US deploys 'game-changer' weapon to Afghanistan

Dec 01, 2010 by Michael Mathes
A soldier aims an XM25 weapon system at Aberdeen Test Center, Maryland. The Pentagon has rolled out prototypes of its first-ever programmable "smart" grenade launcher, a shoulder-fired weapon that uses microchipped ammunition to target and kill the enemy, even when the enemy is hidden behind walls or other cover.

It looks and acts like something best left in the hands of Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo," but this latest dream weapon is real -- and the US Army sees it becoming the Taliban's worst nightmare.

The Pentagon has rolled out of its first-ever programmable "smart" grenade launcher, a shoulder-fired weapon that uses microchipped ammunition to target and kill the enemy, even when the enemy is hidden behind walls or other cover.

After years of development, the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, about the size of a regular rifle, has now been deployed to US units on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where the Army expects it to be a "game-changer" in its counterinsurgency operations.

"For well over a week, it's been actively on patrols, and in various combat outposts in areas that are hot," said Lieutenant Colonel Chris Lehner, program manager for the XM25.

The gun's stats are formidable: it fires 25mm air-bursting shells up to 2,300 feet (700 meters), well past the range of most rifles used by today's soldiers, and programs them to explode at a precise distance, allowing troops to neutralize insurgents hiding behind walls, rocks or trenches or inside buildings.

"This is the first time we're putting smart technology into the hands of the individual soldier," Lehner told AFP in a telephone interview.

"It's giving them the edge," he said, in the harsh Afghan landscape where Islamist extremists have vexed US troops using centuries-old techniques of popping up from behind cover to engage.

Graphic on the US army's new programmable "smart" gun that uses microchipped ammunition to target and kill enemy combatants hidden behind walls or other cover.

"You get behind something when someone is shooting at you, and that sort of cover has protected people for thousands of years," Lehner said.

"Now we're taking that away from the enemy forever."

PEO Soldier says studies show the XM25 is 300 percent more effective than current weapons at the squad level.

The revolutionary advance involves an array of sights, sensors and lasers that reads the distance to the target, assesses elements such as air pressure, temperature, and ballistics and then sends that data to the microchip embedded in the XM25 shell before it is launched.

Previous grenade launchers needed to arc their shells over cover and land near the target to be effective.

"It takes out a lot of the variables that soldiers have to contemplate and even guess at," Lehner said.

If, for example, an enemy combatant pops up from behind a wall to fire at US troops and then ducks behind it, an XM25 gunner can aim the range finder at the top of the wall, then program the shell to detonate one meter beyond it, showering lethal fragmentation where the insurgent is seeking cover.

Use of the XM25 can slash civilian deaths and damage, the Army argues, because its pinpointed firepower offers far less risk than larger mortars or air strikes.

A soldier aims an XM25 weapon system at Aberdeen Test Center, Maryland. After years of development, the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System has been deployed on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where the Army expects it to be a "game-changer" in its counterinsurgency operations.

The result, the Army says, is "very limited collateral damage."

The Pentagon plans to purchase at least 12,500 of the guns -- at a price tag of 25,000 to 30,000 dollars each -- beginning next year, enough for one in each Infantry squad and Special Forces team.

Lehner said the XM25 was special in that it requires comparatively little training, because the high-powered technology does so much of the work.

"This system is turning soldiers with average shooting skills into those with phenomenal shooting skills," he said.

Explore further: Touch-responsive 3-D maps provide independence to the visually impaired

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US Army enlists Facebook, Twitter

Apr 27, 2009

The US Army said on Monday it had launched a fan page on Facebook and established an office for online "social media," despite security rules that limit soldiers' access to networking sites.

Air Force warns troops about Facebook feature

Nov 18, 2010

(AP) -- The Air Force is warning its troops to be careful when using Facebook and other popular networking sites because some new features could show the enemy exactly where U.S. forces are located in war ...

Recommended for you

Gecko inspired pads allow researchers to climb glass wall

Nov 19, 2014

A team of researchers working at Stanford University has used prior research involving the means by which gecko's climb walls to create pads that allow a human to do very nearly the same thing. In their paper ...

User comments : 133

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DamienS
4.1 / 5 (38) Dec 01, 2010
After years of development, the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, about the size of a regular rifle, has now been deployed to US units on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where the Army expects it to be a "game-changer" in its counterinsurgency operations.

How will it change the game? The only viable game changer is a political solution, not a military one. If these things were available at the start of the war, some ten years ago, does anyone seriously believe things would be better today?

This is the first time we're putting smart technology into the hands of the individual soldier

Maybe they should focus on putting smart technology in the heads of politicians and military advisers.
IvyMike
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2010
"You get behind something when someone is shooting at you, and that sort of cover has protected people for thousands of years," Lehner said.

"Now we're taking that away from the enemy forever."

Also, your reply commits the begging the question fallacy.
Raveon
4 / 5 (9) Dec 01, 2010
Now if it only had a destruct command for when ammo is captured. Hope these things have some means to keep the enemy from using the rifle. Wonder what the failure rate is per round and if they go off prematurely or late. Late would be bad, prematurely could be fatal.
epsi00
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 01, 2010
Now the politicians have a "fake" good reason not to sit at the table for another 5 years. The war in Afghanistan is not winnable. If it were, the soviets would still be there.
Sciencebee
4.4 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2010
If these things were available at the start of the war, some ten years ago, does anyone seriously believe things would be better today?

I would say maybe. Diplomatic solutions are hard when the people you are negotiating with are constantly getting killed off, having their family threatened/killed, etc. Stability is important to enable diplomacy or else you end up with rampant corruption because the politicians are so vulnerable.

I will say that when I read your post I was thinking "I like this person". Just to be clear I think war sucks terribly.
Code_Warrior
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 01, 2010
Maybe they should focus on putting smart technology in the heads of politicians and military advisers.

Agree. However, political solutions may not be possible when the opposition's goal is to rule with absolute power and they view those who oppose them as an enemy to de destroyed. In those cases where the opposition refuses to dialog and is hell bent on your destruction you are left with the choice to leave them alone or destroy their ability to pursue their agenda. If they pursue their agenda through the use of brute force and they value their lives, then weapons such as this are valuable as a means of limiting their attack options to locations where the weapon's ability to counter attack is severely degraded. Most of the locations where the weapon is ineffective are also difficult to launch attacks from. Such weapons may help to pursuade the opposition to at least open a dialog. At that point, we need smart diplomacy.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2010
I'll bet these get retrofitted with stun grenades and used in police situations within a few years (military gets to prove they work, first...)
getgoa
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 01, 2010
This technology is very dangerous-- it invites the inexperienced. If a weapon is so advanced the inexperienced or a child could use this weapon then the weapon will fall short-- The children will win war not the adults.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (21) Dec 01, 2010
This is the kind of technology the military needs to currently be focusing on. This will change the face of asymmetric warfare, at least tactically. Strategically it's not going to stop terrorist attacks on civilians, but it will allow us to change the terms we engage them in battle conditions.

Oh, and to be honest, ALL diplomacy begins at making it so painful for the other side to not talk that they start wanting to talk. No one compromises for the FUN of it. Thinking otherwise is naive in the extreme...

Anyway, like I said this is what we need...not another billion dollar bomber that evades radar our enemies aren't even using...
mrcircumspect
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2010
This weapon may present a very fleeting advantage on the battlefield. The enemy will simply learn to shoot -- then move quickly to another position. They could even play dead -- luring in the soldiers who suppose their "super-weapon" has pulverized the enemy only to be cut down at close range. FYI. The weapon does has "finger-print" security that is designated to operate by one person only. Ammunition has security codes that are supposed to render it in-operable without the codes.
Afghanistan has been called "the graveyard of empires" and we'll lose there too. All the generals needed to do before we went in was take a 5 minute course on Afghanistan history and they'd have been enlightened to their future.
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (21) Dec 01, 2010
This weapon may present a very fleeting advantage on the battlefield. The enemy will simply learn to shoot -- then move quickly to another position.


Never been in the service have you :) What do you think happens to them when they expose themselves to move to a different position. Moreover, that's the whole point of this tech...it doesn't MATTER if they move to a different position and are behind cover. If you read the article, it's implications certainly escaped you completely.

