6 ms·

I agree on at least the first half of your statement. Although I'm not sure I'd say 'delusional' as much as - I don't know? - Jingoistic? Bombastic? I feel like

I agree on at least the first half of your statement. Although I'm not sure I'd say 'delusional' as much as - I don't know? - Jingoistic? Bombastic? I feel like I should be playing Command and Conquer to that sound track. At the end of the day, these are killing machines that are being designed to take human lives, and it does feel more than a bit inappropriate. I think that's what you're getting at with the latter half.

ch4s3 7y ago
Jingoistic is exactly the word that came to mind as I watched the video.
- spookybones 7y ago
  Perhaps it is the appropriate word here. However, I think it undermines the bigger picture. Many of these weapon showcases are made at the behest of weapon companies, the items of which are sold to the highest bidders. See Vice's coverage of SOFEX on Youtube for a good showcase of delusion.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
A friend overlaid an EDM track (Flux Pavilion if I recall) on the original test fire videos from several years ago when the prototype was located at the Virginia test site. I enjoyed the short piece of creative they remixed in the same way I enjoyed the Iron Man franchise. It’s a killing machine, but the engineer in me still deeply appreciates the advanced technology these systems are based on (energy/thermal management, power control systems). SpaceX vehicles are a firmware update away from being high precision ICBMs (and their CEO has said they’d take DoD work and build weapons systems). No one on here is calling for somber treatment of that kit and their YouTube launch streams. Condemn the action, not the tool.
- minikites 7y ago
  >Condemn the action, not the tool. So it's fine to stockpile chemical weapons as long as we don't use them because they're just a tool?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I am not foolish enough to predict the future, nor what said future will demand of us. Two nuclear weapons ended World War 2. Seconded guessing hard decisions is a privilege of existing in the future after those decisions were made, a privilege that one might not otherwise have had. Do you feel better about using a nuclear weapon over a chemical weapon? Why or why not? Once death is assured, we’re just arguing time and the experience. War in general is terrible and merciless, and should be avoided at all costs. I can be a pacifist but still want to pull out all of the stops when the devil comes knocking.
    - module0000 7y ago
      > Seconded guessing hard decisions is a privilege of existing in the future after those decisions were made, a privilege that one might not otherwise have had I dunno... I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so. My own opinion is that the same percentage today would advocate for using nuclear weapons on another populace. The problem is that the people in charge of these things aren't in the majority - they are psychopathic power-hungry war mongers. Have you ever heard of an instance where a pacifistic head of state ruled a nation, beyond Tibet? I have not - those types of people tend not to interested in becoming head of state in the first place. People who aspire to dominate a nation(ie presidents, prime ministers, emperors), don't have a huge moral leap to make(if any at all) before they are willing to murder another nation's people. tldr; anyone who is capable of being made a leader of a nation, should never be allowed to do so. they tend to be willing to murder people to get what they want, and that's generally bad for the rest of us living on planet Earth.
      - merpnderp 7y ago
        “I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so.” The 300,000 innocent Chinese civilians dying PER MONTH, the estimated 1,000,000 US soldiers estimated to die in the invasion, the countless Soviet soldiers who might have joined them in an invasion, the 10’s of millions of innocent Japanese citizens who would have died in an invasion, all might disagree with you. And weird how you mention Tibet without mentioning the slow rolling genocide taking place there thanks to their Pacifist leaders.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > "SpaceX vehicles are a firmware update away from being high precision ICBMs" While strictly speaking true, as an ICBM booster the Falcon 9 would be going on 6 decades obsolete. Cryogenic propellants for ICBMs have been obsolete since the early 60s.
