Pentagon successfully tests hypersonic flying bomb

Nov 17, 2011

The Pentagon on Thursday held a successful test flight of a flying bomb that travels faster than the speed of sound and will give military planners the ability to strike targets anywhere in the world in less than a hour.

Launched by rocket from Hawaii at 1130 GMT, the "Advanced Hypersonic Weapon," or AHW, glided through the over the Pacific "at hypersonic speed" before hitting its on the Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands, a Pentagon statement said.

Kwajalein is about 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii. The Pentagon did not say what top speeds were reached by the vehicle, which unlike a is maneuverable.

Scientists classify hypersonic speeds as those that exceed Mach 5 -- or five times the speed of sound -- 3,728 miles (6,000 kilometers) an hour.

The test aimed to gather data on "aerodynamics, navigation, guidance and control, and thermal protection technologies," said Lieutenant Colonel Melinda Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The US Army's AHW project is part of "Prompt Global Strike" program which seeks to give the US military the means to deliver conventional weapons anywhere in the world within an hour.

On August 11, the Pentagon test flew another hypersonic glider dubbed HTV-2, which is capable of flying 27,000 kilometers per hour, but it was a failure.

The AHW's range is less than that of the HTV-2, the Congressional Research Service said in a report, without providing specifics.

The Pentagon has invested 239.9 million dollars in the Global Strike program this year, including 69 million for the flying bomb tested Thursday, CRS said.

Explore further: New Computer codes to aid greener, leaner aircraft design

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US looks for answers after hypersonic plane fails

Aug 12, 2011

Pentagon scientists on Friday acknowledged they were puzzled by the failed flight test of an experimental hypersonic plane and said they were trying to understand what went wrong. ...

DARPA releases video of HTV-2 hypersonic glider flight

Aug 25, 2011

An unmanned glider streaks over the Pacific Ocean at 20 times the speed of sound in a video released Thursday by a U.S. defense research agency experimenting with technology that could give the military the ...

Scramjet test successful

Dec 31, 2005

The Freeflight Atmospheric Scramjet Test Technique, or FASTT, is the first liquid fuel-powered scramjet to fly, says the U.S. Office of Naval Research.

Recommended for you

Wireless sensor transmits tumor pressure

Sep 20, 2014

The interstitial pressure inside a tumor is often remarkably high compared to normal tissues and is thought to impede the delivery of chemotherapeutic agents as well as decrease the effectiveness of radiation ...

Seeing through the fog (and dust and snow) of war

Sep 19, 2014

Degraded visibility—which encompasses diverse environmental conditions including severe weather, dust kicked up during takeoff and landing and poor visual contrast among different parts of terrain—often ...

User comments : 180

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nikola
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2011
Ridiculous
CapitalismPrevails
1.4 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2011
Israel might want this in case they decide to strike Iran sometime soon. I thought the average ICBM could reach Russia within 20 minutes so is this concept new?
epsi00
3.5 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
So which country is the next victim of the science of bombs and missiles? I guess Libya just missed the opportunity to be the first to experience the progress in (bombing) technology.
El_Nose
4.5 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
I think a more accurate statement is that we keep ICBM deployment vehicles within 20 minutes of Russia -- be that submarine or deployment in Alaska
zweistein_2
Nov 17, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zz6549
2.3 / 5 (22) Nov 17, 2011
Excellent. This weapon will provide a way to launch extremely high precision strikes using non-nuclear weapons. If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.
italba
1.3 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
Nazis planned something like that to bomb USA more than 60 years ago. See http://en.wikiped..._bomber.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2011
I thought the average ICBM could reach Russia within 20 minutes so is this concept new?

No. But these types of bombs are a way to evade the caps on delivery systems in the START II treaty (i.e. it is a way of starting another round of limitless spending on military hardware...just what the doctor...erm...the military-industrial complex ordered)

This weapon will provide a way to launch extremely high precision strikes using non-nuclear weapons. If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.

If that wasn't the deepest of sarcasm then...wow...just wow...words completely fail me.
Jotaf
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.


Yes. It will take thousands of lives so obviously it will save thousands of lives. Screw logic!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2011
I reserve my right to punch an american in the face at my own discretion. You know I am just proactive in protecting my freedom.
I am right here gutless. Have at it.
So which country is the next victim of the science of bombs and missiles? I guess Libya just missed the opportunity to be the first to experience the progress in (bombing) technology.
Speaking of gutless Nazis, did you know that there has never been a major weapons system that was never used in actual combat? This includes ICBM tech which was developed and tested under such conditions by Germany during ww2, as their role in developing nuclear weapons along with the means to deliver them.

It is essential to test war tech under actual combat conditions in order to determine if it will do what it is supposed to when you need it. Too many examples in history of defeats caused by unproven tech. And defeat is not an option.

War is no game Heinrich. Didn't your parents teach you this?
Skepticus
4.3 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2011
Excellent! Now the pizzas will be delivered piping hot :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
No. But these types of bombs are a way to evade the caps on delivery systems in the START II treaty (i.e. it is a way of starting another round of limitless spending on military hardware...just what the doctor...erm...the military-industrial complex ordered)
Why would a govt which has slashed it's nuke arsenals need to increase them again? This appears to be more about survivability. It flies low and is maneuverable. MIRVs will soon be vulnerable to directed energy weapons.

This is an updated example of low level penetration ala B1. Remember Slim Pickens flying his B52 at treetop level?
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (27) Nov 17, 2011
Nazis planned something like that to bomb USA more than 60 years ago. See http://en.wikiped..._bomber.
Yes and president Bush Sr. gave a speech on 9/11/1991, exactly a decade before the Twin Towers destruction, commemorating Hitler's second unpublished book, "New World Order." The objective of Sedes Sacrorum (SS) catholic priest Himler and others is that of the Vatican: to kill heretics. Upon word of Orthodox insurrection in Serbia Hitler murdered Jews, Orthodox and destroyed the Lutheran church while Bushes set about remolding Islam in a fascist framework. USA is the military arm of the Vatican by which all must be converted or killed.
zweistein_2
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
"I am right here gutless. Have at it." Are you at least alive?
Or you post from Nexia. Are you Steve Jobs?
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2011
Israel might want this in case they decide to strike Iran sometime soon. I thought the average ICBM could reach Russia within 20 minutes so is this concept new?


Yes and no. ICBMs provided the inspiration you might say. They've got two (at least) programs going to develop an ultra-high speed delivery vehicle for either a kinetic weapon or a conventional weapon. The last test failed.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
Excellent. This weapon will provide a way to launch extremely high precision strikes using non-nuclear weapons. If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.


I agree it's an interesting technological achievement, but I've always had the feeling this was a bit more "for show". We already have superb coverage with drones, carrier-based weapons, and the always-on/around-the-world in a single flight B2. If it's put in the field, it would make a nice option though for dealing with Iran and N. Korea, as it's very, very fast and would take out nuclear facilities with no possibility of losing pilots. Also, it would leave the two aforementioned nations with essentially no method of counterattack, as neither can extend their reach to N. America if you take out a few of their long-range missiles.
Nerdyguy
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2011
So which country is the next victim of the science of bombs and missiles? I guess Libya just missed the opportunity to be the first to experience the progress in (bombing) technology.


Any nation at all that would attack America or threaten such.
xznofile
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
so this helps explain cutting the last 750 ICBMs. Kim Jong was briefly elated.
Nerdyguy
2.7 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
But these types of bombs are a way to evade the caps on delivery systems in the START II treaty (i.e. it is a way of starting another round of limitless spending on military hardware...


Nothing at all to do with START. Or nukes for that matter. It's a program to deliver a conventional or a kinetic weapon on target faster than with aircraft and likely more precisely and with no threat of loss of the aircraft crew.
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (22) Nov 17, 2011
As always, I find the America bashing amusing. Lots of anger aimed at....well, nothing really.

It's a weapon design guys, nothing more or less. Every single one of you lives in a nation that defends its borders and has both offensive and defensive capabilities. Some of you live in countries that have smaller militaries and your announcements don't get a lot of press. But, come on, do any of you think you live in some kind of Utopia where they don't need weapons because all the angels will magically protect you?
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2011
Nazis planned something like that to bomb USA more than 60 years ago. See http://en.wikiped..._bomber.
Yes and president Bush Sr. gave a speech on 9/11/1991, exactly a decade before the Twin Towers destruction, commemorating Hitler's second unpublished book, "New World Order." The objective of Sedes Sacrorum (SS) catholic priest Himler and others is that of the Vatican: to kill heretics. Upon word of Orthodox insurrection in Serbia Hitler murdered Jews, Orthodox and destroyed the Lutheran church while Bushes set about remolding Islam in a fascist framework. USA is the military arm of the Vatican by which all must be converted or killed.


Truly rofl. Even more creatively nutty than usual. So, George Bush was giving a speech commemorating Hitler's book? lmfao! Oh, btw, I suppose he was giving that speech to the Rangers?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2011
Excellent. This weapon will provide a way to launch extremely high precision strikes using non-nuclear weapons. If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.

I agree it's an interesting technological achievement, but I've always had the feeling this was a bit more "for show". We already have superb coverage with drones, carrier-based weapons, and the always-on/around-the-world in a single flight B2. If it's put in the field, it would make a nice option though for dealing with Iran and N. Korea, as it's very, very fast and would take out nuclear facilities with no possibility of losing pilots. Also, it would leave the two aforementioned nations with essentially no method of counterattack, as neither can extend their reach to N. America if you take out a few of their long-range missiles.
Don't forget sub-launched missiles. We already have the globe covered but not for long unless we can evade directed energy weapons.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
Why would a govt which has slashed it's nuke arsenals need to increase them again?

Because that way they can get a lot of taxpayers money into the hands of selected individuals without having to bother with stuff like "did you use the money for something sensible? like actually helping those governed?"
Any nation at all that would attack America or threaten such.

Yep. and how many have done that. Ever?
Zero. Zip. Zilch. None whasoever.

You know why?

Because no one wants to. What would be the point?

A war would only make sense if you could mount an invasion. But for several HUNDRED years not one nation has had a fleet that could actually invade a country the size of the US.

(OK, Canada and Mexico could actually attack via land - but they haven't been interested in that for the entire time the US has existed)

The US has NEVER been under threat. Ever.
Nerdyguy
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
No. But these types of bombs are a way to evade the caps on delivery systems in the START II treaty (i.e. it is a way of starting another round of limitless spending on military hardware...just what the doctor...erm...the military-industrial complex ordered)
Why would a govt which has slashed it's nuke arsenals need to increase them again? This appears to be more about survivability. It flies low and is maneuverable. MIRVs will soon be vulnerable to directed energy weapons.

This is an updated example of low level penetration ala B1. Remember Slim Pickens flying his B52 at treetop level?


Where did you get the idea it was a low flyer? Though several methods of deployment have been mentioned, to date both tests have been with modified ICBMs on ballistic trajectories.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2011
Israel might want this in case they decide to strike Iran sometime soon. I thought the average ICBM could reach Russia within 20 minutes so is this concept new?
Israel has it's own Wunderwaffen:
http://www.ynetne...,00.html

Anybody hear about that mysterious iranian ammo dump explosion a few days ago? Spooky action at a distance-
Nerdyguy
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2011
Any nation at all that would attack America or threaten such.

Yep. and how many have done that. Ever?
Zero. Zip. Zilch. None whasoever.


Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Nations I recall attacking or threatening to attack America, just off the top of my head:

- The United Kingdom of Great Britain
- Japan
- Germany
- Iraq
- Iran
- North Korea

These are just a few examples, and the most major.

The US has NEVER been under threat.


Ah, but your are speaking of threats to the mainland. The United States has territories and protectorates around the world, allies we are sworn to defend, and interests in areas of the world where our strategic concerns are paramount (e.g., Gulf of Oman). All are protected to a similar degree as the mainland.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
Where did you get the idea it was a low flyer? Though several methods of deployment have been mentioned, to date both tests have been with modified ICBMs on ballistic trajectories.
Where did you get the idea that they were ballistic trajectories? These are air breathers.

Like I say high flyers are passé like the valkerie. Too vulnerable. B52s were high flyers but were reconfigured as threat scenarios changed.
Nerdyguy
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
Where did you get the idea it was a low flyer? Though several methods of deployment have been mentioned, to date both tests have been with modified ICBMs on ballistic trajectories.
Where did you get the idea that they were ballistic trajectories? These are air breathers.

Like I say high flyers are passé like the valkerie. Too vulnerable. B52s were high flyers but were reconfigured as threat scenarios changed.


I guess you'd have to define "low". These are riding modified ICBMs, though they are lower trajectories:

This is a depressed trajectory and if your were to track [the PGS] ballistic profile its much lower than a regular ICBM, said Boeings Rick Hartle during a briefing on Tuesday at the Air Force Associations annual conference in National Harbor, Md.
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2011
Where did you get the idea it was a low flyer? Though several methods of deployment have been mentioned, to date both tests have been with modified ICBMs on ballistic trajectories.
Where did you get the idea that they were ballistic trajectories? These are air breathers.

Like I say high flyers are passé like the valkerie. Too vulnerable. B52s were high flyers but were reconfigured as threat scenarios changed.


Ah, I see DARPA's version was different.

http://www.darpa....V-2.aspx
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2011
The US has NEVER been under threat. Ever.


Wait a second, aren't you British? My apologies if I'm wrong about that, but for some reason I thought that was the case. If so, you can't forget the War of 1812! British troops marching on Washington, D.C.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain
- Japan
- Germany
- Iraq
- Iran
- North Korea

And which of them had ever a realistic chance of doing so? None. Iraq, Iran and north Korea don't have a navy to speak of. Neither did Germany or Japan (none fit for invasion, and certainly not the manpower to do it even if they did)

All this paranoia about nonexistent threats to the US is just so that you keep handing over your cash for weapons systems no one needs.

If so, you can't forget the War of 1812! British troops marching on Washington, D.C.
And what chance would have the British had of controlling that amount of land? None (and no, I'm not British)

States has territories and protectorates around the world, allies we are sworn to defend, and interests in areas of the world where our strategic concerns are paramount

Ah. Colonialism. Great. And you know what: your 'allies' aren't under threat, either. None of them. (Not even South Korea)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
Perhaps we already have targets in mind:
http://m.gizmodo.com/5859081/why-is-china-building-these-gigantic-structures-in-the-middle-of-the-desert
The US has NEVER been under threat. Ever.
you can't forget the War of 1812! British troops marching on Washington, D.C.
AP seems to be pretending to be naive which is puzzling. He seems to be intelligent. Posturing for the dweebs AP? what's the point?

AP is pretending to believe that the US can afford to forego it's commitment to it's allies and let them fall one by one, until the enemies we have defeated are landing on our shores. This is not very forward thinking AP. anyone with a modicum of reason should realize with only a little thought that it is very unwise to let an enemy start a war on his own terms, when HE is best prepared to fight.

Or I suppose we should wait until Iranian nukes are raining down on baltimore? Strategic initiative - look it up.

Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
And which of them had ever a realistic chance of doing so? None. Iraq, Iran and north Korea don't have a navy to speak of. Neither did Germany or Japan (none fit for invasion, and certainly not the manpower to do it even if they did)
-Says the armchair ?? Are you talking about alone or together? Are you talking about before Germany conquered all of Europe, britain, and Russia to the urals, and japan all of china and the pacific, or after?

Remember that an island nation the size of japan once had the largest empire the world had ever seen. It only takes time and effort.

There is one brewing right now in the ME. a caliphate. Should we really wait until it is an even match? Would that be the only fair and honorable approach? Is another world war a viable option in your mind?
Nerdyguy
2 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2011
All this paranoia about nonexistent threats to the US is just so that you keep handing over your cash for weapons systems no one needs.


I don't think this is a realistic assessment of America's risks. Did you not watch the Twin Towers fall on 9/11? We have real enemies that can strike and cause us harm, regardless of whether they could "occupy" our land.

Ah. Colonialism. Great. And you know what: your 'allies' aren't under threat, either. None of them. (Not even South Korea)


You know this is not about colonialism. The U.S. is not holding by military might any territory that wants to become sovereign. Several have attempted to become States. And protecting our allies and interests is exactly what ALL nations do. We just do it better. And that just really pisses off a lot of people.
Nerdyguy
1.9 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2011
And you know what: your 'allies' aren't under threat, either. None of them. (Not even South Korea)


South Korea is not under threat? You might want to mention that to the South Koreans. Not only do they have nuclear warheads aimed at them, they have been attacked recently by the North.

Saudi Arabia and Israel do not face a threat from Iran? Really?

We'll just have to disagree on this one. But in addition, you should know that military intelligence analysts worldwide (even in agencies of our opponents) would disagree with you, our allies' governments and military experts would disagree, and the best U.S. military and intelligence analysts would disagree with you.
zweistein_2
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
Americans -- nobody gives a dead rat's ass about them or their primitive technology.
What do you expect Iran to do? Bend over and kiss your ass? You are asking of them to behave like slaves. You threaten them and corner them. If I would be an iranian I would name my dog Hillary Clinton.
Same thing with North Korea.
Americans -- a bunch of lunatics with some brains. Always thinking there is somebody out to get them.
holoman
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
Zweistein 2,

Your American envy can be seen by us drooling down your face.

Nerdyguy
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2011
What do you expect Iran to do? Bend over and kiss your ass? You are asking of them to behave like slaves. You threaten them and corner them.


Nice post Vendicar.

So, were you referring to those sweet Iranians who -- in an act of unprecedented defiance of international agreements -- marched into the American Embassy (American sovereign territory, thus an Act of War), and declared a Holy War against America, the Great Satan?

You mean those friendly people? Mind explaining how we're treating them like slaves? Because I don't understand that part.

In any case, it's clear that the Iranian people are now being held hostage by a relatively small number of outright lunatics with a deathwish for themselves, the Middle East, America, and other assorted "devils". It's also clear that the vast, vast majority of Iranians want nothing to do with these morons. The government is avoiding revolution only through guns pointed at its own populace.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2011
VD likes and wants tyrannical govts like Iran has. That is the only way he can have his socialist agenda implemented. That is the only way any socialist agenda can be implemented, with coercive tyranny.

Why should the US waste so much money on high speed, accurate weapons? Big bombs are cheap. Just drop more. The critics of the US think that is what the US wants anyway. Let's live up to their expectations and save some money to boot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2011
What do you expect Iran to do? Bend over and kiss your ass?
No I expect you to do this to ottos ass little Pudel. And I think Iranians will soon be kissing their own asses (goodby).
http://www.debka....e/21474/

-Link provided by the gracious ACW.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2011
You know VD I've been watching clips from the movie 'V for Vendetta' and I see where you've gotten your attitude. It was just a movie. It's not REAL. America didn't start a war that caused a plague (yet).

We start wars to PREVENT those sorts of things from happening. We fight religionist tyrants so guys like you don't have to blow up parliament and wear silly masks and write maniFEStos and things like that. Versteht?

Go rent a copy of Clockwork Orange. Much healthier.
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
lol
Preemptive wars. Beyond perverse.
I will fund this project. Why?
This makes drones look sympathetic. At least you are at the mercy of a joystick red button psychopath.

With the new development you still get pictures before the strike. And I conjure there is still a self destruct for haywire flights.
The downside to all this no aftermath video. (Job sharing via satellite surveillance will take up that slack.)

So glade I don't understand or speak English. Some English speaking literate who read this thread told me I am not missing a thing. And I am more than confident that person did a good job translating this writing here too.
Sinister1811
3 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2011
Excellent. This weapon will provide a way to launch extremely high precision strikes using non-nuclear weapons. If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.


Huh? How does a hypersonic bomb save thousands of lives? I guess if you're assuming there's going to be a World War 3. Cool technology, though.
zweistein_2
Nov 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zweistein_2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
Apart from military capabilities this hypersonic plane should be used to deliver people around the globe ( hopefully alive ).
I mean take off straight up encircle the globe and land on the other side in couple of hours.
Salutari.
robbor
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
how about hypersonic meals on wheels?
NotAsleep
2 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
Zweinstein, why such a troll? Can't you go do that on foxnews.com or some other bias-ridden website where worthless opinions are tossed around and summarily ignored?

A primary purpose of the original hypersonic missiles was to give us the ability to launch extremely fast intercontinental munitions without setting off "ICBM" red flags. While it offers many other obvious tactical advantages, it was critical that we design this without sending the entire nuclear world on high alert. The "Launch On Warning" strategy still exists to a certain extent:

http://en.wikiped..._warning

Nerdyguy
1.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2011
lol
Preemptive wars. Beyond perverse.


The only discussion of preemptive wars I could find was your post.

Just your usual hippie crapola. But, it's good to know at least part of your clear ignorance of world events may just be a reflection of the whatever-to-English translation.
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2011
Excellent. This weapon will provide a way to launch extremely high precision strikes using non-nuclear weapons. If the program isn't cut by Obama, it will end up saving thousands of lives in the coming decades.


Huh? How does a hypersonic bomb save thousands of lives? I guess if you're assuming there's going to be a World War 3. Cool technology, though.


I'm just guessing, but I assume he's referring to uses like knocking out Iran's nukes prior to them coming on-line. Same with N. Korea. Actually, this weapons platform wouldn't do you a whole lot of good in WW3. Just too expensive and meant to take out specific targets. For example, the launch vehicle is an ICBM, and we've only got so many of those. It's very much a strategic-level precision-strike weapon.
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2011
@Nerdyguy Truly rofl. Even more creatively nutty than usual. So, George Bush was giving a speech commemorating Hitler's book? lmfao! Oh, btw, I suppose he was giving that speech to the Rangers?
That speech is on video. Of course don't let the facts get in your way!
Any nation at all that would attack America or threaten such.
@Nerdyguy Government is hierarchically above people, given a monopoly on force and ability to tax and control you whether or not you agree. That's all your "America" is. Who controls them? Above them are corporations. It is corporations that rule the world, not nation states. These corporations have no national affiliation or loyalty. In fact by promoting war they supply both sides and profit immensely from the spoils. And you are their tool.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2011
lol
Preemptive wars. Beyond perverse.


The only discussion of preemptive wars I could find was your post.

Just your usual hippie crapola. But, it's good to know at least part of your clear ignorance of world events may just be a reflection of the whatever-to-English translation.
Actually that is the neocon doctrine, a fusion of conservatism and Zionism instigating preemptive war and revolutions in Islamic governments and former CCCR satellites before Russia and China gain hemispheric dominance. You agreed with me about this in a prior post. Memory failing you?
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2011
So, George Bush was giving a speech commemorating Hitler's book? lmfao!
That speech is on video. Of course don't let the facts get in your way!


Did your mother not teach you the simple lesson, "do not lie"? There is no such speech.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
A good american is a dead one. TheGhostofOtto1923 you are a good american.
Oh dear a threat. Perhaps I should alert the authorities.
http://www.youtub...2DSFtYbY

-No snow here just yet. I suppose I'll have to wait-

You are 'weak and artless'.

Nerdyguy
1.9 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2011
Actually that is the neocon doctrine,


No such thing except in your imagination.

a fusion of conservatism and Zionism instigating preemptive war and revolutions in Islamic governments and former CCCR satellites before Russia and China gain hemispheric dominance.


At least 10 fallacies here. I'll address a couple. Russia and China are longstanding enemies. There is no chance that "Russia and China" will do anything together.

On its own, each is plenty powerful though. You must have missed how just a couple of days ago a Russian general publicly stated that conditions are ripe for all-out nuclear war. The most threatening remarks since..well, since the last idiocy from Putin's boys.

Next, don't need the U.S. for revolutions in Islamic states. Doing that just fine on their own.

You agreed with me about this in a prior post. Memory failing you?


I appreciate the attempt at humor. But it's better if you don't just make up ludicrous nonsense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
At least 10 fallacies here. I'll address a couple. Russia and China are longstanding enemies. There is no chance that "Russia and China" will do anything together.
Sorry but

"Speaking after talks with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping hailed the strength of bilateral ties with Russia as a success and went on to express the Beijing government's support for Russia's growing power on the global stage."
http://www.global...id=18328

-Things change.
Nerdyguy
1.1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2011
At least 10 fallacies here. I'll address a couple. Russia and China are longstanding enemies. There is no chance that "Russia and China" will do anything together.
Sorry but

"Speaking after talks with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping hailed the strength of bilateral ties with Russia as a success and went on to express the Beijing government's support for Russia's growing power on the global stage."
http://www.global...id=18328

-Things change.


Oh, no doubt. And I should have used the word "adversaries" instead of enemies.

Realistically, they'll talk a good game. But the strategic situation for each has changed not at all. We also went through different periods with each of these countries where lots of handshakes and press releases happened. And we do cooperate with each of them, where it's in our interests. However, there is no evidence those Chinese nukes are aimed anywhere but at Russia.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
This is a superb analysis that puts the Sino-Soviet (oops, sorry, Sino-Russian) relationship into perspective. It was really interesting that I found it on a Russian site, though it is written by an American analyst (below).

http://en.rian.ru...421.html

Richard Weitz, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
Oh, no doubt. And I should have used the word "adversaries" instead of enemies.
The best enemies are the ones you create yourself. These can be more valuable than friends. For after all, in a world of chronic overpopulation, enemies are inevitable. So what better way to deal with them than to give them a cause to fight for and Leaders who will tell them how to do so?

The US encouraged the nationalist Chinese and promised them military assistance which never came. The nationalists were slaughtered. The US enabled the Korean war and enticed the red Chinese to invade. The reds were slaughtered. Both sides worked together to accomplish this. China became peaceful. It took north korea 50 years to recover. This is what Victory looks like.

Above a certain level there are no sides in this world. There is only one 'side'. Empire.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
This is a superb analysis that puts the Sino-Soviet (oops, sorry, Sino-Russian) relationship into perspective. It was really interesting that I found it on a Russian site, though it is written by an American analyst (below).

http://en.rian.ru...421.html

Richard Weitz, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute
Thanks for that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Very corporation-oriented
http://en.wikiped...nstitute
hush1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
We want you to preempt objects that do not exist.
Your only reply is war.
We are pleased with all your replies.
zweistein_2
Nov 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zweistein_2
Nov 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2011
We want you to preempt objects that do not exist.
Your only reply is war.
We are pleased with all your replies.
Sometimes there IS no other reply. Religionist cultures which reproduce beyond their means and then blame YOU for their resulting misery, make war absolutely unavoidable. The only question is whether it happens on your soil or theirs.

Dweeb.

There is a saying in my language : " That who you do not let die will not let you live "
Ha! An old lesson. Americans have learned it better than you. An important part of living within your means is planning for the future.
Jotaf
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
zweistein_2: I don't like the USA's policy, or the people who support it, but to go from there and say that all Americans are bad and you're happy when one of them dies is a huge stretch.

First, there's a high chance that the same American you hope will die actually agrees with you. Many of them also don't like the government and military's policy.

Second, by advocating death you just became as bad as your enemy. How are you different from them? They have exactly the same opinion of you. It solves nothing. Someone has to take the higher moral ground and stop hating.
tommytalks77
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2011
Reading such a thing makes me a bit embarrassed of being human...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2011
Second, by advocating death you just became as bad as your enemy. How are you different from them? They have exactly the same opinion of you
Humans are tribal at the core. As overpopulation was always the norm, tribal conflict was endemic. The tribes which exhibited the greatest internal cohesion coupled with the greatest concerted animosity toward outsiders, were the ones who would consistently prevail in combat, and thus were selected for. This is evolution.

It is only recently that humans have been able to extend this tribal dynamic over ever-larger groups and regions. Religions were instrumental in this. Religionists with attitudes like yours no longer exist, for obvious reasons. Contrary to popular belief Christians do not do as they say. History shows us this.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

'A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.' Those who decide these things wins.
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2011
We want you to preempt objects that do not exist.
Your only reply is war.
We are pleased with all your replies.


Hey, hippie boy is BACK!

Nice post. Not as creative as usual. You seem confused. Yes, this is an article about national defense. That's what some of us grownups like to talk about. Now, run along and play with the other kids hush1.
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2011
"A good american is a dead one". I can not refrain my satisfaction when I read that some americans died in some place in some way: airplane accidents, gunshots, suicide, homicide, cancer, old age etc...
You sure die trying...
There is a saying in my language : " That who you do not let die will not let you live "
Salutari.


LMAO!

OK, yes sir Mr. Ahmadinejad! Whatever you say, sir!
Nerdyguy
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2011
zweistein_2: I don't like the USA's policy, or the people who support it, but to go from there and say that all Americans are bad and you're happy when one of them dies is a huge stretch.

First, there's a high chance that the same American you hope will die actually agrees with you. Many of them also don't like the government and military's policy.

Second, by advocating death you just became as bad as your enemy. How are you different from them? They have exactly the same opinion of you. It solves nothing. Someone has to take the higher moral ground and stop hating.


Well said. In my experience, every individual has opinions about each issue, regardless of what the "official" view of that person's government might be. Whether or not a person might agree with the "official" policy, there is often little they can personally do about it anyway.

As for hatred - that gets us nowhere. We should only wish the best for each other. In this regard, borders are meaningless.
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2011
"A good american is a dead one". I can not refrain my satisfaction when I read that some americans died in some place in some way: airplane accidents, gunshots, suicide, homicide, cancer, old age etc...
You sure die trying...
There is a saying in my language : " That who you do not let die will not let you live "
Salutari.


Really sad that PhysOrg allows this to go on. I know I flagged it as abuse over 8 hours ago. It clearly violates their policies. I can only hope that it's because they're shorthanded. Otherwise, it's unfathomable why they'd allow this kind of thing.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2011
Otherwise, it's unfathomable why they'd allow this kind of thing.

They agree.
The editors are not from the US.
wwqq
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
Yes. It will take thousands of lives so obviously it will save thousands of lives. Screw logic!


It's much worse than that. It doesn't just directly kill people; it of course costs a lot of money, which indirectly kills people. If you spend all that money on bombs you can't spend it on keeping infrastructure in shape, providing medical care(or letting people keep more of their money so they can afford medical care), reducing coal particulate pollution which kills ~30 000 americans per year, doing medical R&D and any number of things which end up saving lives.
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2011
Yes. It will take thousands of lives so obviously it will save thousands of lives. Screw logic!


It's much worse than that. It doesn't just directly kill people; it of course costs a lot of money, which indirectly kills people. If you spend all that money on bombs you can't spend it on keeping infrastructure in shape, providing medical care(or letting people keep more of their money so they can afford medical care), reducing coal particulate pollution which kills ~30 000 americans per year, doing medical R&D and any number of things which end up saving lives.


Umm, relax, it's a weapons test. They're not spending "all that money". In fact, they've only made two of these.

And, if it's a weapon that will move into the production line, then it will be handled under the military budget.

I think you're really saying you just don't like military spending. So, how much do you think is appropriate? Zero?
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2011
Actually that is the neocon doctrine,
No such thing except in your imagination.
My imagination doesn't include attempted assassinations on President Obama. The conservative Catholic-fascist red-state shooter was convinced Obama was the devil, and that he needed to be taken care of. He is said to be heavily tattooed, with the "Israel" on his neck and pictures of rosary beads and hands clasped in prayer on his chest.

That's a neocon, Nerdyguy. One of your guys.
Russia and China are longstanding enemies. There is no chance that "Russia and China" will do anything together.
Actually there was a summit in October. Not 1960 anymore.
You agreed with me about this in a prior post. Memory failing you?
I appreciate the attempt at humor. But it's better if you don't just make up ludicrous nonsense.
Let's place a wager that that post doesn't exist. Conservative board trolls have always winced on bets, so you'll be in good company with shooter loser
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2011
And more intelligence from Europe:
"The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it. "
http://www.telegr...ion.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2011
@koch:
"Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam on Tuesday, November 2. "
"The presumed assassin, Mohammed B., a 26-year-old Dutchman of Moroccan descent, first shot van Gogh, then stabbed him and left behind a note. According to newspaper reports the note called for a holy war,"
http://www.wsws.o...10.shtml
"Theo van Gogh had won a reputation in the Netherlands as an out-and-out provocateur."
Then they try to blame the victim.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
"EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation..."

@ryggesogn2, thanks for that bit of news! I don't know whether to cry or to laugh... I guess I'll laugh then. Hahaha... We're ruled by idiots here in the EU too. I think there was a great quote that went somewhat like "do not attribute to malice that which can be perfectly explained by stupidity"!
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2011
According to newspaper reports the note called for a holy war,"
You're trying to convince me, an atheist, that religion is stupid? Thanks, but that's overkill.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2011
koch, Lenin shared your view on religion. All communist party members had to be atheists.
History demonstrates the murdering capacity of atheist/communists.
Cynical1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
How did a simple weapons test article become a geo-political debate in which ANYONE should die, not just Americans?
I suppose it's by the same process that made Wheaties the Breakfast of Champions or it's a symptom of the chronic "short attention span" syndrome...
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2011
How? There are many who post here who resent US power and probably resent being saved and/or protected by the US military.
The US does share some responsibility for not insisting nations defend themselves.
However, given the weakness of these nations to appease oppressors instead of opposing them, what choice does the US have?
docroc
Nov 19, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Midcliff
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
I think the article is pretty clear in its intent:

The US Army's AHW project is part of "Prompt Global Strike" program which seeks to give the US military the means to deliver conventional weapons anywhere in the world within an hour.

They are announcing the US can kick butt without nukes. So don't mess with us. We obviously have no problem regularly using conventional weapons. This project is a good deterrent strategy.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2011
War is Peace

If you want peace, prepare for war.
hush1
Nov 20, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
If you want peace, prepare for war.

I always thought: If you want war prepare for war

Which of the two is it do you think?
Robatt
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
Wow! The parents are away for the weekend and you kids trash the house.
Arm chair warfare everywhere and far too much adrenalin.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had this many wanting to add their comments on a discovery that helped an endangered species.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2011
koch, Lenin shared your view on religion. All communist party members had to be atheists.
History demonstrates the murdering capacity of atheist/communists.
-which is far inferior to the murdering capacity of Religionists. Because religions are designed for creating more people for murdering and martyring (same thing).
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
If you want peace, prepare for war.

I always thought: If you want war prepare for war

Which of the two is it do you think?
Peace is only preparation for war. Defense only gives you time to prepare a proper attack.
zweistein_2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
"Humans are tribal at the core. As overpopulation was always the norm, tribal conflict was endemic. The tribes which exhibited the greatest internal cohesion coupled with the greatest concerted animosity toward outsiders, were the ones who would consistently prevail in combat, and thus were selected for. This is evolution.
"


Large parts of the planet are underpopulated : that includes USA. Even China has some space for growth. More people also means more consumers and indirectly better economy. The stores wouldn't be full if there wasn't more than enough.

"Peace is only preparation for war. Defense only gives you time to prepare a proper attack. "

I have no doubt that Hitler had the same thinking : absolutely no doubt. He had to live to his Teutonic reputation and also had the time to think about it while evading death in the world war I trenches.
EU is rising now from the ashes of the 3rd Reich.
You better watch out USA.
mosahlah
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
China's military budget has doubled every 4 years since 1990. China is projected to surpass US military spending by 2017 (ppp). The EU? That's got to be humor.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2011
EU is rising to new levels of ridicule:
"EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration"
http://www.telegr...ion.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
If you want peace, prepare for war.

I always thought: If you want war prepare for war

Which of the two is it do you think?

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. In a republic, the sheep is armed and prepared for war.
Anti, do you believe the govt police should not be armed and prepared to force their citizens to pay taxes and obey the laws?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
a discovery that helped an endangered species

It has been discovered that the use of force protects endangered species.
The Chinese have made significant contributions to endangering species. How do you intend to make them stop?
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
If you want peace, prepare for war.

I always thought: If you want war prepare for war

Which of the two is it do you think?


Well, the liberal hippies would choose your version.

They'd be foolish, and die foolishly. And very likely at the hand of a Muslim screaming, "Death to America".
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2011
"A good american is a dead one". I can not refrain my satisfaction when I read that some americans died in some place in some way: airplane accidents, gunshots, suicide, homicide, cancer, old age etc...
You sure die trying...
There is a saying in my language : " That who you do not let die will not let you live "
Salutari.


OK, so it's still there. Well, it's the weekend. This isn't exactly the New York Times. Maybe they don't work on the weekends.

Other things PhysOrg could do to improve:

1) Like almost every other news site in existence, they could show direct email links for their editors.

2) Same for the writer, on the article byline. Not being able to contact the author directly about an article? Ridiculous, in this day and age.

3) Some improvements to the comment section would be nice too. Like getting rid of the 3-minute wait. That serves literally no purpose in 2011. It's like a flashback to 1995.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
Large parts of the planet are underpopulated : that includes USA. Even China has some space for growth. More people also means more consumers and indirectly better economy. The stores wouldn't be full if there wasn't more than enough.
Large parts of the planet have been ruined by overpopulation. Why don't you convince some of them to move to the gobi?
I have no doubt that Hitler had the same thinking : absolutely no doubt. He had to live to his Teutonic reputation and also had the time to think about it while evading death in the world war I trenches.
The science of war exists apart from those who employ it. We are all descendants of people who used it successfully.

In THIS world at THIS particular time war is still unavoidable. Those who wage it well are the ones who will survive. Those who think like you will not.

Care to be extincted?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
Well, the liberal hippies would choose your version.

The illiberal hippies, occupying, have shown they support war.
zweistein_2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
Large parts of the planet are underpopulated : that includes USA. Even China has some space for growth. More people also means more consumers and indirectly better economy. The stores wouldn't be full if there wasn't more than enough.
Large parts of the planet have been ruined by overpopulation. Why don't you convince some of them to move to the gobi?
I have no doubt that Hitler had the same thinking : absolutely no doubt. He had to live to his Teutonic reputation and also had the time to think about it while evading death in the world war I trenches.
The science of war exists apart from those who employ it. We are all descendants of people who used it successfully.

In THIS world at THIS particular time war is still unavoidable. Those who wage it well are the ones who will survive. Those who think like you will not.

Care to be extincted?


If you feel that there is overpopulation just remove yourself and give us some space. You can do it for the humanity.
Thank
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. In a republic, the sheep is armed and prepared for war.
But, sadly, the sheep is still outnumbered and further, thinks wolves are icky and will have nothing to do with fighting them. And so he is still good wolf food.
Just try it! Come get some!
Baaaaa?
zweistein_2
3 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
Large parts of the planet have been ruined by overpopulation.

If you feel that there is overpopulation just remove yourself and give us some space. You can do it for the humanity.
Thank you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2011
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. In a republic, the sheep is armed and prepared for war.
But, sadly, the sheep is still outnumbered and further, thinks wolves are icky and will have nothing to do with fighting them. And so he is still good wolf food.
But wait! The sheep have discovered religion! And the flock has grown to a vast multitude which have the resources to hire their own wardogs to fight for them. The wolves are doomed.

But wait! There is not enough grass to feed the multitude and the sheep have divided up into groups intent on securing grazing rights. The wolves chuckle and become carrion-eaters as the sheep have destroyed the natural resources and have driven off the traditional wolf food.

What a freaking mess.
semmsterr
not rated yet Nov 20, 2011
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far," ...gotta maintain that big stick. It's just commonsense.
Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
If you want peace, prepare for war.

I always thought: If you want war prepare for war

Which of the two is it do you think?

As Wiki entry says:"9×19mm Parabellum is "the world's most popular and widely used military handgun cartridge.", and "The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you seek peace, prepare for war". From past history, my vote would be for the former :-)
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2011
My imagination doesn't include attempted assassinations on President Obama. The conservative Catholic-fascist red-state shooter was convinced Obama was the devil, ...That's a neocon, Nerdyguy. One of your guys.


Not a surprise really, but you are confusing a pychopath with a person of a particular political view.

Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2011
Absolutely beyond the pale that PhysOrg would not yet have removed a comment wherein a psychopath describes his joy at seeing dead Americans.

However, they found the time to remove my post wherein I claimed China was likely responsible for the Norway cyber attack.

Beyond pathetic.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2011
Don't expect objectivity from physorg.com.

Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
This article has brought on some heat, I see.
Makes me wonder if the article was written just to elicit some of your responses.
Is it part of a very subtle psychological preparation for war? Is it another consideration in the "be prepared" paradigm? Are we all just pieces on the board of a master chess game?

How many of you have actually BEEN to war? It can get pretty ugly... However, the adrenaline rush is pretty awesome (That heightened state of awareness for prolonged periods is what causes PTSD, tho).

Anyway. if ya want peace(whatever your definition of that is), be prepared to fight(and die - the ULTIMATE peace) for it...
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2011
"Chinese actors are the worlds most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. US private
sector firms and cybersecurity specialists have reported an onslaught of computer network intrusions that have
originated in China, but the IC cannot confirm who was responsible."
http://www.ncix.g...2011.pdf

"U.S. reserves right to meet cyber attack with force"
http://in.reuters...20111116

Guy_Underbridge
not rated yet Nov 20, 2011
it wasn't a hyper-sonic warhead in OK City...

poor investment.
bilklb
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
As Wiki entry says:"9×19mm Parabellum is "the world's most popular and widely used military handgun cartridge.", and "The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you seek peace, prepare for war".

Still the question remains - what is the correct approach:

a) If you want peace prepare for peace?

b) If you want war prepare for war?

c) If you want peace prepare for war?

In the end b) and c) have ALWAYS led to war. A military will always be used:

1) To unify a populace when inner turmoil threatens (tried and truw tactic since Napolean and one used by the US for the past 60 years continuously)
2) If a megalomaniac person/group gets control of the government
3) If the military-industrial complex gets control of the government (as it inevitably will, since it can always threaten to putsch in case its funds are reduced.

Examples abound. Just go to any news site and look at the top 10 headlines (today or for any day in the past)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
In the end b) and c) have ALWAYS led to war.
The human race has always been faced with its tropical reproduction rate coupled with the technology to improve survival. This has always led to war. It is only recently that the west has been able to offer compelling alternatives to reproducing and fighting about it.
Examples abound. Just go to any news site and look at the top 10 headlines (today or for any day in the past)
-But the obsolete cultures which evolved in this ruinous ancient context still exist. They need to be ENDED before peace can endure. They will be ENDED by cultures which no longer adhere to the idea of outreproducing and overrunning the enemy.

Accept that only the west offers a lasting peace by reducing the birthrate to sustainable levels.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
a) If you want peace prepare for peace?

How do you prepare for peace, or, how do you drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators?
Graveyards are peaceful as are concentration camps.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2011
In the end b) and c) have ALWAYS led to war.


I think it would be more fair to say, despite different groups of humans at different times using every conceivable method of organization, war has occurred on-and-off no matter what. One could safely assume then that NO system could ultimately prevent war if at least one party was willing.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
if at least one party was willing.

That is all it takes is it not?
After "Peace in our time" was proclaimed, a great war began and only the aggressor was prepared.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2011
A military will always be used:

1) To unify a populace when inner turmoil threatens (tried and truw tactic since Napolean and one used by the US for the past 60 years continuously)


With regards to your commentary on the US, purely speculative and subjective.

So, what is your solution antialias? World disarmament? That's a bit of a utopian fairy-tale wish (vs. a realistic objective) wouldn't you say?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
Was it Ben Franklin who said " Any man who would give up some of his liberties for temporary security, deserve neither."?
kochevnik
3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2011
My imagination doesn't include attempted assassinations on President Obama. The conservative Catholic-fascist red-state shooter was convinced Obama was the devil, ...That's a neocon, Nerdyguy. One of your guys.
Not a surprise really, but you are confusing a pychopath with a person of a particular political view.
False distinction.

So, what is your solution antialias? World disarmament? That's a bit of a utopian fairy-tale wish (vs. a realistic objective) wouldn't you say?
Eliminate the profit motive for banks to fund both sides of wars and profit from the spoils and by forcing the winner to assume the debts of the loser. Ban loansharking small nations. Ban private banks from issuing government money. Recognize that neofeudalism and corporatism are by far the greatest cause of war, and other wars are a failure of diplomacy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2011
But the banks are owned by the state that create the money.
Wars are caused by state governments to acquire power.
neofeudalism and corporatism

Both are variants of socialism, state control of property.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
Accept that only the west offers a lasting peace by reducing the birthrate to sustainable levels.

China seems to be doing a pretty good job at it.

It's not 'the west' that is offering a way out of overpopulation. If you go to the list of population growth rates by country thn you will notice that the majority of countries that have lower than average growth aren't in 'the west' at all.
http://en.wikiped...wth_rate

It is only recently that the west has been able to offer compelling alternatives to reproducing and fighting about it.

There's other countries that have offered alternatives for much longer (e.g. Nepal). Being peaceful isn't something that is coupled with being a democracy (otherwise the US would be an gross counter example...though one might argue that it is only a democracy in name).
The first democracy (Athens) was certainly not a peace-loving one. Quite the opposite.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
So, what is your solution antialias? World disarmament? That's a bit of a utopian fairy-tale wish (vs. a realistic objective) wouldn't you say?

There are times when a military is needed (I'm not THAT much of an idealist to fully discount the ability of individuals to be mad/power-hungry and diregarding all humanitarian concepts).

I'd go for a fully functional international military under UN mandate/ownership and depoyable with a two thirds vote (and no more permanent members or veto powers from the security council).

With national militaries (if at all permissible) restricted to purely defensive setups and weapons systems - much like the current Russian or Chinese military/navy compositions.

And certainly no more bases outside one's own territory - that only creates bad blood
Or how would you feel if an ally (e.g. France) had army bases in all 50 US states with their own nuclear weapons on site? Don't like it? Why then do you think people abroad like US bases?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
Why then do you think people abroad like US bases?

So they don't have to pay for a military and because the local economies benefit.
UN mandate/ownership
A UN led by tyrants and thugs, which are the majority members of the UN.
How well does the UN currently control the forces it contracts for peace keeping duty? Scandals abound of UN troops abusing locals, raping girls, etc, with no reprimands.

The US is planning to deploy Marines to Australia. Is this being done without permission from the Australian govt?
The quickest way to get US forces to leave is to dissolve the status of forces agreement protecting US forces from capricious local prosecution.
That is why US forces are leaving Iraq.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
So they don't have to pay for a military and because the local economies benefit.

Funny how all those countries have a military. and certinaly the US isn't setting up these bases for the economic benefit of the locals, are they?
But hey - by that argument you would welcome French army bases in the US, right? I mean the locals would benefit. (/sarcasm)

How well does the UN currently control the forces it contracts for peace keeping duty? Scandals abound of UN troops abusing locals, raping girls, etc, with no reprimands.

I think you're confusing UN with US here. US soldiers are exempt from rules and regulations in the countries they are stationed in. They can simply kill anyone they like and get away with it.

And that the majority of the UN are tyrants and thugs - that one you have to prove (I currently only see on active thug there - and that is the US. No one else is actively waging wars for no reason.
NotAsleep
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
@ antialias, wow... you really think US soldiers can simply kill anyone they like and get away with it?

http://articles.c...:JUSTICE

Take three seconds and think before you speak. I certainly won't speak praise for the political motivations of my country but the military is required to have squeaky clean morals. The few rogues out there don't deserve to wear the uniform and when they're caught, they're very harshly punished.

@ Zweinstein, come spout your rhetoric to the face of a US soldier. You'll get a hearty laugh, a handshake and a thanks for proving the first amendmant is still strong. What are you trying to prove?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2011
US soldiers are exempt from rules and regulations in the countries they are stationed in.

They are subject to the UCMJ.
"Status-of-forces agreements are not basing or access agreements. Rather, they define the legal status of U.S. personnel and property in the territory of another nation."
"Most SOFAs recognize the right of the host government to "primary jurisdiction," which is to say the host country exercises jurisdiction for all cases in which U.S. military personnel violate the host country's laws. There are two exceptions, however, which generally apply only in criminal cases involving U.S. forces personnel: When the offense is committed by Americans against Americans ("inter se" cases), and when the offense is committed by Americans in carrying out official duty. In these situations, the United States has primary jurisdiction over the accused American. "
"And as of June 1, 1999, there were 41 military personnel serving sentences in foreign prisons. "
http://www.globalsec
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
"Outrage is mounting around the world against United Nations peace-keeping soldiers as sex-crime allegations, ranging from charges of rape and exploitation in Haiti to wide-spread sexual abuse of children in the Ivory Coast, have exploded into the headlines this week.

One of the most alarming incidents in recent times several Uruguayan troops serving under the UN in Haiti held down and gang raped a teenage boy was documented on video and spread over the Internet. The crime sparked even more anti-UN protests in the poverty-stricken Caribbean nation."
"The UN, on the other hand, appeared to be more worried that the exposure might tarnish its image."
http://www.thenew...orldwide
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
"As has been shown on this website, the promotion and protection of human rights (the essence of liberal democracy) are essential to create and secure world peace. And the premier UN body charged with doing this is the 53 member UN Commission on Human Rights. Yet, who are its members? Incredibly, the membership includes some of the worst mass murderers and violators of human rights, including Cameroon, China, Congo (DRC), Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. The Chairman of the Commission for 2003 is the terrorist state, Libya. And the United States, one of the best exemplars of civil rights and political liberties and foremost proponents of human rights, was kicked off the Commission for the 2002 session."
http://www.hawaii...0.03.HTM

Fox guarding the chicken coup.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2011
But the banks are owned by the state that create the money.
@ryggesogn2 Wars are caused by state governments to acquire power.
neofeudalism and corporatism
Both are variants of socialism, state control of property.
The Rothschilds own the banks and the FED which is a private bank. Look up the Federal Reserve in the phone book it's not the the blue pages. It's in the business pages under Federal Express.

Rothschilds own 60% of Bank of America stock outright, which BTW is not an American bank but the Bank of ITALY. Nazi Pope is pleased his bank has hold of your money.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2011
how do you drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators?
Graveyards are peaceful as are concentration camps.
OK I have an idea lets talk in nothing but metaphors.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2011
a great war began and only the aggressor was prepared.
Not true. That war had been in the works for decades. Alliances and secret treaties had been signed and the people primed to want war. All it took was one assassination in sarajevo to set it off. Ferdinands driver actually drove around looking for the assassins, who had gotten lost.

Germany invaded france through the ardennes, only the 2nd of 3 times they would do this. Inexplicably they stopped short of their march on paris on the orders of some junior officer, and a long line of trenches formed from the swiss alps to the channel. The Stage was set for years of Machinated mashing of millions of military-aged men.

And yet only a generation later there were again enough for an even bigger war.

And then abortion was legalized and it all stopped. THERE is the "Peace in our time" that was promised. And that is what it took to establish it. NOTHING LESS than the total destruction of obsolete cultures Designed to PREVENT IT.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2011
One of the most alarming incidents in recent times several Uruguayan troops serving under the UN in Haiti held down and gang raped a teenage boy was documented on video and spread over the Internet.
Only one of the many HORRORS made possible by religion-mandated overpopulation.
"As has been shown on this website, the promotion and protection of human rights (the essence of liberal democracy) are essential to create and secure world peace.
There is absolutely NO WAY to maintain human rights when populations exceed the point of stability, children begin to starve, and religions tell their adherents that this is the fault of the next religion down the street.

Religions CAUSE the problem. Infidels and heathens and atheists DESERVE no rights and it only takes a little hardship to REMOVE them, or attempt to.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
the FED which is a private bank.

Why does the govt appoint the chairman?
Who prints the money and sets the rules for the value of the money?
The FED is a govt central bank.
Federal banks are insured by the taxpayers and regulated by the US govt. Not very 'private'.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
I'd go for a fully functional international military under UN mandate/ownership and depoyable with a two thirds vote (and no more permanent members or veto powers from the security council).


Maybe someday. A stronger U.N. Security Council is a good thing though. Veto powers are a real problem and have hampered the ability of the Security Council to implement their own resolutions many times.

But, there'd have to be quite a few changes. For example, the Security Council, the only international body with a fairly broad mandate to start a war, is only composed of a handful of nations. All of them big and powerful. Except for a couple of rotating positions.

However, if you opened this up to the General Committee, you run the risk of having a block of 127 island-size nations voting to make war against a defenseless China (based on your concept).
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
With national militaries (if at all permissible) restricted to purely defensive setups and weapons systems - much like the current Russian or Chinese military/navy compositions.


I don't disagree that this is admirable if unlikely goal.

But, to use as your examples of defensive nations China and Russia is....well, arguable, to put it politely. I'm not sure where you're getting your military information from, but neither Russia nor China has anything remotely approaching a defensive posture.

Russia is one of the most belligerent nations in world politics, and has been for generations. Same with China. Both nations have attacked and/or threatened to attack, every one of their neighbors at one time or other.

Both have large strategic nuclear stockpiles, and both have well-known, openly-stated policies that include use of such weapons. Both have those weapons pointed at -- among others -- the United States.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
And certainly no more bases outside one's own territory...Or how would you feel if an ally (e.g. France) had army bases in all 50 US states...?


You, me and Ron Paul agree on this issue. However, we maintain those bases because OUR ALLIES ASK US TO!

To answer your question (what if France had army bases):

Let's assume the U.S. had been decimated in a war, and France came to our rescue and kicked out the invader. Then, within a few years, even before the rebuilding (lots of cash, people and other resources FREE from FRANCE (whoopee!) was finished and the French bases were removed, another large and dangerous nation (say China) began making threatening moves towards us. Threatening, for example, not only to demolish us but to, if needed, rip right through us to get to Canada. At that point, let's assume the U.S. begged France to keep its bases in the U.S.

Under those circumstances, I'd consider myself to be one lucky S.O.B. if the French were kind enough to stay!
Nerdyguy
1.1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
Why then do you think people abroad like US bases?


I think you meant why then do you think people abroad [don't] like US bases? I could be wrong.

Assuming that was your intent, I'd say that you have drawn a false conclusion. I would say that there are some people that don't like them. I'd say there are some people that don't like cheese. Or spaghetti. Or green hair. Or whatever. But, I would say that there are millions upon millions of people that are thanking their lucky stars that the U.S. helps protect their homeland.

Or, maybe I've misunderstood all these years. Are we perhaps occupying England, France and Germany without their consent?
kaushikc
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
During peace this can be used for delivering disaster relief and essential life support material :)
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
Um...have you even LOOKED at the list of countries where the US has bases? All these countries are 'under threat'? Are you out of your effin mind? I knew that US paranoia knew no bounds - but you, sir, take the proverbial cake.

Man...you need a SERIOUS reality check.

There are 761 US Military Bases across the planet. 156 Countries with US bases. 46 Countries with no US presence. 63 countries with US Military Bases and Troops.

There are 761 US Military Bases across the planet. 156 Countries with US bases. 46 Countries with no US presence. 63 countries with US Military Bases and Troops.

761 bases in 156 countries (only 46 without a presence). 63 countries with troops.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
Please define 'base' and the number of personnel stationed at each of those 63 'bases'.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
damn copy and paste.

Here's the map
http://www.miprox...wide.jpg

Global deployment figures can be found here in section 6
http://www.global...aid=5564

If you want the exact numbers go to the base structure report from the DoD
http://www.defens...line.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
So there is no profit motive for climate scientists?
"Welcome to the Anderson Research Group at Harvard University. Our experimental and theoretical laboratory performs research with scientific objectives ranging from studies of radical-molecule reactivity, to global stratospheric/tropospheric ozone chemistry, to mechanisms that control climate change."
http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
Nearly every major university has some type of research group/center that are typically NOT funded by the university and the researchers may or may not be professors or teach at the university. Therefore they must seek and obtain funding to stay in business. No monetary motive?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
I note you did not define 'base'.
There are 742 'small sites' overseas. 3640 in the USA.
What is a 'base'?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2011
Don't forget every US embassy has a detachment of US Marines.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2011
The US has quite an 'empire':
"Marine overseas sites: Kenya (153), Japan (16766), Australia (tbd)
AF: UK (9873), UAE (37), Turkey (1635), Spain (143), ROK(8624), St. Helana (3 people), Qatar (158), Portugal (800), Oman (70), Norway (3), Curacao (10), Netherlands (135), Japan (14,000, 3 major bases), Italy (4000), Greenland (138), Greece (4), Germany (14,800), Ecuador (13), Columbia (7), Belgium (140), Aruba (3), Antigua (2)

Navy: UK (875), Spain (1125), ROK (365), Singapore (115) , Portugal (59), Kuwait (10), Japan (16737), Italy (4451), Indonesia (19), Iceland (81), Hong Kong (10), Greece(382), Egypt (29), Cuba (1457), Diego Garcia (311), Bahrain (2333), Australia (28)

Army: UK (219), ROK (20488), Netherlands (309), Marshal Islands (26), Japan (1373), Italy (3096), Germany (49127), Belgium (1227),

Number in () are the number of military personnel stationed in that country, with permission.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2011
Let's assume the U.S. had been decimated in a war, and France came to our rescue and kicked out the invader.- Nerdy
I believe this already happened once... During the Revolutionary War?
eyenot
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
"Where did you get the idea it was a low flyer? ...both tests have been with modified ICBMs on ballistic trajectories."

That's actually wrong:

"Interestingly, and perhaps most importantly, as DefenseTech points out, the AHW flew a "a non-ballistic glide trajectory."
-- from gizmodo

So, wrong on the ballistic account. Oh, and here (from DefenseTech):

"The nuke is the line that curves high up what should be the Y-axis while the PGS is the squiggly line that stays close to the X-axis."

It's a low-flyer.

"very, very fast and would take out nuclear facilities"
"It's reminiscent of the B2"

I would compare it to a cross between the thinking behind ICBM's attack pattern but the convenience of the Nazi V2 dome. With this new bomb, you could rain ordinance on London and Paris all day long from Moscow, L.A., or Beijing.
eyenot
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
This is actually slightly more serious than an ICBM.

ICBM:
1. you have to want to lift a payload requiring a rocket ship
2. you have to want to secure a payload potentially in outer space
3 (or 1 2): you have to basically want to make a nuclear, chem, or bio strike on a massive, massive scale, probably necessitating not having pilots in the midst.
4. you have to want it in under 45 minutes

So, ICBMs were always this absurd gamepiece, hence the cold war.

By contrast, this "bomb" might be fifteen minutes late responding to ICBM, but nobody wants to use those, anyways. And this doesn't have to justify a huge or serious payload.

I think it's a smart investment, and I think it's a strategy-changer and that it'll probably be seeing a lot of use.

But, I think it doesn't bode well for humanity, just because the rest of the world will want theirs, too. And we'll all be susceptible to WWII London lifestyles.
eyenot
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
"referring to uses like knocking out Iran's nukes prior to them coming on-line. "

"'Launch On Warning' strategy still exists to a certain extent."

"very fast and would take out nuclear facilities"

What ordinance would ensure inoperation of subrosa silos. Collapse the major structure, or somehow topple the missile (silos are supposedly equipped with braces to prevent that). Eiminate all personnel but the systems could be automated. Fry the silicon architecture but the system may be relay-based (they could also use something like the Sterling engine, laff).

"Makes me wonder if the article was written just to elicit some of your responses."

As if to prepare a group for discussion and debate. Why not? This is a fairly revolutionary weapon that changes life.

"Humans are tribal at the core. As overpopulation was always the norm, tribal conflict was endemic."

Paleopathology is revealing that humanity lived in relative peace for 350,000 years before the recent advent of agriculture,
SteveL
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2011
The Rothschilds own the banks and the FED which is a private bank.
Rothschilds own 60% of Bank of America stock outright
Some lies are just too easy to disprove.

Major individual stockholders in Bank of America:

MOYNIHAN BRIAN T 481,806 Oct 31, 2011
MONTAG THOMAS K. 351,952 Nov 15, 2011
THOMPSON BRUCE R. 267,804 Nov 15, 2011
LAUGHLIN TERRENCE P 106,309 Aug 2, 2011
SCULLY ROBERT W 90,716 May 11, 2011

Institutional and Mutual Fund holders (like me and millions of other people) own 60% of BAC, not the Rothchilds.
Reference: http://finance.ya...mh?s=BAC

which BTW is not an American bank but the Bank of ITALY. Nazi Pope is pleased his bank has hold of your money.


Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28255
United States - Map
Phone: 704-386-5681
Fax: 704-386-6699
Website: http://www.bankofamerica.com

Reference: http://finance.ya...pr?s=BAC Profile

Some claims are too easy to disprove.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2011
Some claims are too easy to disprove

Not to the faithful.
France came to our rescue and kicked out the invader.

How many French soldiers fought with Americans?
BTW, France supported the CSA a few dedcades later.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2011
Paleopathology is revealing that humanity lived in relative peace for 350,000 years before the recent advent of agriculture
I would appreciate a link to that info please?

Certain human and proto-human groups were indeed peaceful at certain times and certain locations when attrition rates were sufficiently high. Cultures had also developed ways of curbing overgrowth and maintaining peace through infanticide and ritual sacrifice, among others.

Paleopathology also provides us with much evidence of the prevalence of violence:
http://violencepr...nce.html

-As does the study of contemporary societies and the evolutionary structures of our brains.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2011
The Rothschilds own the banks and the FED which is a private bank.
Rothschilds own 60% of Bank of America stock outright
Some lies are just too easy to disprove.

Major individual stockholders in Bank of America:

MOYNIHAN BRIAN T 481,806 Oct 31, 2011


Sweet! One of my neighbors made your list!

Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2011
"Where did you get the idea it was a low flyer? ...both tests have been with modified ICBMs on ballistic trajectories."

That's actually wrong:

"Interestingly, and perhaps most importantly, as DefenseTech points out, the AHW flew a "a non-ballistic glide trajectory."
-- from gizmodo

So, wrong on the ballistic account.


Yep, I agree. That's what I was saying above re: the DARPA version.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2011
Um...have you even LOOKED at the list of countries where the US has bases? All these countries are 'under threat'? Are you out of your effin mind? I knew that US paranoia knew no bounds - but you, sir, take the proverbial cake.

Man...you need a SERIOUS reality check.

There are 761 US Military Bases across the planet. 156 Countries with US bases. 46 Countries with no US presence. 63 countries with US Military Bases and Troops.


I'm familiar with the U.S. positioning. In reality, there are less than 40 large and medium installations. Some of your numbers are suspect. But, regardless, I'll grant you that we have a lot of bases.

It's interesting that you're so emotional about this. It is what it is. I didn't personally build any of our bases. And, I'm guessing that you totally misunderstood my earlier posts. When I said that you, me and Ron Paul would agree, it was regarding bringing the vast majority of troops home.
Nerdyguy
1.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2011
@antialias: one thing you've failed to address, other than to throw around accusatory words like "paranoia", is this fundamental reality:

The U.S. does not have a military base in a single nation that has not invited us in. Your beef is clearly with the wrong party. If your claim of 761 bases is correct (it's not), then you need to aim that anger of yours at the 761 political/intelligence/military decision makers in various countries around the world who have ASKED us to "pretty please, with a cherry on top" set up camp.

Or, again, are you proposing that America has invaded your homeland (Germany) and is currently occupying it?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
The U.S. does not have a military base in a single nation that has not invited us in.

Germany? Hello?
Vietnam? Hello?
Korea? Hello?
Iraq? Hello?
Afghanistan? Hello?
...

Or, again, are you proposing that America has invaded your homeland (Germany) and is currently occupying it?

Occupying? No. But sure as hell the US is not even open to the suggestion of closing those bases down.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
The U.S. does not have a military base in a single nation that has not invited us in.

Germany? Hello?
Vietnam? Hello?
Korea? Hello?
Iraq? Hello?
Afghanistan? Hello?
...

Or, again, are you proposing that America has invaded your homeland (Germany) and is currently occupying it?

Occupying? No. But sure as hell the US is not even open to the suggestion of closing those bases down.


Germany - U.S. ally, NATO ally. U.S. presence formally requested by German government.

Vietnam - no American bases.

Korea - Are you joking? U.S. presence formally requested by SK. Did you think SK wanted us to leave?

Iraq - what about it? Minimal troops, and those are leaving soon.

Afghanistan - Still a war zone. So? Typically we have troops in-country during a WAR. The legitimately elected government of Afghanistan has formally requested a U.S. presence.

Seriously, I don't get your point.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
Germany attacked the US, surrendered and asked the US to stay to keep the Soviets from taking more land.
There are no bases in Vietnam.
South Korea was attached by communists, the UN launched a counter offensive, cease fire was signed and the war has not ended.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US led an international coalition to retake Kuwait, Iraq agreed to a cease fire, and subsequently violated that cease fire agreement.
Afghanistan hosted terrorists that attacked the USA and other nations.
The USA used to have very fine bases in Philippines. The govt no longer wanted the US at Subic or Clark so the US left.
Not too long ago the US wanted proposed moving forces out of Germany further east to nations that were more supportive. Then Germany changed their minds and asked the US to stay.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011


"Vietnam plans to reopen to foreign navies the Cam Ranh Bay port facility formerly used by both the US and Russia, the prime minister said Saturday after a summit dominated by China's territorial disputes."
"Vietnam and the US, which restored diplomatic ties 15 years ago, are both concerned about China's growing military might and assertiveness in the South China Sea.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Vietnam Saturday that Hanoi and Washington are "broadening our security exchanges"."
http://www.bangko...leets-pm
Kev_C
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2011
Seems just like a new improved way to hit your critics before they can duck. Nice one Yanks. Another huge drain on your peoples taxes and welfare benefits. Bet they just love you gung ho rednecks.
When the other nations object to Yankee doodle dandy interferring in their business the Yanks will merely strike with this weapon and claim it was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack on US mainland. Get real people this is all about colonial expansion by the US and nothing less.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2011
Get real people this is all about colonial expansion by the US and nothing less.

The US has not been very good at empire. Not nearly as good as the Europeans: British, German, Dutch, Spanish,
The first attempt at Empire was by the 'progressive' Teddy R. and the US returned the Philippines to its people after 300 years of Spanish rule. The US still retains Puerto Rico, but they seem to like their current status.
Immediately after WWII, German and Japanese govts were established, same for ROK.
What colonial expansion?
Just wonder, how many nation-states would petition the US to become a state?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2011
Get real people this is all about colonial expansion by the US and nothing less.

The US has not been very good at empire. Not nearly as good as the Europeans: British, German, Dutch, Spanish,
The first attempt at Empire was by the 'progressive' Teddy R. and the US returned the Philippines to its people after 300 years of Spanish rule. The US still retains Puerto Rico, but they seem to like their current status.
Immediately after WWII, German and Japanese govts were established, same for ROK.
What colonial expansion?
Just wonder, how many nation-states would petition the US to become a state?
Let us not forget the ottomans, the Persians, and the Mongols, all perhaps more representative of today's potential threats.
SteveL
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2011
Don't forget that the USA turned the Panama Canal back over to Panama. The US was making good change off of that strategic location and service. The people of Panama wanted it back, so we returned it. The Panama Canal is of vital strategic importance both economically and militarily. Giving such a prize back is hardly an act of a country interested in occupation much less empire building.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2011
Seems just like a new improved way to hit your critics before they can duck. Nice one Yanks. Another huge drain on your peoples taxes and welfare benefits. Bet they just love you gung ho rednecks.
When the other nations object to Yankee doodle dandy interferring in their business the Yanks will merely strike with this weapon and claim it was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack on US mainland. Get real people this is all about colonial expansion by the US and nothing less.


lmao could you have either a) a bigger chip on your shoulder or b) more American envy? For the record, the U.S. doesn't ever hit "critics". We hit people trying to kill us. That's self-defense.

This is a weapon system that is based on relatively recent technology. Nothing more.

Whatever ass-backwards country you hail from, I'm guessing they have a military too, no? I'm sorry you can't have one yet, but I'm sure it won't be long.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2011
Nerdyguy, no one envies the US as much as you claim. I had the opportunity to go there multiple times but I passed. I once met an Indian guy who left a job in my country simply because he got a visa to work in the US (no actual job was promised to him), and everyone he knew looked at him like he's crazy. Also, I wouldn't want to live in a country with so many guns on the loose, and where law enforcement has so much leeway to badger citizens.

Anyway, the reason we criticize this spending is because at the same time US politicians claim they're out of money and deny basic services like medical aid. The US could have the same global influence with 10% the military spending (minus 2 on-going wars of course), and so much better living conditions. I'd rather live in any European country, Canada or Australia any day. And we do have militaries.
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2011
Don't forget that the USA turned the Panama Canal back over to Panama. The US was making good change off of that strategic location and service. The people of Panama wanted it back, so we returned it. The Panama Canal is of vital strategic importance both economically and militarily. Giving such a prize back is hardly an act of a country interested in occupation much less empire building.


What about Guantanamo Bay? You are aware of its location, correct? And there are other types of empire other than a territorial one. The US is most certainly a hegemonic empire which does not require exerting direct influence over subordinate territories. Sorry, we live in the modern age. You can't use Rome as a model for everything.

The US has not been very good at empire.


