5 ms·
Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great. Or just start building the next version already!
by deletes 13y ago
Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great.
Or just start building the next version already!
- Zancarius 13y ago> Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great. That's because you're seeing it through the lens of our time. Remember, the B-2, and many other programs including the F-22, were devised during the trailing end of the Cold War (edit: that's actually a lie; the call for contracts and other such nonsense that would lead to the B-2 started in the 70s, and the F-22 program had existed in some form since the very early 80s). Whatever your conviction about whether or not such things should exist, government (and their militaries) in particular has a great deal of inertia, both in terms of expenditures and policies. So while both programs were in full swing during the collapse of the USSR, that era is primarily what laid the groundwork for such expenses. Personally, I'm a fan of both. I love the hardware used in high energy physics. And I love military hardware. If I were about 15 years younger and lived in a wetter climate, I'd go outside and splash in the mud right now. ;)
- Noughmad 13y agoThe Supercoducting Supercollider was started during the Cold War too, but that didn't stop anyone from cancelling it half-way through.
- deletes 13y agoCan I just say, that Superconducting Supercollider is the most awesome name for a device ever, and should be used for the next version.
- Zancarius 13y agoThen they should hire Ellen McLain, the voice actress who did GLaDoS, to narrate a documentary on the Super-conducting Super-collider.