Afghanistan has been called "the graveyard of empires" and we'll lose there too.


The Russian's had them completely beat until they got stinger missiles from us. *GASP* you mean technology can effect the outcome of wars. Gee and I thought it was only mealiness platitudes like "graveyards of Empires" that decided armed conflicts...
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (30) Dec 01, 2010
How will it change the game? The only viable game changer is a political solution, not a military one. If these things were available at the start of the war, some ten years ago, does anyone seriously believe things would be better today?
The reason we are there, is to reduce the enemys ability to fight. This means killing or capturing combatants. If we weren't there, the young idle gen which was born above the limit of their cultures ability to feed and employ them, would all be marching east to join Pakistani radicals existing under similar situations. The legitimate govt would have collapsed and islamists would now be waging nuclear war against India and the west. Obviously.
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (58) Dec 01, 2010
Islamists want the return of the caliphate and a Moslem empire. They have stated this. We are in Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce their ability to do so by containing and/or killing as many of them as possible. To end this potential, the culture has to stop reproducing aggressively, which it will not do. So war continues; and all the heartfelt diplomacy and entreaties from peaceniks and dreamers will not change this inexorable equation.
eachus
4.3 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2010
Economics is called the dismal science with good reason. You often look at the economics of a good idea and find that the result is worse than doing nothing. Not the case here.

The current asymmetrical war in Afghanistan is dominated by one scenario. Enemy combatants are paid by the Taliban to harass Coalition troops. The Coalition troops are operating under rules of engagement (RoE) that requires them to catch the enemy combatants with weapons in hand to engage them. So the enemy hides weapons in hard points and other sniping position, and don't carry weapons to and from battle. Worse, in many cases they can reposition themselves on the battlefield without carrying weapons.

The RoE may seem stupid, but they are necessary to win at a strategic level. Add this weapon and the economics shift from about one to one in casualties to ten to one or higher.

Doesn't deal with IEDs, but it will allow Coalition soldiers to do the counter-insurgency part of their mission.
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (54) Dec 01, 2010
Now the politicians have a "fake" good reason not to sit at the table for another 5 years. The war in Afghanistan is not winnable. If it were, the soviets would still be there.
The soviets were there to do the exact same things that NATO is doing now. We saw the same sort of succession in Vietnam: first the French, then the US, and finally the communists until the Job of destroying the obsolete culture was complete. Vietnam today is now a productive member of the world community with a stable population and a healthy economy. This is what victory looks like.
degojoey
1.8 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2010
they should make a weapon that is the size of a large insect that can fly with a mini camera and a single charge of c4. then they can fly this over to the terrorists head and remote detonate it... we had an army of these things we wouldnt need to send soldiers over there to risk lives. we can just remotely kill of of those dumb islam extremists. At least its shy of nuking the whole place and starting over... b/c thats my second favorite option.
krundoloss
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2010
I have an idea. Leave them all to rot in the desert and stop fighting wars in foreign lands. Some people are just petty and cruel, no war will ever solve that! The US just needs to withdraw and worry about its own territory. Let the Chinese, who are actually MAKING MONEY, worry about saving the world!
Modernmystic
3.1 / 5 (20) Dec 01, 2010
I have an idea. Leave them all to rot in the desert and stop fighting wars in foreign lands. Some people are just petty and cruel, no war will ever solve that! The US just needs to withdraw and worry about its own territory. Let the Chinese, who are actually MAKING MONEY, worry about saving the world!


Make you a deal. If they quit ramming planes into buildings on our soil I'll sign on...
El_Nose
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 01, 2010
@Damien

the game that is being changed is 'war' & how it is conducted. since the invention of the rifle / musket over 250 years ago the best way to avoid getting hit b a bullet was to seek cover, get behind a rock or a tree or a wall. well this gun now can effectively kill you even if you seek cover. granted a 50 calibur with incendiary round can as well but this is a bit more accurate & has better range.

@raveon

this gun has limited ammo, probably around 20 rounds, if the gun is 'captured' it needs two things: special bullets that have a microchip in them to function & a power source to recharge its batteries. remember this is closer to a computer than a purely mechanical device

-- Would things be better --

as we continue to fight in urban areas this should make skirmishes shorter with fewer wounds & casulties on 'our' side

This really will change warfare - the big issue is what happens when China copies it and resells it to our potential enemies.
El_Nose
3.3 / 5 (15) Dec 01, 2010
this will not change asymetric warfare at all --- by definition asymetric warfare can not be defended against.

In the case of Islamic zealotry I am of the opinion that the state department has the right idea -- people do not blow themselves up if they have a good job, steady income, and can provide for their families in a meaningful way.

Our biggest issue has been people sent to the US recieved a great education, went back to their coutry and could not find any work in thier own society. Highly educated, now depressed and remembering the lavishness of the USA -- and hating us for it... the answer is to communicate with their leaders the need to modernize their society to create a larger middle class to put power, property rights, and individual rights in the hands of the individual and not the state.

People who are making money and can provide for their family - DO NOT BLOW THEM SELVES UP -- create a middle class in these coutries and suicide bombing stops
El_Nose
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 01, 2010
the chinese do not care about saving the world - largely because they are not targets of terrorism -- remember tianemen square - when the chinese revolt the government runs over its own people with tanks !!! no one F@(&$ with China, not even the US

If China were a target for terrorism we would see them in this fight but - you notice only the western civilizations are being targeted - why because we are the most prosperous and we educated the intellegent leaders that now hate us. We have extreme amounts of wealth, they lived here, went to our schools and went home and saw there coutrymen lived in filth and hate us for our decadence. These people need a middle class that is greater than 25% of the population -- until it reaches 70% of the population like in western society they will continue to blame western society. and why not they eat very little and we have freaking oreo pizzas and pay $1000 to go to the superbowl.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2010
http://en.wiktion..._warfare

Says nothing that I can see about "not being able to defend against".

It's dissimilar warfare, not invincible warfare...
Parsec
3.1 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2010
I have an idea. Leave them all to rot in the desert and stop fighting wars in foreign lands. Some people are just petty and cruel, no war will ever solve that! The US just needs to withdraw and worry about its own territory. Let the Chinese, who are actually MAKING MONEY, worry about saving the world!


Make you a deal. If they quit ramming planes into buildings on our soil I'll sign on...


Well put.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2010
This rifle and the tech behind it are old.

You should see the newer stuff, no need to program anything, auto calculated range of effect, shaped charge, and my new favorite that they jsut started issuing, the molten sabot rounds.
Ratfish
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2010
I kept reading the article over and over but didn't see how this device will help us extract Afghanistan's natural resources more effectively or efficiently. What am I missing?
jimbo92107
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
Islamists want the return of the caliphate and a Moslem empire. They have stated this. We are in Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce their ability to do so by containing and/or killing as many of them as possible. To end this potential, the culture has to stop reproducing aggressively, which it will not do. So war continues; and all the heartfelt diplomacy and entreaties from peaceniks and dreamers will not change this inexorable equation.


That's just silly. Look at the terrain in Afghanistan. Empires fail in that region because the terrain does not allow for reasonable logistics. Afghanistan is and always will be an area that is ruled by semi-isolated warlords. There is no "caliphate" or any other centralized government, and there never will be.
Caliban
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
More effective still would be a global trade embargo imposed upon all of these war-making or insurgency-funding nations, and a strict, food-for-oil policy implaced. That would go a long way towards calming things down.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2010
We were using the shorter range rifles early on in the war in Afghan. The older soviet rifles being used by the enemy outranged us. The USA had to switch to the NATO rifles.

So mountainous terrian, a mini bunker buster like this rifle with a 2300 foot range is awesome. It's a mortar from your shoulder.

The problem wont be them finding it, it'll be who sells it to them.

Also if it has a computer chip...i imagine you could emp it or trigger it early to defend against?
krundoloss
2.9 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2010
"Make you a deal. If they quit ramming planes into buildings on our soil I'll sign on... "

Who rammed planes into buildings on our soil? Oh, thats right, nobody knows. So how do you get people to want to fight a war? Oh, you let yourself be attacked, then everyone is ready to go to war. Sounds familiar? Pearl Harbor? Its an old war tactic used for centuries. Make the people feel vulnerable, they will beg for war. HA HA HA!