Wait wait wait. So Marjon, is the US an empire or not an empire? "[Not] a very good empire" still qualifies as an empire. What made you change your mind?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2011
I'd rather live in any European country, Canada or Australia any day. And we do have militaries.

Who is 'we'?
What is stopping you from living in Europe, Canada or Australia?

hegemonic empire

With that definition the British Empire still dominates the world since English is a most common language.
FrankHerbert
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2011
http://www.physor...eme.html

Marjon: "How is the USA an empire again?"

I go on to explain that basically his argument boils down to "the US is by definition not an empire." I go on to use Rome as an example. The Romans maintained the facade of a republic long after its fall.

Marjon then responds with: "A republic is not an empire."

Since Marjon rarely makes definite statements that he can be tied down on, his statement can reasonably be taken as "The United States is not an empire as it is a republic, which is mutually exclusive with an empire."

Marjon then says in this topic: "The US has not been very good at empire."
(I guess being bad at bad is good? lol)

He then says this: "With that definition the British Empire still dominates the world since English is a most common language."

Which I guess is meant to be taken as a denial that the US is an empire.

Which is it? How many times are you going to flip flop in this topic?
Jotaf
not rated yet Nov 27, 2011
Rygg: I was referring to the same countries. Maybe the word "they" (the countries) would've been more clear.

No one stops my from living where I want, thank you! I was mostly responding to a comment that seemed to imply everyone is jealous of the US, which is false.
FrankHerbert
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2011
There are no bases in Vietnam.


LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO.

Yes the US is not an empire because it does not have bases in VIETNAM, a country it FAILED to conquer. Lol. heh.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2011
Still waiting for someone to demonstrator the USA is an empire. State the definition, produce the evidence, make your case.
everyone is jealous of the US

Only those who want to buy a nice house or land, a nice car and own some firearms.
I recall an episode of Feherty's golf show with Greg Norman. Norman was quite pleased with his collection of firearms, which were illegal in his native land.
If you don't want to own firearms, please stay out of the US. It means you don't want take responsibility for yourself. Better stay in some nanny state and be taken care of. We are doing our best to end the US nanny state.

As for Vietnam, how many US factories have been built in Vietnam? I know Ford has an engine plant near Hanoi.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2011
"Intel is building a US$1 billion chipset assembly and testing plant at SHTP, which is helping to attract more foreign investors to the sector, according to the Ministry of Planning and Investment."
http://www.trgint...rms.html

I guess the US does have bases in Vietnam:

"Vietnam proving a Great Base for U.S.
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) "
http://www.busine...ing.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2011
"On the heels of his trip to the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Hawaii, Obama announced the deployment of 2,500 U.S. Marines to a base in Australia a country that has long been one of the United Statess staunchest allies in an effort to increase the American military presence in a region that China hopes to someday dominate.
Though the U.S. Navy remains unprepared to counter open Chinese military aggression in the region, the move sends a strong signal that the presidents criticisms of Chinas trade policies, currency manipulation, human rights abuses and aggressive expansion are more than empty rhetoric and stands in marked contrast to the administrations snub of the Dalai Lama and its invitation of Communist Chinas dictators to a state dinner last year.

Read more: http://dailycalle...exFvW6Ms

"
Maybe Obama wants to be re-elected.
Jotaf
not rated yet Nov 29, 2011
"Only those who want to buy a nice house or land, a nice car and own some firearms."

The best thing about the US is that if you get cancer, having a good chance of dying is the least of your worries; you also get to lose your house to pay the bill!

Also, by going to college you must get into debt of 200,000 dollars or more. Great!

Who wouldn't want to live in a land of such opportunities? :)

I think that the fact that you like your firearms (which is fine IMO) doesn't necessarily mean that you have to support corporate interests getting into every aspect of your life. They're 2 separate things.

There was a time when the US was a perfect, free-market, every-man-for-himself libertarian utopia: It was called the Wild West.

Great movies though.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2011
There was a time when the US was a perfect, free-market, every-man-for-himself libertarian utopia: It was called the Wild West.

If you did some research you might find the West as not that wild.

you have to support corporate interests getting into every aspect of your life

I don't. Socialists do when they subsidize and regulate promoting their favorite companies.

Many young professionals from Scandinavia were quite eager to move to the USA so they could buy a house and a car, which were too expensive in their home countries, due to high taxes.

As for cancer: "comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe is still lagging behind the United States. "
Nerdyguy
1.3 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2011
Nerdyguy, no one envies the US as much as you claim. I had the opportunity to go there multiple times but I passed. I once met an Indian guy who left a job in my country simply because he got a visa to work in the US and everyone he knew looked at him like he's crazy.


A) We're not interested in having you.

B) Your argument is a non-argument based on a logical fallacy. You, your Indian friend and and everyone he knew do not constitute a statistically significant population upon which to draw any conclusions about anything, let alone world sentiment towards the U.S.

C) Despite things like TV coverage of the wars and Islamic fundamentalist rants, world opinion of the U.S. is relatively high.

D) Meanwhile, despite your opinion and the stats, the true story is this: millions of people are flooding into the U.S. every year, some of them risking jail time by doing it illegally.

http://www.dhs.go...2009.pdf
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2011
What about Guantanamo Bay?


What about it? We lease this territory. Geez, at least do some basic fact checking Franky.

Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2011
The reason we criticize this spending is because at the same time US politicians claim they're out of money and deny basic services like medical aid. The US could have the same global influence with 10% the military spending (minus 2 on-going wars of course), and so much better living conditions. I'd rather live in any European country, Canada or Australia any day. And we do have militaries.


Who is "we"? You and a few like-minded individuals on PhysOrg? lol, nobody cares. And, by nobody, I mean no one in the U.S. So, critique us all you want.

And, btw, whatever 3rd world nation you live in -- just a guess, since you and 99% of everyone on PhysOrg rips on the U.S. all day and then hides behind anonymity when asked their nation of origin -- your country also has a military budget and socials services. And your leaders, also, presumably make decisions on where to put those dollars.

Or, do you claim to live in Fairyland?
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2011
"Only those who want to buy a nice house or land, a nice car and own some firearms."

The best thing about the US is that if you get cancer, having a good chance of dying is the least of your worries; you also get to lose your house to pay the bill!

Also, by going to college you must get into debt of 200,000 dollars or more. Great!

Who wouldn't want to live in a land of such opportunities? :)

I think that the fact that you like your firearms (which is fine IMO) doesn't necessarily mean that you have to support corporate interests getting into every aspect of your life. They're 2 separate things.

There was a time when the US was a perfect, free-market, every-man-for-himself libertarian utopia: It was called the Wild West.

Great movies though.


I'll ask you again - what's your country of origin?
Jotaf
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
Most of your arguments boil down to "I don't care, mind your own business". That's ok. But if you actually didn't care, then you wouldn't waste time replying.

About the rest of the World's view of the US. The main problem is the foreign policy, the politicians and military-industrial complex that uphold it, and the people who support them.

Of course everyone knows that not every American agrees with those policies, so there's no use in generalizing.

What you're saying was true in the 90's; the US was respected. Bush destroyed the World's view of the US though. Obama did a good job in that respect, but the general view is still unfavorable.

Still, seeing all those flying flags and repeated praises of the nation 24/7 on TV must have given you the impression that everyone but Muslims loves the US. It's not the case. Here are a few polls made around the world:

http://news.bbc.c...1597.stm

http://www.worldp.../623.php
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
Most of your arguments boil down to "I don't care, mind your own business". That's ok. But if you actually didn't care, then you wouldn't waste time replying.


Ludicrous in the extreme, assuming you're referring to me. You apparently don't know how to quote or make a reference to another person. However, mine was the most recent post prior to yours, so it's a fair assumption.

You've not read my posts, or have seen only what you wish to see. Including avoiding the facts, figures, links, and rational positions I've posited. And, of course, my opinion. But, it's hardly careless or random as you have suggested. You just disagree and it's a whole lot easier to sum it up as "I don't care...".

Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
About the rest of the World's view of the US. The main problem is the foreign policy, the politicians and military-industrial complex that uphold it, and the people who support them.


Ah, is that all?

so there's no use in generalizing.


Then why have you done so throughout your post?

What you're saying was true in the 90's; the US was respected.


Still very much the truth. If you don't believe so, then you do need to educate yourself. Not my job.

the general view is still unfavorable.


Unsubstantiated misinformation. YOUR view is unfavorable. There may also be others like you. This is meaningless.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
Still, seeing all those flying flags and repeated praises of the nation 24/7 on TV must have given you the impression that everyone but Muslims loves the US...It's not the case. Here are a few polls made around the world...


Not sure how you could expect anyone, particularly me, to take you seriously after that first sentence above.

In any case:

1) You're right that opinions are diverse. I've never suggested otherwise.

2) You're right - some people don't like the U.S. We have lots of enemies.

3) Where are you from? I'd like to spend some time ripping your country.

4) You need to educate yourself on how polls are created. BBC is not a bad source. Your other link is one of the most liberal, anti-American institutions. Not to be trusted on the subject of "how is America viewed". But, in general, you should understand more about how polls are created, and how much B.S. is common in the process.

5) As I've suggested before, the U.S. is widely respected. Read more.
Jotaf
not rated yet Dec 05, 2011
Their view may be unsubstantiated or unfair, but that's not the point: I merely wanted to show that a large portion of the World's population doesn't view the US that favorably. They're not anti-American or whatever; they simply didn't agree with Bush's policies, and now don't agree with the continuation of some of those policies.

Yes, many people still want in the US. And with a full-blown narcotics war in Mexico, of course the US sounds pretty good.

One of those polls was biased -- fair enough. But the BBC is more reputable. I know that polls are easy to screw up, and you must take them with a grain of salt.

But you cannot write off completely the most significant results, such as how people view the US's influence. Even with a large margin of error that's not exactly a "glowing result".

That explains some of the anti-Americanism you see in these sites. Actually I wouldn't go as far as calling it that, since Americans per-se are not blamed,but rather the people who are in charge.