  - fooker 7y ago
    Can you reach close to the payload of a falcon 9 with dry rockets though?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      An ICBM doesn't need to. An ICBM does not need to be that large. Being reliable and on demand is much more important than payload capacity. A Minuteman-III can launch with minutes of notice; you don't need to fool around with fueling it on the launchpad for a hour or more before launching it, or any of that nonsense. Because it requires less launch infrastructure, you can launch it from a greater range of locations. Being small also aids in this since it's a lot easier to move around the country. What's more, a Minuteman-III is $7 million a pop, which is a fraction of the going rate for a Falcon 9 launch. So if your aim is to chuck nukes, a Minuteman-III is plainly superior to a Falcon 9 in every respect save payload. What about payload then? A Minuteman-III can carry up to three warheads with hundreds of kilotons of power each. That's a lot of damage. The Peacekeeper missile, removed from service in 2005, could deliver up to 10 warheads. Of course that cost more, a little more than a Falcon 9 launch, but still had the advantages of being a solid fuel rocket. Still in service, the submarine launched Trident-II can carry as many as 8-14 reentry vehicles, but in practice is limited by various treaties to a fraction of that. If there was the political willpower to violate those treaties and have an ICBM carrying more warheads than either the Minuteman-III or Trident-II currently carry, they would simply put more warheads onto the Trident-II. That'd be a lot simpler than re-purposing the Falcon 9, and a lot more useful. Something else to consider though is range. Minuteman-III has enough range to hit Russia from the North, but not from the South. That might seem like a pretty severe limitation, but that's actually the way people want things to remain. Back in the 60s the Soviets designed something called the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). Basically, it was an ICBM capable of putting the warhead into orbit, giving it unlimited range. So, in essence, Russia could nuke America over the South Pole, instead of the North Pole, thereby bypassing all of the early warning systems that were looking North. Because this system was seen as a way of bypassing early warning systems, it was seen as a first strike weapon and therefore a destabilizing force. These sort of systems are now prohibited by treaty, and Falcon 9 would be in violation if it were an ICBM. But as a first strike weapon, a Falcon 9 is pretty shit. They take a long time to load and fuel, and their launch sites are high profile. A first strike is all about having the element of surprise; in an Falcon 9 FOBS/ICBM scenario, there are too many opportunities for detection. Particularly when you remember that SSBNs exist. (There is another option though. The first ICBMs (as well as the Falcon 9) used cryogenic liquid propellants, and modern ICBMs use solid propellant, but in between these two technologies was a third: storable liquid propellants. The Titan II ICBM for instance burned aerozine and n204, both of which are liquids at room temperature, therefore the Titan II can be stored in a fueled state, ready to fly. These missiles could fly on very short notice, but they're also pretty dangerous to be around.)
ufmace 7y ago
I'd say the nature of weapons tells a lot about the morality. A gas chamber designed to look like a shower is obviously only useful for murdering masses of helpless and unsuspecting people who are already under your control. I'd be willing to say that's always immoral, no matter the circumstances. A railgun is a weapon, but only really useful against ships and armored buildings or vehicles, and possibly aircraft and missiles. It's mainly for killing armed combatants in disputed areas, and can be used for good or evil. I don't see a moral problem with building them. Like any weapon, they can be used for good or evil, but some lend themselves to one or the other to an extent.

