3 ms·

Well, for one thing, that srticle describes a future warship and ammunition that is not yet in service, so it is incorrect to suggest anyone is 'currently shoot

by grkvlt 10y ago

Well, for one thing, that srticle describes a future warship and ammunition that is not yet in service, so it is incorrect to suggest anyone is 'currently shooting [...] at people in caves' with it. However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. But, this sort of logic is flawed to begin with: We spend X on Y, which I disapprove of, therefore we should spend epsilon on Z instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_...

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
It not a "future" warship. Its an existing warship that keeps breaking down, despite the fact that its new and cost $4.4 billion to make. It just broke down again in the Panama Canal. That's a picture of the actual, existing-in-the-present ship. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-breaks-down-pacific-transit.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-br... >However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. Except for the fact that that justification is false. We've spent over $5 Trillion fighting the fictional "war on terror" in the 15 years since 9/11 and by every measurable metric there are more "terrorists" (people who would like to attack us) today then there were on 9/11. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-5-trillion-spent-on-iraq-afghanistan-wars-so-far.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-... This dwarfs by many orders of magnitudes the total science funding spent by the government since the government was formed. Its absurd to discuss "waste" or "inefficiency" in any context, let alone a tiny expenditure for investigating the EM drive, while ignoring the elephant in the room. The phrase "penny wise pound foolish" applies to that line of thought.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  > It not a "future" warship. Its an existing warship that keeps breaking down, despite the fact that its new and cost $4.4 billion to make. It just broke down again in the Panama Canal. That's a picture of the actual, existing-in-the-present ship. It's in the Panama Canal going from it shipyard to homeport. It isn't yet in service. Apparently the combat systems are not even installed yet. I believe that is what your parent poster means. [1] [1] http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-breaks-down-in-panama-canal/ http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-breaks-down-in-...

by grkvlt 10y ago

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

It not a "future" warship. Its an existing warship that keeps breaking down, despite the fact that its new and cost $4.4 billion to make. It just broke down again in the Panama Canal. That's a picture of the actual, existing-in-the-present ship. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-breaks-down-pacific-transit.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-br... >However, the justification (OK, a justification) for that action, as part of the war on terror (I believe this is your implication, based on the 'caves' reference) would be that the insured costs of 9/11 were around USD 40 billion [1] (ignoring the unknown intangible additional cost in human life) so spending USD 800000 to kill a terrorist who is planning to perform a similar event is something of a bargain. Except for the fact that that justification is false. We've spent over $5 Trillion fighting the fictional "war on terror" in the 15 years since 9/11 and by every measurable metric there are more "terrorists" (people who would like to attack us) today then there were on 9/11. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-5-trillion-spent-on-iraq-afghanistan-wars-so-far.html http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/13/report-nearly-... This dwarfs by many orders of magnitudes the total science funding spent by the government since the government was formed. Its absurd to discuss "waste" or "inefficiency" in any context, let alone a tiny expenditure for investigating the EM drive, while ignoring the elephant in the room. The phrase "penny wise pound foolish" applies to that line of thought.

Amezarak 10y ago
> It not a "future" warship. Its an existing warship that keeps breaking down, despite the fact that its new and cost $4.4 billion to make. It just broke down again in the Panama Canal. That's a picture of the actual, existing-in-the-present ship. It's in the Panama Canal going from it shipyard to homeport. It isn't yet in service. Apparently the combat systems are not even installed yet. I believe that is what your parent poster means. [1] [1] http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-breaks-down-in-panama-canal/ http://navaltoday.com/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-breaks-down-in-...