We really do have cool guns though. LOL!
DickWilhelm
4 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
From what I've seen Afghanistan is littered with easily defensible positions constructed during the past 2000 years of war. I'd prefer there were no war, but if the politicians and the public majority won't let us leave then maybe we can keep more of our guys alive by giving them tools to defeat the terrain being used against them.
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (29) Dec 01, 2010
That's just silly. Look at the terrain in Afghanistan. Empires fail in that region because the terrain does not allow for reasonable logistics. Afghanistan is and always will be an area that is ruled by semi-isolated warlords.
You mean like arizona? Nevada maybe? Pan out a little farther. You can see how the west has effectively compartmentalized the middle east. We have capped either end with india and israel, and have divided it by occupying iraq and afghanistan.
There is no "caliphate" or any other centralized government, and there never will be.
This is a real plan:
"Hizb ut-Tahrir says that Muslims should abolish national boundaries within the Islamic world and return to a single Islamic state, known as "the Caliphate," that would stretch from Indonesia to Morocco and contain more than 1.5 billion people."
http://www.csmoni...ome.html

The caliphate was only ended in 1924 by ataturk. They have something a little different in mind this time.
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (37) Dec 01, 2010
I have an idea. Leave them all to rot in the desert and stop fighting wars in foreign lands. Some people are just petty and cruel, no war will ever solve that! The US just needs to withdraw and worry about its own territory. Let the Chinese, who are actually MAKING MONEY, worry about saving the world!
krundoloss the isolationist doesnt believe in aggressive defence? He thinks we should wait for an islamic empire to begin sinking western ships with their own nuclear subs and downing commercial airliners with directed energy weapons? And distributing pakistani nukes to terrorists? Attack is often the best defence, and sometimes the only logical one.
AMMBD
4.4 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
People who are making money and can provide for their family - DO NOT BLOW THEM SELVES UP -- create a middle class in these countries and suicide bombing stops


so as the middle class dies here at home. . . .
Prince_Barry
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
the world is too much in advance , to comment a killing machine, the century we are now , we need to find a better solution better way to leave together,to make this planet the best place to leave
dtxx
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2010
The muslims will not be successful because they are actively making an enemy of everyone who is not a muslim.

http://www.youtub...3vhTO248
WaveMesher
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
I would like to know which forces of physics are involved/and how they are countered, when the XM25's shell detonates "burst". Whatever the shell's forward velocity is, at the time of detonation, won't the forward inertia slow the effective force of the released fragments (those that would be propelled opposite the direction of travel? These are the fragments which are hoped to kill targets resting against, and on the other side of a barrier. For this reason, I believe that there is a greater killing force at further distances. Towards the end of the projectiles flight, when it is slower, fragments would have less inertia to overcome. Thus, the effective force of the weapon is directly proportional to the range of the target. Yes?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2010
The US invests millions in order to develop weapons that will only destroy what they want destroyed.
Hezbollah builds cheap rockets and shoots them at civilians.
Given the international support for Hezbollah, the US is wasting a lot of money. Dig out the designs for cheap missiles and bombs and fire away.
Skepticus
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2010
..this gun has limited ammo, probably around 20 rounds, if the gun is 'captured' it needs two things: special bullets that have a microchip in them to function & a power source to recharge its batteries. remember this is closer to a computer than a purely mechanical device

Want to bet how long before the Chinese cloned these things? Heck, they have cloned everything electronic, computerized or not on this planet, nuclear weapons included.
DrJim
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2010
Make you a deal. If they quit ramming planes into buildings on our soil I'll sign on...


Specious. "They" were a handful of crazies, who exploited "our" refusal to lock cockpit doors after being warned that planes might be used as weapons. I don't recall that any other planes were used as weapons in that way, since that day. So, your conditions have been satisfied.

Evidently, some people would rather invest trillion$ in war, rather than simply making airplanes impossible to use as weapons. Who benefits???? (Hint, look at the subject of the article.)
TerryW
2.7 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2010

El Nose wrote: "you notice only the western civilizations are being targeted - why because we are the most prosperous and we educated the intellegent leaders that now hate us. We have extreme amounts of wealth, they lived here, went to our schools and went home and saw there coutrymen lived in filth and hate us for our decadence."

Sounds like Bush Jr talking. In reality we are hated for our support (in all ways) of Israel. No doubt we have or will soon be arming Israel with these weapons. More reason to hate us.

I also totally agree with krundoloss comment regarding who crashed the planes into buildings. Israel and the PNAC (who basically became the Bush admin in 2000) had been pushing Clinton to "take care of Iraq" long before 9/11. If you looked at the Israeli publications online on 9/12 they were beating the Iraq drums. 9/11 was no surprise, it was designed and executed for a purpose (involving many) - which was achieved unfortunately. Amazing how so many bought it.
krundoloss
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2010
Thank You TerryW. Someone else has thier eyes open too. The world is rarely ever as simple as the media make it out to be.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Dec 02, 2010
The US invests millions in order to develop weapons that will only destroy what they want destroyed.
Hezbollah builds cheap rockets and shoots them at civilians.
Given the international support for Hezbollah, the US is wasting a lot of money. Dig out the designs for cheap missiles and bombs and fire away.
Those cheap weapons are inevitable and they cause us to develop ever more effective ways of countering them. We will soon deploy lasers which will shoot down rockets and mortars, and reverse track them to their source for targeting and instant elimination. War is opportunity if anything.
Skepticus
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
@TerryW: Don't ever ever mention fair-haired Israel without angelic halos. You would get a 1 rating at best anywhere you post on the Global Net. At worst, the Mossad may have their hairy eyes on you. How can you be so stupid? There are a few things that are off limits, in the spirit of truth, free speech, fairness and the like ( which is all bullshit by the way): US's Israel, China's North Korea, just to name a few. Comprehendo, amigo?
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2010
>>>"...The Russian's had them completely beat until they got stinger missiles from us. *GASP* you mean technology can effect the outcome of wars...>>"

Yeehah, you US space cowboys delusioned on your video games hardwares! Remember Vietnam? The Vietnamese have kicked arses: the Mongol, Chinese, French, japanese, Americans, irrespective of numbers or fire powers. All it took for them is: WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT AND WIN, AT ALL COSTs, EVEN AT OUR OWN DESTRUCTION. Does the US's military can deal with such scenario? I guess not. After all, all their actions have been ordered and driven by politics, not survival.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
Yeehah, you US space cowboys delusioned on your video games hardwares! Remember Vietnam? The Vietnamese have kicked arses: the Mongol, Chinese, French, japanese, Americans, irrespective of numbers or fire powers. All it took for them is: WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT AND WIN, AT ALL COSTs, EVEN AT OUR OWN DESTRUCTION. Does the US's military can deal with such scenario? I guess not. After all, all their actions have been ordered and driven by politics, not survival.


Read a history book. All it took was for us to say "We don't want to win this war", and so we didn't. I'm not saying it was a "good" war, but we lost it they didn't beat us...we beat ourselves. When we were bombing the crap out of the North they were all over themselves to "make a deal". When we tied our own hands behind our backs, obviously they took full advantage.

Is it HONESTLY your position that technology can't effect the outcome of a war? Really?
hourifromparadise
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2010
It's easier and cheaper to bring this country back to the tenth century . A perfect medieval islamic state . It would cost no single soldier his life , no soldier could be hurt. Just put out the light .(electricity). Than forbid every kind of motor . Just some ships before the coast with drones and planes is enough . Jemen may also become a candidat for a return to the tenth century. That weapon i saw already in the program discovery , nothing new . To buy it , really insane.
Skepticus
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
@Modernmystic: A war won means the will of the people and the direction of the subjugated are really bent and directed by the victor. I don't see that hapening in the current conflicts in the ME. I grant you the US will win every battle against anyone right now bar none; but it's not neccessarily mean they will win any war. Technology can't effect the outcome of a war, unless it is so powerful and explicitly used, such as the bombs dropped on Japan in WW2. On a lesser degree it MAY decides the outcome of a war, provided sufficient firepower is used to throughoutly demolish the fighting forces, infrastructures and demoralised the enemy population. So, unless you are prepared to practically wipe your enemies off the map (too costly in resource and manpower, as the Chinese re Vietnamese during their 1000 years of domination) you are faced with the will of the resistant force. This will to fight or not, and the effects of the continuance of it, is the determinant of the outcome of any war.
Dummy
1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
The kooky liberal nut jobs are running rampant here...
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2010
So, unless you are prepared to practically wipe your enemies off the map (too costly in resource and manpower, as the Chinese re Vietnamese during their 1000 years of domination) you are faced with the will of the resistant force. This will to fight or not, and the effects of the continuance of it, is the determinant of the outcome of any war


Exactly, and do you see the irony here? I understand that and am "prepared" for that. I'd have used nuclear weapons after 9/11...no hesitation. It's people like YOU, who are unprepared to do what it takes to win a war that are going to lose this war for us. It's YOU that's the true enemy here, who cares more about how you fight rather than if you win. It's actually quite easy to win a war (in every sense of the word) with an overwhelming demonstration of force. What's hard is getting liberal twits to understand that...
Skepticus
2.8 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
So, unless you are prepared to practically wipe your enemies off the map (too costly in resource and manpower, as the Chinese re Vietnamese during their 1000 years of domination) you are faced with the will of the resistant force. This will to fight or not, and the effects of the continuance of it, is the determinant of the outcome of any war


Exactly, and do you see the irony here? I understand that and am "prepared" for that. I'd have used nuclear weapons after 9/11...no hesitation. It's people like YOU, who are unprepared to do what it takes to win a war that are going to lose this war for us. It's YOU that's the true enemy here, who cares more about how you fight rather than if you win. It's actually quite easy to win a war (in every sense of the word) with an overwhelming demonstration of force. What's hard is getting liberal twits to understand that...


Ok, go ahead and nuke someone/someplace off the map, I insist.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2010
Ok, go ahead and nuke someone/someplace off the map, I insist.


You insist? I don't believe you, we might actually win and you couldn't have that could you. I think you hate this country too much to see us win...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
Ok, go ahead and nuke someone/someplace off the map, I insist.


You insist? I don't believe you, we might actually win and you couldn't have that could you. I think you hate this country too much to see us win...

The fact you think overwhelming shows of force win wars is laughable. If that was the case, we'd all be living in a smoking crater as the US and Russia squared off with their "overwhelming shows of force". Iraq would have succumb to the Shock and Awe campaign, and OBL would have wety his pants when the entire soviet armored corps came over the mountains.

Overwhelming shows of force only show the extent to which you're ready to fight, and even then it typically exposes weakness, not strength.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Dec 03, 2010
Read a history book. All it took was for us to say "We don't want to win this war", and so we didn't. I'm not saying it was a "good" war, but we lost it they didn't beat us...we beat ourselves.
Nobody lost anything. Look at Vietnam today- a healthy, prosperous member of the world community with a stabile population. This could only happen after the ancient culture based on obsolete repro rates was destroyed. A succession of states- France, the US, and then communism- were required to act to destroy it. This is victory by any measure.

The same thing is taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are there initially to prevent an empire from coalescing and the caliphate from returning. But the long term goal is to eliminate the dark age culture which keeps the region in a constant state of unrest due to religionist-mandated maximum reproduction and pop growth. These countries or facsimiles thereof will one day be prosperous, productive, and stable. One way or another.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
The fact you think overwhelming shows of force win wars is laughable.


The fact you responded the way you did was expected, you don't want us to win a war started on a Republican's watch either SH. You'd rather see us lose too.

If that was the case, we'd all be living in a smoking crater as the US and Russia squared off with their "overwhelming shows of force".


We never fought a war with them, unless I missed it...

Iraq would have succumb to the Shock and Awe campaign,


They did succumb. That government is no more...just in case you missed it. Plus, we were still pulling punches even in that campaign...

and OBL would have wety his pants when the entire soviet armored corps came over the mountains.


If the Soviets had nuked them you bet your naive liberal ass they would have wet his pants and waved a white flag.

and even then it typically exposes weakness, not strength.


BAWhhahahhaahaha....oh wait...you were SERIOUS??
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2010
Also OBL was going to lose in Afghanistan...then we sent them stinger missiles...

Which basically proves my point, that superiority of force/technology and the WILLINGNESS to use it is what wins wars.
Skepticus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
..the WILLINGNESS to use it is what wins wars...

The WILLINGNESS to use advanced weaponry is exactly my point. People expectations evolves with time. If bunker busters, stinger and cruise missiles, smarts bombs were used in the 40s the recipients would have crapped in their pants and capitulated. These days people are so desentitized they'dnt give much of a damn, bc that's mordern warfare. They'd just keep fighting on unless you nuke them. Everybody knows the US have bigger punches than these. But what do ou want to achieve after all? Wars are t be won for economics reasons ultimately, i.e. to ensure you have a prosperous future. The use of overwhelming forces will "win war", but what you'd have won? an empty wasteland? You have to rebuild everything you need for exploiting it. Bad for your balance sheet and global standing!!. In 21st century this is already passe and undoable. And if the political winds change, you may have to repay all the damages. Ask the Germans.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
Look at Vietnam today- a healthy, prosperous member of the world community with a stabile population.

Compared to what?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Dec 03, 2010
Look at Vietnam today- a healthy, prosperous member of the world community with a stabile population.

Compared to what?
What do you mean?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
The fact you responded the way you did was expected, you don't want us to win a war started on a Republican's watch either SH. You'd rather see us lose too.
No, I've actually been to war, have you? Have you ever been near, let alone involved in battlefield operations?
We never fought a war with them, unless I missed it...
Really MM? Are you that ignorant of US-Russian interaction over the past 100 years?
They did succumb. That government is no more...just in case you missed it. Plus, we were still pulling punches even in that campaign...
After an additional 6 years of systematically fighting and losing large numbers of field operators, civilian assets, and foot soldiers. Overwhelming force did not grant victory. Long term attrition did.
If the Soviets had nuked them you bet your naive liberal ass they would have wet his pants and waved a white flag.
He didn't surrender to the Soviet Tank Corps. That was the largest tank Corps in the world at the time.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
The US never had any intent to win in Afganistan. Not even Bush was that stupid. The idea was to get the Al Quida NOT the Taliban. A lot of damage was done to Al Quida then they pissed it away in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was just plain foolish. That aided Al Quida in their efforts to make out the US as an anti Islam monster. It was stupid, counter productive and wasted resources that should have used in Afganistan.

The weapon is a cool idea but tactics are not all there is to war. You need a strategy and a goal.

If the goal is to make Afganistan a rational state than it is doomed to failure. That place chews up invaders and has done so for millennia. No one but the inhabitants really want it. Even the Brits only wanted it to block the Russians who wanted a port down there. No really, they wanted a landlocked area to get a port eventually. There is a reason the Romanofs don't exist anymore.

Bush botched it so bad I suspect Obama is wasting our troops by now.

Ethelred
FunkyDude
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
12.5k units @ $25k each = $312,500,000

Ask yourself, "what is victory in Afghanistan?", and yet, we can afford $300+ million on guns in a down economy, this is great...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
We never fought a war with them, unless I missed it...
You missed it.

http://en.wikiped..._Siberia

Admittedly it was a long time ago now and only the Russians remember it. Well I remember it also.

This one I did not know about but it is the same war.

http://en.wikiped...pedition

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
The invasion of Iraq was just plain foolish. That aided Al Quida in their efforts to make out the US as an anti Islam monster. It was stupid, counter productive and wasted resources that should have used in Afganistan.
I'm going to disagree here.

The war in afghanistan is foolish. THe Iraq war was a matter of fulfilling our obligations under the Geneva Convention, regardless of how the UN felt about it. Saddam had wiped a member state off the mapo, engaged in genocide, assisted in the proliferation of weaponry to terrorist states and groups, and threatened the safety of world energy supplies. Above and beyond that he created one of the greatest disasters visited upon nature by opening oil pipelines directly into the Arabian Gulf and used chemical and potentially biological weapons against his own countrymen.

He had satisfied the regulations that remove sovereign status and demand allied intervention.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2010
Frajo, I can understand your disagreement with my preceeding statement but the UN guidelines demand that capable member states remove regimes that commit genocide. This alone is justification for Iraq as it was in Bosnia

Now, to use this guideline to attack in one instance, while ignoring it in other instances is unacceptable. Example: The US and all other member states should be heavily militarily vested in Rwanda and removing Mugabe, as well as all other incidences of genocide.
ShotmanMaslo
2.4 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
The war in afghanistan is foolish.


The people of afghanistan were more opressed by their criminal government than people in Iraq, and it was impossible to deal with the Taliban, except with force.

On the other hand, Iraq had a stable government, and could be even reasoned with under threats, and the war was not needed, IMHO.

Now, to use this guideline to attack in one instance, while ignoring it in other instances is unacceptable.


It is not unnacceptable, just less than ideal.
GaryB
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2010
Angry birds had this delayed explosion technology well before this gun. It is *very* effective, but the pigs are still there.
ballin
3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2010
The amount of stupid on this forum is mind-boggling for a freaking physics website.

Conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an inside job? check.

Blatant denial that Afghanistan was a hotbed/safehaven for terrorists prior to our invasion? check.

Numerous off-base comparisons between the US and the Soviet Union? double check.

/and the Iraq war is just like Vietnam, too! oh wait, you mean we won that and we're pulling troops out? crap.
otto1932
1 / 5 (23) Dec 04, 2010
The amount of stupid on this forum is mind-boggling for a freaking physics website.

Conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an inside job? check.

Blatant denial that Afghanistan was a hotbed/safehaven for terrorists prior to our invasion? check.

Numerous off-base comparisons between the US and the Soviet Union? double check.

/and the Iraq war is just like Vietnam, too! oh wait, you mean we won that and we're pulling troops out? crap.
Wow you're so freakin smart, I bet people elsewhere would really appreciate that.
The invasion of Iraq was just plain foolish. That aided Al Quida in their efforts to make out the US as an anti Islam monster. It was stupid, counter productive and wasted resources that should have used in Afganistan.
If you'll note on a map, the west now occupies a large amount of land right in the middle of Shia country, whose inhabitants would all love to pick up arms, march west, and help palestinians push Israel into the mittelmeer. Our actions are strategic.
meerling
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
Diplomacy is great, but much like pacifism, it's useless if the other guy wants to kill you.

For Diplomacy to work there must be an understanding that provides both sides the advantage of either a benefit, or the lessening/avoidance of undesirable harm. Whether or not you like the idea, a competent military that can overcome the defenses of the opposition has always been a very powerful bargaining chip.
Even if you are out numbered, out gunned, and out maneuvered, having a stong defensive position can equalize or win a conflict. This weapon effectively negates a large percentage of that defensive position.

On a more direct note regarding the weapon itself and not the politics, nice design, old idea.

As to providing 'smart devices' to politicians and the like, that would be utterly futile. U.S. politicians are well known as stubborn, ignorant, technophobes. It was either the house or senate (I forget which) that banned laptops and blackberries.
Tristan_Caley
1.5 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
My idea is better: use tank-launched drones which link to a central processing unit housed within the tank, as well as pack computers on each soldier that link to the cameras on each gun. The drones have full-spectrum cameras to scan the battlefield, the processor in the tank figures out where enemies are and highlights them on projected HUDs on the soldiers' visors. The soldiers' guns have accelerometers and gyroscopes to track movement and firing direction precisely, and a reticule is also displayed on the HUD, along with a slew of other data about the battlefield. Their helmet and gun-mounted cameras would also send video back to the tank to enable a full 3-D view of the battlefield for the tank operator and central command (located elsewhere).

Basically my idea uses tech available today but uses it in an intelligent way, rather than this gun's fucktarded way that requires soldiers to know where the enemy is when they can't see through walls.
mondoblu
2 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
One of main problems today lies in the US army itself and the US government.
Democracy is based on concrete idea, on honesty and goodness. This is the opposite of what US are doing in the world, US army is the carrier for death, blood and kills.

We need to stop war, now!
Mesafina
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
Wow Modern Mystic, wow. I thought for a while that you were maybe one of the smarter people I disagree with alot on this website, but now I see you are actually one of the most dense. Lets recap what you just said:

"I'd have used nuclear weapons after 9/11...no hesitation."

Who would you have used them on? The people of Afghanistan? I have heard you denounce communism because of it's historically murderous leaders but you just proved yourself to be of genocidal intent.

You are incredibly stupid. You have no business on a science and technology news site. The values and thoughts of a genocidal maniac have no value to humanity.

Go away.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
Now, to use this guideline to attack in one instance, while ignoring it in other instances is unacceptable.


It is not unnacceptable, just less than ideal.

No, it's semi-racist and since we're benefitting from the oppression of some people and not others, it makes us jsut as culpable as Mugabe.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
Basically my idea uses tech available today but uses it in an intelligent way, rather than this gun's fucktarded way that requires soldiers to know where the enemy is when they can't see through walls.
If you only knew the amount of technology that you're entirely unaware of. They recently showed the warlord system on the Science Channel. The warlord system is about 20 years old now and they were talking like it was Halo. That should give you a reasonable reference point.
Sean_W
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2010
The Taliban throw acid in the faces of little girls whose parents have the audacity of sending them to school. They burn down and blow up schools. They threaten teachers.

What exactly do people want discussed with these people at the "negotiating table". Are those who want to send their kids to school or not force women to live in sacks or want to participate in elections and civic life not worth anything?

As for "leaving them alone", we tried that. After several years of hellish rule that even the Iranian clerics called "too extreme" they assisted AQ in murdering thousands, crashing our economy, and nine years later we are having our genitals squeezed just to get on a plane.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
1/2
The war in afghanistan is foolish.
It is where OBL was based. You don't attack Iraq to get at someone in Afghanistan.

THe Iraq war was a matter of fulfilling our obligations under the Geneva Convention, regardless of how the UN felt about it.
No. We did that in the FIRST Gulf War. The second took place because Bush and Mad Dog wanted to show they could do what Bush The Competent(on foreign affairs) didn't. BTC did exactly what he was supposed to do. Get Iraq out of Kuwait. Once out there really was little to justify further killing.

engaged in genocide,
Lots of places have. Its appalling but usually the US won't go alone on that. It happens so often that we simply can't do it without local support.
and threatened the safety of world energy supplies.
Not at that time and not likely to ever do so again.

More
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
2/2
he created one of the greatest disasters
You are mixing up two separate wars.
demand allied intervention.
Which we did. In the FIRST Gulf War.
The US and all other member states should be heavily militarily vested in Rwanda and removing Mugabe, as well as all other incidences of genocide
We had a hard enough time getting the Europeans to help in EUROPE. The war in Iraq has been too bloody expensive to go on our own. And that is with taking money from the Iraqi oil. Which made us even more enemies. Made it look like P. Dumbass and VP. Mad Dog just wanted the oil.

Which may be the case. They took troops from Afghanistan where our REAL enemy was still on the loose but there was no oil, and sent those troops where there was no effective enemy and no support for Al Quida but there was oil. Now Al Quida is in Iraq, we are in severe financial difficulties and people are dead that did not have to be.

Ethelred
nada
2 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2010
HYPE,HYPE,HYPE - put out by the pentagon.

Go look up "Daewoo K11". Korea INVENTED, DESIGNED, CREATED this gun long ago. Its been in production since 2006!

So the buzz-phrases: "first-ever made" and "It's giving them the edge" is unadulterated hype.

