|
Science for war ?
Link |
by yumeNOnaka
on 2005-08-12 01:41:15
| ||
|
We (human) have a bad habit, some the destructive habit is war. I dont understand if some of humans still war, war in the wild or some tactical war. why we still not understand, using tech to kill someone else. I Really HATE it. Nuclear War can be happen someday, I dont know what the Impact to victims, soldier, and nature. many scientist work for know universe, secrets of nature, but the people who pay them have different idea. I think we cant stop the War Habit, because we still growing, and not all human have same think to create a peace world. last, Stop the Nuclear Weapon production !, and for scientist, think about your search more detail, you must know an impact could happen beside usefull thing your create. thanks.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
| Im with you man so far war for us is bad and we need to stop war before it kills us all. |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
there are many reasons behind a war. For Gold, for glory, or for God. still, whatever the reason is, war brings suffering to the people. war is unacceptable i think.
God's in his heaven. All's right with the world.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
"If you want Peace, prepare for War" - Flavius Vegetius Renatus Unfortunately this quote is right for the modern world, many conflicts were resolved through war. And last century was the bloodiest in warfares. One day it will stop I think, but until then there will be much more wars. |
|
Re: Science for war ?
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-08-18 18:24:12
|
|
Well science somewhat decreses the cost of war, every commander is interested in how to save his soilders live, from the very early days of conquest with thousands of soilders running at eachother with swords to where a few hundred soilders fight with guns and most only get wounded. Even the nuclear attacks on Japan where a calculated attack to minimize lives as compared to an invasion. Mr. Gatling thought his invention would save lives by reducing the number of needed soilders on a battlefield, he was wrong though. And today scientists are creating remote controlled jet fighters. War is a deeply rooted aspect of our society and most likly wont be dealt away with until our brain evole past animal instincts (then we wouldnt be homosapien, new species). Till then science could be used to maybe have war fought by robots and not waste human lives.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
still somehow i believe that the soul of war is to destroy enemy, not to protect human lives, and humanity itself.
God's in his heaven. All's right with the world.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-08-19 08:09:28
|
|
of course war is meant to destroy the enemy thats in the way of the objective. But with technogly the destructive force a soilder is able to weild there becomes less of a need to have as many soilders. A single tank piloted by 3-5 soilders has the power of say 20 soilders. that keeps 15 soilders off the battlefield.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
if the soldiers' life can be saved, then who will save the life of those who lose? the winner will only oppress the loser, even the loser is still alive, his life will be no different than hell, slaved, oppresed, found guilty from pov of the winner and executed. war doesn't save any life, war doesn't save any humanity. the science is supposed to bring us joy. Remember nobel? he found dynamite. he wanted that his research is used in mining ores, not killing people.
God's in his heaven. All's right with the world.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
Link |
by yumeNOnaka
on 2005-09-02 20:54:34
| ||
|
Hmmm... yeah... i think the true human war is them ego self... so if human defeat this ego... human can life in peace forever. but human ego is the biggest monsters even godzzila... ^^ just a little of them who success defeat the ego...
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
I forgot where the phrase comes from but my teacher once retold to our class that quote, which was that "war was fought first with swords and spears, then guns, then a-bomb, then spears". War is really fought for a few number of reasons: greed, power, ideology. Either you fight a war coz you want someone else's land (invasion), or you want to gain power in the world, or because you want your own view to be the only one. I think Gundam Seed and Gundam Seed Destiny tells these reasons for war quite well. |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
That's a really good quote. I have a similar one, made by Albert Einstein (I think)--"I don't know what World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with rocks." War has been a recognized part of life for thousands of years, but with each new weapon, war becomes even more destructive, not less. So far, we haven't been seeing a lot of that, because there really hasn't been a full-scale war between industrialized nations since World War II ended. Wars since then have mostly either been guerilla in nature (like the Vietnam war) or fairly low intensity, such as the Gulf war--the Iraqi forces were crushed with hardly any resistance. Or, of course, wars between two third world countries. If two major industrialized nations really went at it today, the war wouldn't be fought with rifles--it would be fought with jet fighters, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, tanks, machine guns, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, and spy satellites. And maybe even nuclear weapons. The results, even without nukes, would be apocalyptic. Bombers would level entire cities, and the tanks would grind what was left to powder. That's exactly why there hasn't been this type of conflict since World War II ended--politcians might be stupid, but they're not that stupid. Still, the primary causes of any war are shortage of resources and population pressure, and the world's population is growing at a tremendous pace, which in turn is using up huge amounts of resources. We may not be able to avoid World War III forever. And I'm not sorry for the long post, so if it burned your eyes out, tough :P  |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
sheesh, if it wasn't for my knowledge of home-row and keyboarding, i wouldn't be able to type this entry, considering that oldcrow has thus burned out my eyeballs. anyway, yeah. the fact is that things escalate until they can't go any higher, and then an ultimate sort of problem-solving thing is supposed to happen, and that usually involves lots of people being killed in an unjustified manner. then it goes back to the beginning, and the tension gets higher. again, and again, and again.
nya........... hehe.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
Link |
by
on 2005-09-05 15:53:50 |
|
Togther we Ranger and Rin Rin You boys talk about war, I'm going to bake some cookies. Ranger I like science, I don't like war. I spent 18 yrs in the USAF as a BombNav. My job basically was to tell the pilot go here and let me look at this place. If it was the right place I would blow it up. When I got started in Vietnam blowing things up we would fly in carrying about 16000lbs of ordi usually high explosive (HE) Mk-82 iron bombs or napalm. Napalm easy to use, just let it go and it destroys everything, you don't even have too be close. Iron bombs however you have to get in close to see what your target is and drop them right on top. Aerial combat (ACM) meant you had to get within 3-5 miles of your enemy and hope you got on his tail long enough for a missile to lock-on and be launched. If you were lucky you hit something. That's why they're called miss-iles. Early Sparrows weren't much better. Radar missiles good to about 7-10 miles. In a fighter that's knife fighting range. In the late 70s and 80s the new AIM-9M Sidwinders (heatseekers) didn't need to be shot up the wazoo any more and you could do it from further out and from any angle. The longer range AIM-120 AMRAAM radar guided missiles were faster and had lots of of ranger. Now combat has moved out to the 20-30 miles. I know longer have to see him to kill him and kill him I will. Advancements in radar now allowed the tracking of up to 16 targets and allowed the lock-on and shoot down of up to 8 at once. The maximum amount of missiles a dogfighter carries. Bombs got better as well, now instead of having to be on the target a laser pod called a LANTIRN would spot and desiognate a target. *pickle* and from 30,000 feet of altitude 10 miles away you can now drop HE into a window. Don't need to be close and you don't need to worry about collateral damage or eneamy air defenses. they can't reach you. Science marches on. New versions of the AIM-120 and CnC or AWACs planes guide you in. No longer any need for you to expose yourself to the enemy with your radar. Missile steering signals come from a plane 150 miles away watching the battlefield. You see what the AWACS radar sees on your radar screen. All you have to do is designate the target and launch. 1 minute later "Splash one bandit". You don't even need your own radar until the very last minute so by then even if the bad guy detects you it's too late because you closed to 30 seconds flight time for an ultra supersonic missile. Science in war keeps troops alive, in the air and on the ground. Still it's a grunt with a rifle that has to take the objective. No war has ever been won by air or naval power. There has to be a guy on the ground with a sharp pointed stick. "It is not your job to die for your country. It's your job to make some other bastard die for his country". - Geo. S Patton. Rin hates war with good reason.  |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
There is never a good reason to start a War between nations, take for example Vietnam and Iraq, the US invaded them for their selfish reasons. The truth is, there is a bigger chance of starting another holocaust with the advance of science,and we are still the primitives that fight selfishly with sticks and stones. Only we are using guns and machines now. |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
ooh, that sounds good! *follows rin into kitchen and makes cookies* ... crap, i'm being domesticated! hehe, just joking.
nya........... hehe.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
I agree with nejigirl, cookies are better than war anyday. But if the world's population keeps ballooning out of control, then war will become harder and harder to avoid. |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
... and it will be harder to preserve the environment, too. or at least respect it. *nibbles cookie, gives cookies to everyone on the thread*
nya........... hehe.
|
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
*Thanks nejigirl and eats some cookies* The impact on the environment and it's flora and fauna can be devastating with modern weapons, we just have to keep trusting the governments to not attack each other. Still, better weapons are being made, and more destructive power in on the way. And they can all kiss my shiny *eats a bunch of cookies* anffmmfm mfmfms mnmmffmmm.... |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
*Knocks... Greets everyone... Grabs a coo... was going to grab a cookie... but unfortunately ran out...* Conflicts are based on a lot of things... Race,Religion,Social Status, etc... The only day that the world will truly unite/help each other is when something threatens our very existance... World Peace? doubt it... Evil is part of a perfect sphere... we cant live without it... (unfortunately)  Kneel Before the Great and Benevolent Cow! |
|
Re: Science for war ?
|
|
aww! i feel bad about the cookies, i'm sorry!
nya........... hehe.
|
Go to page: 0,
1 Displaying 1 to 20 of 37 Entries.