4 ms·

This kind of progress saddens me. Who is going to be the target of this weapon? Also think in all the human and material resources involved in creating this, i

by ogig 13y ago

This kind of progress saddens me. Who is going to be the target of this weapon? Also think in all the human and material resources involved in creating this, i can't help thinking how many "good actions" could be done instead. How many medical supplies, food and clean water could be distributed with the $$$ used in the development and usage of this. I'm probably just a naive pacifist, but I think the world would be a better place if Americans stop producing weapons. Especially of this kind. I appreciate the amazing science behind the nuclear bomb, drones or railguns, but i would rather keep it on the scifi parcel and wish the were never created for real. Again, I'm probably naive.

chiph 13y ago
The military would agree with you. After all, they're the ones with the greatest chance of getting killed in a conflict. The problem is the policy makers tend to regard them as the first option (when they should be the last) for a number of reasons. The first one in my mind is because the number of senators and congressmen with children in the military can probably be counted on less than two hands. None of them would publicly state that they want to see Americans killed in a war, but their actions say different. Dunbar's Number[0] at work. The other reason is that the US military is amazingly successful. They've fought a two-front war, one against the fifth largest army on the planet, and defeated all opponents. And did it without putting the entire country on a war footing (conscription, entire industries being converted, and so on). So (from the politician's view), why not hand the problem over to someone who can get stuff done? Lastly - As much as I'd like to believe the world is full of potential friends, if only we could meet and talk -- the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who hate us. Many of them because we killed a relative or friend. But some because we don't live up to their expectations. As weird as that may be. Consequently, a strong means of national defense is required. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
holograham 13y ago
what is counter intuitive about the defense industry is that the development of new weapons like this (and the other weapons you have mentioned) have actually increased peace in the world. Certainly not the ONLY reason to be fair. A great book on this is "The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined" by Stephen Pinker. I recommend any pacifist (really anyone) read this book. While we hear about the immense destructive power of new weapons, the reality is that they are seldom used. Most of our Defense budget is building an army that no one would dare attack. It is like our nuclear bomb policy -- 100% guaranteed retaliatory strike(s) but no first strike. This project is designed to replace expensive missiles with (relatively) inexpensive inert metal slugs that yield the same capabilities (range, stopping power, etc). This is most definitely a program that would lower costs and increase discretionary funding outside of the military.

by ogig 13y ago

chiph 13y ago

The military would agree with you. After all, they're the ones with the greatest chance of getting killed in a conflict. The problem is the policy makers tend to regard them as the first option (when they should be the last) for a number of reasons. The first one in my mind is because the number of senators and congressmen with children in the military can probably be counted on less than two hands. None of them would publicly state that they want to see Americans killed in a war, but their actions say different. Dunbar's Number[0] at work. The other reason is that the US military is amazingly successful. They've fought a two-front war, one against the fifth largest army on the planet, and defeated all opponents. And did it without putting the entire country on a war footing (conscription, entire industries being converted, and so on). So (from the politician's view), why not hand the problem over to someone who can get stuff done? Lastly - As much as I'd like to believe the world is full of potential friends, if only we could meet and talk -- the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who hate us. Many of them because we killed a relative or friend. But some because we don't live up to their expectations. As weird as that may be. Consequently, a strong means of national defense is required. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

holograham 13y ago

what is counter intuitive about the defense industry is that the development of new weapons like this (and the other weapons you have mentioned) have actually increased peace in the world. Certainly not the ONLY reason to be fair. A great book on this is "The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined" by Stephen Pinker. I recommend any pacifist (really anyone) read this book. While we hear about the immense destructive power of new weapons, the reality is that they are seldom used. Most of our Defense budget is building an army that no one would dare attack. It is like our nuclear bomb policy -- 100% guaranteed retaliatory strike(s) but no first strike. This project is designed to replace expensive missiles with (relatively) inexpensive inert metal slugs that yield the same capabilities (range, stopping power, etc). This is most definitely a program that would lower costs and increase discretionary funding outside of the military.