ch4s3 7y ago

Jingoistic is exactly the word that came to mind as I watched the video.

spookybones 7y ago
Perhaps it is the appropriate word here. However, I think it undermines the bigger picture. Many of these weapon showcases are made at the behest of weapon companies, the items of which are sold to the highest bidders. See Vice's coverage of SOFEX on Youtube for a good showcase of delusion.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

A friend overlaid an EDM track (Flux Pavilion if I recall) on the original test fire videos from several years ago when the prototype was located at the Virginia test site. I enjoyed the short piece of creative they remixed in the same way I enjoyed the Iron Man franchise. It’s a killing machine, but the engineer in me still deeply appreciates the advanced technology these systems are based on (energy/thermal management, power control systems). SpaceX vehicles are a firmware update away from being high precision ICBMs (and their CEO has said they’d take DoD work and build weapons systems). No one on here is calling for somber treatment of that kit and their YouTube launch streams. Condemn the action, not the tool.

minikites 7y ago
>Condemn the action, not the tool. So it's fine to stockpile chemical weapons as long as we don't use them because they're just a tool?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I am not foolish enough to predict the future, nor what said future will demand of us. Two nuclear weapons ended World War 2. Seconded guessing hard decisions is a privilege of existing in the future after those decisions were made, a privilege that one might not otherwise have had. Do you feel better about using a nuclear weapon over a chemical weapon? Why or why not? Once death is assured, we’re just arguing time and the experience. War in general is terrible and merciless, and should be avoided at all costs. I can be a pacifist but still want to pull out all of the stops when the devil comes knocking.
  - module0000 7y ago
    > Seconded guessing hard decisions is a privilege of existing in the future after those decisions were made, a privilege that one might not otherwise have had I dunno... I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so. My own opinion is that the same percentage today would advocate for using nuclear weapons on another populace. The problem is that the people in charge of these things aren't in the majority - they are psychopathic power-hungry war mongers. Have you ever heard of an instance where a pacifistic head of state ruled a nation, beyond Tibet? I have not - those types of people tend not to interested in becoming head of state in the first place. People who aspire to dominate a nation(ie presidents, prime ministers, emperors), don't have a huge moral leap to make(if any at all) before they are willing to murder another nation's people. tldr; anyone who is capable of being made a leader of a nation, should never be allowed to do so. they tend to be willing to murder people to get what they want, and that's generally bad for the rest of us living on planet Earth.
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      “I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so.” The 300,000 innocent Chinese civilians dying PER MONTH, the estimated 1,000,000 US soldiers estimated to die in the invasion, the countless Soviet soldiers who might have joined them in an invasion, the 10’s of millions of innocent Japanese citizens who would have died in an invasion, all might disagree with you. And weird how you mention Tibet without mentioning the slow rolling genocide taking place there thanks to their Pacifist leaders.
darkpuma 7y ago
> "SpaceX vehicles are a firmware update away from being high precision ICBMs" While strictly speaking true, as an ICBM booster the Falcon 9 would be going on 6 decades obsolete. Cryogenic propellants for ICBMs have been obsolete since the early 60s.
- fooker 7y ago
  Can you reach close to the payload of a falcon 9 with dry rockets though?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    An ICBM doesn't need to. An ICBM does not need to be that large. Being reliable and on demand is much more important than payload capacity. A Minuteman-III can launch with minutes of notice; you don't need to fool around with fueling it on the launchpad for a hour or more before launching it, or any of that nonsense. Because it requires less launch infrastructure, you can launch it from a greater range of locations. Being small also aids in this since it's a lot easier to move around the country. What's more, a Minuteman-III is $7 million a pop, which is a fraction of the going rate for a Falcon 9 launch. So if your aim is to chuck nukes, a Minuteman-III is plainly superior to a Falcon 9 in every respect save payload. What about payload then? A Minuteman-III can carry up to three warheads with hundreds of kilotons of power each. That's a lot of damage. The Peacekeeper missile, removed from service in 2005, could deliver up to 10 warheads. Of course that cost more, a little more than a Falcon 9 launch, but still had the advantages of being a solid fuel rocket. Still in service, the submarine launched Trident-II can carry as many as 8-14 reentry vehicles, but in practice is limited by various treaties to a fraction of that. If there was the political willpower to violate those treaties and have an ICBM carrying more warheads than either the Minuteman-III or Trident-II currently carry, they would simply put more warheads onto the Trident-II. That'd be a lot simpler than re-purposing the Falcon 9, and a lot more useful. Something else to consider though is range. Minuteman-III has enough range to hit Russia from the North, but not from the South. That might seem like a pretty severe limitation, but that's actually the way people want things to remain. Back in the 60s the Soviets designed something called the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). Basically, it was an ICBM capable of putting the warhead into orbit, giving it unlimited range. So, in essence, Russia could nuke America over the South Pole, instead of the North Pole, thereby bypassing all of the early warning systems that were looking North. Because this system was seen as a way of bypassing early warning systems, it was seen as a first strike weapon and therefore a destabilizing force. These sort of systems are now prohibited by treaty, and Falcon 9 would be in violation if it were an ICBM. But as a first strike weapon, a Falcon 9 is pretty shit. They take a long time to load and fuel, and their launch sites are high profile. A first strike is all about having the element of surprise; in an Falcon 9 FOBS/ICBM scenario, there are too many opportunities for detection. Particularly when you remember that SSBNs exist. (There is another option though. The first ICBMs (as well as the Falcon 9) used cryogenic liquid propellants, and modern ICBMs use solid propellant, but in between these two technologies was a third: storable liquid propellants. The Titan II ICBM for instance burned aerozine and n204, both of which are liquids at room temperature, therefore the Titan II can be stored in a fueled state, ready to fly. These missiles could fly on very short notice, but they're also pretty dangerous to be around.)

ufmace 7y ago

I'd say the nature of weapons tells a lot about the morality. A gas chamber designed to look like a shower is obviously only useful for murdering masses of helpless and unsuspecting people who are already under your control. I'd be willing to say that's always immoral, no matter the circumstances. A railgun is a weapon, but only really useful against ships and armored buildings or vehicles, and possibly aircraft and missiles. It's mainly for killing armed combatants in disputed areas, and can be used for good or evil. I don't see a moral problem with building them. Like any weapon, they can be used for good or evil, but some lend themselves to one or the other to an extent.