Russia new wonder weapon?

[Tnarg]

I just caught the tail end of a report on CNN regarding Russia's new wonder weapon or something.
Any body catch that report or know of any links, more or less just curious on what it was?

Thanks

[Aiken]

"Iscander-E"? "Coala"? Where are a lot of new "wonder weapon" now in Russia. This is marketing mostly believe me.

[Kamog]

They probably keep their real wonder weapons totally secret.

[General Woundwort]

"But of course, the whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh!?!?" - Dr. Strangelove

[Arkcon]

Something I read on Fark was that Pravda was mentioning how the Russians are developing a new missile system that can evade the current US missile defense system.

This thread will soon degrade into a flamewar, so I'll leave you all with that -- go to Fark and Pravda.ru

I gotta go now, too many wisecracks are flooding my brain at once. must. rest. no. more. comments.

Remember Tnarg, "[OT]" is everyone's friend.

"I did not say this, I was not here"

[ March 30, 2004, 14:20: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Arkcon:
"I did not say this, I was not here" <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Who are you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by aiken:
"Iscander-E"? "Coala"? Where are a lot of new "wonder weapon" now in Russia. This is marketing mostly believe me. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Huh?

[dogscoff]

"Iscander-E"? "Coala"?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">SOunds like a new line in soft drinks (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003304;p=5) to me.

[Iron Giant]

Originally posted by Arkcon:
Something I read on Fark was that Pravda was mentioning how the Russians are developing a new missile system that can evade the current US missile defense system.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm. Someone might want to send them a memo: The Cold War has been over for 10 years now. Sorry, you lost.

Maybe they should be looking for a wonder weapon that will let them find religious extremists in Chechnya instead, the US is Russia ally now....

[Aiken]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
"Iscander-E"? "Coala"?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">SOunds like a new line in soft drinks (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003304;p=5) to me. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually these are names of "groundbreaking", "ultimate", "with no analogues in NATO" and so on weapon systems, appeared in our press recently. Miserable attempts to assure citizens that our army has something to oppose to NATO or China.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Pravda (News) had devolved into the Russian Version of the National Enquirer. I wouldn' trust that rag or website news. The other Russian news outlet I think is called TASS. I think that translates into "Truth"

The russians use to say there is no news in "Truth"
And no truth in "News".

Duty now for the future comrade!

[Atrocities]

Here are our options. If the Russians or any other country with nuke and ICBM technology invents a way to avoid our defense systems, we HIT THEM NOW AND WE HIT THEM HARD!

The only thing keeping us alive is our ability to dish out severe punishement while blocking most of theirs. Once that is gone, it is open season on the USA.

This is very very bad mojo for us.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Here are our options. If the Russians or any other country with nuke and ICBM technology invents a way to avoid our defense systems, we HIT THEM NOW AND WE HIT THEM HARD!

The only thing keeping us alive is our ability to dish out severe punishement while blocking most of theirs. Once that is gone, it is open season on the USA.

This is very very bad mojo for us. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So what you are saying is that Russia should nuke the USA now before they develop the Star wars defence system?? Becourse when the US gets the ICBM defence system it will be open season on Russia??
Scary!!!

I don't think the Russians want a nuclear war anymore than the US, so even if they have a defence against ICBM'S they wouldn't think of attacking the US.

[ March 31, 2004, 09:19: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Timstone]

Come on guys, grow up! This not the Cold War anymore.

*puches sarcastic speech-button*
Besides we already know America is the best country in the world with the best army in the world.
And we all know you can't win guerilla battles; Vietnam anyone?
*Pushes sarcastic speech-button agian*

I hope I haven't stepped on too many toes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit: typo's!

[ March 31, 2004, 09:42: Message edited by: Timstone ]

[Atrocities]

*Never take me seriously*

F***** dial up!

[ March 31, 2004, 09:50: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
*Never take me seriously*

F***** dial up! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And those nifty orbital lasers Bush wants up in the sky?
Hahaha... the Star Wars programs was one of the biggest defence mistakes of all time. Man the huge amount of money that program gobbled. Unbelievable.

Edit: Hey! I quoted a different post from Atrocities! Ah well, you get it.

[ March 31, 2004, 09:53: Message edited by: Timstone ]

[primitive]

Nice write Yef. Looking forward to your next instalment.

And please send a copy to gwbush@usa.com (gotta be a com address http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Sure would help if he understood the difference.

[Timstone]

Hahaha... LOL!

[Yef]

Originally posted by primitive:
Nice write Yef. Looking forward to your next instalment.

And please send a copy to gwbush@usa.com (gotta be a com address http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Sure would help if he understood the difference. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Politicians never understand wars. They are quick to start it when they shouldn't, or quick to avoid it when they should fight it, (Chamberlain anyone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) but they rarely get it right.

Look at the Last Iraki War. All those stupid a'holes in the govt where expecting the Irakis to receive the US army with flowers, while the military was screaming for more troops and more planes. I've heard rumors from my pals that Rummy wasn't even expecting a resistance.
The Secretary of Defense its nothing more than a hawkish politician that can't see around the corner, and then the military leadership can't speak up because well, they can't speak up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Let's just say that Iraki Freedom went better than the military expected, worst than the politicians dreamed.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

The new Star Wars plan was only for intercepting 150 missles. Not the big grandiose scheme that Ronald RayGun had planned. This doesn't include the "Theatre Ballistic Missle Defence" that involves upgraded Aegis Cruisers and that 747 with the big laser in back that shoots through a turret in the nose. Son of Star Wars was only suppose to protect us (and hopefully friends) against Rogue States or China .
If Russia wants to develope a missle that zigs and zags then go ahead. If Russia wants to develope a hypersonic cruise missle then maybe a hypersonic SAM would counter that. Don't worry I don't think Russia is our enemy anymore. It's that N. Korean Don King impersonator your gotta look out for.

[PvK]

Yef, would you elaborate on your assertion that "Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire."?

Do you mean that there may be some fanatics whose minds cannot be changed, and who may not rely as much on popular support as guerrillas?

Seems to me though that popular support and changing the minds of people is still critical. As long as one government is perceived by some group of people as hate-worthy, it will continue to inspire more people to engage in acts against it.

So while some people who are already dedicated to violence may have to be killed, populations have to be swayed in order to prevent an endless regeneration of opponents.

No?

PvK

[Yef]

Originally posted by PvK:
Yef, would you elaborate on your assertion that "Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire."?

Do you mean that there may be some fanatics whose minds cannot be changed, and who may not rely as much on popular support as guerrillas?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, the problem with the fanatics its not only that they cannot be won over, but that they always manage to radicalize a good chunk of the civilian population. The precense of terrorist tactics in a war tells you that certain line have been crossed, and that line cannot be crossed without support of sizable segment of the population, which in time tells you that a deep rift have occurred within such population that now sees the ones that are not with them as collaborating with the enemy, and thus fair game for terrorist tactics.

In short, guerrillas wants to "save" the population and the country, whether this "saving" its wanted or not (Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara), while terrorists wants to "save" only a segment of that population (IRA, ETA). This means that the critical mass necessary for a terrorist war to be "succesful" its lower than for a guerrilla war, thus making a guerrilla war easier to win for the counter-guerrilla forces.