If anything, the pentagon DROPPED THE BALL on this BADLY and we had to scramble to catch up.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2010
It is where OBL was based. You don't attack Iraq to get at someone in Afghanistan.
No you don't, then again, attacking Afghanistan didn't get him for us either, did it? The way you deal with insurgent wars is by fighting like an insurgent.
BTC did exactly what he was supposed to do. Get Iraq out of Kuwait. Once out there really was little to justify further killing.
I'm sorry, that's wrong. You can still smell the mustard gas he used on his own people in areas of northern Iraq. His transgressions did not stop after the first war, and the relinquishing of his "claim to kuwait".
Not at that time and not likely to ever do so again.
The man was repeatedly threatening to sink oil tankers in the gulf to stop the flow out from the peninsula. Beyond that he was passing weapon components from the DPKR off to maniacs in northern africa. If we didn't go after Sadam, we wouldn't have gotten capitulation from Qadaffi. There's a lot more to this, f brevity.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2010
attacking Afghanistan didn't get him for us either, did it?
Didn't claim it did. I did point out that we sent troops from Afghanistan to Iraq that should have stayed in Afghanistan till the job was done.
The way you deal with insurgent wars is by fighting like an insurgent.
Murdering people that even talk to the other guys? That is what the Taliban do. In ANY war you must destroy the enemies ability to wage war. In this case cut off funds and remove the incentives of the people that are recruited. Instead we gave incentives by attacking Iraq.
His transgressions did not stop after the first war, and the relinquishing of his "claim to Kuwait".
That has nothing to do with the first Gulf War. The reason for that war was the invasion of Kuwait not the actions against Iraqis.
The man was repeatedly threatening to sink oil tankers in the gulf
Threats that were intended to improve his standing politically. He was no more going to carry them out then he had WMDs.

Ethelred
epsi00
not rated yet Dec 05, 2010
In every war, there are winners and losers. It's not difficult to make a list of the two categories.
winners: the arms merchants ( or if you prefer the military-industrial complex).
losers: the American people. You know the ones who can't pay for the dentist and can't pay the mortgage because all the taxpayers' money is being spent on a war that is not winnable for the American people.
winners: the afghan people. if you are not convinced, read the history of the Vietnam war.

so we can sit here and continue to argue until the cows come home but the experiment(s) has already been done ( Vietnam ) and the results are in. Nothing has changed since then.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2010
Now, to use this guideline to attack in one instance, while ignoring it in other instances is unacceptable.


It is not unnacceptable, just less than ideal.

No, it's semi-racist and since we're benefitting from the oppression of some people and not others, it makes us jsut as culpable as Mugabe.


What, semi-racist? This has absolutely nothing to do with race.

We are not benefitting from the oppresion of anyone. The opposite is true. War is very costly endeavour, and coalition forces cannot police the whole world.

Not only is attacking in one instance and not attacking in other not wrong, it is the right thing to do, considering the amount of resources needed to wage war.
otto1932
1 / 5 (20) Dec 05, 2010
No you don't, then again, attacking Afghanistan didn't get him for us either
No but it made it far easier for him to gather up all the hapless young hotheads in the region and send them into western guns.

Bin Laden is doing as much to pacify the region as we are; indeed, we could not be doing so without his assistance. He has been doing this no matter where he has been.

The best way to pacify a region in the throes of an obsolete culture which repeatedly produces generation after generation of idle, hungry, and angry youth is to give them a cause, present an enemy to focus upon, and then compel them to attack this enemy to be killed or captured. Conversely the enemy may attack them with overwhelming force after they have been gathered in a stronghold.

The ultimate goal is to destroy the obsolete culture which creates and maintains the problem, but this may take gens to accomplish. Bin Laden is well aware of this. It is no coincidence he comes from saudi arabia.
alivation
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
Hmm .. back to the weapon... if I were a Taleban fighter facing this weapon, I would wear a steel shield on my back that I could shelter behind just by crouching down and leaning forward so the top of it touched the wall I was sheltering behind.
Grenade goes off above and behind me and shrapnel smashes into the shield. I then stand up and take another shot or two :-)
LordOfRuin
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
This must surely be a temptation to use. However, one person is spotted, but a family is in the room. Oh dear. On the other hand, I quite like this tech developement, I just wish it wasn't given to such a trigger happy nation.
Mike_Beck
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
Go look up "Daewoo K11". Korea INVENTED, DESIGNED, CREATED this gun long ago. Its been in production since 2006!

It started actually being produced and put into use this year (according to the Wikipedia article).
So the buzz-phrases: "first-ever made" and "It's giving them the edge" is unadulterated hype.

Just rechecked the article and I don't see "first ever made". I do see "first time WE're putting" and it is the first time WE'VE put it in OUR soldier's hands..

Technical note: K11's shells are smaller (25mm vs 20mm) and the range is lower (700m vs 500m) but otherwise it's the same idea.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2010
"I'd have used nuclear weapons after 9/11...no hesitation."

Who would you have used them on? The people of Afghanistan? I have heard you denounce communism because of it's historically murderous leaders but you just proved yourself to be of genocidal intent.

You are incredibly stupid. You have no business on a science and technology news site. The values and thoughts of a genocidal maniac have no value to humanity.

Go away.


Contrary to your idiotic and egotistical delusions I'm not here to please you. I could care less what you think of me or my opinions.

I would have used nuclear weapons on every State complicit with Al Qaeda, not just one country. I think the whole region needs a wake up call. I keep hearing about the "peaceful ones". Well...

I think that the 80% of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 is very telling. 3000 people died in Pearl Harbor too, was it "genocide" to nuke Japan?

And I'm going to continue to speak my mind, you Fascist.
taka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
I had to agree with majority here that this war is not winnable. Not because of weapons but because of politics. If your enemy is willing to die you had to kill him. But killing is politically unacceptable. So you will lose. It is only question of time when there will be Islamic States of America and already before that there will be Islamic States of Europe. Only China will survive.
taka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
It is sad to observe how US army is making all people in occupied land his enemies. They were not initially, but they are made to. It happens in Vietnam and it is happening now. First, there is this nasty habit to shoot anything that moves. So his own causalities are minimized, but only this one time. People do not forgive easily if there lowed ones get killed just because of being in wrong place and they will revenge. Then there is this also nasty habit to discard his local allays. Who care about them, they are not Americans. Local people see and remember that also. And then they tray to compensate by prohibiting solders to fire until they see weapons? Hopeless attempt, that only make solders ineffective and increases causalities. And that do not change the habit to shoot anything that mows, just that will happen not so often.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (22) Dec 06, 2010
Hmm .. back to the weapon... if I were a Taleban fighter facing this weapon, I would wear a steel shield on my back that I could shelter behind just by crouching down and leaning forward so the top of it touched the wall I was sheltering behind.
Grenade goes off above and behind me and shrapnel smashes into the shield. I then stand up and take another shot or two :-)
Sure you would. After humping 10 miles in 102 degree heat. And the shell goes off behind you and perforates your ass.
taka
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
And then there is also unwillingness to accept enemy capitulation. Saddam army tray to resign, but it was found politically incorrect to start cooperation with it, so the army was destroyed (not killed, just dismissed, but that do not change it). This way instead of stable country controlled by strong army under US lead (I would define it as clear victory) the country was pushed into chaos. I wonder how often similar is happening in Afghanistan in smaller scale. So, not enemy is too good, but that tactics do not leave other possibility then to lose. Even if victory is delivered to them they anyway find a way to lose. And this is not just one mistake somebody makes somewhere. It is systematic, it seems that all Americans behave like this. May be it has something to do with the environment they grow up? Too safe and when exposed to real threats they just panic?
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (24) Dec 06, 2010
@taka
You must live in one of those countries whose govts flood their subjects with bullshit anti-US propaganda.

The US spends millions on civilian aid programs, unlike the taliban which burns girls schools and stones all who disrespect allah. And sells opium for profit.
http://www.google...7ADRA_en
And then there is also unwillingness to accept enemy capitulation. Saddam army tray to resign, but it was found politically incorrect to start cooperation with it, so the army was destroyed (not killed, just dismissed, but that do not change it).
More obvious lies. Read wiki at least, if its not censored in your country.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (23) Dec 06, 2010
I would have used nuclear weapons on every State complicit with Al Qaeda, not just one country. I think the whole region needs a wake up call. I keep hearing about the "peaceful ones". Well...
"Wake up... time to die!" -Bladerunner
taka
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2010
My country is US friendly actually.

It do not matter how much you spend. How you spend it is what matters. But you cannot bay out lost lives by money. Newer. Even to bay simple friendliness is hard, it matters how the money is given, these people are pure, but they are proud. If there dignity gets hurt they will take the money but hate you for that. That is one more common American mistake, belief that anything can be solved by money.

Opium is just merchandise. May be worse then alcohol, but just another one from the same sort. No reason to point it out especially and it can be fought only economically.
taka
3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2010
Saddam army do tray to resign, it is fact. It happens when the land was already occupied and army beaten. The high level commanders approach US representatives and suggest a deal: "We are beaten, but we are not destroyed. If you allow us we will obey your command and help build up the country." The answer was: "We do not need you, all what is rest from Saddam army must be disintegrated." So it was done. But in this moment the army was only slightly beaten, it could easily control the country. And it was not Islamic, it would serve US well. Now they are struggling and there is serious danger that when US army leave the Taliban will take control.

Bay the way, when US before its attach give Saddam ultimatum to give out weapons of mass destruction the Saddam was really frighten. And it would give out all this weapons, but the problem was hi had none. They were already destroyed to not give US a cause for attack...
John_balls
3 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2010
I have an idea. Leave them all to rot in the desert and stop fighting wars in foreign lands. Some people are just petty and cruel, no war will ever solve that! The US just needs to withdraw and worry about its own territory. Let the Chinese, who are actually MAKING MONEY, worry about saving the world!


Make you a deal. If they quit ramming planes into buildings on our soil I'll sign on...


Well put.

What we have done in the middle east over the last 4 decades makes what happened to the twin towers look like a fun day at disney land.
People really need to open their eyes.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2010
What we have done in the middle east over the last 4 decades makes what happened to the twin towers look like a fun day at disney land.
People really need to open their eyes.


What? Exactly what? Showed them how to drill oil and then had them nationalize all the wells we drilled? Made them rich beyond any means they could have obtained by wandering the desert with their camels?

We're a bunch of bastards alright...
Bog_Mire
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2010
MM, you are a bunch of bastards. Takas points where all valid ones. You are being self delusional if you can't see that. Patriotism is blinding you to stark realities.
Taka: well said, the truth hurts, especially for such a proud (froth-at-the-mouth-crazy proud) nation as USA. So much effort put into the wrong places has made her plight so much worse, and made so many once benign peoples despise her vehemently.
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
Man, It would be amusing to assemble the guest list of which posters on this thread who are going to receive brand-new XM25s, Xmas cards from B. Netanyahu, A. Lieberman and AIPAC this year! :-))
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
MM, you are a bunch of bastards. Takas points where all valid ones. You are being self delusional if you can't see that. Patriotism is blinding you to stark realities.
Taka: well said, the truth hurts, especially for such a proud (froth-at-the-mouth-crazy proud) nation as USA. So much effort put into the wrong places has made her plight so much worse, and made so many once benign peoples despise her vehemently.


Valid? I didn't see one...except maybe the opium..
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
Man, It would be amusing to assemble the guest list of which posters on this thread who are going to receive brand-new XM25s, Xmas cards from B. Netanyahu, A. Lieberman and AIPAC this year! :-))


Be more interesting to see who's going to get a strap on suicide bomb from Bin Laden, Khaled Meshaal, Hassan Nasrallah, and a Ramadan card...

But then again liberals do more damage all by themselves to this country without help from cavemen with AK-47s.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
Valid? I didn't see one...except maybe the opium..
Actually, the opium point is a huge one.

We're going into afghanistan and burning their only cash crop as opposed to doing what we do with Turkey and buying it for pharmaceuticals. We could make these people rich, and at that point in time, I'm fairly sure they'll be done trying to bomb us.
lengould100
2 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
A lot of racism here. Needs to be stomped out before any solution can happen.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
A lot of racism here. Needs to be stomped out before any solution can happen.


I agree. People seem to think that WE need to be diplomatic, because we're the only party CAPABLE of it. They'll excuse any act of violence committed against the US because we're "a bunch of bastards" and need to be more civilized, but have no similar expectation from the other side.

Where's the calls for diplomacy from them? Where's the outcry for THEM to stop killing people and start talking? Unless of course you think they're incapable of diplomacy because they're backwards and ignorant, then that's not racism.

Are they capable of being more than cavemen with AK-47s? Of course. Does that capability automatically grant them that status?

BTW calling an ignorant person ignorant isn't racism, it's recognizing reality...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
Valid? I didn't see one...except maybe the opium..
Actually, the opium point is a huge one.

We're going into afghanistan and burning their only cash crop as opposed to doing what we do with Turkey and buying it for pharmaceuticals. We could make these people rich, and at that point in time, I'm fairly sure they'll be done trying to bomb us.


I'm unconvinced they'll be done trying to bomb us. That's all about the theocratic political system they have called Islam. They'd have a harder time getting recruits though...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
I'm unconvinced they'll be done trying to bomb us. That's all about the theocratic political system they have called Islam. They'd have a harder time getting recruits though...
This is like me saying that you're a terrorist because the RAF is Christian. It's nonsense. If these people weren't starving to death and having a hard time finding water they'd have a bit more hope, and when hope dies, that's when desperation sets in.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
I'm unconvinced they'll be done trying to bomb us. That's all about the theocratic political system they have called Islam. They'd have a harder time getting recruits though...
This is like me saying that you're a terrorist because the RAF is Christian.


Mmmmmm, no sorry doesn't pass the credulity test. THAT is like saying that because both Bill Gates and I hold currency that we're both filthy rich.

If these people weren't starving to death and having a hard time finding water they'd have a bit more hope, and when hope dies, that's when desperation sets in.


That I agree with, and I think if you re-read my post I said as much.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (21) Dec 07, 2010
Hey, for all you china-lovers (frajo, arkaleois) who refuse to believe chinas not aggressive even though they invaded tibet and korea, and like to kill their own citizens in tianamen square; a news item for you:

"After decades of importing and reverse-engineering Russian arms, China has reached a tipping point: It now can produce many of its own advanced weapons-including high-tech fighter jets like the Su-27- and is on the verge of building an AIRCRAFT CARRIER.

"Not only have Chinese engineers cloned the prized Su-27's avionics and radar but they are fitting it with the last piece in the technological puzzle, a Chinese jet engine."
http://online.wsj...844.html

-You believe you know enough to form intelligent opinions but you really dont, do you? You can only spout ideology which is worthless when you attempt to apply it to real-world conditions.

China was, is, and will in the future be capable of aggression.
lengould100
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2010
So exactly why is it taboo for China to have an aircraft carrier but no problem for the US? Which one has killed more foreign civilians?

You Yanks need to get some perspecitve on the world. It wasn't put there by your God simply so you could dash out and kill as many "dang furiners" as you feel like (or as will get a particular senator elected).
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2010
/Otto, you think because your country spends billions of money (it borrowed) on foreign aid it is forgiven all its sins? You are more naive than your previous posts on this site indicate.
otto1932
1 / 5 (20) Dec 07, 2010
/Otto, you think because your country spends billions of money (it borrowed) on foreign aid it is forgiven all its sins? You are more naive than your previous posts on this site indicate.
'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...'

-You auslandern are only pissed because all the smart, pragmatic, ambitious people left there to go to the US to get good educations and lead better lives, leaving your countries under the control of crooks who steal you blind. And doctors and lawyers and businessmen etc.

Too bad. Doors open. Jobs arent ALL gone. Think you got what it takes to make it in a country where people are happy?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (21) Dec 07, 2010
@lenny
So exactly why is it taboo for China to have an aircraft carrier but no problem for the US? Which one has killed more foreign civilians?

You Yanks need to get some perspecitve on the world. It wasn't put there by your God simply so you could dash out and kill as many "dang furiners" as you feel like (or as will get a particular senator elected).

Naw, somebody in another thread just thought that china didnt have designs beyond its borders, and that thread is dead, so Im posting this here to prove them wrong and misguided and self-deluded (again).

The west will need all the help it can get in the near future fighting the caliphate. And rogue nations with huge armies and nukes.

And lenny, there is no god. you ought to know that, youve been around here long enough-
Bog_Mire
3 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
where pray tell, are your people so happy?Do you mean something like ignorance in bliss? Here in Australia (look it up) we are happy, but like the rest of the world extremely alarmed at the rise of an extremist group such as the Tea Party and Sarah Palin being in charge of countless nuclear weapons and military power. *Shudder* BTW, the conservative Bush clan has done more damage to world peace than the Taliban or AQ could ever dreamed of doing.
lengould100
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2010
And lenny, there is no god.
It's you yanks who worship the stupid concept of "God". Don't bother telling me, I've known that since I was old enough to read. Tell Ms. Palin and those other crazy politicians you guys come up with.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
It's you yanks who worship the stupid concept of "God".
Nonsense. I am agnostic and Otto suffers from Atheism. So please don't use the YOU YANKS while referencing an idiot that is married to a secessionist.

