U.S. Navy tests Railgun

[Pho3nix]

Do other nations have better things to do than plot against the U.S.? Not really. We're the most powerful nation on Earth

I lol'd

[HerbieZ]

It works pretty well on the Daedalus .

[Corinthian]

Alright, Phoenix. Name one country that has a logical chance of defeating America in pitched battle. Sure, we might not be so good against Guerrillas, but we do have the most technologically advanced military in the world, with a healthy balance between aircraft, naval forces, and ground-based. You'll come up with about two. 1: The People's Republic of China. 2: Russia. Russia by virtue of it's massive nuclear arsenal only. Again, most powerful - China has a huge military, not a good one.

 

Anyway, a railgun can potentially deliver more damage than nuclear weapons, provided you're capable of accelerating mass to a fast enough velocity.

[Arcesious]

Stargate atlantis practically invented railguns.... (not really, but you get my point) lolz.... i remember the one episode where thy defended atlantis from a huge force of wraith darts with railguns...

 

Railguns are the future... A future that is much cheaper and more efficient than explosives and rocket fuel.

[Corinthian]

Not really. Railguns have been a staple of Science Fiction for some considerable period of time, and there have been proposals for them in reality for decades.

[Da_Man_2423]

Russia has made an ICBM no missiel defense system can currently shoot down, that can pak a massive payload...

 

Anything can be shot down, it doesn't matter how much defensive systems it has. New tech will always defeat the systems of old tech. That's why it's invented in the first place.

 

Russia also makes a missiel designed specifically to destroy bomb shelters

 

Wow, that's real hard. Pack more explosives into the warhead. The U.S. has missiles that go deep into mountains.

 

 

Just why does russia test it's new ICBM no missile-defense system can shoot down by flyign over the united states to that the whole U.S.A could see?

 

When did Russia launch an ICBM over the U.S.? Seriously, I don't recall.

 

I believe North Korea did that not too long ago over Japan. It wasn't all nice and dandy afterwards.

 

Just why does the U.S suddenly start making even more powerful weapons after russia and china and such start making new super-weapons?

 

What "superweapons" have Russia and China been making recently? Missiles that can destroy satellites? The U.S. has had that down for years.

 

 

just why does russia supply the middle east countries liek iraq with weapons?

 

Because their economy isn't the greatest and Russia doesn't need old Soviet-era crap.

 

just why?

 

Because that's how the world works.

[mimartin]

Cruise Missiles are extremely expensive. A shot from a railgun is not.

Well I suppose that is one way to get the deficit down.

[mur'phon]

Cruise Missiles are extremely expensive. A shot from a railgun is not.

 

Fine, except that it cost a lot to develop railguns.

 

As an aside, I find it funny how citizens of the one superpower bordering no enemies can be so paranoid.

[Totenkopf]

And this type of weapon serves what purpose? How do we kill insurgents in Baghdad exactly with such a weapon?

 

What a waste of taxpayer money. I want to see less money going to this nonsense and more towards science and medicine.

 

The same purpose all weapons serve......to gain some kind of advantage over your enemies/adversaries. Yeah, I guess we should get rid of anything bigger than a rifle b/c all we're ever going to fighting from here on in are insurgents in Baghdad.

 

Speaking of taxpayer money, as long as the science and medicine you seek aren't the twin ratholes of global warming and aids research.

 

 

@mur'phon--I'd agree that would have been true when the earth seemed a much larger place. Technology no longer makes it necessary for your enemies to mass on your border to be a threat.

 

There are over 200 nations on the earth. Even if 95-99% of them harbored no threatening intentions toward America, that would still leave 2-10+ that did. Keep a few things in mind. Modern militiaries are very expensive, and that's just personell costs, nevermind the actual hardware and spare parts. If even half the ~60+ % of the DoD budget that went to people actually went to weapons and such, we'd be an even more powerful force than we're perceived to be already. Also, asymetrical warfare, coupled with economic and structural weaknesses, can bring a nation down as easily as not having a powerful military. People are only now beginning to appreciate that a few hydrospanners thrown at US economy can be as devastating (or even more so) than an actual invasion. To quote Vader "don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed..." Having a strong military is very important, but not a panacea. Still, perception is often seen as reality, so better to be percieved as powerful than not.

