New material's capability to increase weapons' explosive force demonstrated at Navy test range

Dec 06, 2011

Military, government and industry officials watched the demonstration of a revolutionary material that increases the explosive force and lethality on enemy targets during a test at Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren, Va., Dec. 2.

The test material, called High-Density Reactive Material (HDRM), is designed to replace steel in warhead casings with little or no compromise in strength or design.

"Today's test demonstrates this new material's potential and the ability of NAVSEA Warfare Center engineers and scientists to move it from the laboratory to full scale working prototype in under a year to meet technology development goals," said NSWC Dahlgren Division Commander Capt. Michael Smith. "It's a remarkable achievement that could not have been accomplished without close technical collaboration and effort between the Office of Naval Research (ONR), NSWC Dahlgren, NSWC Indian Head Division and industry."

Navy scientists and engineers from NSWC Indian Head Division (IHD) developed HDRM by combining several metals and using standard manufacturing processes.

"It's rewarding to see the validation of much of the theory and experimentation that led to the final material selection," said Dr. Clifford Bedford, ONR Advanced program manager. "In the applied research phase of the program, we've seen 100 percent reproducibility with this experimental system."

Unlike conventional munitions, the approach integrates the casing with warhead explosives for increased lethality.

"HDRM has demonstrated enhanced blast, multiphase blast, and reactive fragments effects," said Dr. Jason Jouet, NSWC Indian Head Reactive team lead. "With the strength of aluminum, density of steel, and more than one and a half times the energy of TNT, HDRM is truly a revolutionary enabling technology."

HDRM can readily replace steel in existing systems and is compatible with current warhead designs, thereby maintaining the same probability of a successful target strike.

"This approach may translate to less ordnance and ultimately fewer sorties to get the same result," said Jouet.

NSWC IHD's Reactive Materials Team has gradually scaled up its HDRM tests to gather measurable data on the materials destructive characteristics.

"Initially, small cylinder casings were tested to help us refine the design," said Bedford. "We used that data to fine-tune the parameters which were used to scale the charge in the later test demonstrations like the test conducted today."

NSWC Dahlgren engineers worked carefully with device characteristics provided by their NSWC Indian Head counterparts and with target characteristics to design a complex test arena at NSWC Dahlgren's Explosive Experimental Area.

"Rather than dynamically flying the HDRM ordnance device at a single target, we set up several tactically relevant targets," said Jeb Brough, NSWC Dahlgren technical and programmatic lead for Reactive Materials. "We inspected damage to the targets and collected performance data that will be applied to effectiveness models for specific weapons."

Test instrumentation captured critical data and NSWC Dahlgren lethality engineers are currently assessing the target damage to judge the effects of the unique HDRM device.

"Although the arena is extremely complex, it is a cost effective method of evaluating the new material's capability and potential," said Brough. "With this data, the Office of Naval Research can evaluate the best potential for further development related to a specific weapon system."

Explore further: Off-world manufacturing is a go with space printer

Provided by Office of Naval Research

4.8 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

ONR pursuing affordable common radar for surface ships

Sep 21, 2011

To upgrade the Navy's fleet of aging combat ship radar systems, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is developing technologies that will combat the obsolescence of surveillance systems at a more affordable cost.

Recommended for you

Off-world manufacturing is a go with space printer

23 hours ago

On Friday, the BBC reported on a NASA email exchange with a space station which involved astronauts on the International Space Station using their 3-D printer to make a wrench from instructions sent up in ...

First drone in Nevada test program crashes in demo

Dec 19, 2014

A drone testing program in Nevada is off to a bumpy start after the first unmanned aircraft authorized to fly without Federal Aviation Administration supervision crashed during a ceremony in Boulder City.

Fully automated: Thousands of blood samples every hour

Dec 19, 2014

Siemens is supplying automation technology for the longest and one of the most cutting-edge sample processing lines in any clinical laboratory. The line, or automation track, 200 meters long, in Marlborough, ...

Explainer: What is 4-D printing?

Dec 19, 2014

Additive manufacturing – or 3D printing – is 30 years old this year. Today, it's found not just in industry but in households, as the price of 3D printers has fallen below US$1,000. Knowing you can p ...

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mvg
3.8 / 5 (11) Dec 06, 2011
"lethality engineers"
First time I've seen that job designation.
Can you imagine this very short conversation:
"What do you do?"
"I'm a lethality engineer"
(End of conversation as the room quickly empties)

About the same result one would expect if the job designation was "suicide bomber".
NotAsleep
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2011
About the same result one would expect if the job designation was "suicide bomber".

Well... not really. I'd think the reactions would be totally different. One designs things to (hopefully) kill aggressive combatants. The other blows himself up to kill civilians in a shopping mall.

The term "aggressive combatant" is a technical term. I could just as soon pick something more descriptive if you want to delve into the moral implications of defining someone with that particular term.

As for the phrase "High-density reactive material", I hope that's not synonymous with "depleted uranium". I'm curious what the chemical composition of the new material is. Higher density usually means more expensive material and more expensive material has lately meant "your funds are getting cut"
mvg
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 06, 2011
"Well... not really."

Killing is killing--murder is murder--regardless of the euphemisms you use.

Whether it is the murder gangs terrorists use--or those used by the State.
NotAsleep
3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2011
It's a sheltered Utopia you live in
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (56) Dec 06, 2011
No actually, it's a sheltered Utopia you live in where your enemy is "the other" and everyone else is your friend. You have two groups. Good people and "the other". That's Utopian and naive.
powerup1
4.5 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2011
"Well... not really."

Killing is killing--murder is murder--regardless of the euphemisms you use.

Whether it is the murder gangs terrorists use--or those used by the State.


If there is a person running through a crowd of people killing as many people as they could and there is a person in that crowd that kills the killer in order to stop his/her murderous rampage, would you say that they both are morally equal?
mvg
2 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2011
Killing even in this extreme example is still killing.

Who is to know/or/say if one life has greater value than another.

Even the taking of the life of a deranged killer has moral implications.

What chiefly caught my attention in this article was the use of euphemisms (lethality engineer). To make a morally questionable occupations/careers/activities appear to be more acceptable. This is very common, and is a major defect in the moral compass of many people.
mvg
2 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2011
"If there is a person running through a crowd of people killing as many people as they could and there is a person in that crowd that kills the killer in order to stop his/her murderous rampage, would you say that they both are morally equal?"

Powerup1:--
To more directly answer your question--("would you say that they are morally equal?")

That would depend--
For instance: is it the INTENT of the 'killer of the killer' to use lethal force when a lesser method could/or/should have been used?

Is the "killer of the killer'--himself putting innocent lives at risk (stray bullets, etc) by the attempted use of lethal force?

WE could discuss hypotheticals forever, but isn't the main point that life has become too cheap. Individuals and governments value only their own life--while devaluing the lives of others.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2011
The guy who starts the killing is the one devaluing life, in most instances. Heck even John Brown, who was killing to stop slavery, was devaluing life as he killed the wrong people in almost all instances. The guy that kills the first guy is usually the one restoring the value of life.

Get real and drop the fantasy that all killing is the same.

Ethelred
rwinners
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2011
More deaths per pound. Quite a standard.
NotAsleep
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2011
@ rwinners, I believe this is actually heavier ordnance than has been used previously since it's higher density while killing the same number of people so the "Deaths per pound" ratio is technically lower
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2011
This is a repeat article. The original had more information.

http://www.physor...ons.html

Unlike conventional munitions, the innovative materials approach integrates the casing with approved warhead explosives for increased lethality. In addition, the unique design for fragmenting warheads allows release of chemical energy after impact, increasing the probability of a catastrophic kill.


HDRM has the strength of common aluminum alloys yet the density of mild steel, making it an ideal replacement for steel components. This is important because, in order for existing weapon systems to maintain probability of a hit, they must have a density similar to that of steel.
So it isn't depleted uranium and there is no change in mass as they are talking about bombs of the same size to maintain ballistic patterns.

Ethelred
NotAsleep
not rated yet Dec 08, 2011
I used to design ammo for medium caliber (15mm-40mm) rounds and we ALWAYS had problems with explosive ammunition. This article and the duplicate you (Ethelred) linked to seem to indicate that the HDRM itself is explosive, which I can only imagine will increase overall safety. Traditionally, we used a type of gunpowder that was very sensitive to certain stimuli... very difficult to design around!
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2011
mvg

How about you explain what you didn't like about my post? It was quite reasonable to anyone that uses 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' combined with tit for tat and self preservation.

Do you really think the right answer is the let the asshole kill you? There are a lot of people that want other people dead. Often for as little reason as the proposed victim being of a different religion or ethnic group.

Killing people is not good. Letting some asshole kill you and yours is even less good. It is time you decided to deal with the real world. Pacifism only works if the other side has scruples as happened with Gandhi and the Brits in India. If it had been the Mongol hordes of Genghis Kahn he and all his followers would have been killed. The last after they buried the rest and dug their own graves.

Some people are just plain evil.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
"lethality engineers"
First time I've seen that job designation.

I'm wondering who would actually sink so low as to take a job like this.

But hey: More explosive. More death per dollar. Yay!

'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

And you don't see the problem with this approach? It's a never ending arms spiral until someone (or everybody) has a button which blows up everything. Then all we need is an accident / misunderstanding / mental breakdown / technical fault and all this 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' won't mean a thing.

It's a self fulfilling prohpecy of mutual extinction. Call me crazy, but that's not what I'd like to see happen.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2011
Traditionally, we used a type of gunpowder that was very sensitive to certain stimuli.
What the bleep were using gunpowder for? That is one of the most dangerous explosives to work with short of things like nitroglycerine.

hat the HDRM itself is explosive, which I can only imagine will increase overall safety.
Did you mean to say DECREASE overall safety? I have to assume the material is not even close to being as touchy as gunpowder. I also think its a really nasty concept that can only make battlefields incredibly unsurvivable and the thought of it being used around civilians leads me to think of sending people to the Hague.

It reminds of Nobel's idea that dynamite would make war unthinkable. That one worked out real well.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2011
And you don't see the problem with this approach
No.

It's a never ending arms spiral until someone (or everybody) has a button which blows up everything
That has nothing to do with the golden rule.

I did NOT say 'do unto others before they do unto you'(from Water Hole No. 3).

It's a self fulfilling prohpecy of mutual extinction.
Where the heck did you see me propose anything like that? I recently said I think MAD was insane.

Perhaps you missed it but the US did NOT use some previously popular weapons in the Middle East or anywhere else in the last decade. No napalm. That is really nasty stuff even for warfare. Of course the wars were pretty certain to be one sided so that may be why it wasn't used. There was a rumor that it was the threat over the head of the Iraqis regarding poison gas. That and we only used fuel air bombs to clear minefields. However we did use depleted uranium sabots and those are really nasty in tank warfare.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2011
That has nothing to do with the golden rule.

It has everything to do with the golden rule. Tit for tat in the real world is not "do unto others what they do to you", but what you IMAGINE others do to you. In the real world there is always a lack of information (at the very least you never know what the 'other side' is laying plans for).

Tit for tat only works in mathematical scenarios where we have full disclosure (i.e. a known, unchanging and limited set of rules) AND no ability by one side to eliminate the other in one move.

Tit for tat in the real world directly leads to MAD. That's why I think it's not a viable strategy.

US did NOT use some previously popular weapons in the Middle East or anywhere else

So they used depeletd uranium munitions. Which is - in the long run - a lot more nasty. (and they did stockpile anti-personel mines in the area at the time)
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2011
Ethelred, I meant we use a substance that is granulated and don't want to go into much more detail than that. There are certain aspects of creating a solid explosive (as opposed to using granulated explosive like we currently do) that eliminate several safety hazards. You'll just have to take my word for it.

It's standard doctrine that explosive rounds are NOT used whenever possible around civilians. "Hardened" explosive rounds are reserved ONLY for hardened targets. While I can't speak for army units, very few aircraft carry explosive rounds since they're such a huge safety risk. Besides, it's more difficult to minimize civilian casualties if you're fire a dumb weapon like a bullet, hence the preference for expensive missiles.

We design better weaponry to kill the enemy at the time and place of our choosing, i.e. in their hardened bunker instead of when they're surrounded by civilians. Nobody wants to use them but, when we do, we want it to do the job right
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2011
It has everything to do with the golden rule. Tit for tat in the real world is not "do unto others what they do to you"
I didn't say that. Would you mind actually dealing with what I said. I get pretty tired of that. The secret is to read what is written and use the magic keys to quote instead of paraphrase and changing the meaning.

