• 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
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you need to penetrate air defenses, you can simply fire a large enough quantity to guarantee some get through. Cruise missiles have the primary advantage of existing, as opposed to theoretical technology doesn't work. Putting the funding towards stealth cruise missiles would solve the air defense problem in a much more effective solution. Cruise missiles also have the added bonus of being less likely to start a nuclear war.

There are better hypersonic research programs to fund than this boondoggle.
 
obvious Child said:
Even if the advantage is minute, easy to counter and costs us the bank?
Click to expand...

He's been on the battlefield. Let's remember that he has had his ass protected/saved by military support, literally. Like a person whos life was saved by medicare or the likes, he is committed. There are many people out there who will support any government healtcare iniative because they've personally been involved and seen the difference it can make. Go give them a hard time.
 
obvious Child said:
Even if the advantage is minute, easy to counter and costs us the bank?
Click to expand...

Common sense should dictate that no one would support an R&D project that will be uneffective, or at best, no-more effective than systems that are already in the field.

Again, I support any military R&D project, that could give us the edge over the bad guys and/or create more force protection on the battlefield.
 
Wow eco! You are starting to share more logic! You still have refused to provide evidence of your statements, which is, how have I lost all perspective? Where did I say that 320 million dollars was a lot of money? Also keep in mind, someone else said that logistics were key, not me.

Now you mentioned my stance on gun control. If you read my posts on this issue, it is more than likely you will not understand my stance on this issue, since so many people on these forums do not understand what I am saying.

My stance on the second amendment is to interpret it for which it was meant to be interpreted. The purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people the power to overthrow an oppressive government, not to enforce order with everyday trivial things. Our forefathers just came from an oppressive government, did they not?

So I believe people should be able to purchase a firearm assuming they are a part of an organized militia. I do not believe an average citizen can purchase a weapon and not participate in an organized militia. It has been said on these forums, that the supreme court disagrees with this interpretation of this amendment. But there are things that should be noted when dealing with the supreme court.

First, the supreme court has changed stances on issues during the course of history. Also, if you follow a lot of their decisions, most of those decisions coincide with the views of society and the people in power at the time. It really has little to do with true logic. Second, the supreme court has invested interests if they do not allow the amendment to be interpreted in this way. They want to keep their power. This is a law of man, for people who have power will do whatever it takes to keep that power.

It seems, that when people hear from credible people in their minds, they refuse to question the logic of these credible people. Why is that? They are human, right? It is our job as educated citizens to question everything that is put forth between us. Whether it is said from congress, the president, the supreme court, the scientist, or the religious leader.

To recap. My stance on gun control is that people can own a weapon assuming they are participating in an organized militia.
 
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...
Its scary having todays politicans decide anything....so much fear and ignorance....
And what is this "attack" business ?
I thought we were a peaceful nation....boy, but with all these wars...we are anything but !!!
Whatever happened to "make love, not war" ??
 
sookster said:
Wow eco! You are starting to share more logic! You still have refused to provide evidence of your statements, which is, how have I lost all perspective? Where did I say that 320 million dollars was a lot of money? Also keep in mind, someone else said that logistics were key, not me.

Now you mentioned my stance on gun control. If you read my posts on this issue, it is more than likely you will not understand my stance on this issue, since so many people on these forums do not understand what I am saying.

My stance on the second amendment is to interpret it for which it was meant to be interpreted. The purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people the power to overthrow an oppressive government, not to enforce order with everyday trivial things. Our forefathers just came from an oppressive government, did they not?

So I believe people should be able to purchase a firearm assuming they are a part of an organized militia. I do not believe an average citizen can purchase a weapon and not participate in an organized militia. It has been said on these forums, that the supreme court disagrees with this interpretation of this amendment. But there are things that should be noted when dealing with the supreme court.

First, the supreme court has changed stances on issues during the course of history. Also, if you follow a lot of their decisions, most of those decisions coincide with the views of society and the people in power at the time. It really has little to do with true logic. Second, the supreme court has invested interests if they do not allow the amendment to be interpreted in this way. They want to keep their power. This is a law of man, for people who have power will do whatever it takes to keep that power.

It seems, that when people hear from credible people in their minds, they refuse to question the logic of these credible people. Why is that? They are human, right? It is our job as educated citizens to question everything that is put forth between us. Whether it is said from congress, the president, the supreme court, the scientist, or the religious leader.