But in the end every conflict has its owns characteristics which tend to modify how the war its played out, with the most important modifiers being population density, etnic make out, religion(s), terrain, borders, and even transportation network, which in time define the tactics that would be used by the insurgents.

In the case of Irak, for example, the resistance its using a mix of tactics that goes from full blown guerrilla ambushes, through drive-by-shootings and drive-by-mortaring, to pure terror tactics like car-bombs and suicide bombers.
This mix of tactics force a mix of counter-tactics, which includes the search for terrorists in civilian houses, check points, restrictions on civilian freedom of movement, and so on.

All these have the effect of annuling any progress you may have achieved by investing on the local population's well being, because yes, you gave them food, but then you stop them at a check point and search them out (which is a great offense for an Arab), and then you may even have to break into their houses acting on field intelligence that some terrorist may be hiding in there.
Its a proven fact in counter-terrorist warfare that it takes only one action that can be interpreted as offensive to render void a hundred previous good actions.

In Irak, the civilian population its being used as camouflage by the resistance. They attack the US forces in the middle of populated areas, provoking inevitable collateral damage from return fire, and this in turn provokes hate from the population.

Its almost impossible to convince the population that the resistance its the one responsible for their hardships. When the civilians are under the stress of war, they will always see the side manning the check point as the one responsible for the existance of it.

There is also the fact that the resistance comes directly from the local population, which brings family ties into the equation, and even the foreign fighters that are in the resistance are closer to the locals, for being Arabs and muslims, than the US troops.

Add to that years of anti-American propaganda, zillions of conspiracy theories that are taken for facts, and a harsh reality that doesn't seem to get any better, and you have the recipe for a long drawn conflict with no end in sight.

[tesco samoa]

Timstone. I think I disagree with the cold war statement.

Well we will see over the next 20 years.....

Might not be the cold war again as it was then

But the economic conflict is heating up again.

Just this time Europe is in on it on their own side.

And I can see Russia and Europe going parallel and supporting each other on some issues....

Where this leaves England. I do not know.

But if they were smart they would pick up the island and move it a little more towards newfoundland if they keep following their current path. Tough decisions for that nation to make. Europe or USA.

And do not forget the Indian - Chinese economic influences.

What will Japan do ?

[Puke]

fear! panic! be affraid!

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040329.wruss0329/BNStory/International/

I would not put alot of stock in it, tho. I would not put alot of stock in our missile defense program, either. and even though im an imperialist warmongering dog, i wouldnt pay much heed to At's idea about promptly blowing up any potential threats to the good old empire.

I mean, we're the kings of blowing stuff up. better than anybody in history, as a co-worker of mine is fond of pointing out. if we could solve the worlds problems - or even our problems - by blowing stuff up, there wouldnt be any problems left that needed solving.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:

Come on guys, grow up! This not the Cold War anymore.

*puches sarcastic speech-button*
Besides we already know America is the best country in the world with the best army in the world.
And we all know you can't win guerilla battles; Vietnam anyone?
*Pushes sarcastic speech-button agian*
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not really. A guerrilla war can be won. The ones that can't be won that easily are the terrorist wars. Since modern guerrilla warfare have evolved into hybrid Terror-Guerrilla tactics, then you need a convination of counter-guerrilla and counter-terrorists tactics to fight it.
The thing its, of course, that counter-guerrilla and counter-terrorists tactics don't match. One annul the benefits of the other.

To explain how all this work its to complicated, and I know that people that haven't served in the military always confuse both kind of unconventional warfare, but just as a quick example, in a counter-guerrilla war you try to win the population over at whatever the price, you invest heavily on the pop while negating those investments to the guerrillas, invesments as school, hospitals and so on, which are used as propaganda tools by the guerrillas as proof that they can serve the Pop better than the goverment.
Captured guerrillas are to be treaty well, so the guerrilla myth about goverment brutality are uncovered as such. The objectives of counter-guerrila war are:
1- Alienate the guerrilla from the local population.
2- Eliminate the cause roots promoting popular support for the guerrilla.
3- Convince the population of the evilness of the guerrilla. (i.e. through black ops like faking guerrilla manuals with a section on seducing local girls or setting forth techniques for torturing village leaders)
4- To take strategic initiative from the guerrilla, so they have to either defend or evacute. (guerrillas are ussually very bad on the defensive)
5- Demoralize the guerrilla. (Black ops can convince the guerrillas that they have been infiltrated by spies from the govt. which often results in large numbers of loyal guerrillas being killed and mistrust being sewn among the reminder.)
6- Defeat the guerrilla militarily.


On a counter-terrorist war, however, you can't win the pop over because the objectives of the war are diferent. Its not about defeating a goverment or ocupaying power militarily, but about cowering that power through terror to surrender or evacuate.
That means that in a counter-terrorists war your only objective are the terrorists themselves. You got to take them out, especialy the leadership, cutting the head of the snake, and try to make sure it doesn't grow back.
Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire.
Terrorist Groups also require far less personal to carry out their attacks, which add to their stealthyness. They use suicide bombers, which leave no operative to be captured and interrogated. Terrorist use urban terrain as thheir theatre of operations. Its not casuality that....(ill continue later

[Timstone]

Nice synopsis. Great research. Two thumbs up for you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
But with guerilla warfare I mean playing hide and seek in a concrete jungle (of a green jungle for that matter). It is so incredible hard to track down every single member of the group. It might take a decade to eradicate the entire group. And yes, you can do that with the methodes which you describe. And even than you don't always have a 100% succesrate.
In open warfare the USA ís the most difficult opponent of all. Quite simply; you have the most sophisticated army around.
So I meant the sneaking around, not the guerilla warfare definition.
After all, I'm just a stupid civvie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tesco samoa]

puke fear sells products... embrace fear...

[Atrocities]

I say screw the sky lasers. Lets put big rock launching catapolts and cross-bow spear launchers up there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Timstone:
Come on guys, grow up! This not the Cold War anymore.

*puches sarcastic speech-button*
Besides we already know America is the best country in the world with the best army in the world.
And we all know you can't win guerilla battles; Vietnam anyone?
*Pushes sarcastic speech-button agian*

I hope I haven't stepped on too many toes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit: typo's! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That was not a result of the supreme effectiveness of guerilla tactics, but a result of not waging a real invasion on the part of the US for fear of massive riots at home. If the US forces were not severely restricted, Vietnam would have fallen in months at most.

[ April 01, 2004, 03:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[dogscoff]

In short, guerrillas wants to "save" the population and the country, whether this "saving" its wanted or not (Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara), while terrorists wants to "save" only a segment of that population (IRA, ETA). This means that the critical mass necessary for a terrorist war to be "succesful" its lower than for a guerrilla war, thus making a guerrilla war easier to win for the counter-guerrilla forces.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is true. Look at the IRA. It has been proven in various referendums, polls etrc that the vast majority of ppl in Ireland- catholic & protestant on both sides of the border- just want everyone to stop killing one another and come to some sort of peace. Most of them were happy with the Good Friday agreement and support the principle of the power-sharing idea.

But the IRA and other bastard Groups over there keep blowing stuff up, keep killing people. There is no way they can possibly claim to have the support of the population any more, and I for one am no longer willing to even credit them with a political agenda. As far as I'm concerned they are a bunch of psychopaths who enjoy killing, and only use the political thing as an attempt to justify their sick passtime. These people should be treated as murderers and lunatics, not as some kind of political force.

Look at the Omagh bombing- that wasn't targetted at any particular population. Both catholics and protestants died that day. People from north and republic of Ireland, as well as people from other countries altogether. How can they claim to do it for anything other than sadistic pleasure?

Same applies to the ppl who organised the WTC attacks. Stop treating them like some political/ national force backed by a population and start treating them like the criminals they are.

[tesco samoa]

its about control of the illegal economy in ireland now. 'Used to finance our political agenda'

[Timstone]

You do know this is an excellent idea?

[ZeroAdunn]

Originally posted by Tnarg:
I just caught the tail end of a report on CNN regarding Russia's new wonder weapon or something.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What are you talking about Russia is a wonder weapon

[Timstone]

The url Puke gave states that the Russian Military tested the weapon. That is ridiculous! Half the country can't feed itself the other half is so devasated by crime that they can't do anything usefull for the world or their country (Trust me, I know, I've been to Russia and the surrounding countries quite a few times, and my GF comes from Poland. So I receive a lot of news from that corner of the world). And Putin has to develop a new weapon. Can't he do something useful for his people?
Yeah, I know a new weapon sells. And a good selling weapon means profit. But you can be assurd that the profit he gains won't go to Mother Russia. The great can of money will be emptied in useless things like the Tjetchin War.
Stupid arse.

Sorry if I sound a bit angry, but this is soooo grrr.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Atrocities]

Russia is so crippled by crime that now they must export it to the USA. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif My insurance agent was telling me about all these russian car accident scams. My god that is frightening.

To think the guy who slams on his breaks in front of you ACTUALLY wants an accident. I am a big advocate for dash board cameras.

"You rear-ended me. I sue you for million dollars!"
"Well ok, see you in court."

-COURT-
"So Mr. Solvic, you claim that my client just ran into you?"
"Yes. He is poor driver. I have many broken necks cause of him. My wife and childrend go hungry as I no can work because of him."
"Really. So your saying that you did nothing to cause this accident?"
"I do nothing, I drive in stait line and boom, I hit from back end."

Show video of russian driver cutting you off and slaming on breaks. Car has no break lights, but tires screech.

Jury finds for defendant 100%

[Yef]

Scientific American reports that China has purchased around 40 Shkval torpedoes from Kazakstan, <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey, I didn't know Kazajstan had a navy!
The Caspian Sea Navy, perhaps? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Puke]

I read about those a few years back, but they had supprising little press coverage. really cool stuff!

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

If cavitation is making prop noise, then super cavitation is making lotsa prop noise. I always thought that was bad in sub warfare. Isn't that why the U.S. finally invented swim out torpedoes to reduce the noise during launch? So I guess the Russians assume that with a 200 mph torpedo, enemy subs won't have time to even notice. That really is more impressive then a maneuvorable re-entry vehicle for an ICBM.

Speaking of ICBM's, why doesn't someone make a heated toilet seat!

[Yef]

The Russian super-torpedo:


"In 1997 Russia announced that it had developed a high-speed unguided underwater torpedo, which has no equivalent in the West. Code-named the Shkval or "Squall," the Russian torpedo reportedly travels so fast that no U.S. defense can stop it.

In late 2000, after the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, new reports began circulating that the Chinese navy had bought the Shkval torpedo.

"The Shkval" stated Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, "was designed to give Soviet subs with less capable sonar the ability to kill U.S. submarines before U.S. wire-guided anti-sub torpedoes could reach their target. The Chinese navy would certainly want to have this kind of advantage over U.S. subs in the future. At the speed that it travels, the Shkval could literally punch a hole in most U.S. ships, with little need for an explosive warhead."

"This torpedo travels at a speed of 200 knots, or five to six times the speed of a normal torpedo, and is especially suited for attacking large ships such as aircraft carriers," Fisher said. "


------------------------

"Pope, an American businessman, was charged by Russian authorities with spying, specifically that he had sought to buy plans for the "ultra-high-speed torpedo."

"Evidence does suggest" said Scientific American, "that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour – in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water."

The new technology that allows for these superfast torpedoes "is based on the physical phenomenon of supercavitation."

According to Scientific American, the new generation of torpedoes, some believed capable of carrying nuclear warheads, are surrounded by a "renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag" on the torpedo.

The new technology "could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles."

[Yef]

More about the squall:


"The Shkval is a 6,000-pound rocket torpedo, about 27 feet long with a range of about 7,500 yards. It can fly through the water at more than 230 miles an hour.

The solid-rocket-propelled "torpedo" achieves this high speed by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the weapon in a thin layer of gas. The Shkval flies underwater inside a giant "envelope" of gas bubbles in a process called "supercavitation."

The Shkval is so fast that it is guided by an autopilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes. The original Shkval was designed to carry a tactical nuclear warhead detonated by a simple timer clock. However, the Russians recently began advertising a homing Version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search for its target.

"As there are no known countermeasures to such a weapon," stated David Miler in an April 1995 article "Supercavitation Going to War in a Bubble" (Jane's Intelligence Review), "its development could have significant effect on future maritime operations, both surface and subsurface, and could put Western naval forces at a considerable disadvantage."

Scientific American reports that China has purchased around 40 Shkval torpedoes from Kazakstan, "raising the possibility that Beijing could threaten American naval forces in a future confrontation in the Taiwan Strait." The magazine also says that a Chinese submarine officer was on board the ill-fated Kursk "to observe the test of the new Version of the Shkval."

[Atrocities]

Is this not the same new torpedo that blew up one of their subs a few years back?

*edit*

Missed this so ya it was.

" the ill-fated Kursk"

[ April 05, 2004, 12:34: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
Speaking of ICBM's, why doesn't someone make a heated toilet seat! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had one of those warmed toiletseats. Man, that was GREAT!!! Untill it broke.
My GF sometimes yelled at me because I was in the little room far too long to be healthy. She actually was concerned some times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Atrocities]

Now what would China and Russa want with such obviously offensive weapons? Are they looking for a war? Well if we went to war with China that would be interesting. Fighting against copy cats of our own military weapons. I wonder how reliable those are. I mean since most copy cat crap from China sux arse horribly, I have to wonder if their copy cat of the F-14 will fly and if so how well. I wonder if their Version of the Hummer is an H2 or a real hummer copy?

[Ruatha]

Atrocities, sometimes I wonder about your view on the world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The USA also develops and builds offensive weapons, hey, even us in Sweden develop and builds our own fighter and attack jetplanes, it doesn't mean we're going to break our almost 200 years long period of peace and go out trying to conquer the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
This is as the world is.

[ April 06, 2004, 07:10: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Atrocities]

Ruatha when in doubt just look at my name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

For the record I live in a liberal Media controlled environment so the truth is something that is never spoken here. It is up the people of the world and the World Wide Web to keep me informed on truth.