The magic keys are
CONTROL C CONTROL V

AKA copy and paste.

The Golden Rule is TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TREAT YOU. Tit of tat is for dealing with those that don't follow the Golden Rule.

n the real world there is always a lack of information
Yes. I do know these things. Try playing wargames with experts. I have. Sometimes I even managed to win. Not very often my brother is awfully good.

Tit for tat only works in mathematical scenarios where we have full disclosure
No it works in the real world. It works here. For reference check the change in ranking behavior of Zephir.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
Tit for tat in the real world directly leads to MAD.
That is an assumption. In case you didn't notice it we are still alive. Really. We haven't been vaporized. I tend notice that I am still alive and not living in Farnham's Freehold.

That's why I think it's not a viable strategy.
Even though it is insane, the Russians are supposed to have thought so, it did work. No Bombs fell after the first two. Now we have to survive the insanity of religious wackjobs with nukes. Fortunately they don't have long range weapons.

So they used depeletd uranium munitions.
I mentioned that.

Which is - in the long run - a lot more nasty.
No. Mostly in the short run. U238 just isn't very radioactive with that 4.5 billion year half life. That stuff was mostly aimed at tanks. Of course the hit rate was fairly low especially with the 30mm cannons on the warthogs.

(and they did stockpile anti-personel mines in the area at the time)
Yes both sides. Nasty stuff.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
War is hell. If it was nice it would happen more often. Even democracies might get into it with each other.

It is rather interesting the nations have actually made treaties and ABIDED by them to decrease some of the really insane stuff. Even in the incredibly vicious and desperate fighting on the Eastern Front no one used gas. MAD is probably what saved us from a nuclear war. No one dared start it. Of course that was with relatively people in charge.

What would Hitler have done if he had doomsday device? We know how to make them. The first Soviet Fusion bomb tests used a technique that could easily scale.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Dec 12, 2011
That is an assumption. In case you didn't notice it we are still alive. Really. We haven't been vaporized.

That's because we aren't playing it in the real world (Cuba missile crisis got pretty close, though. Both sides backed down - but the resulting deals were very close to tit for tat again).
We're still on the brink of destruction. The possibility of a madman or a technical fault cannot be discounted (some presidential candidates have already expressed that they would be willing to push the button). Could you imagine the danger a McCaine/Palin ticket would have presented?

The notion of
TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM TREAT YOU.

Doesnt work, either. It only works if both (or even worse: all) sides share the same set of values. This is arguable not the case the world over.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
Both sides backed down - but the resulting deals were very close to tit for tat again
Actually they were rational. We pulled our missiles out of Turkey and promised not to invade Cuba. Which wasn't surprising since the Bay of Pigs had been a total botch.

We're still on the brink of destruction.
A bit farther back at the moment.

The possibility of a madman or a technical fault cannot be discounted (some presidential candidates have already expressed that they would be willing to push the button).
I think the technical fault is unlikely and that would damage the Bomb owner in any case. As for willingness it would stupid to say weren't willing. Both politically and diplomatically. However there are and have been some really idiotic candidates. Enough Americans get nervous about them to keep them out of office. So far.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Could you imagine the danger a McCaine/Palin ticket would have presented?
Lots of people imagined it. Palin is probably the main reason McCain lost. It showed he made bad impulsive decisions on top of the possibility that a complete imbecile could have become President. Running for VP while married to a man that was a secessionist is really insanely stupid.

Doesnt work, either.
Not on its own. That is why you need tit for tat as well. It helps to vary things a bit as it keeps the bullies off balance.

It only works if both (or even worse: all) sides share the same set of values.
I pointed that out already. I mentioned that was why tit for tat is needed. Violence is all that gets the attention of fools like Kadafy or for an even more obvious example the Argentinian Generals that thought they could help themselves by attacking a British owned island.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
There is no perfect answer but some people really don't understand non-violent co-operation and can only be dealt with from a position of strength and a known willingness to use it. I wish it wasn't that way but wishes don't stop bullies.

Ethelred
brizzadizza
4 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2011
@ethelred

Why do you think we're farther back from nuclear destruction today? Russia still has nukes and a criminal government seemingly willing to 'lose' some of their armament. USA still has ~5000 nukes coupled with a tanking economy, political instability, belligerent foreign policy and genocidal "allies." Nuclear weapons have proliferated to even more unstable nations; Israel, Pakistan and India to name a few. If any thing the global situation is more dangerous today with regard to nuclear annihilation.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2011
Palin is probably the main reason McCain lost.

And Palin is actually not the scary one. McCain has a history of being a vengeful, quick tempered person. But most people didn't read his bio and he would have slipped past. Can you imagine someone like that having control of the button? Palin, at least, would have listened to her handlers as a last resort.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
Why do you think we're farther back from nuclear destruction today?
You weren't alive in the sixties or seventies were you? It was rather scary.

Russia still has nukes and a criminal government seemingly willing to 'lose' some of their armament.
That is not the same as two nations launching a thousand missiles each with ten warheads each. The US could that in the past and the USSR was close to that.

USA still has ~5000 nukes coupled with a tanking economy,
Yes. Most are not installed on MIRV missiles anymore. The Boomer's still have those.

political instability,
The US is no more unstable than in the past. All democracies have some instability.

belligerent foreign policy
Nonsense. Bush is out of office. Obama is cutting back but too damn slowly for me.

and genocidal "allies."
Where? France and Britain are not engaged in genocide. Neither is the US.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
Nuclear weapons have proliferated to even more unstable nations; Israel, Pakistan and India to name a few.
I completely agree with that. Please look above at 1000 MIRV missiles. Though I have to point out that Israel is stable and India is close to stable. Pakistan is a real problem but they don't have ICBMs. This is why Islam makes me nervous.

the global situation is more dangerous today with regard to nuclear annihilation
No. With a local nuclear exchange yes, but that is not the same as what was feared before the disarmament treaties between the US and the USSR.

I think our biggest worry in the First World, at the moment, is a smuggled bomb. That would not trigger thousands of missiles launching but it would produce some really nasty retaliation that might even be misdirected. I don't think Iran is that insane but who knows what could happen in Pakistan. That place worries me.

Ethelred
brizzadizza
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
Genocidal American Allies:
Indonesia (East Timor)
Israel (West Bank/ Gaza)
Guatemala (Guatemalan "Civil War")
Rwanda (Rwandan Genocide/ Congo)
All past and current genocidal regimes the USA supports as allies. In each case the rulers and administrations that instituted genocidal programs have suffered at most cosmetic changes. This does not take into account current genocides of which we are kept unawares.

The previous nuclear response was enough to sterilize the earth 10 times over. I do not see the amazing gains in stability that today the major nuclear powers can only be goaded into destroying the earth once over. Coupled with the significant proliferation of nuclear weapons to less stable nations and the continued treaty agreements that necessitate nuclear response I don't perceive the nuclear threat to be significantly less today than in the past.

I subscribe to the notion of peak oil and may have a significantly different outlook on the long term prospects of the USA (cont)
brizzadizza
3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
government, so I'll agree to disagree. As the USA continues to try to exploit oil resources around the world, we will be forced into more engagements with foreign powers. If the chinese response becomes aggressive I believe that will be enough to ensure WWIII and likely the dissolution of the USA, this not discussing the significant environmental and economical issues facing the fading supergiant USA, which in their own right are likely to topple the Empire. For these reasons I believe the USA is in a more precarious position today than it was up until the mid 90s.

(cont)
brizzadizza
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
Obama is not cutting back foreign aggression: Libya; Afghanistan; Iraq; Drones in Pakistan; Drones in Iran; Drones in Yemen. Obama's celebration as a dove absolutely sickens me. Extra-judicial killings of american citizens abroad, black-bag stazi carting americans to guantanomo without charges, and the escalation of the for profit prison system that has locked up a greater percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized nation on the planet, taken together, in no way can Obama be considered a benevolent leader.

For the above reasons, I tend to disagree with your assessment of the nuclear threat.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Indonesia (East Timor)
Not an ally.

Israel (West Bank/ Gaza)
Not genocidal. Paranoid with reason but not genocidal.

Guatemala (Guatemalan "Civil War")
Not an ally. Past event under Reagan.

Rwanda (Rwandan Genocide/ Congo)
Not an ally and never was.

Do you understand the concept of ALLY?

All past and current genocidal regimes the USA supports as allies.
All false claims except for the past in Guatemala. You are aware that that Reagan died and is no longer in office aren't you?

You want to accuse the US of genocide you can do so IF you go use the past with the Amerinds treat individual tribes as races. Most of the deaths were due to disease and those had been unavoidable since Europeans came to the New World.

This does not take into account current genocides of which we are kept unawares.
This does not take into account future conspiracy theories that you are keeping secret from us or the secret Alien Invasion from the Planet KryptoParnoia.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
The previous nuclear response was enough to sterilize the earth 10 times over.
I am going assume you meant to say previous POTENTIAL nuclear response since that has not been actual nuclear response, ever. In that case not quite but close enough to wipe us and all multicellular life out.

I do not see the amazing gains in stability that today
Then you didn't see the past.

the major nuclear powers can only be goaded into destroying the earth once over.
Gee I didn't know that it can only be done once. How is the relevant to things being safer now then in the past?

I don't perceive the nuclear threat to be significantly less today than in the past.
Then you don't know the past.

I subscribe to the notion of peak oil
Thats nice. Reagan didn't but he is kinda dead.

significantly different outlook on the long term prospects of the USA
government, so I'll agree to disagree.
I will agree that you don't know what you are talking about.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
As the USA continues to try to exploit oil resources around the world, we will be forced into more engagements with foreign powers
This contains several assumptions I find paranoid.

If the chinese response becomes aggressive I believe that will be enough to ensure WWIII
If apples were oranges we could make lemonade.

and likely the dissolution of the USA,
And China as well so they won't do it unless they become quite irrational. Are you aware that China hasn't the ability to invade and hold Taiwan much less the USA? The US, Britain and Imperial Japan are the only countries that have ever made successful overseas invasions(Portugal and Spain weren't invading in the same sense, I am thinking of landings against opposition).>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
significant environmental and economical issues facing the fading supergiant USA
Another assumption I am not in agreement with. Reminds me of the song I Think I Am Turning Japanese and Necromancer. Both are out of date. The US adapted and Japan had serious economic problems due to it having to start paying its workers. I expect China to eventually stop exploiting its workers and start paying them.

which in their own right are likely to topple the Empire
There is no Empire. This is a delusion that some have but is based on irrational thinking which seems to be based on one eight year period with President Dumbass and VP Mad Dog in charge. Democracies always change. Something the USSR never quite understood. I think China does.

For these reasons I believe the USA is in a more precarious position today than it was up until the mid 90s.
Which is not the same as inevitable. We adapted to many things over decades. This is the advantage of a Democracy. Change happens.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Obama is not cutting back foreign aggression: Libya
Invited and led by France and Britain. We did not invade and it wasn't against the people of Libya. It was against one of those tyrants you claim we support.

Afghanistan
They attacked us through support of Al Quida. They were stupid and the aggressor.

Iraq;
When? When we tried to rescue Americans they kidnapped after assaulting our Embassy? What planet are you living on where we invaded Iraq?

Drones in Pakistan;
Good. The Taliban are monsters that murder their own women for seeking an education.

Drones in Iran;
Sorry but I do not take responsibility for Pres. Dumbass.

Drones in Yemen.
The government is supposed to protects us from Al Quida. What is your problem with that. If you have yet to notice Islam has a lot of nutcases.

Obama's celebration as a dove absolutely sickens me.
What celebration? The Nobel? That was Sweden and stupid.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Sorry two of those got mixed up above.

Iraq;

When? When we tried to rescue Americans they kidnapped after assaulting our Embassy? What planet are you living on where we invaded Iraq?


Should have been:
Iran;

When? When we tried to rescue Americans they kidnapped after assaulting our Embassy? What planet are you living on where we invaded Iran?

Drones in Iran;

Sorry but I do not take responsibility for Pres. Dumbass.


Should have been:
Drones in Iraq;


Sorry but I do not take responsibility for Pres. Dumbass.

Iran and Iraq are different but sometimes I lose track of the Q and the N. The correct one was in my head but didn't quite reach my fingers.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (51) Dec 12, 2011
There is no Empire. This is a delusion that some have but is based on irrational thinking which seems to be based on one eight year period with President Dumbass and VP Mad Dog in charge. Democracies always change. Something the USSR never quite understood. I think China does.


You make good points but not here. I do not think the US is an empire because of Bush and Cheney. It was before they came on the scene, still is, and would have been had they not been elected.

The US is an empire because of its pervasive projection of military force. That is the reality of empire in the modern world.

Much of what we consider the Roman Empire today as NOT considered Roman to the Romans. For most of their history only the city itself was considered Rome and not until after the Social War was the Italian peninsula considered Rome.

Just because we don't consider countries X, Y, and Z part of the US doesn't mean they aren't part of the American Empire.

Look at South America, lol.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Extra-judicial killings of american citizens abroad,
Somehow I missed that one. Considering that you are practically frothing at the mouth I have to ask for evidence of American Citizens that have not chosen to become enemies of the American People being assassinated. Killed as collateral damage when consorting the sworn enemies of the US is not extra judicial.

black-bag stazi carting americans to guantanomo without charges,
Again Dumbass is no longer in office. This what makes democracy a good thing. We can vote the assholes out. Keep in mind that even that asshole was forced to take the Americans to the US and try them. That is why we have a judicial system.

and the escalation of the for profit prison system
Pathological Capitalist insanity due to the RightWingNuts that are not running the US at the moment. Nor is relevant to this particular discussion and thus more evidence that you have become irrational.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
that has locked up a greater percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized nation on the planet
More irrelevancies to the discussion but it is due to stupidity about drugs on both sides of those prison walls.

that has locked up a greater percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized nation on the planet,
Much of that has nothing to do with Obama. Much is STATE not federal.

For the above reasons, I tend to disagree with your assessment of the nuclear threat.
Amazing how little of that had anything to do with nuclear threat or the present US government and NONE had to do with just how bad things were in the past.

I had a few jokes to use but frankly you have gone utterly irrational and I don't see you as having a sense of humor either.

Ethelred
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
political instability,
The US is no more unstable than in the past. All democracies have some instability.

US is not a democratic, it is a republic.

belligerent foreign policy
Nonsense. Bush is out of office. Obama is cutting back but too damn slowly for me.

Are you sure Obama didn't raise debt by trillions?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
The US is an empire because of its pervasive projection of military force.
That can be described as a superpower. It is not an Empire. All nations with large amounts of oversea trade have needed the ability to deliver force at a distance. Prior to WWII the US had this but not at the levels of Britain or even France. If the USSR had not been so dangerous the US would have dropped back closer to prewar levels, though I am certain they would never have gone that far down again due to the way we got caught unprepared. It was going down when the Koren War broke out. Without the invasion of South Korea the world be a very different place.

Much of what we consider the Roman Empire today as NOT considered Roman to the Romans.
That is what made it an Empire. An empire is a collection of nations under the control of a strong foreign presence, not always by force. Persia was the first I know of.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Just because we don't consider countries X, Y, and Z part of the US doesn't mean they aren't part of the American Empire.
What nations do we control? We don't even control the Philippines any more.

Look at South America, lol.
So look. They are independent. Just ask Venezuela and Mexico. It isn't even a Hegemony much less an empire.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
US is not a democratic, it is a republic.
ROME was called a republic but it had more relationship to company with voting shares and a Union for the workers(Plebeians) that don't have shares.

The US is a representative democracy or you can call it a republic if you want to pretend. The difference is mostly a matter of representation vs direct. Both are democracies just that one is not a direct democracy, which is impractical.

The oldest existing representative democracy is Iceland. The Allthing first met in 999 to decide whether to go Christian or not. It seems that the Christians were pushing the idea of the Millennium and the Second Coming. Seems not to have happened.

Ethelred
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
Just because we don't consider countries X, Y, and Z part of the US doesn't mean they aren't part of the American Empire.
What nations do we control? We don't even control the Philippines any more.


Better yet ask the question who is controlling american nations?
Who are the G20?
What do the vatican-american, british-american, british-vatican treaties consist out of let alone the UN/NATO treaties?

The US is a representative democracy or you can call it a republic if you want to pretend.

Not pretending. My country has been a republic long before USA even existed so i think i have a little more experience on that subject. I know it is easy to confuse a republic for a democratic but if you believe the republic ideology has been undermined it is far from a democratic and more a fascists empire. It is really silly for you to believe South American states are independent, the USA holds a firm grip on them.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2011
.. or the secret Alien Invasion from the Planet KryptoParnoia
- Ethelred

Will this new HDRM help protect us?

Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
No. The Parnoids are invisible and can only been seen by wearing magic glasses and after intoning the incantation "I have come to kick ass and chew bubblegum and I am all out of bubblegum".

Have you ever noticed that Physorg is full of Cranks of ALL kinds?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
Better yet ask the question who is controlling american nations?
Each nation is.

Who are the G20?
A group of rich countries that some paranoids think is the Illuminati.

What do the vatican-american,
Who gives a damn? The Vatican doesn't the control the US or Britain.

british-american,
I think we have a number of treaties. Which one do you have paranoid delusions over?

british-vatican
Britain has a Queen in charge of the religion. Ask the vatican about Henry VIII.

let alone the UN/NATO treaties?
Those are different things and your conflating the two shows fuzzy thinking.

My country
Which country?

republic long before USA even existed
San Marino? Venice?

so i think i have a little more experience on that subject.
How old are you? YOU are not your nation. Being a republic does not preclude a nation from being a representative democracy.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
if you believe the republic ideology has been undermined
No. Maybe in your country. Not here in the US.

more a fascists empire.
Some people have forgotten what fascists were. You seem to be one.

It is really silly for you to believe South American states are independent, the USA holds a firm grip on them.
That is beyond silly. The US does not control them. The US has influence and in some cases excessive influence. Only a fantasist could call South American part of a US empire.

Ethelred
kaasinees
1 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
Each nation is.

That is non-sense if you believe that every nation is dependent.

A group of rich countries that some paranoids think is the Illuminati.

I don't believe so and you are refering to G8.

Who gives a damn? The Vatican doesn't the control the US or Britain.

Wrong, their treaties say so, and the monarchs that rule.

Britain has a Queen in charge of the religion. Ask the vatican about Henry VIII.

All monarchs stem from roman catholic spread, Vatican still dictates the monarchs.

