View Full Version : U.S long range missiles that might be used in war agansed Iraq
20th Jan 03, 4:44 PM
America's Ultra-Secret Weapon (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030127/nmicro.html) :missile:
Sounds like C&C's EMP weapon:D
THat sounds pretty cool, but it's not quite ultra-secret anymore. :)
20th Jan 03, 5:33 PM
Well I belive the military has not confirmd is readyness for deployment yet, but just think, the U.S military is going to have the power of Zeus almighty.
20th Jan 03, 5:37 PM
HPMs can unleash in a flash as much electrical power—2 billion watts or more—as the Hoover Dam generates in 24 hours.I really can't stand it when people can't get units straight. You don't unleash power, you unleash energy; watts are measurements of power, not energy; you can't make a ludicrous claim like "watts in a day" because power is a rate of energy flow-- how much energy is used or produced in a certain amount of time, hence "60W light bulbs." The writer of this article has completely sucked the statistic he was given of any meaning whatsoever. I cannot fucking stand the media sometimes.
In fact, I'm sending the editor an email to that effect.
20th Jan 03, 6:52 PM
the ironic thing is that saddam's longest range weapon can only hit one "western" target... israel.
bad luck alliance :(
20th Jan 03, 6:54 PM
The media does that a lot, supposedly because the audience its directed to must take watered-down facts and numbers to make themselves feel better.
It's like the news when they go automatic assault weapon and I laugh and wonder where they made the term up from.
It's all bad. Sometimes its useful for information as long as you're careful not to take it all in...
20th Jan 03, 7:03 PM
Squid, I'm just going to go ahead and uh, contradict you on that... um... yeah... so, uh, okay stop with the office space already
Watts is joules per second. Saying amount of energy measured in joules (I have the ugly tendency to spell it jews...) would be virtually meaningless to the average joe reading Time magazine, in fact if you don't put it into perspective with a comparison, it would be meaningless to almost anyone.
You could for example, compare this to tons of TNT or go straight to the reference to Hiroshima, however that would portray this weapon in a very negative light, so it's best the author finds something else to compare to. 2 billion eV for example would not really mean much of anything at all, so comparison to Hoover Dam spells the message of 'how much 'power' is outputted? Um, a freaking lot!'.
Going back to the watts usage, I thought it was a valid comparison with the way I interpreted the sentence, as in meaning it generates 2 billion joules in a second, while it would take the Hoover Dam 24 hours to generate the same amount of energy.
20th Jan 03, 9:58 PM
MacBug, if we're going to accept figures in news that are patently false because it they get the point across, he might have just as well said "A WHOLE WHOLE LOT OF POWER!!!11" and gotten it over with.
At a power of 2.8 billion watts, in 24 hours the Hoover Dam generates approximately 241 trillion joules. If the weapon can release that amount of energy within the space of a second, it has a practical power rating of 241 trillion watts. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TWO BILLION WATTS. In fact, it's off by a factor of over 86,000. Do you see my point?
It's not that he said "power" instead of "energy," it's that he tried to draw a comparison to explain a concept he didn't understand. Hooray if everyone nods and agrees because they can understand it, but they don't really understand, and have been made stupid because they believed someone who didn't know what they were talking about.
General Nuke Em
21st Jan 03, 1:36 AM
The US experimenting with EMP weapons is considered news? Anybody with a half-decent knowledge of current events in the defense world will know the concept of EMP weapons and the experimentation with them has been around for a while.
21st Jan 03, 2:46 AM
LOVE AND PEACE (http://www.fx-web.dk/fun/fun/love.asp?name=SquidDNA)
21st Jan 03, 3:27 PM
ROFL, sorry, I hadnt intended to go Berserker. Do you understand my position, though?
General, the reason this is news is that the US is considering *deploying* EMP weapons. Successfully using any new technology is a different story altogether than experimenting with its application.
21st Jan 03, 3:46 PM
i'd say the F-117's were a pritty good success, but the only real way you can be sure new wepons will werk in battle, is to actually use them in said war.