So when I post odd things that make no sense at all, just keep in mind that I am from the USA. Nuff Said. (Or as the French like to call us "Ugly Stupid Americans!" or was it "Unbelievably Stupid Americans?" I forget after the war thingy.)

[JurijD]

Atrocities
I believe the correct term used by the French is:
"Eish, Stupid Americans!"

I got a chance to hear it a couple of times a few weeks back when I was in Paris and I observed a small group of Americans talking about what souveniers they bought in Paris...

and this guy said:"I got this way out cool Batman action figure !!!!"
and the 2 blond cheerleaders next to him said:" Come on Craig show it pleeeese !"

needles to say their little conversation triggered quite a few of the aforementioned satements from the nearby sitting french people. Oh and from me and a few of my pals to... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 06, 2004, 10:38: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[Puke]

its not so much that american tourists are stupid. and its not so much that all tourists are stupid. its that all PEOPLE are stupid. you just dont notice it so much when they are in their native environment and surrounded by other people just like them.

but i promise you, people are all equally idiotic no matter where you go.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

What would happen with a war with China? France would get rich. France is just begging to sell China some French fighter jets and helicopters. Also Last week they were conducting joint Navy exercises with the Chinese? Taiwan isn't too happy with that either. Do you get the feeling France is increasingly trying to suck up to the wrong people?
The war plan is to take out their ports, hopefully without nukes. Fast torpedoes and Mirage 2000 jets would make that very difficult.
So France is pro Islamisists, Pro totalitarian?
I don't want to think that but...Hopefully we'll hear from Unknown Enemy on this one.

[Atrocities]

I guess it is time to re-arm Germany.

[Puke]

anyone with lepoard tanks isnt disarmed.

so France, who is banning head scarfs, is pro islamist? riiiiight. you guys are so much fun.

[Atrocities]

The French are perhaps one of the most confusing society of people that the world has ever known. I mean didn't they invented perfume so they wouldn't have to take baths? Is not true that they cry that they hate Americans yet they gave us the Statue of Liberty. I don't know. They claim to be a strong passionate people, and yet they seem to be the inventor of the word surrender. I don't know, I think the French are a great people, have a great country, and are amoung the finest allies any one could have, howver they do scare me from time to time and they do anger me occationally.

If their new friends the Chinese ever declar war on them, the French will have to learn to speak a new national language. I understand that the dominate chinese language (madaline (SP)) is very hard to learn.

If the French go then goes Europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(Just another mindless senseless rant courticy of Atrocities)

[ April 06, 2004, 19:09: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Puke]

to be fair, no one really bathed in the middle ages. granted, they have been short on strategic leadership through most of history - but they did have that short guy with his hand in his jacket, and they were an imperial power for a long time, and we do sort of owe our independance to their military support.

i mean, George Washington had his *** handed to him by Canadians for pitty's sake, you think we could have gotten the British to leave without the help of the French? Its not like we beat them, either. We just got them to leave.

The French really are not all that confusing, you are just only paying attention to the events and aspects of their culture that you wish to know about.

Of course, I am a bit confused as to why they went to all that effort perfecting a loaf of bread that goes stale in about five minutes after leaving the oven. Day old bread in the rest of the world isnt a leathal weapon.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
.
.
.
.

If the French go then goes Europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(Just another mindless senseless rant courticy of Atrocities) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This France-bashing is getting even more stale than yesterdays baguettes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Its not the case of Europe (or France) going anywhere AT. Europe is old, Europe is stable, Europe knows when diplomacy works better than force. If USA and Europe (continues to) drift apart, its the US who do the drifting. Get rid of that warmongering president of yours and USA and Europe will be best buddies again. Its all up to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Puke]

old, yes. stable, fairly. factious, definitly. more stable than the US? probably.

Industrialized China a scary idea to the entire western world? better be! they're still miffed about losing the Opium War, you think its going to be a small world after all? I don't...

but i digress. we cant all be happy and hold hands in a peacefull and diplomatic world. too many people stand to make money at the expense of others, and there are just as many of them on either side of the pond. different wars are profitable to different folks. when you dont stand to gain much from one, you are peacefull and diplomatic and the other guy is a warmonger. now, the average US citizen isnt gaining anything from the current conflicts, but they sure eat up the propoganda from the folks that are.

and whats up with the thread-jacking! less political rhetoric! more super-weapon rhetoric! has everybody seen the new aluminum high speed catamaran that the US Navy is testing out?

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Sorry, it's not really thread jacking it's just Adult Deficit Disorder or what people use to call going off on a tangent.

Seems the Navy always has a new high speed catamaran. Is this the one that looks like Darth Vaders Boat. Or the one that is made by Australia and is just like a normal Catamaran put sounds like a jet?
I see Newport News is designing the new DDX Destroyer. The new Electric Drive destroyer with more electricity available for "future weapons" that will be installed. Goto globalsecurity.org

Anyone worried/wondering about the HAARP project?
YIKES!

[JurijD]

Originally posted by primitive:
This France-bashing is getting even more stale than yesterdays baguettes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Its not the case of Europe (or France) going anywhere AT. Europe is old, Europe is stable, Europe knows when diplomacy works better than force. If USA and Europe (continues to) drift apart, its the US who do the drifting. Get rid of that warmongering president of yours and USA and Europe will be best buddies again. Its all up to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. If the US and the EU drift apart its because the US moves away from what it once was... I mean its near to impossible for all of the EU countries to agree on anything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif especially something like foreign policy so its hard to beieve there was a joint EU drift... and besides the European stance has remained quite constant (at least the public oppinion... and those politicians who went against it will/are paying for it now). The US however is turning a brand new page now... Russia kept you guys in check for a while and now your president is behaving like a child being left home for the very first time withouth a babysitter...

It should be apparent even to some of the more conservative americans that dear old Georde W. lead them on BIG time....

well... you really can't blaim him, I mean he just wanted to finish what daddy started hahaha. I hope you people have the sence to vote him out of office.

[ April 06, 2004, 22:25: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[Puke]

god, see what i mean! thread-jacking! its not just an innocent little tangent, someone starts talking politics, JuirjD shows up, and no one shuts up for a two weeks until everyone gets tired of it and appologizes to each other.

lets skip it.

im talking about the ugly bead-bLasted aluminum catamaran that looks like a ferry boat. I thought I could make fun of England for their cheap aluminum hulls that ignite and burn when hit by exocet missiles, but now we have them too. but whats cool about it, are all the automated systems. sure, maybe not the best thing in real wartime, but the premise is cool and it could be a sign of things to come.

its pretty much all computerized, i saw some articles about it Last year, but slashdot had a link to a big writeup today:

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/itgovernment/story/0,10801,91888,00.html?nas=SEC-91888

[ April 06, 2004, 23:13: Message edited by: Puke ]

[Puke]

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
Anyone worried/wondering about the HAARP project?
YIKES! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">why, because it boils the ionosphere? whats scary about that? a giant aray of tesla field generating gizzywhatsits? how cool is that? i mean, in no other time in history has someone been able to "boil" the upper atmosphere. im pretty excited to see it work, actually.

of course, i dont have kids.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Yeah, not really sure if that falls under Wonder Weapons or not. Maybe Wonder if its a good idea weapon! I was watching Cable Access and they had a guy on there saying that it can operate at the frequencies that interfere with sleep and moods. In the 80's the Russians were ahead in this field but since then it's our baby now.