Those are different things and your conflating the two shows fuzzy thinking.

Look up UN-vatican treaties.

Which country?

Not important.

How old are you? YOU are not your nation. Being a republic does not preclude a nation from being a representative democracy.>>

I have knowledge that is passed on for many generations from roman catholic rule and spread. Your country is a baby.

cont.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
No. Maybe in your country. Not here in the US.

You just claimed USA is a democratic now you are claiming the US is a republic? Make up your mind.

Some people have forgotten what fascists were. You seem to be one.

Are you referring to Germany? If so you are very diluted if that is the cursor for fascism. The roman empire was the highlighting point of fascism until the USA came along. The Nazi greet even stems from the roman fascist greet. And lets ignore the fact the Nazis were backed up by the Vatican.

That is beyond silly. The US does not control them. The US has influence and in some cases excessive influence. Only a fantasist could call South American part of a US empire.

I never said the US is part of a US empire, i claimed they hold a firm group on the nations -which they do-. They took over Mexico's agriculture and in the recent droughts they took control over the water supplies. The Mexican government had no say in this whatsoever and is a complete joke.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2011
You are correct the queen of Britain has power over British religions. Same for Germany, belgium, france etc. have say in their countries religions, though all of them still answer to the vatica. reformed, protestant etc. does not matter these churches were even forced into a single church by the queen and vatican.

Currently as we speak most of the governing officials are all roman catholic while opposition has grown bigger than those parties. There was even a debate over removing the queen status, prime minister simply said no with no thinking. Of-course anyone could see that coming since he is roman catholic.

I think you have a lot to learn about Europe's history.
GDM
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
"Have you ever noticed that Physorg is full of Cranks of ALL kinds?"
Thanks, Ethelred, best post I've read for weeks.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2011
"Have you ever noticed that Physorg is full of Cranks of ALL kinds?"
Thanks, Ethelred, best post I've read for weeks.

Where are you from? I actually live in Europe, studied European history and have talked to Europeans that have gone through roman catholic rule, my mother and her husband are a few but also their mother and father(deceased now).
Who are you to say i am a crank? An american idiot maybe.
If you are willing to discuss i can provide you with evidence for whatever you disagree with me.

Former USMC? Did they tell you to leave because you are insane?
Did they make you use the roman fascist greet when you swore on the bible?
brizzadizza
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
You sure went uncivil fast. I was giving my opinion on the state of nuclear threat to the world. You disagree, so be it. I'm not convinced of your worldview. You can call me paranoid if you like, but the documentary evidence is available for everyone to read and your description of world politics is flat out wrong.

For the record, my post said Drones in Iran NOT that the USA invaded Iran. I said our allies were genocidal NOT USA was genocidal (although thanks for making the case!) The description of the prison system was in reference to your claim that the USA is politically stable, a fact upon which I disagree and which has bearing with respect to threat of nuclear war. Perhaps in the midst of your own frothing you forgot what the "discussion" was about.

And an extrajudicial killing is an assassination. No member of government has the right to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant. Here's your conspiracy:
http://articles.l...20111001
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (51) Dec 13, 2011
The only common point among the myriad vague definitions of "republic" is "a government where the sovereign is not a monarch."

Republic is a very vague term. To show you how vague the term is compare the governments of the US and UK. Both are representative democracies. Both enjoy similar levels of 'freedom'. They are really very functionally similar.

The US is a republic and the UK is a monarchy. But they have pretty similar governments. The only real difference is, laws in the US are done in the name of the people through representatives and in the UK laws are done in the name of the monarch through representatives.

It's the same damn thing.

Iraq was technically a republic under Saddam Hussein. Communist regimes love to refer to themselves and "democratic republics". It doesn't mean a damn thing.

Democracy isn't good or bad. It is what it is. Republic isn't good or bad. It is what it is. Each case must be taken on an individual basis.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (52) Dec 13, 2011
There were two things that were most obvious at university about people who thought they were knowledgeable about political science but really weren't.

Some harped on the definitions of democracy and republic, and some thought 'The Republic' was about republics.

'The Republic' really should be renamed 'The Polis' in English. Or if they insist on keeping the Latin translation of the Greek title rename it 'Res Publica'. Even 'My Ideal Government by Plato' would be preferable.

The best was when one of the democracy/republic harpers got called out on it and proclaimed "YOU MUST NOT HAVE READ 'THE REPUBLIC!'"

"Speak for yourself :)"
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
That is non-sense if you believe that every nation is dependent.
Well I don't. Most nations are largely independent, even some of the EU nations are fairly independent.

I don't believe so and you are refering to G8.
G8 G20 either way.

Wrong, their treaties say so, and the monarchs that rule.
There is no monarch ruling the US or Britain.

All monarchs stem from roman catholic spread,
Really? So then Hammurabi and Xerxes were Catholics? I don't think so.

Vatican still dictates the monarchs.
Nowhere. Especially in England and there is no monarch in the US.

Look up UN-vatican treaties.
Look up NATO to see how it is NOT the UN. I don't care what a fantasy paper might say to placate a delusional religious leader.

Not important.
Then don't mention it.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
I have knowledge that is passed on for many generations from roman catholic rule and spread. Your country is a baby.
You have YOUR information and nothing else. Clearly much of it is religious based nonsense. Your attempt to act like an authority while denying your nationality is relevant is ludicrous as well as a unfounded attempt to argue from a non-existent authority.

You just claimed USA is a democratic now you are claiming the US is a republic? Make up your mind.
I did say the two are not exclusive. Learn how to read.

Are you referring to Germany?
Spain Italy whichever floats your boat.

If so you are very diluted if that is the cursor for fascism.
Italians invented the term.

he roman empire was the highlighting point of fascism until the USA came along.
Two two two lies in one. Neither were fascist. Not even the Roman Empire.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
I have knowledge that is passed on for many generations from roman catholic rule and spread. Your country is a baby.
You have YOUR information and nothing else. Clearly much of it is religious based nonsense. Your attempt to act like an authority while denying your nationality is relevant is ludicrous as well as a unfounded attempt to argue from a non-existent authority.

You just claimed USA is a democratic now you are claiming the US is a republic? Make up your mind.
I did say the two are not exclusive. Learn how to read.

Are you referring to Germany?
Spain Italy whichever floats your boat.

If so you are very diluted if that is the cursor for fascism.
Italians invented the term.

he roman empire was the highlighting point of fascism until the USA came along.
Two two two lies in one. Neither were fascist. Not even the Roman Empire.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
The Nazi greet even stems from the roman fascist greet.
From the Roman greeting. They took their symbol from India. Does that make India fascist? Your reasoning isn't.

And lets ignore the fact the Nazis were backed up by the Vatican.
Lets ignore the fact that the US isn't Catholic and most of the Nazis weren't either and the Vatican was surrounded by Fascist Italy.

I never said the US is part of a US empire,
You said it is an empire. Either admit you made a mistake or deal with what you said.

i claimed they hold a firm group on the nations -which they do-
Which is nonsense.

They took over Mexico's agriculture
Really? How?

and in the recent droughts they took control over the water supplies.
Nonsense. We do have a treaty about the Colorado River. Mexico doesn't own the water in that river. We do as all the rain was here in the US. In any case is the NOT controlling Mexico or even their agriculture.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
The Mexican government had no say in this whatsoever and is a complete joke.
Of course they don't. The Colorado is ours except for the very end of it. The rest of Mexico's water is all from Mexico. We have no control over it. If we did people could drink it.

You are correct the queen of Britain has power over British religions.
Which is the opposite of what you claimed for the Vatican.

Same for Germany, belgium, france etc. have say in their countries religions, though all of them still answer to the vatica.
Utter rubbish. Heck the French once held the Pope hostage. They have never given a damn what the Pope thought except when they owned him.

They even use birth control.

does not matter these churches were even forced into a single church by the queen and vatican.
Since that didn't happen it is clearly another paranoid delusion of yours.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Currently as we speak most of the governing officials are all roman catholic
Really? In England. Heck even Ireland has had a protestant Prime Minister and a Jewish Mayor of Dublin.

There was even a debate over removing the queen status, prime minister simply said no with no thinking.
I am sure he must have thought for at least two seconds about something the people of Britain would have no truck with.

Of-course anyone could see that coming since he is roman catholic.
David Cameron is Church of England. Which is not beholden to the Pope.

I think you have a lot to learn about Europe's history.
I think you need to do something about your level of paranoid delusions.

I actually live in Europe, studied European history and have talked to Europeans that have gone through roman catholic rule,
I see. Its just a standard prejudice induced paranoia.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Who are you to say i am a crank?
He read your posts and is at least moderately rational. He knows, for instance, the Catholics don't run the US.

An american idiot maybe.
As opposed to a European religious paranoid.

If you are willing to discuss i can provide you with evidence for whatever you disagree with me.
I am waiting to see some of that. All I saw was paranoid ranting.

Did they make you use the roman fascist greet when you swore on the bible?
They can't make anyone swear on the Bible in the US these days.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
You sure went uncivil fast.
Your statements about the US weren't civil or rational.

I'm not convinced of your worldview. You can call me paranoid if you like
If your world view includes conspiracy and excessive fear that is paranoia.

your description of world politics is flat out wrong.
I don't see you showing any error.

For the record, my post said Drones in Iran NOT that the USA invaded Iran.
Too bad for Iran. They support and train terrorists.

I said our allies were genocidal NOT USA was genocidal(
I pointed out your errors in that claim.

(although thanks for making the case!)
We are talking about the present. I was pointing out just how fuzzy your thinking was since you didn't mention the one real case.

The description of the prison system was in reference to your claim that the USA is politically stable,
That is not a sign of political instability.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
a fact upon which I disagree and which has bearing with respect to threat of nuclear war.
Prisons have nothing to do with that. The prisons in question are STATE prisons not Federal prisons. I note you are ignoring that.

Perhaps in the midst of your own frothing you forgot what the "discussion" was about.
Not at all. I was pointing out that your statement wasn't relevant to the discussion.

And an extrajudicial killing is an assassination.
No. It was an act of war.

No member of government has the right to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant.
So if a US citizen had joined the Nazi Army and killed or planned for the killing of Americans you are just fine with that then. I am not. It would have been nice if he could have been brought to trial for treason but that wasn't practical as he was surrounded by his fellow declared enemies of the US. HE declared himself an enemy.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan, who had produced virulent, English-language online propaganda for Al Qaeda.
Two self declared enemies. They chose to kill Americans.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Ethelred
bluehigh
3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2011
I hope you get your invitation, it is here for you. Listen to the conversation playing pretty tunes.

Where is Hush1 when a deep and meaningless sidetrack is needed?
MarkyMark
5 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2011
"Have you ever noticed that Physorg is full of Cranks of ALL kinds?"
Thanks, Ethelred, best post I've read for weeks.

Where are you from? I actually live in Europe, studied European history and have talked to Europeans that have gone through roman catholic rule, my mother and her husband are a few but also their mother and father(deceased now).


heh i am european and even i can call BS on pretty much all your points and judging by the comment about living under Catholic rule i am guessing you are irish and protestant. Which makes you a thick headed I.R.A. Sympathiser in some books and a gullable flat Earth society member in other books.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2011
However, MarkyMark you are a known dimwit that jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions that hardly befit a preschooler. So for whatever view, your opinion is worthless tripe.

Shove some explosive HDRM up your ass you fool.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Marky, if he was Irish he would be lying by claiming to be from a long term republic. Which is possible of course. England has been a republic for a long time but it was still a monarchy regarding the military when the Colonies rebelled. Most nations were still monarchies then.

Many of them Protestant monarchies and thus not subject to the Pope.

He acts like there was no Thirty Years War.

I am somewhat curious as to what triggered kaasinees posts. I can't recall a previous rant from him. Maybe I just missed it.

Ethelred
brizzadizza
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Ethelred,
You've answered my question perfectly. You think there is less nuclear threat today because you're ignorant of whats happening in the world. Everything else has just been histrionics.

It may surprise you to find out that the US government didn't assassinate citizen Nazi sympathizers during or after WWII. It put them on trial, as it did the majority of the Nazi command.

A discussion about state vs. federal prison has no bearing on my statement; that the US has incarcerated a greater percent of its population than any other industrialized nation. Whether those inmates are housed in a state or federal prison is immaterial.

After this exchange, Im even more convinced of the threat of nuclear annihilation. I hope youre view from the hole youve shoved your head is pleasant. I imagine the smell is not.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
You think there is less nuclear threat today because you're ignorant of whats happening in the world.
That I disagree with you does not mean I am ignorant. Indeed it shows your ignorance of the past.

Everything else has just been histrionics.
You have done a lot of that.

It may surprise you to find out that the US government didn't assassinate citizen Nazi sympathizers during or after WWII.
Why would it? I am aware of that. Your ignorance is not mine. Perhaps you have difficulty with this particular concept:

After the war is not during the war.

Nevertheless the two time periods are not the same. During the war killing specific people was difficult BUT we did try and sometimes succeeded. We failed with Field Marshal Rommel but succeeded with Yamamoto. If there had been American traitors with them they would have died.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
A discussion about state vs. federal prison has no bearing on my statement;
It certainly did as you were talking about PRIVATIZED prisons when I said it wasn't relevant the first time.

that the US has incarcerated a greater percent of its population than any other industrialized nation.
And that too does not show the government is unstable. The one does not follow from the other. Unless you can produce a nice REAL graph with failed governments vs prison population otherwise its irrelevant even if it is a stupid thing to do.

After this exchange, Im even more convinced of the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Irrational thinking is like that. Evidence is refused, reason is denied.

I hope youre view from the hole youve shoved your head is pleasant. I imagine the smell is not.
Speaking of being uncivil. Funny how I had been thinking I might have overdone it. I guess I was right the first time.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2011
You are the one that started ranting and lost the point. I remember the point.

Now I am still waiting for evidence that supports your claims and shows that somehow the world is more dangerous than it was with the US and the USSR were butting nuclear heads together.

Remember that was what I said and you denied. The rest has been ranting on your part to somehow make the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a checkers game in the park. A nice small town park at that.

Ethelred
brizzadizza
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2011
The above is absolutely a mis-characterization of my statements, but enjoy. You have not submitted any evidence. You've made unsubstantiated claims that even the most basic research demonstrates are divorced from reality. You've misread my statements and you immediately went into attack mode when I asked a question. Inadvertently you have answered my question. You think the nuclear threat is diminished because you exist in an alternate reality disconnected from modern political concerns. A world where the USA is always right, anybody the government deems a threat absolutely must die without trial and rampant global incitement of other nuclear powers could not possibly lead to a nuclear exchange. Enjoy your fantasy.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2011
The above is absolutely a mis-characterization of my statements
Show where. Unlike you I used direct quotes.

You have not submitted any evidence
I submitted thousands of warheads and the Cuban Missile Crisis so that is a very false claim.

You've made unsubstantiated claims that even the most basic research demonstrates are divorced from reality.
Really? Where?

You've misread my statements and you immediately went into attack mode when I asked a question.
Again where?

Inadvertently you have answered my question.
Well you read a lot of silly things into what I said so there is no telling which silly thing you came up there.

You think the nuclear threat is diminished because you exist in an alternate reality disconnected from modern political concerns.
I think it is diminished because there are far less missiles on a seconds notice. Funny how you keep avoiding that.
>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
A world where the USA is always right,
Yes you do read things that aren't there. Who brought up a real genocide when YOU failed to produce one? Me.

anybody the government deems a threat absolutely must die without trial
That is a total and complete lie. Unlike I can show how that is a lie.

It would have been nice if he could have been brought to trial for treason but that wasn't practical as he was surrounded by his fellow declared enemies of the US. HE declared himself an enemy.
Now how does that even remotely match the lie you just told?

rampant global incitement of other nuclear powers
Sorry but I didn't see you even mention that much less show evidence for it. So try dealing with I wrote instead of telling lies about what I wrote.

It is always stunning the way people will claim I mischaracterized what they said without showing where or how I did. I, on the other hand, can and do show when someone lies about what I said.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Enjoy your fantasy.
What fantasy, besides yours, has been involved in this discussion?

Where have you shown that the present situation is worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or the Korean War where US and Russian manned planes shot at each other? Where a damned stupid US General actually bombed China? I never claimed the US was perfect. I only said things were worse when it was the US vs the USSR and showed that most of your claims were either over the top or just plain paranoia.

Now would you like to go to the next step of a fuzzy thinker when they lose their temper? That is much more entertaining than seeing the way you are throwing a tantrum. I will await your response. Finally rational, just going away, or will you go that next step?>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
I recommend that you take a day off before replying.

There is only one way to lose an online discussion or argument. Lose your temper. Otherwise the worst that can happen is that you learned something. It is hard to learn from others when they or you lose their temper.

I have kept mine but you lost yours a while ago. You even went monoblock in that last post. Not even a full step away from the all caps rant.

Ethelred
GDM
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2011
"Have you ever noticed that Physorg is full of Cranks of ALL kinds?"
Thanks, Ethelred, best post I've read for weeks.

"Where are you from? I actually live in Europe, studied European history and have talked to Europeans that have gone through roman catholic rule, my mother and her husband are a few but also their mother and father(deceased now)."
From the USA, of course. Not many non-citizens in the USMC, but there are some. I also have studied European history at Cal Berkeley, getting straight "A's" - got a degree in it.
"Who are you to say i am a crank?"
I didn't call YOU a crank, but maybe if the shoe fits...
"An american idiot maybe.
If you are willing to discuss i can provide you with evidence for whatever you disagree with me."
You seem to have provided enough evidence to Ethelred.
"Former USMC? Did they tell you to leave because you are insane?" Nope, Honorable Discharge - highest recommendations.
"...when you swore on the bible?" Nope, Ethelred answered that one.
MarkyMark
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2011
However, MarkyMark you are a known dimwit that jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions that hardly befit a preschooler. So for whatever view, your opinion is worthless tripe.

Shove some explosive HDRM up your ass you fool.

Well the above post is a good example of a bad post that has definatly earnt some downvoting. As its full of accusations and insults with no supporting evidence of any type. Basically its a Troll's post so i will say no more on that subject.

Have to admith Ethelred that my last post was a bit tongue in cheek as i have no definative proof concerning his politicall stance. Its just him stating his supposed great knoledge concerning Europe tickled my funny bone, especially after reading his previouse posts. one from another topic was one where he claimed Russias latest election was ok when for a while european media was covering the protest marches in Moscow from those who believe ( like many internationall observers ) that there were irregularaties.

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

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