US news weapon-electomagnetic cannon

[Topaz]

Well the world's largest weapon nation has invented another weapon, the electromagnetic cannon. It fires a projectile 100 nautical miles , 5x the speed of sound. So they have this weapon, the navy could use it against countries like N. Korea but what happens when the rest of the world gets that same weapon,like they did with the nukes? I guess there's no money in finding peace and settling differences. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/navy-test-fires-electromagnetic-cannon-3.html

[bush_cheney2004]

Well the world's largest weapon nation has invented another weapon, the electromagnetic cannon.

Don't worry, Canadian Gerald Bull still has his spot in the Supergun Hall of Fame.

I guess there's no money in finding peace and settling differences.

There are lots of ways to settle differences.

Edited December 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

Hey, Canada designs/develops its own share of arms as well. Canadarms that is! WAAHAHAHA!! :lol:

alright sorry i'm done.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

Well the world's largest weapon nation has invented another weapon, the electromagnetic cannon. It fires a projectile 100 nautical miles , 5x the speed of sound. So they have this weapon, the navy could use it against countries like N. Korea but what happens when the rest of the world gets that same weapon,like they did with the nukes? I guess there's no money in finding peace and settling differences. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/navy-test-fires-electromagnetic-cannon-3.html

Unfortunately, sometimes having better weapons is what leads to the end of war and thus peace. As to what happens when the rest of the world gets this same weapon is that new weapons will again be developed. People/nations have been developing new weapons since the beginning of time.

[charter.rights]

Unfortunately, sometimes having better weapons is what leads to the end of war and thus peace. As to what happens when the rest of the world gets this same weapon is that new weapons will again be developed. People/nations have been developing new weapons since the beginning of time.

Weapons NEVER lead to peace. They are tools of war and destruction and nothing else. Diplomacy and negotiation lead to peace.

War is a multi-tiered business.

[Wild Bill]

Weapons NEVER lead to peace. They are tools of war and destruction and nothing else. Diplomacy and negotiation lead to peace.

War is a multi-tiered business.

Oh, I don't know. That sounds rather simplistic to me. The Mutually Assured Destruction situation of the Cold War prevented a big conflict.

Obviously, diplomacy and negotiation is the preferred path but what do you do with a heavily armed aggressor who believes he can take by force whatever he wants? If you have no ability to defend yourself what options do you have besides voluntary servitude?

How well did diplomacy work for Neville Chamberlain?

Do you have any precise and specific diplomatic approaches that are guaranteed to work in such situations?

[bush_cheney2004]

...War is a multi-tiered business.

"Peace" is even a bigger multi-tiered business.

[August1991]

Weapons NEVER lead to peace. They are tools of war and destruction and nothing else. Diplomacy and negotiation lead to peace.

WB above got it right.

As the infamous Neville Chamberlain once said: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing." Link

Charter-rights, you are an appeaser.

----

With that said, the difference between men and boys is that the toys are more expensive. And these toys are very expensive. I hope someone has the ability to say no every so often. "Johnny, Santa is not bringing the Super Deluxe train set this Christmas. Suck it up."

Edited December 12, 2010 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

Why does it always have to come down to a comparison with the nazis?

[Bonam]

This has actually been in development for quite some time. The more commonly known name in popular culture for the electromagnetic cannon is a "rail gun". I actually built one myself for fun, obviously on a much smaller scale. It used a capacitor discharge and a permanent magnet to launch a weighted tinfoil projectile about 80 meters.

Here's a several year old video of the navy rail gun test during the R&D phase:

The flame trail behind the projectile is actually not an explosion that propels it. In fact, there is no such explosion, it is accelerated purely through electromagnetic means. The flame trail is actually the air being ionized and turned into a plasma as a result of the huge speed at which the projectile is moving producing heat through friction with the air.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Bonam

[charter.rights]

Oh, I don't know. That sounds rather simplistic to me. The Mutually Assured Destruction situation of the Cold War prevented a big conflict.

Obviously, diplomacy and negotiation is the preferred path but what do you do with a heavily armed aggressor who believes he can take by force whatever he wants? If you have no ability to defend yourself what options do you have besides voluntary servitude?

How well did diplomacy work for Neville Chamberlain?

Do you have any precise and specific diplomatic approaches that are guaranteed to work in such situations?

What is simplistic is your believing that war is an end in itself.

If you are going to ask a question perhaps you can be mature enough to wait for an answer....

...what do you do with a heavily armed aggressor who believes he can take by force whatever he wants?

You use force to put them down and beat them into submission AND THEN you return to the negotiations. Most wars end up this way.So diplomacy and negotiation are a means to an end. War is not. However, neither is beneficial if your mind is stuck in war mode, and for that reason no one who has killed another, or been in war, or served in the military should be part of the diplomatic side. Giving in to war means they see it as a solution and not a tool.

[Jack Weber]

Weapons NEVER lead to peace. They are tools of war and destruction and nothing else. Diplomacy and negotiation lead to peace.

War is a multi-tiered business.

Thank you,Neville Chamberlain...

[August1991]

Why does it always have to come down to a comparison with the nazis?

Nazis? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Or Clifford Olsen?

Would you accept the Soviet Union? The Hell's Angels?

----

Sir Bandelot, what do good people do to defend themselves against bad people?

You use force to put them down and beat them into submission AND THEN you return to the negotiations...

Giving in to war means they see it as a solution and not a tool.

[sarcasm]I'm impressed with your insight.[/sarcasm]

But when do you use force, and who should decide this? Who should decide when to give into war.

Edited December 12, 2010 by August1991

[Shady]

Thank you,Neville Chamberlain...

OMG, Jack lands one of the biggest punches in recent memory. Although, when you're dealing with someone as clueless and infantile as charter.rights, it makes it a lot easier.

[Guest American Woman]

Weapons NEVER lead to peace. They are tools of war and destruction and nothing else. Diplomacy and negotiation lead to peace.

And what leads to being willing to sit down to diplomacy and negotiation? Generally, getting one's ass whooped. Losing is what generally leads to surrender. Not diplomacy and negotiation.

[waldo]

And what leads to being willing to sit down to diplomacy and negotiation? Generally, getting one's ass whooped.

ya, ya, certainly... big stick diplomacy has been the cornerstone of asserting American self-interests world-wide.

feel free to add your favourite acknowledgment to your conditional preface to, "sitting down to diplomacy and negotiation"... I'm kinda partial to the Shrub's, "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace"... which, of course, flies in the face of the 'Bush Doctrine' on pre-emptive war... where targets don't even get sweet-talked ahead of time.

[charter.rights]

Nazis? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Or Clifford Olsen?

Would you accept the Soviet Union? The Hell's Angels?

----

Sir Bandelot, what do good people do to defend themselves against bad people?

[sarcasm]I'm impressed with your insight.[/sarcasm]

But when do you use force, and who should decide this? Who should decide when to give into war.

The decision to defend often requires immediate action by those elected to parliament. However, this must be confirmed by the people in either a vote,or some other form of going to the electorate. However,as I said earlier the initial decision should not be made by those who see war as an end or those who are engaged in the business of war....just as we should not be calling upon the oil industry to decide whether or not a project will meet the environmental standards. They are too close to the business to be impartial and clear thinking.

[Wilber]

However, neither is beneficial if your mind is stuck in war mode, and for that reason no one who has killed another, or been in war, or served in the military should be part of the diplomatic side. Giving in to war means they see it as a solution and not a tool.

I would say more likely the opposite. Only those who have experienced war know what it really means.

[Shwa]

Hey, Canada designs/develops its own share of arms as well. Canadarms that is! WAAHAHAHA!!

alright sorry i'm done.

Third post down in this thread and no one has commented on it? Let me:

[Shwa]

Why does it always have to come down to a comparison with the nazis?

Because in the immortal words of the Right Reverend Horton Heat, they were the 'Baddest of the Bad.'

At least in modern times and popular history. That we can agree on. That were not on our side.

[Guest American Woman]

The decision to defend often requires immediate action by those elected to parliament. However, this must be confirmed by the people in either a vote,or some other form of going to the electorate. However,as I said earlier the initial decision should not be made by those who see war as an end or those who are engaged in the business of war....just as we should not be calling upon the oil industry to decide whether or not a project will meet the environmental standards. They are too close to the business to be impartial and clear thinking.

Sometimes one is forced into war, just as one is forced to defend himself/herself when attacked -- or just stand there and be beat to a pulp.

[Shwa]

I would say more likely the opposite. Only those who have experienced war know what it really means.

Yes, in a similar way that only those who have been hung knows what it "means" to hang. Although the rest of us see the outcome, which also has meaning. Likely more communicable meaning that the person that was hung right?

[Shwa]

Sometimes one is forced into war, just as one is forced to defend himself/herself when attacked -- or just stand there and be beat to a pulp.

When was the last time the US was "forced" into a war? Please give reasons.

[Guest American Woman]

When was the last time the US was "forced" into a war? Please give reasons.

What I said is "sometimes one is forced into war," which is a pretty all-inclusive statement. That you choose to make it singularly about "the US" is a direction I don't care to go. Sorry.

[bush_cheney2004]

What I said is "sometimes one is forced into war," which is a pretty all-inclusive statement. That you choose to make it singularly about "the US" is a direction I don't care to go. Sorry.

Agreed....but if he insists, the date would be September 11, 2001.