It's about that time of the month, mind if you aim that thing over my house when the wife is home?

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by primitive:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
.
.
.
.

If the French go then goes Europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(Just another mindless senseless rant courticy of Atrocities) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This France-bashing is getting even more stale than yesterdays baguettes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Its not the case of Europe (or France) going anywhere AT. Europe is old, Europe is stable, Europe knows when diplomacy works better than force. If USA and Europe (continues to) drift apart, its the US who do the drifting. Get rid of that warmongering president of yours and USA and Europe will be best buddies again. Its all up to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You can have George if you want him. But if you take George you also have to take Karry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[newbie123]

Originally posted by primitive:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
.
.
.
.

If the French go then goes Europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(Just another mindless senseless rant courticy of Atrocities) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This France-bashing is getting even more stale than yesterdays baguettes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Its not the case of Europe (or France) going anywhere AT. Europe is old, Europe is stable, Europe knows when diplomacy works better than force. If USA and Europe (continues to) drift apart, its the US who do the drifting. Get rid of that warmongering president of yours and USA and Europe will be best buddies again. Its all up to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry but thats BS. Europe know when to quit diplomacy with hitler. Instead they gave him a more powerful position and the rest is history. as far as stable, I don't think the US is unstable. I might not be following you on this tho. To be fair, I believe there are equal amounts of blame on both sides in regards to us drifting apart. Neither wants to reason

[Alpha Kodiak]

Going back to the high-speed torpedo for a moment, while it could be a useful weapon system if it really works, I hardly think it is going to make a huge difference in the balance of naval power. Since the problem it is supposed to address is that Russian subs have inferior sonar to US subs, and I believe US subs are also quieter than Russian ones, how are they going to know where to shoot their fancy torpedoes? It's almost like handing a rifle to a deaf man in a dark room and telling him to defend himself from the hungry tiger that is hunting for him. If he happens to hit it, great, but I wouldn't give him real good odds.

Mind you, it could be very effective against surface ships, assuming that the Vikings and Orions don't catch wind of the sub before it gets into range. Also, if it does become an effective weapon system, someone will figure out a way to counter it.

[Yef]

Originally posted by JurijD:
Atrocities
I believe the correct term used by the French is:
"Eish, Stupid Americans!"

I got a chance to hear it a couple of times a few weeks back when I was in Paris and I observed a small group of Americans talking about what souveniers they bought in Paris...

and this guy said:"I got this way out cool Batman action figure !!!!"
and the 2 blond cheerleaders next to him said:" Come on Craig show it pleeeese !"

needles to say their little conversation triggered quite a few of the aforementioned satements from the nearby sitting french people. Oh and from me and a few of my pals to... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And you do realize why scenes like the one you describe above happens, right?

It's because the Americans are richer. That means that a lot of retards have money to travel, while their European counterparts have no choice but to stay home.

The same with computers. A lot of less than brilliant Americans have access to the web, and they post a lot of nonsense around, but when you find someone from another country, odds are he is from the educated elite, or at least the upper middle class.

Also, there are more Americans than French, so for every French retard you should get 4 American retards.

Imagine now if all the Chinese would have access to the web http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . We would have a very bad opinion of them.

Numbers are numbers, any way you put it.

[ April 08, 2004, 13:15: Message edited by: Yef ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Yef:
It's because the Americans are richer. That means that a lot of retards have money to travel, while their European counterparts have no choice but to stay home. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey! I beg to differ!! I'm from Holland and that's the most important country in Europe (Hey, it the truth...) and I have more than enough money to travel. But I'm mostly occupied with work. So you could say the Americans are to busy doing nothing... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Mind you, it could be very effective against surface ships, assuming that the Vikings and Orions don't catch wind of the sub before it gets into range. Also, if it does become an effective weapon system, someone will figure out a way to counter it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey the counteraction is quite simple... just put a ship in front of it... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[dogscoff]

but when you find someone {..on the web..} from another country, odds are he is from the educated elite, or at least the upper middle class.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your argument doesn't really hold, because there are plenty of other countries have equal or higher internet uptake than the US.

According to the CIA world factbook 2002:
US: 165.75m internet Users out of 290m total population = approx 57.2%

Here are just some other countries at similar levels:

Canada: 16.84 out of 32.2 = 52%
Australia: 10.63 out of 20 = 53%
South Korea: 25.6 out of 48.2 = 53.1%
UK: 34.3 out of 60.1 = 57.1%
Norway: 2.7 out of 4.5 = 60%
Netherlands: 9.73 out of 16.1 = 60.4%
Switzerland: 4.82 out of 7.3 = 66%
Denmark: 3.37m out of 5m = 67.4%
Sweden: 6.0 out of 8.9 = 67.4%

As you can see, by your theory, it's the scandinavians who should get the worst reputation for Online cretins.

If anyone has more up to date/ more commprehensive figures than these, please post them.

[ April 08, 2004, 15:30: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Timstone]

Dogscoff: Thanks for putting in my beloved homecountry.

[primitive]

Originally posted by newbie123:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by primitive:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
.
.
.
.

If the French go then goes Europe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(Just another mindless senseless rant courticy of Atrocities) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This France-bashing is getting even more stale than yesterdays baguettes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Its not the case of Europe (or France) going anywhere AT. Europe is old, Europe is stable, Europe knows when diplomacy works better than force. If USA and Europe (continues to) drift apart, its the US who do the drifting. Get rid of that warmongering president of yours and USA and Europe will be best buddies again. Its all up to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry but thats BS. Europe know when to quit diplomacy with hitler. Instead they gave him a more powerful position and the rest is history. as far as stable, I don't think the US is unstable. I might not be following you on this tho. To be fair, I believe there are equal amounts of blame on both sides in regards to us drifting apart. Neither wants to reason </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Newb;
Thank you newb for the polite tone of your post. Kinda makes this much easier. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
History is great, I suggest you study it a bit before you quote it and call my post for Bull****.

True, WWII was a diplomatic failure. But the mistake was not done in 1938-39, but in 1918 at the end of WWI. The emasculation of Germany made a rematch more or less inevitable. Sure; the buildup could be handled much better, but Chamberlain putting his foot down in 38 would not have stopped Hitler, it only would have made the war different. Better or worse, who knows ?

Most of the blame for the early failures in the war should be given to the prewar millitary planners in France (especially) and England. They totally missed 20 years of technological development and expected WWII to be a rerun of WWI. When the Blitzkrieg came, they was totally unprepared. The failure of the politicians was not lack of funding, but the lack of guts to remove the old WWI generals from power. But I disgress...

There was an importent lesson learned from the failure of 1918 that was remembered by the victors of WWII: However a war/conflict ends, make sure to not create a power vacuum when its over. This can either be done Stalins way; with an Iron fist, or the Roosevelt(Truman)/Churchill (or more correct Marshall) way; by rebuilding the concuered nations from the ground.

This lesson is still remembered by the Europeans (some 50 million deaths over 2 wars in 30 years leaves it mark). This is also why most Europeans did not support GWB's moronic invation of Iraq. Allthough getting rid of one mad dictator is a worthy cause, doing so without planning for a better alternative just makes things worse. GWB's feeble attempts at rebuilding is just patethic; It would have taken 10 times the amount money currently spent (not to mention spending it in Iraq instead of lining the pockets of his friends) to succed. The options left is either continious occupation the Stalin way or leaving creating the dreaded power vacuum which would probably be filled by some religious fanatic. Oups, I disgress again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Back to my point. Europe has not moved a bit. European policy is exactly as it was under Clinton (and before). Europe is still a strong supporter of the UN and of international law. When GWB decided to sidestep international law, he stepped away from Europe. When USA is ready to come back, they will be wellcome. Untill then; relationships suffers, the economies suffers (yours more than ours), the people of Iraq suffers and international terrorism continues to rise. Quite a legacy for one man.

Puke:
Sorry for hijacking the thread again (not really) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Atrocities:
Why would we want Kerry, he has not done anything wrong (yet). If we could get his wife and punish her for the sins of her family that would have been another matter. Forcing ketchup on the world must rank among the most hideous crimes ever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Dogscoff:
Its the Sweedes and the Danes, not all Scandinavians http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Yef]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
but when you find someone {..on the web..} from another country, odds are he is from the educated elite, or at least the upper middle class.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your argument doesn't really hold, because there are plenty of other countries have equal or higher internet uptake than the US.

According to the CIA world factbook 2002:
US: 165.75m internet Users out of 290m total population = approx 57.2%

Here are just some other countries at similar levels:

Canada: 16.84 out of 32.2 = 52%
Australia: 10.63 out of 20 = 53%
South Korea: 25.6 out of 48.2 = 53.1%
UK: 34.3 out of 60.1 = 57.1%
Norway: 2.7 out of 4.5 = 60%
Netherlands: 9.73 out of 16.1 = 60.4%
Switzerland: 4.82 out of 7.3 = 66%
Denmark: 3.37m out of 5m = 67.4%
Sweden: 6.0 out of 8.9 = 67.4%

As you can see, by your theory, it's the scandinavians who should get the worst reputation for Online cretins.

If anyone has more up to date/ more commprehensive figures than these, please post them. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, you prove my whole point.
US population with internet access: 165 millions
Combined total of countries that you mention: 113 millions

So the combined population with access from those countries doesn't even add to a total equal to the US pop with internet services, and since we think of people individually by each nationality they represent....

Just to put an example according to your numbers, you are likely to find 10 Americans for every Canadian Online, which of course give you odds of finding 10 American retards per every single Canadian in the same "group". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thanks for backing my argument with numbers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ April 08, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: Yef ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Yef:
Actually, you prove my whole point.
US population with internet access: 165 millions
Combined total of countries that you mention: 113 millions. [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't forget that this is only a top 10. There are far more people in the world with internet access combined that there are Americans. Just don't feel so bitten. The Americans are just a rollmodel for all the other part of the world hates. And not undeserved I might add, but that is just my vision.

[Puke]

yep. i would imagine that the super torpedo would only be good against surface ships, would have trouble targeting subs that they cant here.

on the other hand, they only have inferior PASSIVE sonar. in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. the problem is you give yourself away. if you have superior range and effectiveness with your supercavitating torpedo, you dont need to care about your own stealth.

start actively pinging, find your targets, kill them. it could indeed revolutionize sub warfare.

oh, and to the rest of you: go start your own thread to ***** in, were talking about high tech ways to kill people here.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Now if we put a Tard on a Torp (wired to the Internet)ahh never mind!

I think something that fast would practically be a direct fire weapon. Most underwater combat is like at 7000 yards, is that like a mile or something? Anyway 200 miles per hour torp in 7000 yards would practially be like and underwater artillery shell. Quite an impressive weapon. Maybe to counter it we could use the HAARP array to make 'em all distracted and happy.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:
Don't forget that this is only a top 10. There are far more people in the world with internet access combined that there are Americans. Just don't feel so bitten. The Americans are just a rollmodel for all the other part of the world hates. And not undeserved I might add, but that is just my vision. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Come on, give me a single nationality with a higher number of people with internet access.

Anyway you put it, you are more likely to find Americans Online that any other nationality, and thus a higher number of morons.

This is simple math. If we say that there are 3 countries, A, B, and C, and A have 100 cars, and B and C have 10 cars each, and 1 out of 10 of these cars are broken, how many broken cars from each country are you going to find?

[ April 08, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: Yef ]

[Yef]

Originally posted by Puke:


on the other hand, they only have inferior PASSIVE sonar. in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. the problem is you give yourself away. if you have superior range and effectiveness with your supercavitating torpedo, you dont need to care about your own stealth.

start actively pinging, find your targets, kill them. it could indeed revolutionize sub warfare.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Let me tell you, you have a good point here. I know nothing of naval warfare, but what you say definitively makes sense.

With a long range, fast speed torpedo you could indeed go active sonar, find your target, fire away, and then turn off your active sonar and go back into the darkness.

[dogscoff]

Don't forget that this is only a top 10.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not even a top ten. Just ten of the higher ones picked at random.

[Parasite]

Originally posted by Puke:
in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There are things that make Active Sonar not work all the time. Temperature layers in the water cause the sound to bounce off the layer and not show anything below. Water will bend sound and for active sonar it is bent once for the trip out and again for the trip back. Some of this is predictable, some not. It works Great when you are close, but get a ways away and neyt.

This does not mean that a fast torpedo is not a great weapon. It is, and it is even more menacing when one side has it and the other doesn't (Much like some weapons in SEIV) IF only one side had it it could be a war winner (again much like SEIV).

( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Please forgive me for unhijacking a (mostly) hijacked thread. We now return you to the normal us vs them thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Parasite:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Puke:
in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There are things that make Active Sonar not work all the time. Temperature layers in the water cause the sound to bounce off the layer and not show anything below. Water will bend sound and for active sonar it is bent once for the trip out and again for the trip back. Some of this is predictable, some not. It works Great when you are close, but get a ways away and neyt.

This does not mean that a fast torpedo is not a great weapon. It is, and it is even more menacing when one side has it and the other doesn't (Much like some weapons in SEIV) IF only one side had it it could be a war winner (again much like SEIV).

( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Please forgive me for unhijacking a (mostly) hijacked thread. We now return you to the normal us vs them thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sonar is not the big thing it once was. Take a look here, http://www.stormingmedia.us/cat/cat38.html
You'll have to pay to see to details.