And I AIN'T NO YANK. Heck I have an ancestor that was stupid enough to fight for the South in the Civil War. Yanks are Northerners to Southerners and as a native born Californian I have to point the even that is wrong. Yanks are from the North East of the US.

Also most countries have religious wackos. I doubt that even Oz is free of them.

Apparently Otto has the idea that some people are delusional about China in regards to its willingness to use force. Maybe I missed something here as I didn't notice that.

. Tell Ms. Palin and those other crazy politicians you guys come up with.
Would you like to discuss the way Oz treated the Abos? I know you didn't have Thatcher but I am sure you have had a few doozies yourself.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
I'm unconvinced they'll be done trying to bomb us. That's all about the theocratic political system they have called Islam. They'd have a harder time getting recruits though...
This is like me saying that you're a terrorist because the RAF is Christian.


Mmmmmm, no sorry doesn't pass the credulity test. THAT is like saying that because both Bill Gates and I hold currency that we're both filthy rich.
First, the credulity test? There's a faith test for analogy? Second, do you know what the RAF is?
That I agree with, and I think if you re-read my post I said as much.
Then why are you being a contrarian?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
That I agree with, and I think if you re-read my post I said as much.
Then why are you being a contrarian?


Why are you? I did agree with that sentiment.

What I disagree with is that there is even a COMPARABLE threat from Christians vs. Muslims in the "I'm going to blow myself and at least 100 other people up today" category...

More than that I don't even consider Islam a religion so much as a political system, and no I don't give a **** if you agree with me on that or not, nor do you have a snowball's chance of convincing me otherwise.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (22) Dec 08, 2010
More than that I don't even consider Islam a religion so much as a political system
So's your own bankrupt superstitionism; that is, before you remade it in your own image.
Nonsense. I am agnostic and Otto suffers from Atheism.
I am an anti-religionist. I make the distinction.
the conservative Bush clan has done more damage to world peace than the Taliban or AQ could ever dreamed of doing.
You believe that only because you eagerly suck up all the propaganda youre fed.

Aussies strike me as a maudlin bunch. Maybe because their beers are too big, their opera house is too small, and their countrys drying up.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
Whatever Otto, I'm not taking the bait.

When you're forced to take communion or face prison time talk to me about Christianity as a political system...
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (21) Dec 08, 2010
Whatever Otto, I'm not taking the bait.

When you're forced to take communion or face prison time talk to me about Christianity as a political system...
Political 'systems' usually require 2 sides- liberal and conservative, ruler and subjects, oppressor and oppressed, etc. Xians have dutifully served on either side throughout history, as the need arose.

And many xians would seek to rule directly today.
http://christiangovernance.ca/

"Judeo-Christian political theory is unique in its hostility to totalitarianism. Christian governance, and Christian governance alone, is anti-tyrannical."

-Just as long as theyre on top. Then tyranny will be dealt with a loving countenance. Sharia will be outlawed with smiles on their faces.

-And you took the bait anyway-
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
When you're forced to take communion or face prison time talk to me about Christianity as a political system...
Did you mean "when you're forced to take communion or face prision time again"?
What I disagree with is that there is even a COMPARABLE threat from Christians vs. Muslims in the "I'm going to blow myself and at least 100 other people up today" category...
Ask the Irish about that, or the Bosnians, or the Tamil, or the Timorans.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010
Exactly, and do you see the irony here? I understand that and am "prepared" for that. I'd have used nuclear weapons after 9/11...no hesitation. It's people like YOU, who are unprepared to do what it takes to win a war that are going to lose this war for us. It's YOU that's the true enemy here, who cares more about how you fight rather than if you win. It's actually quite easy to win a war (in every sense of the word) with an overwhelming demonstration of force. What's hard is getting liberal twits to understand that...


Agreed.

What's sad is the "huminatarianists" and their "rules of engagement" having tied our own troops' hands has actually served the purpose of evil by giving the evil islamists an "equalizer" against our technology.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been won decidedly, within a few days, and without the loss of a single western soldier, but as stated, our liberals care more about how it's done than why or whether it's won.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2010
When you're forced to take communion or face prison time talk to me about Christianity as a political system...
Did you mean "when you're forced to take communion or face prision time again"?


You were forced to do this SH? I know some "good" lawyers if you need a number...

Ask the Irish about that, or the Bosnians, or the Tamil, or the Timorans.


Again, just because both Bill Gates and I hold currency doesn't mean we're both billionaires. For one side it's a pastime, the other considers it a full time 70+ hour a week job...
otto1932
1 / 5 (20) Dec 08, 2010
huminatarianists
Funny, I googled this word and got nothing. You sure youre a physicist QC?
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2010
Deadenders
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2010
lengould100

Do you think, just perhaps, that post of yours, could, just possibly, be a tiny little bit to terse for actual communication?

Ethelred
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2010
Nothing against USA. We affectionately and colloquially refers to y'all as "septic tanks". it's rhyming slang. Please do not bomb us!! We take it all back. Your our china plates! (mates), just PLEASE stop trying to save the Earth. It can only take so much saving. And sure, we STILL treat our aborigines real bad. Even though we throw land and money at em, seems they where doomed from the minute Captain Cook landed. But do come and have a butchers hook (look) one day. It,s a bewdy place, and Hoges will personally throw a shrimp on the barbie for ya! Guaranteed.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
Nothing against USA. We affectionately and colloquially refers to y'all as "septic tanks". it's rhyming slang. Please do not bomb us!! We take it all back. Your our china plates! (mates), just PLEASE stop trying to save the Earth.


Make up your minds. Quit bitching when we do nothing about a pet situation you just don't have the money or manpower to deal with yourselves.

It can only take so much saving.


We really generally don't do this. I'd like to see five examples that might fit this description. We're currently not "saving the world". We're kicking the shit out of people who thought it would be funny to jerk the tail of the biggest tiger in the world and had the nerve to be surprised when they got bit in the ass.

Even though we throw land and money at em,


So do we, and it's the worst of the bad treatment they get from both of us...
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Dec 09, 2010
You were forced to do this SH? I know some "good" lawyers if you need a number...
Not in my lifetime, my grandparents were.

How short your memory is.
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2010
I think there is a bigger tiger lurking somewhere in asia....and they are half way to owning the zoo.
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2010
ok mm, i give up. What "pet situations"?

you dont handle irony or sarcasm very well hey?
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Exactly, and do you see the irony here? I understand [....]overwhelming demonstration of force. What's hard is getting liberal twits to understand that...


Agreed.

What's sad is the "huminatarianists" and their "rules of engagement" having tied our own troops' hands [...]evil islamists an "equalizer" against our technology.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been won decidedly, within a few days[...] but as stated, our liberals care more about how it's done than why or whether it's won.


Don't blame the rules of engagement on "humanitarianist"s, you moron. No sir, those rules was cooked up by the Bush "I'm the decider" administration(aka Cheney, DICK) along with the JCOS and the rest of the Military-Industrial Complex, to ENSURE that none of these conflicts are "winnable", as their main purpose, ultimately, is to pump trillions of USD into the coffers of those same MIC and Defense Contractors. Democracy and Stability are mere afterthoughts.

Mesafina
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2010
"I would have used nuclear weapons on every State complicit with Al Qaeda, not just one country. I think the whole region needs a wake up call. I keep hearing about the 'peaceful ones'. Well..."

So you would commit genocide against innocent people, or do you actually believe every person in Afghanistan is personally collaborating with Bin Laden? By your reasoning, the native american's would have been justified in going to europe and slaughtering everyone because some white explorer's killed some natives in the new world.

Your quickness to not only judge but condemn other's to death who you do not know, based on heresay and your own rage, belies you as being both childish and very naive. Instead of spending so much time talking on here about how many people you'd like to kill, maybe you should grow up and go do something useful.

And I can't make you do anything obviously, so your calling me a fascist is pretty much irrelevant.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.