Russia new wonder weapon?

[Parasite]

Originally posted by Puke:
in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar.

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).

( Please forgive me for unhijacking a (mostly) hijacked thread. We now return you to the normal us vs them thread. )

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Parasite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar.

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).

( Please forgive me for unhijacking a (mostly) hijacked thread. We now return you to the normal us vs them thread. )

---

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

[ 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.

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.)

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 ]

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:

Hahaha... this still makes me laugh. Hehehe...

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[Alpha Kodiak]

I hate to keep dragging this thread away from the political arguments, but I will anyway.

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 ) 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 ]