Also look at hafnium (sp) for the next wonder weapon. The Washington Post ran a story a few weeks ago. Kiloton power from golfball sized warheads and at non-atomic energy output.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

[newbie123]

Agreed. The seeds for WW2 were definetly sown from the armistice in WW1. I wasn't argueing that at all. I was going more for the territory given to Germany by chamberlain. If y memory serves me correctly, Germany acquired most of its advanced tank designs from Checkoslavakia. Granted thats only one half of the blitzkrieg, but you get what I am going for. If they put their foot down right at the beginning, who knows the conflict may never even have taken place. It also could have been 20 times worse. I for one think it would have worked out better.

Now for Bush. First let me say I support him given the options of current leaders. (I HATE Kerry, and despise Clinton.) Now, the thing that gets me about the war in Iraq is that when Bush went to the UN, There was so much behind the scenes BS by everyone that it just seemed like a worldwide power struggle, not a campaign to take out a despicable dictator. France and russia were selling oil and arms to Iraq, and saying they just did not believe that there were WMD's in Iraq. Now from the looks of things they were right, but whose to say they were not moved or destroyed during that period, the whole 5 months or so spent in diplomatic negotiations, which led nowhere. And if Saddam didn't have anything than why dodn't he just let the UN go where they please? He had political support from France and Russia, so if anything went wrond he could go right to them. It just seems fishy too me

In the end, I think Saddam needed to be taken out. If we were dealing with anyone else I would be against any conflict, but he was a horrible person.

Also I'm sick of America taking the blame for everything. I'm not saying we aren't to blame, but we definetly are not the only ones.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic with your remark, I am trying to keep this polite and debated with a clear head like it should be. Nothing comes from name-calling or slandering, as my countries election process proves time and time again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ April 09, 2004, 05:52: Message edited by: newbie123 ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Yef:
Anyway you put it, you are more likely to find Americans Online that any other nationality, and thus a higher number of morons. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hahaha... this still makes me laugh. Hehehe...

Anyway back to the math question. There might me more Americans (numerical, not percentage), there are still more than enough other people Online. And not all Americans are morons... I hope...
But in the end your statement is questionable. If there were more Dutch people Online they would have been the ones the world dislikes (according to you that is). But the Dutch don't have such a huge influence in the world. So not only the number of people Online is importnat, but also the size of the country and how aggressive their politics are. It just boils down to a classical battle of good vs evil. The badguy's are always hatted. And in the eyes of most of the world America is the badguy.

[Timstone]

Originally posted by newbie123:
Now for Bush. First let me say I support him given the options of current leaders. (I HATE Kerry, and despise Clinton.) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why do you HATE Kerry? And why do you despise Clinton?
I thought Clinton was a pretty good president. I've seen a documentary once and it said that Americans thought that Clinton was one the best presidents America ever had. Well, shame of his little affaire with that ugly *****, but hey a man should have some fun. And someone with a wife like Hilary just HAS to.

Edit: Oh and for the current monkey in power. I don't like him, but he sure has few options. So I support most of his decisions, but I don't like the guy.

[ April 09, 2004, 08:18: Message edited by: Timstone ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

I hate to keep dragging this thread away from the political arguments, but I will anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The point about the super-fast torpedo changing the way underwater warfare works is well taken. If it works, you could indeed see the case for using active sonar to "light up" the target at a distance and then kill it. There is one problem, though. How do you know when there is a target there? If you run around with active sonar (or any other active search mechanism) on all the time the other side will see you coming from miles away. The super-fast torpedo won't shoot down the aircraft that gets called in to take out the sub that's busy pinging the empty ocean.

The problem with any "wonder weapon" is that it won't stay that way very long. If one side has it and it is effective, the other side will figure out how to build it too. Also, there might be ways to stop it coming in. If it is moving at two hundred miles an hour under water then it might well be possible to put something (other than a ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) in its path long enough for it to crash into it and be destroyed.

Edit: This is in no way an argument that the technology couldn't be very effective. If the US isn't looking into it we should be (and probably are). A weapon of that nature would not have to be limited to submarines. Since everyone seems to have a way to shoot down anti-shipping cruise missiles, you could use this technology from surface ships to build underwater "cruise missiles". If you could extend their range (perhaps by increasing their size) and give them intelligent seeking capability you could create a whole new class of weapon (drones, anyone?).

[ April 09, 2004, 14:09: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Yef:
So, it all boils down to senseless, empty, and wounded national pride. You hate the superpower because you are not it, you hate the supepower because you want to be it.
I bet that if you were the superpower, you would have already "fixed" all the wrong things in the world, wouldn't you?

I'm sorry for breaking it to you, but if one day your country becomes the superpower, its going to be hated as much as the US is hated today. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sigh... it's so hard to express myself in the way I would like. My native language is Dutch (wow, really?), so English is not my primary language. I don't have the same feel for it like you.
I was mearly (typo, maybe?) trying to point out the general feeling of the world towards America. I didn't want to attack you or the beautful country that America is. I´ve some friends living in California, so I´ve been to America and saw the beauty of the country... and the smog. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I think other readers are not feeling at ease with this little conversation of ours, so shall we burry the axe of war and make peace brother?

Oh BTW, nice speeches in the course of our conversation.

Edit: I gave you the full 5 stars for this most enjoyable little talk of ours. Thumbs up for us!

[ April 09, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Timstone ]

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

I was thinking about how to stop a fast torp also. Something in the water for it to hit was also my first thought. Also thought if you could distrupt the SuperCavitation bubble around the torp it would cause drag and maybe slow it down or alter it's course irreversibly (my big word of the day).
In fact you can make a ship sink by putting enough Methane in the water that it alters it's density and things won't float!
"Helm, what's that smell?" "I think we're being flushed sir!"


I like the Netherlands, Hot Girls, Cold Beer, Cheap Pot, Friendly People, Nice Dikes.

[Timstone]

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
I was thinking about how to stop a fast torp also. Something in the water for it to hit was also my first thought. Also thought if you could distrupt the SuperCavitation bubble around the torp it would cause drag and maybe slow it down or alter it's course irreversibly (my big word of the day).
In fact you can make a ship sink by putting enough Methane in the water that it alters it's density and things won't float!
"Helm, what's that smell?" "I think we're being flushed sir!"


I like the Netherlands, Hot Girls, Cold Beer, Cheap Pot, Friendly People, Nice Dikes. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hahahaha... "Sir, we've been jammed. It's strawberry."

Another 5 full stars today for the fact that The EvilGenius like my beloved homecountry.

[ April 09, 2004, 19:12: Message edited by: Timstone ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
I was thinking about how to stop a fast torp also. Something in the water for it to hit was also my first thought. Also thought if you could distrupt the SuperCavitation bubble around the torp it would cause drag and maybe slow it down or alter it's course irreversibly (my big word of the day).
In fact you can make a ship sink by putting enough Methane in the water that it alters it's density and things won't float!
"Helm, what's that smell?" "I think we're being flushed sir!"


I like the Netherlands, Hot Girls, Cold Beer, Cheap Pot, Friendly People, Nice Dikes. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I was thinking perhaps you could launch a canister of compressed air toward the torpedo as far as you could then have it release a curtain of air bubbles in front of the torp. I'm not sure what would happen in that case.

[ April 09, 2004, 19:27: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

[Puke]

Hafnium and elements with similar properties are really very cool. the ability to charge up an element with energy and then set it off is pretty slick. sub nuclear, but much better than conventional explosives.

maybe this will revive the davy crocket project in another form. unfortuneatly, it still leaves small traces of radioactive fallout.

The potential for polonium powered nuclear batteries is pretty cool, too. everyone remember that theoretical man-portable chemical laser? THAT was cool. polonium power sources could also solve some of the battery life and generator weight problems they are having with the battlefield armored suits that DARPA is developing.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:

Hahaha... this still makes me laugh. Hehehe...
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why am I not surprised?


Originally posted by Timstone:

Anyway back to the math question. There might me more Americans (numerical, not percentage), there are still more than enough other people Online.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh man, not this anymore.
It is not about how many people from the world have access to internet, but how many from each individual country. The country with the largest number give you the odds to find the largest number of morons. Plain and sinple.
You don't say "the Japanese are morons" because of the behavior of posters from France.
You treat each nationality individually, so its pointless your intention of placing all the Americans on one side and the rest of the world on the other.


Originally posted by Timstone:

And not all Americans are morons... I hope...
But in the end your statement is questionable. If there were more Dutch people Online they would have been the ones the world dislikes (according to you that is).
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, if there were 200 millions dutch Online they would be the ones branded morons, because inevitable you would find a higher number of Dutch retards within the general Dutch population, and since its in human nature to remember the bad things more clearly than the good things.....


Originally posted by Timstone:

But the Dutch don't have such a huge influence in the world. So not only the number of people Online is importnat, but also the size of the country and how aggressive their politics are.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's your own personal especulation. Since the the country with the larger access to the web happens to be the sole superpower, and somewhat aggressive (nothing compared to good old Europe back in his day), then you can't prove your theory at the moment.


Originally posted by Timstone:

It just boils down to a classical battle of good vs evil. The badguy's are always hatted. And in the eyes of most of the world America is the badguy. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, no, no, in "the eyes of the world" America is the superpower, and most people that don't benefit from the superpower, hate the superpower. From the Assyrian Empire to America today. To be hated by the envious without cause, the would-be superpowers, the have-been superpowers, or the powerless enemy, comes with the job of superpower. Its right there in the contract, and not in the fine print.

So, it all boils down to senseless, empty, and wounded national pride. You hate the superpower because you are not it, you hate the supepower because you want to be it.
I bet that if you were the superpower, you would have already "fixed" all the wrong things in the world, wouldn't you?

I'm sorry for breaking it to you, but if one day your country becomes the superpower, its going to be hated as much as the US is hated today.


P.S: A free cookie to whoever finds out how many times I used the word "superpower" in this post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Puke:
Hafnium and elements with similar properties are really very cool. the ability to charge up an element with energy and then set it off is pretty slick. sub nuclear, but much better than conventional explosives.

maybe this will revive the davy crocket project in another form. unfortuneatly, it still leaves small traces of radioactive fallout.

The potential for polonium powered nuclear batteries is pretty cool, too. everyone remember that theoretical man-portable chemical laser? THAT was cool. polonium power sources could also solve some of the battery life and generator weight problems they are having with the battlefield armored suits that DARPA is developing. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How about a star drive? Or perhaps a high output ion engine?

[Raging Deadstar]

Thought i'd drop my thoughts here

Considering we're on a public forum, dfiscussing this i imagine it means not only The US but other countries will be developing counters for this torpedo, In reality this weapon may never become used if it's rendered obsolete before the need to use it.

That and Imagine what else the military's of the world are building! If it's going to give the country a huge advantage the information is very rarely released to the public, in truth, we can speculate and listen to rumours but we have no idea what other "war changing" weapons are being developed all over the globe!

For all we know my countries, The UK, top brass arn't sitting around with tea and crumpets and are funding the creation of Anti Proton Beams http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

EDIT: Actually thinking about it, it could all be speculation, it was in the media http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I remember stories about how everyone was terrfied that nations were developing Laser armed satelites that could track people by Mobile Phones and kill them within a rather accurate range. Did this ever happen? Not to my memory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Either way we'll develop something really nasty and we're all going to wipe ourselves out with it, something that makes a nuclear bomb useless. Hopefully we won't, but looking around today i have little hope left for this race...

[ April 11, 2004, 13:13: Message edited by: Raging Deadstar ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Raging Deadstar:
Actually thinking about it, it could all be speculation, it was in the media http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I remember stories about how everyone was terrfied that nations were developing Laser armed satelites that could track people by Mobile Phones and kill them within a rather accurate range. Did this ever happen? Not to my memory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe that explains some of the mysterious disappearances that happen. You never know when a laser might str... -Aaarrrrgggghhhhhhh- http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Raging Deadstar]

Lol *looks at mobile phone...*

*promptly runs outside, calls someone and starts wavings his hands about to see if it is true!*

I'll update you on my progress once i'm extra crispy!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Puke]

Hmm. I think that orbital anti-personnel laser was from the movie Real Genius, which I did rather enjoy. While something like that might be possible, lasers lose focus over range and dissipate GREATLY in atmosphere, it just would not be practical.

We do have air-to-air and air-to-ground and ground-to-air lasers, I would expect to see them get more powerfull and more wide-spread once the politics arround them die down. ground-to-ground lasers dont seem to be practical yet, but maybe in 20 years we will start to prototype them.

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Raging Deadstar:
Lol *looks at mobile phone...*

*promptly runs outside, calls someone and starts wavings his hands about to see if it is true!*

I'll update you on my progress once i'm extra crispy!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Look who's been left in the oven too long." (The Violator talking to Spawn)

[Timstone]

Why the hell would you like to create a laser in the atmosphere?! Lasers are distorted far too much to be of serious use in our atmosphere. Or you need a very big source of energy or you need some miracle design. But then again wonder happen every day.

[Raging Deadstar]

Originally posted by Puke:
Hmm. I think that orbital anti-personnel laser was from the movie Real Genius, which I did rather enjoy. While something like that might be possible, lasers lose focus over range and dissipate GREATLY in atmosphere, it just would not be practical.

We do have air-to-air and air-to-ground and ground-to-air lasers, I would expect to see them get more powerfull and more wide-spread once the politics arround them die down. ground-to-ground lasers dont seem to be practical yet, but maybe in 20 years we will start to prototype them. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm pretty sure there were worries about this being implemented lol. Paranoid People http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

But is till dread to think what other weapons our governements are cooking up *who's paranoid now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif *

On good news i'm still alive and not crispy!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[spoon]

Saw this article linked to on slashdot:
Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,636378,00.html)

Fear the Tungsten Rod!

[dogscoff]

From the article posted by spoon:

says Patrick Garrett, an associate analyst at GlobalSecurity.org. "It harkens back to the good old days of WWII."
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What a prick! "The good old days" of world war two! Does he even know what a world war is? But then, as an associate analyst at GlobalSecurity.org (with the emphasis on the first three letters) he probably makes a lot of money out of wholescale death and destruction. Anyone who thinks war is such a jolly old romp should be dumped straight on the front lines of the next grisly conflict our illustrious leaders choose to inflict upon the world.

But otherwise, a very interesting article. Scary as hell, but interesting.