that doesn't pose a threat to Social Security.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]So much about this president is wrong. Killing the MKV project while other countries seek to create nuclear weapons makes me wonder what his true goal is.[/citation]
From my guess, he's trying to make a half-hearted stab toward balancing the budget in the future, or at least, to attempt to curb these massive budget deficits. Whether Mr. President follows through with them in the future remains to be seen; I must say I wasn't pleased with his proposed budget projecting that deficits would stop shrinking after a few years, rather than keep on shrinking until vanishing and becoming budget surpluses like we had happen in the late 90s.
As for nuclear weapons, there's a huge difference between making a nuclear bomb, and making a nuclear missile. A government's initial nuclear weapons will be massive; "Little Boy" weighed almost 4.5 tons, and "Fat Man" weighed 5.1. These masses are simply too high to place on a missile, and too weak the be sure that, once the high error level of crude ballistic missiles is taken into account, that their blast radius will even graze the intended target, making such ideas highly useless.
Hence, for now, by and far the best way of preventing nuclear threats to America is to make sure no threatening entities get the technology to threaten American in the first place. While a suicide bomber safely some distance from you with you shooting at them isn't a huge threat, a suicide bomber without any bombs is no threat at all.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom] I dont trust him.Btw, I'm not a Bush fan. But I believe Bush wanted to protect this country..no matter what.[/citation]
Actually, you contradict yourself there. As you are a self-admitted military person, that would indicate that to you, protecting America is a very big priority, if not #1. Hence, if you truly believed in Bush, then yes, you were a fan of him.
[citation][nom]Hellbound[/nom]If you are an American (and I hope you are not)... I'm a proud American.[/citation]
Those two don't exactly go together too well. Americans (of which I'm one of the few who, through years of study, understands what it means, AND is actually proud of it, rather than a pseudo-American illusion like most are) are supposed to be very open to other people. One of the core principles is the idea that, in time, liberty can be brought to all people. It's a true aspect of American pride to see millions of people from all walks of life look at America, and wish to be Americans themselves, from the countless refugees of the world's conflicts, to those of Latin America, to even our more prominent immigrants; (like Arnold Schwartzenegger) they all have a desire to be Americans, too. And it is selfish, un-patriotic, and un-American to think anything other than that it is possible for everyone in the world to gain the same liberty, to think that there's not enough to share.
[citation][nom]theangrygimp[/nom]That did look pretty pathetic. Seriously, if your just wanting to take out several hostiles in a given small area, then you would just use a frag grenade.[/citation]
If you bothered to read up in the subject, you'd find that the MKV is NOT AN UAV. It is a type of anti-missile countermeasure. It is, proverbially, a "bullet designed to hit a bullet;" unlike cruise missiles, which travel at sub-mach speeds, nuclear ballistic missiles are among the fastest projectiles humankind has ever produced, as they are essentially spacecraft, just designed to strike a certain spot on the Earth, rather than to achieve orbit. At such speeds, taking out an incoming nuclear missile is a daunting task; you're talking about something zipping toward you at upwards of 10,000 MPH. It's not something you can take out with a cheap UAV or rockets; this is what the RIM-161 Standard Missle-3 is designed for, but it only has a single "kinetic warhead." (read: rocket-launched bullet) Meanwhile, most ICBMs carry multiple nuclear warheads, and often a lot of "penetration aids" (decoys, usually in the form of metallic balloons and chaff) packed in with it. These all reduce the odds of a single missile hitting the warhead, so the MKV was designed to counter that by being a multi-warhead missile, too.
theangrygimp
Distinguished
- May 10, 2009
- 41
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]If you bothered to read up in the subject, you'd find that the MKV is NOT AN UAV. It is a type of anti-missile countermeasure.[/citation] Gee, I wonder where I could have gotten the idea that it was a hovering shooting vehicle when I was reading this article.
"The MKV is an unmanned drone that is able lift off and hover under its own propulsion, while remaining stationary in the air using it’s on board retro-rockets – something that we’ve seen before only in science-fiction movies." - This article
Now instead of being a dick and acting like the king of long posts, you could of just asked the author to fix the article so that others wouldn't be misinformed by just reading the article and not the comments. Instead of acting like it was my duty to investigate the sites journalism. I'm a disabled Veteran BTW. I have seen plenty of craptacular tech coming from military, and it wouldn't have surprised me one bit if this was an attempt at a terrible hovering/shooting vehicle. Hell, I was using radio tech that was 20yrs old at least.
"The MKV is an unmanned drone that is able lift off and hover under its own propulsion, while remaining stationary in the air using it’s on board retro-rockets – something that we’ve seen before only in science-fiction movies." - This article
Now instead of being a dick and acting like the king of long posts, you could of just asked the author to fix the article so that others wouldn't be misinformed by just reading the article and not the comments. Instead of acting like it was my duty to investigate the sites journalism. I'm a disabled Veteran BTW. I have seen plenty of craptacular tech coming from military, and it wouldn't have surprised me one bit if this was an attempt at a terrible hovering/shooting vehicle. Hell, I was using radio tech that was 20yrs old at least.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram