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.

 

Army's high-tech future is near

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Army's high-tech future is near


www.sptimes.com

EL PASO, Texas - A $200-billion plan to remake the largest war machine in history unfolds in one small way on a quiet country road in the Chihuahuan Desert. For soldiers in an experimental Army brigade at the sprawling Fort Bliss base, it's the first day of field training on a new weapon called the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, or NLOS-LS, a box of rockets that can automatically change direction in midair and hit a moving target about 24 miles away. The Army says it has never had a weapon like it. "It's not the Spartans with the swords anymore," says Emmett Schaill, the brigade commander, peering into the desertscape.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.blacklistednews.com




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
To me this is crazy yet again. What blows my mind is the amount of money being put into this war machine. What is it needed for? Are we actually planning for WW3. Does our government know when it is going to start? What really worries me is that we (the US) are going to be the antagonizers of it. We keep developing all of these superior weapons systems and war machines. What is the ultimate intentions for all of the money being filtered into these developments? And most of all, are we so screwed up financially as a country that 200 billion doesn't really mean anything? It seems we throw crazy numbers like this around as if it is just paper. Maybe it is just paper and that is why our dollar means nothing anymore.

www.sptimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
One thing that military research does is filter down to civilian use. Stuff like lasers, MRI scanners, GPS, etc all have become essential tools for civilization.

This type of weapons system reflect the growing changes int he way future combat will unfold. With a few exceptions the Cold War legacy systems are being phased out or canceled (The Crusader mobile gun system is a notable one) in favor others.

The armed forces to have to adapt to stay current



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
No nation has ever been conquered, and no war started, for being too strong.

It seems like you and people like you want our military to be weak for some reason. Mind you, we have the luxury of peace, but would you be so selfish and narrow-minded to advocate it when people ready to slaughter you and your family were at your doorstep?

Well, surprise. They are, and always will be. The world is a dangerous place. Military technology keeps us advanced, safe, and out of wars, as long as we don't needlessly jump into them (see: Iraq). And, as was stated, military technology trickles down to civilian use. Not that I'm a fan of state technology, or the state itself, but at least defense is a legitimate function of government. You can increase the size of a military relatively quickly, but it takes long-term research to keep it up to date and ahead of the competition.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Increasing conventional capabilities at that cost is ridiculous. The Russians are improving their ICBM's while we spend money we don't have on systems that won't matter.

We'll spend even more on the 'missle shield' that will eventually push the Russians into a 'use 'em or lose 'em' situation. What was that definition of Insanity again? This is the same ol' mentality that led to the last two World Wars. HAHAHA, we've got 'em surrounded now right?
How many nukes does Russia have?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Selfish and narrow-minded? You obviously do not know me at all. My concern is with the major problems right here on our own doorstep as you say that do not get even close to that kind of money for spending. How is it that the government can justify programs like these yet they can turn right around and strip away health care from the people that need it most!! I have no problems with our military being strong. When did I say I want them to be weak? Do not jump to quick opinions my friend. I am commenting on the fact that projects such as these, IMO, are unnecessary. I thought we were already the strongest military power in the world. And as you stated, we always seem to jump right into things (Iraq). And I guess I can't wait to get my own 24-mile range missile that can change directions so I can get those people that are ready to slaughter me. The way things are going, I feel like my own government is the one ready to slaughter me!
On another note regarding technology. 60minutes did a piece this evening about how we are so dependent now on tech "geeks" such as Geek Squad from Best Buy. Technology has become so advanced so fast that people can't keep up. Thus we need the so called geeks in order to run everyday things such as our coffee makers and refrigerators. We have become so dependent on technology that it is causing more harm than good. What happens if and when the plug is pulled on all of this great stuff we have available? What is everyone going to do then? Answer that for me. So, if you want to take the argument that these great military technology advancements are such a great thing for consumer benefit, one may need to look at the flipside of things before making a rational decision. Has anyone ever thought that maybe we need to just slow down a bit?

[edit on 12/30/2007 by palehorse23]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
How is it that the government can justify programs like these yet they can turn right around and strip away health care from the people that need it most!!

I'm guessing you want other people to pay for your health care? I thought you weren't selfish?

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says that the federal government can give people health care with tax money paid from our pockets. Furthermore, socialized medicine is an idiotic, socialistic nationalization of an industry, completely counterproductive to the quality and quantity of medical care. It makes things worse, not better. Just look at the people dying waiting for life saving treatments in socialist countries.


Originally posted by palehorse23
And I guess I can't wait to get my own 24-mile range missile that can change directions so I can get those people that are ready to slaughter me.

You could get civilian applications of the technology. I didn't verify the examples, but FredT mentioned GPS, lasers, and MRI scanners.


