• 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
Jucon said:
Read article, vote and comment...

DARPA Loses Hypersonic Vehicle, Goes From $320M to Zero in*2,700 Seconds - FoxNews.com

I'm split on this one... I'm bothered that this much has been spent on a currently failing project, yet if they eventually succeed I can only imagine we'd be saving billions more per year if politicians view this vehicle as a reason to close many of the military bases we have all over the world. What would be the point of having bases all around the world when we can attack anywhere on Earth within an hour anyways?

However, I am skeptical that some military advocates would go along with this hypothetical plan...
Click to expand...

DARPA funds low probability research. Meaning that it's research not likely not net anything. But it's funded because you never quite know with science. If it were all known before the experiments were done, there'd be no need for experiments.
 
Ikari said:
DARPA funds low probability research. Meaning that it's research not likely not net anything. But it's funded because you never quite know with science. If it were all known before the experiments were done, there'd be no need for experiments.
Click to expand...

nevertheless, I think hypersonic travel is definitely a probability somewhere down the line, and that this project, regardless of the price tag, is likely a necessary first step towards that understanding.
 
DARPA funds low probability research. Meaning that it's research not likely not net anything. But it's funded because you never quite know with science. If it were all known before the experiments were done, there'd be no need for experiments.

Which basically solidifies what I am saying. For now, this investment is essentially high risk. Why are we spending 320 million dollars on a high risk military investment, when we owe over 14 trillion dollars and have the mightiest military in the world?
 
sookster said:
Thank you. I have more respect for you now. That takes some balls, so it seems, you are starting to grow a pair. :)
Click to expand...

It was a pleasure besting you.
 
Once again, elaborate on your logic. It is funny how you never do that!

How is conceding defeat besting me?
 
Can't really comment to be honest because I don't know what other projects are being done and how much they are.

Do I think military spending needs to be cut? Absolutely. Do I suggest I know specifically which things to cut and where? No, because I don't know what all that money is going into. R&D is absolutely important for the military and we need to continue to push the level of technology. The goal needs to be to be proactive, not reactive, in regards to the next great technology for battle. That said, the R&D budget likely does need to be trimmed some. However, I can't speak to whether or not this program is where to trim. There's some definitive benefits that could potentially spring from this program, including budgetary benefits in the long term based on the technology and the lack of need potentially for bases abroad for quick responses.
 
sookster said:
DARPA funds low probability research. Meaning that it's research not likely not net anything. But it's funded because you never quite know with science. If it were all known before the experiments were done, there'd be no need for experiments.

Which basically solidifies what I am saying. For now, this investment is essentially high risk. Why are we spending 320 million dollars on a high risk military investment, when we owe over 14 trillion dollars and have the mightiest military in the world?
Click to expand...

No risk, no reward. Often times its these far off programs and experiments that net the largest increase in technolgy. Scientific research is always going to be in this light, what you get you don't know on the onset. But information and knowledge are always worth striving for. DARPA partially funds a few experiments in the physics department here at CSU (they fund a lot of base research) which is looking at neutrino-less double beta decay. It's an unlikely measurement, but if it can be detected we can figure out the mass of the nuetrino.
 
Nice response. It is in my view, that we have to accept the consequences of our spending actions. Unfortunately, we just can not keep spending like we have, especially on high risk investments. We should not be spending money like this, especially on something like this. Do not hate the messenger, hate the people that insist upon spending regardless of what state the economy is in. It is the people in Washington that are not allowing us to advance our technology, whether it be in military, space exploration, or increasing standards of living.
 
Would calculating the mass of the neutrino, provide more evidence for the hons boson? It is my understanding, that neutrino oscillation can only occur if the neutrino has mass. If it does has mass, does that mean the Hons Boson exists?

No risk, no reward. Often times its these far off programs and experiments that net the largest increase in technolgy. Scientific research is always going to be in this light, what you get you don't know on the onset. But information and knowledge are always worth striving for. DARPA partially funds a few experiments in the physics department here at CSU (they fund a lot of base research) which is looking at neutrino-less double beta decay. It's an unlikely measurement, but if it can be detected we can figure out the mass of the nuetrino.
Click to expand...

That is too black and white thinking. Obviously the more risk, the more reward. The more the risk, the higher probability of failure as well.
 
sookster said:
Once again, elaborate on your logic.
Click to expand...

I don't have any logic. All I got is what you wrote. Ironic that it is without such. Have you seen logic lately?
 
Last edited:
I don't have any logic.
Click to expand...

That readily is apparent. How does you conceding defeat besting me?

Why don't you state specifically how I have lost all perspective on this project? Why do you refuse to cite where I said that 320 million dollars is a lot of money?
 
This thread has me laughing my ass off. A lot of those supporting this are the same ones that are screaming "No tax increases until spending stops!!!"

Oh, my bad, the only spending that needs to stop is the spending that cares for people, not the kind that kills people.

Sorry, I lost track for a minute, I blame it on common sense.
 
Polotick said:
Sorry, I lost track for a minute, I blame it on common sense.
Click to expand...

I see many people losing track. It's like this track is made of Jello. Hypersonic transport doesn't kill people, people kill people - just ask sook. If sook is pro-gun-control, I might lose my crap.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I see many people losing track. It's like this track is made of Jello. Hypersonic transport doesn't kill people, people kill people - just ask sook.
Click to expand...

Well, I have a differing view on what wins wars to begin with. It's logistics, for a case study of this, review Germany outrunning their supply lines in WWII.

Supply lines, communications, hell, even latrines are logistics. Not to mention feeding an army.
 
How could you argue that logistics is key and dismiss hypersonic transport? You don't wanna win?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
How could you argue that logistics is key and dismiss hypersonic transport? You don't wanna win?
Click to expand...

Nah, and for the record if a hypersonic plane launches a missle, wouldn't it run right the hell over it? Unless, of course, it slowed way down to getting shot at speed.
 
Fighter jets engage at hypesonic speeds?
 
ecofarm said:
Fighter jets engage at hypesonic speeds?
Click to expand...

No, there is a get there speed and a fire speed. Unless it's the A-10, which couldn't outrun a GAO accountant.
 
Polotick said:
Nah, and for the record if a hypersonic plane launches a missle, wouldn't it run right the hell over it? Unless, of course, it slowed way down to getting shot at speed.
Click to expand...
It would likely not launch missiles, but drop bombs.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
It would likely not launch missiles, but drop bombs.
Click to expand...

A super high tech plane with a low tech delivery system? Isn't that like putting a solid gold flush handle in an outhouse?
 
Polotick said:
A super high tech plane with a low tech delivery system? Isn't that like putting a solid gold flush handle in an outhouse?
Click to expand...
Not at all.
Missiles, being nothing more than bombs with engines, are stand-off weapons, used so that the platform that launches them may remain at a safe distance from the target.
This particular platform is more than capable of approaching a target to the range necessary to drop the bombs(s) with impunity, as nothing in existence has any hope of intercepting it. Bombs, being simpler weapons than missiles, are more reliable, and so are less likely to fail - and so, are a better choice.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Not at all.
Missiles, being nothing more than bombs with engines, are stand-off weapons, used so that the platform that launches them may remain at a safe distance from the target.
This particular platform is more than capable of approaching a target to the range necessary to drop the bombs(s) with impunity, as nothing in existence has any hope of intercepting it. Bombs, being simpler weapons than missiles, are more reliable, and so are less likely to fail - and so, are a better choice.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the same thing once said about the U2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom