• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support this military project?

Read article in first post and vote...


  • Total voters
    27
I usually support scientific research of this sort. There is plenty of money being wasted in more frivolous pursuits, I would go after that money first.
 
This project is a bad idea. From a military perspective its a complete waste. The prompt global strike doctrine is completely moronic. If you want instantaneous response, we can forward deploy cruise missiles within range of potential hotspots. Using suborbital delivery systems means setting off ICBM warning systems. What really worries me is that they consider Pakistan and NK potential targets. Shooting ICBM like weapons at nuclear powers is completely insane. There are other hypersonic research programs that can be utilize the money than this one.
 
So how would this added technology, assuming it will be successful and go into fruition, how will it win us the war alone? Please, enlighten me.

A singke piece of technology will rarely win a war on it's own. In fact, it's likely to be impossible for technology alone to win a war.
 
So how would this added technology, assuming it will be successful and go into fruition, how will it win us the war alone? Please, enlighten me.

I don't think it's being developed to win our current wars, and I don't recall anyone saying so, and certainly nobody suggested that this little plane will win us the war alone.

but it'll definitely have commercial and military uses down the road. Not all the spending you do is spending for the right here, right now.
 
I understand what you are all saying. Someone, however said I lost all perspective. Therefore, I asked the above question. I agree with a lot of what you all said in response to that question, as that is my stance.
 
This project is a bad idea. From a military perspective its a complete waste. The prompt global strike doctrine is completely moronic. If you want instantaneous response, we can forward deploy cruise missiles within range of potential hotspots. Using suborbital delivery systems means setting off ICBM warning systems. What really worries me is that they consider Pakistan and NK potential targets. Shooting ICBM like weapons at nuclear powers is completely insane. There are other hypersonic research programs that can be utilize the money than this one.

You bring up a good point, but I'd like to point out that cruise missiles can be shot down. It's a lot harder to shoot something down that's going at hypersonic speeds.
 
Someone, however said I lost all perspective.

Let's see...

1. You think 320m is a significant amount.
2. You think that the project is not worth it because it doesn't win wars by itself.

I believe, on both facets, you have completely lost perspective. I cannot imagine how one could be more disconnected from the discussion. Except, perhaps, to attempt to blame the US for social capital depletion in Iraq - that's further gone.
 
Last edited:
Also, if you were to add hypersonic speeds with the stealth technology developed in Area 51, you would have a beast of a machine.

But, this will take large resources over a long course of time. Engineering not only involves the design of the machine, but how to manufacture it, and how to get a certain purity of certain materials. It is much more of a project than I think the most of the American population perceive.

We can not afford this. Seriously. We have to reap the consequences of the irresponsible spending of Washington. It seems they do not want to grow up and face those consequences.
 
Let's see...

1. You think 320m is a significant amount.
2.You think that the project is not worth it because it doesn't win wars by itself.

I believe, on both facets, you have completely lost perspective. I cannot imagine how one could be more disconnected from the discussion.

Please elaborate. How would this technology win wars by itself? Where did I say that 320 million dollars is a lot of money? Please cite.
 
The thread is only 2 pages, and you don't remember what you wrote...


Good day.
 
Please elaborate. How would this technology win wars by itself? Where did I say that 320 million dollars is a lot of money? Please cite.

He is not claiming that the technology wins wars by itself. He is disputing your belief that it doesn't win wars by itself, so therefore it somehow isn't worth it.
 
Apparently you can not count. It is six. And I think you do not understand the simple concept, that if one person reads a text, it will mean differently to him than another person. We all have different life experiences, different vocabularies, and different meanings to words. Really, you are just scared to actually attempt to answer those questions, for it would be even more obvious how illogical you are.
 
He is not claiming that the technology wins wars by itself. He is disputing your belief that it doesn't win wars by itself, so therefore it somehow isn't worth it.

He said I completely lost all perspective. So really, the extreme is accurate.
 
How would this technology win wars by itself?

I'm pretty sure you are the only person worried about this. I dunno why, but it's ridiculous.
 
40 posts per page pwns. I'm not going to debate that.
 
Regardless, it isn't two set in stone.

'm pretty sure you are the only person worried about this. I dunno why, but it's ridiculous.

Please elaborate on how I lost all perspective with regards to this military project. Also, cite where I said 320 million was a lot of money, please.
 
I am not saying it doesn't matter at all. I am saying it is people that matter more than technology.

That's absurd. The advent of nuclear missiles ensures that technology, not people, is the primary determinate of global or national destruction from military activities. Back when it was conventional weapons, to a degree that was true. Today, everything is to a degree, moot. Strategy, almost irrelveant. People, almost irrelevant.

In fact, I think we understand that even if we were hit with a first strike and everyone in the U.S. was dead, our own missile silos would launch automatically. Talking about damning evidence against your assertion right?

The world is different now. Political power, and economic power, once a nation has a nuclear aresenal, is where the game is played. The biggest danger to citizens is consolidation of government authority, or private authority. Government historically has been the worst, the most common, and nearly always linked to any bad actor private authorities anyway. That's why government growth is the primary way U.S. citizens can "fight the good fight".
 
This usually happens when someone is a coward. They call someone out, put their reputation on the line, and yet they refuse to actually face the person that they called out.

I suggest you mature some and grow a pair.
 
That's absurd. The advent of nuclear missiles ensures that technology, not people, is the primary determinate of global or national destruction from military activities. Back when it was conventional weapons, to a degree that was true. Today, everything is to a degree, moot. Strategy, almost irrelveant. People, almost irrelevant.

In fact, I think we understand that even if we were hit with a first strike and everyone in the U.S. was dead, our own missile silos would launch automatically. Talking about damning evidence against your assertion right?

The world is different now. Political power, and economic power, once a nation has a nuclear aresenal, is where the game is played. The biggest danger to citizens is consolidation of government authority, or private authority. Government historically has been the worst, the most common, and nearly always linked to any bad actor private authorities anyway. That's why government growth is the primary way U.S. citizens can "fight the good fight".

People had to build those technologies, did they not? They have to execute the proper procedures in order for them to work, do they not?

If we are so advanced than everyone else, why do people with primitive technology are able to kill our men with superior technology?
 
My reputation is on the line!
 
That's absurd. The advent of nuclear missiles ensures that technology, not people, is the primary determinate of global or national destruction from military activities. Back when it was conventional weapons, to a degree that was true. Today, everything is to a degree, moot. Strategy, almost irrelveant. People, almost irrelevant.

In fact, I think we understand that even if we were hit with a first strike and everyone in the U.S. was dead, our own missile silos would launch automatically. Talking about damning evidence against your assertion right?

The world is different now. Political power, and economic power, once a nation has a nuclear aresenal, is where the game is played. The biggest danger to citizens is consolidation of government authority, or private authority. Government historically has been the worst, the most common, and nearly always linked to any bad actor private authorities anyway. That's why government growth is the primary way U.S. citizens can "fight the good fight".

I disagree somewhat. It really depends on which arena you're talking about.

If we're talking about nation-states and conventional and nuclear military power, then technology is a hell of an advantage. However, in terms of asymmetrical wars, which seem to be becoming more and more common, the technological advantage is diminished significantly, while personnel and strategy are paramount.
 
Last edited:
My reputation is on the line!

Which wouldn't of been on the line in the first place if you did not call me out. If you did call me out, why don't you actually put some logical defense to the statements that you make?

I will state this again. Please elaborate on how I lost all perspective with regards to this 320 million dollar project. Please cite where I said 320 million dollars is a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
I concede defeat.
 
Thank you. I have more respect for you now. That takes some balls, so it seems, you are starting to grow a pair. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom