• 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
If tech didn't matter, we might have a World Caliphate, Communism or Scientology (ok, that last one's not tech... they're just nuts).
 
Last edited:
I am not saying it doesn't matter at all. I am saying it is people that matter more than technology.
 
I knew from the first "tech doesn't matter" post that he was going for the "Taliban are winning!" (of course, because they're better people). No, dude, they're not winning. And neither are the terrorists in Iraq. We don't have a World Caliphate and we're not gonna. We're just finishing the majority of the roaches.


I'm sure the Seals had way more advanced technology than the Taliban on the ground. Technology didn't save them, now did it?

You got us. They're winning the war. :rollie eyes

Sookster, are you Muslim? If you deny it and are, you're an apostate. Maybe you're just a peacenik but you are WAY off base here, buddy.
 
Last edited:
Regardless if they are winning or not, and regardless of whether it has everything to do with technology or not, I am sure you agree that we have started a blood feud to these people. Where did I say in any of my statements that we were losing? Why do you insist upon putting words in my mouth?

Whether we win or lose, the men that we killed have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, sons, and daughters. We are self fulfilling what their texts teach them. We are evil in their eyes.

So we may win, and we may sing in our glory. But when generations upon generations learn of the history of what happened, revenge will surely come.
 
Sure, technology does help. But it is people that operate the technology that allows it to work, no?

Did I say somewhere that people DON'T MATTER?

You also didn't mention the microbiological advantage that Europeans had. If you were to read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel the world is the way it is because certain people had early access to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Why did they have early access? It wasn't because one race was superior than the other. It had everything to do with geography. They were just at the right place at the right time.

When we engaged on the Indians, not only did we have guns, but we also had germs.

And Jared Diamond is relevant to the current discussion how? Yes, I've read Guns, Germs and Steel, and no, that really has nothing to do with this discussion. I repeat my original point: technology gives you a decisive advantage in warfare. I'm not denying the existence of other factors, but in this day and age, technology helps. A LOT.

Once again, technology doesn't win wars, people do. It is people that not only design the innovation but execute and use that said innovation. Navy Seals are getting shot down from basic rockets out in Afghanistan. I'm sure the Seals had way more advanced technology than the Taliban on the ground. Technology didn't save them, now did it?

What's your point, and what exactly does that prove? That technology is irrelevant? In most cases, technology still gives you a decisive advantage. Now, admittedly in asymmetrical conflicts that advantage is significantly diminished, but that doesn't mean that technology isn't a factor at all.

I could also point out that a clear technological advantage allowed us to win the ground war in the Desert Storm 1991 in a mere four days.
 
OH MY GOD people! Read what I am writing, not in between the lines!

People are more important than technology. That is what I am saying. Technology does help, but people are more important!

Instead of spending 320 million on something that might work, maybe spend it on training more Seals? Maybe invest it in an organization that is more efficient in spreading technology?

It has everything to do with the person that cited the Indians. He didn't acknowledge the fact that we also had a microbiological advantage.
 
Regardless if they are winning or not, and regardless of whether it has everything to do with technology or not, I am sure you agree that we have started a blood feud to these people. Where did I say in any of my statements that we were losing? Why do you insist upon putting words in my mouth?

Whether we win or lose, the men that we killed have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, sons, and daughters. We are self fulfilling what their texts teach them. We are evil in their eyes.

So we may win, and we may sing in our glory. But when generations upon generations learn of the history of what happened, revenge will surely come.


Why do you hate freedom? Iraq has democratic infrastructure and needs a generation or two to develop an intellectual class (Saddam pretty much killed them all) and Afghanistan has some law and order. We are winning, bigtime.
 
I voted no, but now, mulling it over, we should pursue it for job creation, but if the military is to use it, they must have a legitimate reason for wanting such technology on the battlefield.

Also due to many bringing up civilian and troop transportation by hypersonic travel, I must ask the question: Can the human body even withstand hypersonic speed?
 
Why do you hate freedom? Iraq has democratic infrastructure and needs a generation or two to develop an intellectual class (Saddam pretty much killed them all) and Afghanistan has some law and order. We are winning, bigtime.

You are completely incorrect. Iraq had an intellectual class, but they fled:

Iraq: Brain Drain Poses Threat To Future - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2011

The Iraqi brain drain | World news | The Guardian

Professionals Fleeing Iraq As Violence, Threats Persist
 
OH MY GOD people! Read what I am writing, not in between the lines!

People are more important than technology. That is what I am saying. Technology does help, but people are more important!

Instead of spending 320 million on something that might work, maybe spend it on training more Seals? Maybe invest it in an organization that is more efficient in spreading technology?

It has everything to do with the person that cited the Indians. He didn't acknowledge the fact that we also had a microbiological advantage.

1) we already have more than enough SEALs. The SOF community has expanded dramatically since the wars started. And one of the reasons they are so effective is that they have excellent cutting-edge technology, like the new stealth helicopter that allowed them to penetrate deep into Pakistani airspace undetected.

2) The return on an investment like this isn't always immediately apparent, but may only reveal itself years or decades down the line.

3) why hell do you keep on returning to guns germs and steel? Did I ever say germs and steel weren't important? If you've read guns germs and steel, then you know about the Battle of Cajamarca. It was 200 disciplined Spanish troops with horses, bayonets and arquebuses that defeated 7,000 incans with spears and bows+arrows in that battle.
 
Last edited:
Why do you assume that I was talking to you directly?

Tell that to the Indians. The A-bomb wasn't and never has been the first time that wars have been won due to technology.

Dually noted.

In which case, if the money should not be invested in more Seals, or what not, putting 320 million in a long term investment when we are looking at what, 14 trillion in debt, isn't practical at all, but is actually insane.
 
Last edited:
I voted no, but now, mulling it over, we should pursue it for job creation, but if the military is to use it, they must have a legitimate reason for wanting such technology on the battlefield.

Also due to many bringing up civilian and troop transportation by hypersonic travel, I must ask the question: Can the human body even withstand hypersonic speed?

Speed/velocity is irrelevant. The astronauts in the space shuttle orbit at what would be Mach 23 at sea level. It's the acceleration/g's that take a toll on the human body.
 
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...

I'm not buying it. You don't just lose a missile in the Pacific. They track these launches and have GPS to pin point exactly where it is. So,...............? Ooops! Conspiracy thread coming up. :)
 
Why do you assume that I was talking to you directly?

Dually noted.

In which case, if the money should not be invested in more Seals, or what not, putting 320 million in a long term investment when we are looking at what, 14 trillion in debt, isn't practical at all, but is actually insane.

Whether it's insane is a matter of opinion, but it's stupid to suggest that it's insane simply because it's a long-term investment costing 320 million and we're 14 trillion in debt.

If instead this were an infrastructure project, like fixing our roads, power grids, or water systems, hell yeah it would be worth it regardless of how deeply in debt we are.
 
What you said was true, and so I have to be more specific. It is insane to invest 320 million dollars on a long term military investment, when we are trillions in debt and we are already the supreme army, what have you, in the world. Especially considering that technology alone does not win wars.
 
Last edited:
I'm not buying it. You don't just lose a missile in the Pacific. They track these launches and have GPS to pin point exactly where it is. So,...............? Ooops! Conspiracy thread coming up. :)

They said they'll try to recover it. It apparently fell into the ocean, so yes, right now it is lost.
 
What you said was true, and so I have to be more specific. It is insane to invest 320 million dollars on a long term military investment, when we are trillions in debt and we are already the supreme army, what have you, in the world.

Alright. A better argument, but I still disagree.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with spending money on a long-term investment right now, as long as you get a return on it eventually. $320 million is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, and regardless of whether or not we're $14 trillion in debt, this is probably money we're going to be spending sooner or later regardless, and in the future, if it pays off and has both commercial and military uses, we won't even think about what 320 million did for us way back when.
 
True, but you are assuming this investment will be successful. There is just the other possibility that the investment will be a failure.

And it is true, that 320 million is nothing. But if you have that ideology when trying to balance your check books, "Oh this is nothing, let's keep spending on that. On that too!" Eventually you will not only not solve the problem, but you will make the problem worse.

The people in power, have all these fancy degrees from ivy league schools, and yet they do not know how to balance a check book. This means, that there will be fancy toys you can not buy anymore. If I go out and put 2000 dollars on a fancy drum set on a credit card, I can't keep spending on my old expenses with my added debt. If I was responsible, I would stop spending money on certain things and put it towards my 2000 dollar purchase.

So yeah, 320 million is nothing, but it is something, and it is adding to our deficit on something that may or may not work, and if it works, it will not win us wars alone.
 
You are completely incorrect. Iraq had an intellectual class, but they fled:

Incorrect. That was not an intellectual class. That was the leftovers who somehow managed to survive the genocidal dictator who killed everyone who had any idea besides his own. Iraq was depleted of social capital. That's what happened when a madman with totalitarian power took absolute grip on a country for a few generations.

Mr. Invisible, are you Muslim?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom