What is up with weapons?

Are you sure were are carpet bombing cities, dropping nukes, and shooting blindly. TURN ON YOUR LOCAL FOX NEWS STATION, YOU CAN SEE OUR PRECISION WEAPONS BEING DEPLOYD ALL OVER THE WORLD

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
Are you sure were are carpet bombing cities, dropping nukes, and shooting blindly. TURN ON YOUR LOCAL FOX NEWS STATION, YOU CAN SEE OUR PRECISION WEAPONS BEING DEPLOYD ALL OVER THE WORLD

I do... And I see allies getting hit.

One other reason being over looked is the expense of some of the new fangled weapons. Quite simply bullets and bombs are cheaper than “death rays”

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
Are you sure were are carpet bombing cities, dropping nukes, and shooting blindly. TURN ON YOUR LOCAL FOX NEWS STATION, YOU CAN SEE OUR PRECISION WEAPONS BEING DEPLOYD ALL OVER THE WORLD

1. Noone here said the US is shooting blindly or is eager to use nukes (even Bush´s insane idea of nuclear bunker busters got rejected).

2. Yes, you ARE carpet bombing inhabited areas. As has happened in the Gulf Wars 2 and 3 and to a lesser etent in Afghanistan.

3. FoxNews shows the "gun camera" footage of "smart bombs" ... because that is the ONLY aerial combat footage they will get, carefully chosen by the brass´ of the Airforce. You´re what, 13- 14 did you once say? So I don´t expect you to remember the pictures from 1991 when the press was fed those nice and shiny computerized bomb droppings, while the few free journalists, the Red Cross and various humanitarian GOs and NGOs were reporting the massive destruction by the freefall and cluster bombs.

4. The "surgical air war" is STILL a myth and it will continue to do so. Because a precision guided attack has little area effect, and that is sometimes just what you want to have.

[edit on 30/8/2006 by Lonestar24]

In Gulf War One we only had LGB's, PGM's were still a relatively new concept, as such only 10% of the munitions dropped were "smart". During the initial part of OIF 70% of all the munitions dropped were "smart weapons". I presume that number has since gone up due to the type of fighting we have encountered since then.

However the US has, and continues to lead the world in the area of PGM development, implementation and fielding. That's not to say we don't still drop conventional munitions, we do, and we have to sometimes, but we should get some credit for our efforts in the PGM field.

As for the friendly fire thing, inescapable part of war, just like civilians dying or a system malfunctioning, given the number of missions and sorties the FF rate is relatively low.

FYI I just got my September issue of Discover magazine and there's an article in there about the US planning on building the first new nuclear warheads since the 80's, but those are still "conventional" weapons.

It's true about war propelling invention, in fact a lot of inventions often spill over into civilian life eventually.

These "new" nuclear weapons are replacement weapons for the older nukes in the inventory. As nukes get older they get less and less reliable, so they're replacing them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
These "new" nuclear weapons are replacement weapons for the older nukes in the inventory. As nukes get older they get less and less reliable, so they're replacing them.

If this is the case why don't they make nukes that don't get less reliable?

Uhhh because you CAN'T. ALL explosives degrade over time. If the explosives around a nuclear core don't go off EXACTLY, your nuke doesn't work. As those explosives degrade they get less reliable.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uhhh because you CAN'T. ALL explosives degrade over time. If the explosives around a nuclear core don't go off EXACTLY, your nuke doesn't work. As those explosives degrade they get less reliable.

I mean why don't they work on something else that goes boom that doesn't degrade.

Again, because you CAN'T. EVERYTHING degrades in time. From the plastic on your computer keyboard to the cells of your body. There is nothing made that DOESN'T degrade to some extent. Explosives are no different.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again, because you CAN'T. EVERYTHING degrades in time. From the plastic on your computer keyboard to the cells of your body. There is nothing made that DOESN'T degrade to some extent. Explosives are no different.

Electrons and protons don't degrade. I get what you mean but, they should make something less expencive and easier to make that degrades slower. Plastic takes like 2000 years to decay. I am sure they could make a weapon composed of things that won't degrade in a few decades. They spend so much money on these things then they fall apart before they use them. Would it be smarter to invest in longer lasting stuff? Also degrading could lead to defecting, what if these bombs go of from static discharge or something.

Nuclear bombs take anywhere from 20-100 years or more to degrade. The problem is that there's no sure way to KNOW that they're degrading except trying to set them off. Since we can't set them off (short of using them) the theory is that it's better to be safe than sorry. And there have been improvements in weapon design since these were made.

Originally posted by halfmask

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again, because you CAN'T. EVERYTHING degrades in time. From the plastic on your computer keyboard to the cells of your body. There is nothing made that DOESN'T degrade to some extent. Explosives are no different.

Electrons and protons don't degrade.

Thats why he said "nothing that is MADE doesnt degrade"

I get what you mean but, they should make something less expencive and easier to make that degrades slower. Plastic takes like 2000 years to decay. I am sure they could make a weapon composed of things that won't degrade in a few decades.

Doesnt matter how long the plastic compound itself takes to decay. In many plastics you will find plasticizers to make them smooth and flexible. These plasticizers are quite volatile, and especially when they are exposed to heat (possible in a nuke?) and UV light (not so possible in an enclosed nuke). Have you ever seen old tyres that look like they are disintegrating? thats the same effect, the plastic itself doesnt decay, but it becomes very brittle because the plasticizers are evaporating over time.

Lets take something as simple as a wire, which you can certainly find in most eplosives. The insulation is usually a plastic material with plasticizers so it stays elastic. But this insulation will become brittle, and say when they are subjected to the force of a submarine ICBM launch, they might simple fall off -> possibility of a short circuit, and your million $$$ nuke suddenly becomes dead weight, or even worse, dangerous to your own men.

And thats only one possible scenario where unforeseeable ageing effects can lead to catastrophic results, the degrading exlosive material in the nuke has already been mentioned.

They spend so much money on these things then they fall apart before they use them. Would it be smarter to invest in longer lasting stuff?

Also degrading could lead to defecting, what if these bombs go of from static discharge or something.

OK, I´ll repeat for the third time what Zaphod already said: It is not possible to construct something (especially something as complex as a nuke) that does NOT degrade. Unless Roswell was real and the US military is hiding secret space materials there

Then they should invest in somthing other then the pain in the ass nukes. Which this whole thread is about.

Originally posted by halfmask
Then they should invest in somthing other then the pain in the ass nukes. Which this whole thread is about.

Judging from your first and subsequent post your thread is about why the armed forces use the weapons they HAVE instead of the weapons they DONT have but that you THINK they should have.

Well I guess the US´s as well as any other military would be incredibly grateful if you pointed their noses towards working and practical technologies that could replace nukes or any other type of weapon. There is only one problem: these technologies do not exist/work yet.

I do not really understand your train of thoughts: you are saying that military forces should use newer and more advanced weapons instead of their "outdated" stuff. I am sure that the Army could really use 50km-range stabilized magnetic accelerator sniper rifles, or that the US Navy would really like a couple of aircraft carriers that can equally float, submerge and fly while launching invisible Mach 10+ Interceptorbomberhelicopters with onboard Snooker table. The nasty problem at hand however is that we cannot build such technology. I dont know if you are aware that you cannot force technological breakthroughs, and there is no way to "mass-produce" revolutionary developments like the semiconductor or antibiotics are. These just happen when the right person does the right thing at the right time.

The nuke represents the pinnacle of destruction power. A nuke can have more destruction power than you´d EVER want to unleash on earth. Which measn that the real reason for having some of these "outdated" nukes is that it creates more fear than anything else on this world. The keyword here is MAD, or "mutually assured destruction". I advise you to read something about that concept and why it has kept the world in one piece during the Cold War. Yes, you don´t use nukes, you HAVE them, that is the role of a nuke - even the two times nukes WERE used were partly because the USA wanted to demonstrate that "We HAVE them, so bugger off will ya"?!?

Basically I think that you have a wrong attitude to the whole issue: what is presented in the shows you mention is NEVER as capable as it is made out to be. You mention the "death ray". Well there is a whole lot of development and experimentation going on about that subject, and that for decades. Some of the brightest heads of science are concerned with high energetic beams, also because they have a civilian value. But instead of acknowledging that there are technical hurdles that have still to get overcome, you simply complain that "they arent used". Well the old Romans certainly could have used a PC with "MS Excel" running 2000 years ago. But what they HAD was the Abacus, and in its time it was as revolutionary as sliced bread is in ours.

You asked, quite harshly, for REAL answers. These have been given to you by several people in this thread, but obviously instead of coonsidering them, you seem to simply ignore them. But lets look at some of your posts:

Originally posted by halfmask
What is up with the lack of weapon advancment or use of more advanced weapons?

How can you say there is no advancement? You´re speaking of some science fiction breakthrough technologies, but you dismiss that the refinement of existing technologies might just be enough. A handful of even the simplest German tanks of WW2 could have almost singlehandedly won WW1 - because within 15 years time there were incredible tank-technological leaps.
Likewise, a single well-maintained F-22 possibly could have won the Korean or Vietnam air war by itself. How much more advancement in short time do you think is even possible? Don´t forget that all the stuff that defines warfare today, that is engines and electronics, are only developments of the last 150 years. Warfare in the THOUSANDS OF YEARS before has largely only been a variation of the good old Sticks´n´Stones philosophy.

Originally posted by halfmask
...The strongest missile is the almighty nuclear bomb. They works well for destroying a certian area. The target is terrist groups.

Wrong. The targets are not Terrorist groups. The target of every military is the enemy of your own nation, IN WHICH WAY EVER THEY MIGHT COME. On some enemies you could use nukes, and some enemies you have to fight with pistols and knifes. And I was not aware that nukes were ever realistically considered to fight Terrorists, so your point is quite fictional.

Originally posted by halfmask
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.

Of course the target is people, too. What do you think a hostile opposition consists of, trained monkeys? The easy and feasible key to destroy an enemy stronghold is not to pick off every armed man with a sniper rifle (more on snipers later), the key is to level it with artillery or aerial bombardements and wipe up what is left with your ground forces. And civilians are not allies per se, they are collateral but sometimes unavoidable casualties.

Originally posted by halfmask
Weapons have become more powerfull but, less precise.

Less precise? Thats a funny statement. Lets draw again on the good ´ole WW2. The Murricans and the Limeys conducted bombing raids on Germany EVERY DAY AND NIGHT, multiple waves, thousands of planes and millions of bombs in the course of several years. The targets of these were mostly industrial centres. But guess what, estimates say that about 80-85% of the german industrial capability was left intact or easily repairable. Instead, cities were "accidentally" levelled and hundredthousands of "allies" (read: civilians) died. And still what they achieved was the pinnacle of precision bombing available at that time.

Had the latest Iraq War (which I entirely do NOT condone) been fought the the Vietnam war or WW2 was fought, then there would be no Baghdad, Fallujah or Umm´Qasr anymore... they would be smoldering ruins. And here you are complaining about the modern tech because it produces unwanted casualties?

Originally posted by halfmask
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?

Because...
...there are NO Radar jamming planes in the way you describe
...there are NO Rifles with the necessary accuracy and range
...it is NOT possible to use unguided munitions with pinpoint accuracy from a plane
...there is NO "thermal vision scope" that could automatically point out who´s a "baddie" and who´s an "ally".

...and lastly, because people would simply stop going OUTSIDE too much. Which means they are in buildings. Which means they are covered and you cant see them nor reach them with your sniper rifle. Which means you have to use a big explosive weapon to destroy that cover. Which means that you are again where you started: you are conducting an aerial bombardement. Which means you might have civilian casualties. Vicious circle, huh?

You know, not everything that is presented in the popular media or in "conspiracy circles" as the "next military must-have" does really make sense in the REAL, dirty, bloody business of war.


[edit on 1/9/2006 by Lonestar24]

Lonestar24 thanks for the reply. Even though it seemed a bit hostile. you said "You asked, quite harshly, for REAL answers. These have been given to you by several people in this thread, but obviously instead of coonsidering them, you seem to simply ignore them. But lets look at some of your posts:" I am not ignoring them I am simple disapointed in the lack thought/originality. This is a conspirecy forum after all. You also said "How can you say there is no advancement? You´re speaking of some science fiction breakthrough technologies, but you dismiss that the refinement of existing technologies might just be enough." One since there are still casulties they are not enuff. Two I am useing science fiction tech as examples of better tech. Three I know there are things better becuase, I have second hand evidence of mysterious tech being developed for military use. One of my parents cousin worked on them. He wouldn't say what he worked for security reasons but, by his reaction to the thought of them... Also I never said "using" nukes I was reffering to there point of tech development. They make them but don't/shouldn't use them so why don't they invest there time and money else where. I know the whole scare them with having nukes but, wouldn't it be scarier to know your enemy could zap you from space with a laser while your in the tub? Well thanks for the reply I hope I get more like this on in content. (Sorry I forget how to use the quote things manually.)

you could do what i think they should do deploy snipers everywhere and take out the people they needed

Originally posted by halfmask
I know the whole scare them with having nukes but, wouldn't it be scarier to know your enemy could zap you from space with a laser while your in the tub? Well thanks for the reply I hope I get more like this on in content. (Sorry I forget how to use the quote things manually.)

You have to remember that even if they do have these awesome weapons that you speak of that can zap people from space it would not be advantageous to use them especially in a small war such as iraq. The whole point of developing weapons is to have superiority over your enemies and potential enemies, if we prove to the world what awesome weapons we have by using them it would spark another cold war where china and other nations try desperatley to catch up with us technologically. Which unfortunatley has already started.

Work with what you have, not what you want.

A laser that can zap people from space is significantly more technologically advanced than a nuclear weapon.

Really, when you get down to it the only hard part about making a nuke is getting the uranium or plutonium (and this can be incredibly hard). After that (and even including that), everything is possible with 30's and 40's technology. All you need is precision machining, a good knowledge of explosives and the know-how not to get your people killed from radiation poisoning.

A weapon that can zap people from space needs to be built first, and with the way lasers are now I am going to say that it is 20-30 years ahead of the most advanced equipment in the world. It needs a system powerful enough to punch through the atmosphere while retaining significant strength and accuracy. It needs a targetting system so it can actually hit things. It needs to get lifted into space and have a group able to repair it. It needs a power supply (I can't think of anything non-nuclear that would work). It needs to be able to move, or else people will just hide for the few minutes it is overhead (most countries should be able to track it). Finally, it needs to be small enough to fit in the shuttle or something similar...

It would be great if we had it, but we don't, and I don't even know if it would be that dangerous compared to a nuke...