[Aash Li]

And this type of weapon serves what purpose? How do we kill insurgents in Baghdad exactly with such a weapon?

 

What a waste of taxpayer money. I want to see less money going to this nonsense and more towards science and medicine.

 

I suggest you go look at all the pork and programs that arent necessary... thats also coming out of yours and mine paycheck.

 

Remember, if we cant defend ourselves properly in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever else, or even in the US, then that science and medicine research wont do you any good.

 

Fine, except that it cost a lot to develop railguns.

 

As an aside, I find it funny how citizens of the one superpower bordering no enemies can be so paranoid.

 

9-11 we took over 3000 innocent American lives. Pearl Harbour, back in the 40s we werent even in the war, and the Japanese kami kazed us, killing about 1500 military personnel that werent even doing anything to the Japanese, Italians or Germans. Guess they wish they had left us alone...

 

I wont even go into the other wars that we didnt even need to be in, thanks to a certain president...

[Tommycat]

I wont even go into the other wars that we didnt even need to be in, thanks to a certain president...

Serbia?

 

Vietnam?

 

Korea?

 

And technically we were provoking the Japanese with our embargoes and several other activities that were somewhat hostile. Even after the president got elected on the promise that he would not let the US become part of "Europe's War" which immediately after, they began trying to get us in the war. Its actually funny how people use the whole Noone died when Clinton lied thing when that could easily be changed to Nixon(Who actually got us OUT of Vietnam). Or you could say that Eisenhouer lied about staying out of the war only to have us lose far(by orders of magnitude) more soldiers than Iraq has.

 

As for this new technology: Well considering that the first successful missions in space were on the rockets designed to carry a nuclear payload.... It's entirely possible to have weapon systems used for peaceful means. Radar to stop speeders. Sonar for fish finding. GPS in many cars. Heck the first computer was a Navy experiment. The internet owes its birth to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Administration(originally DARPANET).

 

Besides we never know what the technology will bring until it is fully fleshed out. I mean some of the support systems could be used in other areas.

[igyman]

Do other nations have better things to do than plot against the U.S.? Not really. [...]

:rofl: You're killing me man. I really don't know what to think of you right now. I'll avoid commenting this any further, because what I'd say next would surely offend you.

 

Alright, Phoenix. Name one country that has a logical chance of defeating America in pitched battle. Sure, we might not be so good against Guerrillas, but we do have the most technologically advanced military in the world, with a healthy balance between aircraft, naval forces, and ground-based. You'll come up with about two. 1: The People's Republic of China. 2: Russia. Russia by virtue of it's massive nuclear arsenal only. Again, most powerful - China has a huge military, not a good one.

So, by your definition a country powerful enough to engage the US in open war is automatically considered hostile. Believe it or not, like others have said, every country has a right to have a powerful military, so they can defend themselves against any possible attacks.

 

When did Russia launch an ICBM over the U.S.? Seriously, I don't recall.

That makes two of us.

 

As an aside' date=' I find it funny how citizens of the one superpower bordering no enemies can be so paranoid.[/quote']

QFE.

[Tommycat]

When you're the biggest guy outh there there's bound to be someone saying he can knock your block off....

 

Sure we may not have any boardering enemies, but with long range missiles, weapons platforms that can be moved to anywhere in the world, and any number of reasons that someone would want to attack us, I'd rather be prepared than saying Darn we should have seen that coming. Plus with us being the ones doing a great deal of the work for the UN, it doesn't hurt to have better tools to do that work.

[JoeDoe 2.0]

I will be more pleased if more advances to medicine and science would be made with the money spend on this, but oh well..

 

So the gun is going to be like a MacGun like those on Halo? crazy

[Prime]

I will be more pleased if more advances to medicine and science would be made with the money spend on this, but oh well..

