It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is up with weapons?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I have a question that has been bugging me. I hope someone could help me shead the light. What is up with the lack of weapon advancment or use of more advanced weapons? U.S. keeps bombing with good old missiles. The strongest missile is the almighty nuclear bomb. They works well for destroying a certian area. The target is terrist groups. The problem is the target isn't an area it is people. The U.S. drops bomb(s) and destroys the area with the terrists and also hits allies. Weapons have become more powerfull but, less precise. Why arn't they using long rang snipers from radar jaming plains with theromal vison scopes and what not? Can some one please help me answer this. If this has been posted before I apolgies.
(P.S. This is my first thread please be forgiving.)




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
No replies... Nothing? At least give me a pointer or two on how to write a decent thread.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
First of welcome to ATS


Their are presician guided missles that can destroy a single room in a building,
The problem isn't really the lack of technolgy it's the lack of political understanding,
if the US had intel that their were terrorists in Iran even if they only attacked one room in a building Iran would be able to declare all out war.

Last,The oh so powerfull nuclear bomb should only be used in DRASTIC circumstanses and even then diplomacy should still be on the table.


TRw



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
GPS bombs have an accuracy measured in feet. A B-2 dropping a GPS bomb from 50,000 feet will hit within 6 feet of the target. As was said though, you have to know where your target is.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I know that the police force here in Canada has theormal scopes that can pick up a dollar at high altitude. So if they know the town in which the badies are in why not scope them out first and hit the seprat buildings instead of the entire town? Also if they don't know excaly where the badies are they shouldn't drop the bombs near allies.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by halfmask]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
You ever tried sneaking a white guy into an Arab neighborhood?


Seriously, you CAN NOT identify anyone through a thermal scope. It only sees heat. All that will tell you is SOMEONE is there.

As for dropping near allies, it's called Close Air Support for a reason. If you're on the ground in danger of being over run by enemy forces you want those bombs dropped as close as you possibly can get them.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You ever tried sneaking a white guy into an Arab neighborhood?


Seriously, you CAN NOT identify anyone through a thermal scope. It only sees heat. All that will tell you is SOMEONE is there.

As for dropping near allies, it's called Close Air Support for a reason. If you're on the ground in danger of being over run by enemy forces you want those bombs dropped as close as you possibly can get them.
Allies I mean more of the citizen allies. Also the scope I was thinking of was a bit more advanced. I saw them using it on the show I watched and you can make out a face or what type of coin was on the ground.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You ever tried sneaking a white guy into an Arab neighborhood?


Funny enough this did happen

Lawrence of Arabia



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Then it's not thermal. You can identify NOTHING through a thermal scope, except that there is a heat source there. That's how thermal imaging works. It detects heat, and the shape of it, and puts it on a screen.

As for dropping near citizens, again, what choice is there? If there are 50 suspected enemy troops in a town, what do you do? Drop a bomb while they're grouped together, or drop 50 bombs to get them when they're split apart?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Then it's not thermal. You can identify NOTHING through a thermal scope, except that there is a heat source there. That's how thermal imaging works. It detects heat, and the shape of it, and puts it on a screen.

As for dropping near citizens, again, what choice is there? If there are 50 suspected enemy troops in a town, what do you do? Drop a bomb while they're grouped together, or drop 50 bombs to get them when they're split apart?
We are starting to get of topic. It is not about droping bombs or not but, is about why isn't there anything better than bombs(weapon for example) yet, and if there is why is the U.S. not useing them? Also the scope I am talking about did use heat. How it worked better I am not sure.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by halfmask]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Like what? Death rays? What do you want? Lasers with the troops? Have you SEEN how big a laser is? The Airborne Laser the USAF is developing takes up the inside of a 747.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Like what? Death rays? What do you want? Lasers with the troops? Have you SEEN how big a laser is? The Airborne Laser the USAF is developing takes up the inside of a 747.
K I will redefine me question. As our civilization as a whole, why has our techlogical development of more pricise weapons have been so slow? So, why haven't we developed a death ray super zoom sniper yet? WW2 was like 100 years ago I think. Death ray project where started around then so why hasn't there been any results yet. (Note: DRSZS is an example weapon.)



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
This is a "conspiracy website" I am expecting a little more than the simple what the "news said" level answers. (Note: All the replies before I am still thankful for.)



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Uhmm.......yeah. Right.

The first flight of an airplane was 103 years ago. WWII ended 60 years ago. We went from a plane that you could barely control to planes flying at Mach 9 in barely over 100 years and you call that SLOW???



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You ever tried sneaking a white guy into an Arab neighborhood?


Funny enough this did happen

Lawrence of Arabia


Erm, it's called a joke.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uhmm.......yeah. Right.

The first flight of an airplane was 103 years ago. WWII ended 60 years ago. We went from a plane that you could barely control to planes flying at Mach 9 in barely over 100 years and you call that SLOW???
Sorry my bad. 60 years ago. Also I mean why is it slower now?

[edit on 27-8-2006 by halfmask]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The simple reason that wars push technology. We haven't fought a major war since WWII, so there is no reason for our new technology to advance nearly as fast as it did then. Look at how slow things advanced before WWI, then between WWI and WWII, then during WWII. When you're fighting a war you do things to try to give you an advantage, like develop missiles for example. After the war when there's no need to rush headlong into development it slows down.

[edit on 8/27/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfmask
I have a question that has been bugging me. I hope someone could help me shead the light. What is up with the lack of weapon advancment or use of more advanced weapons? U.S. keeps bombing with good old missiles. The strongest missile is the almighty nuclear bomb. They works well for destroying a certian area. The target is terrist groups. The problem is the target isn't an area it is people. The U.S. drops bomb(s) and destroys the area with the terrists and also hits allies. Weapons have become more powerfull but, less precise. Why arn't they using long rang snipers from radar jaming plains with theromal vison scopes and what not? Can some one please help me answer this. If this has been posted before I apolgies.
(P.S. This is my first thread please be forgiving.)


There are weapons like you speak of: Ultrasonic, self-propelled munitions for anti-personell, directed energy, and so on.
However, most countries would freak out if they were used, since they do not posses this technology.
Also, assassination has been highly frowned on since the outset of WWI, when the assassination of the Archduke of Ferdinand led to whole of the world to war.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The simple reason that wars push technology. We haven't fought a major war since WWII, so there is no reason for our new technology to advance nearly as fast as it did then. Look at how slow things advanced before WWI, then between WWI and WWII, then during WWII. When you're fighting a war you do things to try to give you an advantage, like develop missiles for example. After the war when there's no need to rush headlong into development it slows down.
Originally posted by bothered
There are weapons like you speak of: Ultrasonic, self-propelled munitions for anti-personell, directed energy, and so on.
However, most countries would freak out if they were used, since they do not posses this technology.
Also, assassination has been highly frowned on since the outset of WWI, when the assassination of the Archduke of Ferdinand led to whole of the world to war.


[edit on 8/27/2006 by Zaphod58]
This is the kind of answer(s) I am talking about. Keep them coming. I hope someone has a really good one with conspiracy stuff in it.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by halfmask]

[edit on 27-8-2006 by halfmask]

[edit on 27-8-2006 by halfmask]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Necessity drives innovation more than anything else. Wars in particular tend to spur the rapid development of arms technology. We're currently in a time of relative peace, so there's no point in spending money on research of new weaponry when our current stuff suits us fine. If we were in another WWII situation (massive scale warfare against an opponent that rivals us in power), we'd see a lot more progression.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join