21st Jan 03, 4:35 PM
i love the way people actually call weapons "defense".
21st Jan 03, 4:41 PM
That's because the best defense is a good offense. ;)
21st Jan 03, 6:51 PM
Weapons are a deterrent (sometimes), so they indirectly defend you.
21st Jan 03, 7:07 PM
a weapon's only use is attack. it has no intrinsic defensive attributes. its ability to deter is merely coincidental. a weapon can never be a deterrent unless it is capable of doing what it does.
General Nuke Em
21st Jan 03, 8:05 PM
There's a difference to me calling it the "defense world" than me saying that weapons are for defense. Mainly that the Department of War and the Department of the Navy became the Defense Department in 1947, so there's the term defense right there.
Shields are weapons, they are also defensive. So all of a sudden you have a defensive weapon.
22nd Jan 03, 6:31 AM
one of the few examples of a shield that i can think of in a modern context is a bullet proof vest, which is hardly a weapon. the son of star wars thing (which i doubt will actually work) is defensive as it is only designed to negate an enemy missile. tank armourments are hardly a separate "shield" entity considering they are actually an integral part of the tank itself. still, how are they weapon-like?
22nd Jan 03, 7:41 AM
Blazer armor is certainly weapon-like in the respect that it explodes when an anti-tank projectile hits it, counteracting the majority of the force of the exploding projectile.
The ground-based laser anti-missile system has been in testing for several years, and it seems pretty effective. Last I heard they were expanding it to target artillery as well.
Oh, and SAM installations are defensive. So are the gun emplacements on fortifications, and gun batteries on your coastline. One might say that any weapons involved in defensive activites are defensive in nature.
22nd Jan 03, 8:24 AM
my dictionary defines a weapon as something that causes harm. all weapons have a deterrent like ability but that does not make them defensive. for me, a gun only has + values (in terms of damage), and bullet proof vests - values. anything that has both, is in my opinion, a weapon first and a defence mechanism second.
the majority of the things you listed do not protect primarily, they destroy, and that which it destroys is not human. i suppose we just disagree that weapons which are used as responsive attacks (albeit on missiles) are defensive.
22nd Jan 03, 8:37 AM
I agre with Russo....just because i can.
22nd Jan 03, 6:31 PM
I think it is generally accepted that a weapon is inherently an offensive tool. Even the Son of Star Wars weapon is offensive as it destroys things (ie warheads) however, it produces an effect of defence. The Ministry (or Department) of Defence is so called because it sounds less war mongering.
General Nuke Em
22nd Jan 03, 6:42 PM
A weapon is something that causes harm. Big revelation. The key is how and [Bwhen[/B] it causes harm.
According to your definition, every knife, slingshot, rock, bottle of white out, glass bottles and any other object that might conceiveably hurt somebody is a weapon of attack.
23rd Jan 03, 6:32 AM
yes, and what is your point? i don't think you understand mine...
23rd Jan 03, 9:13 AM
okay, wheres the problem here? Is it a disgreement with the weapon or the policy? Its an offensive weapon in nature, but since our military operates as a defensive force, that term needs better explaining, it is termed a defensive weapon from a defenders point of veiw. Any weapon is an offensive weapon, how its used is up to the country using it.
even SAM missiles are offensive in nature, but used in a defensive manner. For example a SAM attacks missiles, but that does not say that the act was not in defense because of the situation. And gun emplacements can be removed and used in an offensive manner, but that would be silly.
perhapse your refering to the nature of this weapon, other then the situations regarding its use.
23rd Jan 03, 9:53 AM
According to your definition, every knife, slingshot, rock, bottle of white out, glass bottles and any other object that might conceiveably hurt somebody is a weapon of attack.They're all classed as offensive weapons if used as such, in Britain at least.
23rd Jan 03, 12:04 PM
One word, context
If I use a handgun to shoot a burgler who is attacking my family, it is an offensive weapon used in defense. If somebody takes off their motorcycle helmet and beats a pedestrian, it is a defenseive tool used in offense.
As for EMP, Morpheus (in The Matrix) used it pretty well for defense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.