What if this is used to shoot the fundamentalists? That would help advance science...

[Corinthian]

The United States of America, and every country, has to be a little paranoid, especially in this day and age. The Atlantic and Pacific aren't much of a barrier these days! And plenty of nations see us as a threat, not unreasonably, we are sort of doing a little bit of a global clean-up right now, taking out the trash. I'm fine with any weapon that has a decent chance of being able to shoot down an ICBM before it turns New York City into a crater.

 

Besides, the Railgun, unlike most weapons, actually has scientific purposes - theories have been made of mounting a large Railgun on the Moon and Earth to launch spacecraft.

 

Also, you have to admit, it's bloody cool.

[JoeDoe 2.0]

Yeah, it looks awesome. I found another cool weapon, I'm sure some of you have seen this one:

 

Click Here

[Corinthian]

They need a wedding. Railgun meets that monster.

[HerbieZ]

The Atlantic and Pacific aren't much of a barrier these days! And plenty of nations see us as a threat, not unreasonably, we are sort of doing a little bit of a global clean-up right now, taking out the trash.

 

I beleive thats called cleansing.

[Corinthian]

No, when we deliver a cleansing, it'll be a Great Cleansing, an Atomic Spark, struck by human hands, raging out of control, with spears of nuclear fire raining from the skies, continents swallowed in flame and falling beneath the boiling oceans.

[Aash Li]

Serbia?

 

Vietnam?

 

Korea?

 

And technically we were provoking the Japanese with our embargoes and several other activities that were somewhat hostile. Even after the president got elected on the promise that he would not let the US become part of "Europe's War" which immediately after, they began trying to get us in the war. Its actually funny how people use the whole Noone died when Clinton lied thing when that could easily be changed to Nixon(Who actually got us OUT of Vietnam). Or you could say that Eisenhouer lied about staying out of the war only to have us lose far(by orders of magnitude) more soldiers than Iraq has.

 

As for this new technology: Well considering that the first successful missions in space were on the rockets designed to carry a nuclear payload.... It's entirely possible to have weapon systems used for peaceful means. Radar to stop speeders. Sonar for fish finding. GPS in many cars. Heck the first computer was a Navy experiment. The internet owes its birth to the Defence Advanced Research Projects Administration(originally DARPANET).

 

Besides we never know what the technology will bring until it is fully fleshed out. I mean some of the support systems could be used in other areas.

 

 

Im amused by the fact that people run around screaming that we lost so many people in Iraq... theyve forgotten about WW2, on D-day I think we lost as many soldiers in that one day than we lost during the whole time weve been in Iraq. It might be a little bit more now though.

 

We might have been provoking them, as you say, but we werent sending ships over there to broadside their naval bases, or bomb their cities. They asked for it when they attacked Hawaii.

[Totenkopf]

What if this is used to shoot the fundamentalists? That would help advance science...

 

 

Muslim, Christian or both?

 

Also, if one tries to rationalize Japan's attacking of us in 1941 with our unwillingness to provide them with oil and scrap metal, is that person advocating we attack Venezuela if pineapple head decides to cut us off from their oil?

[Aash Li]

The way I heard of people protesting Pineapple Head when he decided he was god, I think a revolt is soon coming.

 

I think that we should only attack him if he attacks us. We get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada anyway.

[igyman]

we are sort of doing a little bit of a global clean-up right now, taking out the trash.

You actually believe that? You actually believe you're doing the world a favor by bombing other countries and, let's face it, occupying them? I'd say you're making a bigger mess than it was already. There's nothing noble about the wars the US are waging right now, but there's a lot of profit for your government, unfortunately at the expense of other people.

[Aash Li]

You actually believe that? You actually believe you're doing the world a favor by bombing other countries and, let's face it, occupying them? I'd say you're making a bigger mess than it was already. There's nothing noble about the wars the US are waging right now, but there's a lot of profit for your government, unfortunately at the expense of other people.

 

*sigh* And you really believe that? I think this thread should be locked before it turns into flame-fest.