Originally posted by palehorse23
On another note regarding technology. 60minutes did a piece this evening about how we are so dependent now on tech "geeks" such as Geek Squad from Best Buy. Technology has become so advanced so fast that people can't keep up. Thus we need the so called geeks in order to run everyday things such as our coffee makers and refrigerators.

That's idiotic, anti-technological nonsense. I guarantee that you could fix most computer problems, especially with the aid of the internet. That's how I learned. Building a computer is pretty simple, actually.

I hope you don't need a geek to turn your coffee maker on. Really, the biggest reason people can't fix things themselves is that they don't bother to try - they're too afraid, usually. You could probably fix most electrical problems in your house and maybe some of your appliances. You need an expert when there's a specific way to fix a specific thing, or when what you're doing is dangerous.


Originally posted by palehorse23
We have become so dependent on technology that it is causing more harm than good.

I guess the millions that get to live, get to eat, and the quality of life that they enjoy is causing harm. Christ.


Originally posted by palehorse23
What happens if and when the plug is pulled on all of this great stuff we have available? What is everyone going to do then? Answer that for me.

Which? People were never good at surviving on their own, which is why civilization exists. If civilization collapsed, the weak would die, as it would always be. What do you expect?

How the hell do you "pull the plug" on millenia of technological advancement? I suppose you suggest that we go back to the bronze age?


Originally posted by palehorse23
So, if you want to take the argument that these great military technology advancements are such a great thing for consumer benefit, one may need to look at the flipside of things before making a rational decision.

That's only a side-effect, really. The number one effect is being able to defend ourselves.


Originally posted by palehorse23
Has anyone ever thought that maybe we need to just slow down a bit?

I hope not. Ideas like that only stem from fear and ignorance - technology improves life and allows people to live who would otherwise die.

Hell, if it wasn't for medical technology, I'd be dead (born by cesarean section). And you probably would too (higher mortality rate, higher infant mortality rate), and my father (4x angioplasty/stent). But I guess we all deserved to die, eh, because damn all that evil technology!



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 





I'm guessing you want other people to pay for your health care? I thought you weren't selfish?


For your info, I am in the medical field. And what saddens me is the people that need the health care can't get it. You don't get it man. I would pay for universal healthcare if it meant more people who needed the treatment that can't afford it, would get it. And you obviously can't put yourself into the shoes of most of the human race who are fed up with the technology becoming increasingly complicated. People don't have the time to figure it all out because we are all running around so fast with so many things to do each day. And, not everyone is a as technically savy as you must be. I think you have some kind of obstacle to overcome when it comes to thinking of what my point is. I am talking about the advancements of technologies that in my opinion are not necessary. This, IMO, is not necessary! That is my opinion! It doesn't mean I am wrong and anti-technology. Medical advancements I am all for.



I guarantee that you could fix most computer problems, especially with the aid of the internet.

So I guess I am supposed to use the internet to fix my computer that I can't get on the internet with? Doesn't make much since. Unless I run back and forth from my neighboor's house each time I go through one of the million steps of troubleshooting.
Lastly, it is not a question of whether we deserve to die or not. We all die when it is our time. It is what will kill us that is the question.
On a serious note, as I analyze chromosomes all day, you should look into testing your blood if you have history of heart condition in your family. Just some advice as I am a person who respects everyone's opinions and wishes death on no one!

[edit on 12/30/2007 by palehorse23]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
For your info, I am in the medical field.

Very good. What are you?


Originally posted by palehorse23
And what saddens me is the people that need the health care can't get it. You don't get it man. I would pay for universal healthcare if it meant more people who needed the treatment that can't afford it, would get it.

It's terrible. That's why we have charity. Socialized medicine actually hurts people who need treatment, and that's why it's a terrible thing.


Originally posted by palehorse23
And you obviously can't put yourself into the shoes of most of the human race who are fed up with the technology becoming increasingly complicated.

Really, I don't think anything is much more complex than, say, fixing a car. What can we do, do away with cars? New technologies mean new markets, new ways to improve your standard of living, and more money in the process.


Originally posted by palehorse23
People don't have the time to figure it all out because we are all running around so fast with so many things to do each day. And, not everyone is a as technically savy as you must be.

Maybe you're really attacking society itself? Having to run around like madmen to keep up... I have an anarcho-primitivist side, too.




Originally posted by palehorse23
I think you have some kind of obstacle to overcome when it comes to thinking of what my point is. I am talking about the advancements of technologies that in my opinion are not necessary. This, IMO, is not necessary! That is my opinion!

Thankfully, that's only your opinion. Military technology keeps us safe and allows us to stay out of wars and win them if we need to. All without the wave after wave tactics the Soviets liked using... If you study history, the number one and to purposes (not sure which to make one) of government are to protect the rights of citizens from internal and external threats. Internal is usually done fine with a court system and a police force, but for external threats, you need a superior military. That's what it's about - our way of life could be wiped off the map if other nations desired it, without a powerful military.

It doesn't mean I am wrong and anti-technology. Medical advancements I am all for.



Originally posted by palehorse23
So I guess I am supposed to use the internet to fix my computer that I can't get on the internet with? Doesn't make much since. Unless I run back and forth from my neighboor's house each time I go through one of the million steps of troubleshooting.

Oh come on, I meant guides you could find on the internet. I just meant that a layman could do it.



Originally posted by palehorse23
On a serious note, as I analyze chromosomes all day, you should look into testing your blood if you have history of heart condition in your family. Just some advice as I am a person who respects everyone's opinions and wishes death on no one!

What do you study, specifically?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Laser statlites Plasma weopans devices that can burn your skin. or sound devices that can pop your ear drums.

GPS that can target you within 1 meter.

Id say were pretty much there.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


My title is cytogeneticist. Sounds fancier than it is. I analyze chromosomes from blood samples, tissue samples, bone marrow. I have to analyze cells to make sure everyone has their 46 chromosomes and if not, we have to figure out what they are missing or have extra ones of. Mostly cancer and syndrome patients. Sit at a microscope all day. Also do some flourescense testing as well. Part time I do autopsy for a few of the hospitals around here. Some technology in these areas have helped us advance in diagnostic procedures but how I see it, that is what more money should be focused on. At the same time, drug companies make me just as mad with all of their new "products". What a raquet that is. Are you by chance in the military or have served before?

[edit on 12/31/2007 by palehorse23]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Okay, here is an example that I think is a great idea as we all know police chases are getting more and more likely to happen and ending up very bad.

Coming Soon -- Microwave Gun That Can Destroy Your Car From 600 Feet Away




A Pasadena, California company has created a device that will destroy a car’s electrical system and stop it dead in its tracks. Just one pulse from this beam disables cars up to 50 feet away.

microwa ve gun

As long as this is used primarily for stopping runaway car chases, I am all for it. When people start using it for stopping that speeding hot rod from blowing by their house while the kids are playing, then we have a problem. The same is said about any technological advancement though. As I have stated in other tech threads, when the technology falls into the wrong hands, it becomes a dangerous situation.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I'm all for technology. But, weapons usually get used, so all these new systems will give the "superman syndrome" to our leaders, at least to a degree, and that leads to a lot of spilled blood.

I was a soldier, and I am a patriot, so don't start in about how anybody that views war as hell on earth is a coward and a commie. I find that most gung ho super troopers are just gutless wannabes that practice mean faces in front of the mirror while shaving.

And what happens to all this wonderful technology in a war? Nuclear airbursts with EMP taking out the electronics is a fact of war in the 21st century. Now the Army has some really expensive clubs left.

Sorry, but this is just another way for some contractor to suck up another pile of money from the American taxpayer with a scheme that has the potential to be used on some group of low tech people, here or elsewhere, that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of countering it. A real invader would have enough sense to turn this into garbage before it ever got used.

This isn't in any way making America safer.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
people in general who think they have a strong opinion and think they are right take in to account what one side is saying a make it the most extreme to make their point sound better. broaden your mind and look into the future not the present. people are dependent on technology and in the future with rely on it (micro chips in everything, cars driving themselves etc...) in return our freedoms will be taken away from us and we have no skills or knowledge to do things for ourself. so maybe we (as people) should start doing things for ourselves and have technology a luxury not a dependency.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I think its the ditch digging mentality. We spend 200 billion on a better backhoe, when we could have hired 50 mexicans to accomplish the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, technology has its uses, and I'm all for a strong military, but things like this are useless. We are not fighting large armies anymore. We are fighting in a nutshell Guerrilas. As such, we should be spending less money on systems that would accomplish incrediable feats, and concentrating on what we really need.

If we were to spend 200 billion, I think it should be used to make the U.S. energy independent. This would go alot farther, and make us alot stronger, then a missle system, or a gun that can shoot a bullet the can turn in midflight.

This is all about prioritzation, because realistically, we don't have 200 billion to spend. So if you don't have the money to spend, then why spend it on something that can wait, as apposed to something that can make the U.S. stronger both in the short term and the long term.

If you want to spend the money on the military, how about the exo-skeleton project. This protects the troops, makes them more mobile, and gives them more fire power. Additionally, it would cost a fraction of the cost for this project.

Instead of looking at it like we want the military weak, think more along the lines of what is better economically. I'm sure you'd agree that there are better ways to spend 200 billion dollars.

Cheers,

camain



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join