To recap. My stance on gun control is that people can own a weapon assuming they are participating in an organized militia.
Click to expand...

I have an issue with your stance and will provide the following quote from a little known document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
ecofarm said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am an atheist. What the hell does being Muslim have anything to do with it?
 
earthworm said:
Its scary having todays politicans decide anything....so much fear and ignorance....
And what is this "attack" business ?
I thought we were a peaceful nation....boy, but with all these wars...we are anything but !!!
Whatever happened to "make love, not war" ??
Click to expand...


All the hippies got married and {used to} have jobs now. The pendulum swings both ways unless the clock falls over, expect The Winds of Change to start blowin'
 
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
Click to expand...

How would you propose the people abolish this said government?
 
sookster said:
How would you propose the people abolish this said government?
Click to expand...

Tsk. I said nothing of this government.

One day it may come to it, and the people by right, arms and force of numbers would be required. Remember, soldiers are Americans too.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
The entire Roman army would lose to a single US Armored Cavalry troop.
Click to expand...
Then explain how the Viet Cong gave us so much trouble in Vietnam.
Or how the Afghans kicked out both the Americans , the British, and the Russians....
Its the people.....techology just speeds up the process.
 
apdst said:
Common sense should dictate that no one would support an R&D project that will be uneffective, or at best, no-more effective than systems that are already in the field.

Again, I support any military R&D project, that could give us the edge over the bad guys and/or create more force protection on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Common sense also states that profit is not liquidity. You have not answered my question. If an expensive R&D program that can be neutralized but gives a small advantage in a conflict could be done, would you support it?
 
Mach said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your understanding is flawed. First, no matter the nature of a first strike not everyone would be dead. Most would survive. Some might not even see any effects.
Second, we do not have any missiles on "automatic." Command and control survivability measures are designed to make sure we can respond to a nuclear attack under any conceivable scenario.

For weapons to successfully deter not only nuclear but large scale conventional war they must be relatively immune from a decapitating attack. They must also be relatively immune from accidental use.
 
sookster said:
For now, this investment is essentially high risk. Why are we spending 320 million dollars on a high risk military investment, . . .?
Click to expand...
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) reviews bids from companies with good ideas. They select a few of them and provide a small amount of money. Here is a short list of their successes:

Successful projects

The internet: Precisely who 'invented' the mass of linked computer networks that is today's internet is a moot point. But it wouldn't have happened without the ARPANET network built by DARPA in the 1960s. The idea was to make a "self-healing" communications network that still worked when parts of it were destroyed. It was the first network to transmit data in discrete chunks, not constant streams, and led to the development of the TCP/IP specification still in use today.

GPS: We would be quite literally lost without today's global positioning system (GPS). But long before the current NAVSTAR GPS satellites were launched, came a constellation of just five DARPA satellites called Transit. First operational in 1960, they gave US Navy ships hourly location fixes as accurate as 200 metres.

Speech translation: Although not yet available to consumers, handheld language translation devices developed with DARPA funding are already being used in Iraq. Although accuracy can be as low as 50%, the devices have met with favourable reviews from forces on the ground.

Stealth Planes: It's probably the best example of DARPA fulfilling its remit to come up with "surprise" technologies - even the US Air Force was surprised by the idea. The first prototype, Have Blue, was tested in the late 1970s and became the precursor to F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter.

Gallium Arsenide: One of DARPA's lesser known accomplishments, semiconductor gallium arsenide received a push from a $600-million computer research program in the mid-1980s. Although more costly than silicon, the material has become central to wireless communications chips in everything from cellphones to satellites, thanks to its high electron mobility, which lets it work at higher frequencies.
Click to expand...

One can never tell what will succeed and where the success will lead. I will also predict to you that there are successes we will not know about until after they are used in the next war.

All programs have "off ramps". Depending on what was learned from these two experiments the hypersonic experiments may have reached theirs. I am for the efforts. This is like planting seeds for the next year's harvest. It is a false economy to eat the seed.
 
earthworm said:
Then explain how the Viet Cong gave us so much trouble in Vietnam.
Click to expand...
1: Your response does not negate the truth of my statement.
2: The loss in Vietnam had nothing to do with the disparity in technology or the quality of the opponent, but the idiocy in Washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom