The future of humanity

[modman]

Contrary to what Transformers would have us believe, railguns are real.  You can watch them on YouTube.

And while its true North Korea's missiles are currently very limited, given a few years, they could easily develope into long range ICBMs. And N. Korea still harbors strong feelings against S. Korea, and it wouldn't surprise me if they attacked (their leader is a total mentally insane idiot... Mutually assured destruction means nothing to him!).

No offense, but it took the US a good decade to do that, and this was with very good scientists.  Rocketry is no simple matter.

Right now, the US arsenal is concentrated on high-precision attacks on strategic centers.  This would work both in conventional warfare and in Afghan guerrilla warfare.  So really rocketry is more important than a high payload; one compensates for the other (i.e. a high payload means you need less precision).

[Omega]

Indeed, but you must remember, things these days are produced faster than ever. As I said in a past post, it took thousands of years to go from the wheel to the automobile, but only decades to go from the auto to the space shuttle. In the same theory, countries could develope missiles faster thanks to more advanced technology, and stupid people in other countries no securing their secrets well enough.

I do agree though, that high precession rocketry is very important. In the past, it wasn't uncommon to miss a target completely, which could be disasterous, potentially killing allied soldiers (friendly fire ain't) or innocent civilians (which, while nobody cared about in the WW's, is the crucial point of the Afganistan missions).

[wyvern]

Mistakes happen and what you are describing(missing the target completely) did not happen as much as you make it out to have happened.

[Omega]

Mistakes happen and what you are describing(missing the target completely) did not happen as much as you make it out to have happened.

True, but they still happened, and really, friendly fire (in general) is a very nasty thing. Nothing's worse than being shot in the back (accidently) by your own ally.

[-Archmage-]

Quote from: -Archmage- on August 10, 2010, 09:38:48
Quote
Giving people power to harm other people, does not create peace.
It does actually. The Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if that was true. America dropped the bomb, it desvasted Japan, and they knew they couldn't stand up against that kind of power, so they surrendered. Japan stopped fighting, did you notice that, peace was gained.
Although you're fundamentally correct, you don't have to make it that complicated.  There's a reason police officers carry weapons.  At potentially violent protests, they send in those officers to keep peace.

Agreed.

Quote from: -Archmage- on August 10, 2010, 09:38:48
Quote
Nothing is worth killing for.
Oh, so if some terrorist decides that he wants to hit the Eastern US coast with some bombs he's acquired, that's not worth killing to stop? We're just supposed to sit there and cry and play victim?
Unfortunately, what psychedelic does not understand is that pacifism only works under a mutual agreement.  If everyone promised not to kill, it would be much simpler.  But nature doesn't work that way.  If all trees in a forest agreed to grow only three meters tall, it would be much better for all trees; nature is, however, constant competition.

Good point.

[Gabbe]

You can put war like this, odd comparison but still..

Linux is free and fast, if all use Linux more programs come to Linux, but it doesn`t help that Linux is free and fast when alot of the pop not use it.

Pacifism is good, if all be pacificst more peace will be, but it doesn`t help that pacifism is good when alot of the pop not use it.

[Mark]

That is not true do you know that the longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan

You are really giving me a headache.  May I resurrect the days of double facepalm?
Read my words this time:

One must take into consideration that modern wars proper do not take as long as the wars of yesteryear, as modern technology (aircraft, aircraft carriers and motor vehicles) allows armies to cross countries in mere days, not weeks.  People could cite the extended conflicts in the middle east, but this is not war proper.  In war proper, even in modern times, if an enemy occupies a country, the people of the country have to evacuate from the advance of enemy soldiers, or they are pushed to the side or taken hostage, and sometimes killed.  In Afghanistan, we cannot do that because we do not face a global threat like that of nukes, and the reigning government (Karzai and the rest of his lackeys) has a serious problem with us.

Additionally, you should read up on your American history.
From Wikipedia.org:

The Vietnam War [A 2] was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 [A 1], to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the capitalist United States and other capitalist nations.[18]

[wyvern]

That is not true do you know that the longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan

You are really giving me a headache.  May I resurrect the days of double facepalm?
Read my words this time:

One must take into consideration that modern wars proper do not take as long as the wars of yesteryear, as modern technology (aircraft, aircraft carriers and motor vehicles) allows armies to cross countries in mere days, not weeks.  People could cite the extended conflicts in the middle east, but this is not war proper.  In war proper, even in modern times, if an enemy occupies a country, the people of the country have to evacuate from the advance of enemy soldiers, or they are pushed to the side or taken hostage, and sometimes killed.  In Afghanistan, we cannot do that because we do not face a global threat like that of nukes, and the reigning government (Karzai and the rest of his lackeys) has a serious problem with us.

Additionally, you should read up on your American history.
From Wikipedia.org:

The Vietnam War [A 2] was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 [A 1], to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the capitalist United States and other capitalist nations.[18]

Sorry for the first one I realized it too late and was too lazy to change it later, and what do you mean read up on your american history and I don't even think we've discussed vietnam in this topic

[Gabbe]

He ment

longest war the US has been involved in is the most recent. its the one in Afghanistan

Is wrong because

The Vietnam War [A 2] was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 [A 1], to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the capitalist United States and other capitalist nations.[18]

??

[Mark]

Clearly, the Vietnam War was the longest war.

[wyvern]

Hate to break this to you but your wrong there the US has been in afghanistan since what 2001 and the US first sent advisors and any sort of armed troops to Vietnam in roughly 1964-5 it then fought till 1972(officially) after which the troops were withdrawn that makes up a 8 year period in which the US was involved. In the stuff prior to this the US involvement was little or none existent. what you wrote down is how long the conflict there raged but I'm talking about how long the US was involved.

[Mark]

I see what you are saying.  However, you really need to read exactly what I said.  Had you, you would have understood that the war in afghanistan is not necessarily a war proper.

[wyvern]

It technically is, its a war between the US and afghani government versus Al-quaeda and taliban, I'd say its pretty much like the vietnam war in the way its fought.

[Omega]

I'm not very familiar with american history, and canada didn't participate in the vietnam war, but... didn't you guys...lose?

Also, I'm not sure if this is true, but I recall reading somewhere about how the Taliban was originally created by USA to stop the Russians from trying to communist-ize afghanistan.

[Psychedelic_hands]

Longest war? I think you guys might be forgeting the Korean War.....

I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise. I get that there is stupid people but even then, stupid people understand completely rational thought. Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.

[Gabbe]

Longest war? I think you guys might be forgeting the Korean War.....

The longest containing atleast one US troop.

I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise. I get that there is stupid people but even then, stupid people understand completely rational thought. Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.

=====>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You can put war like this, odd comparison but still..

Linux is free and fast, if all use Linux more programs come to Linux, but it doesn`t help that Linux is free and fast when alot of the pop not use it.

Pacifism is good, if all be pacificst more peace will be, but it doesn`t help that pacifism is good when alot of the pop not use it.

[-Archmage-]

stupid people understand completely rational thought

Oh they do? What do you think makes stupid people stupid then? .

I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise.

Because we have minds of our own and some people want more than rational compromise.

Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.

Try applying that to the real world, it just doesn't work that way.

[wyvern]

Longest war? I think you guys might be forgeting the Korean War.....

I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise. I get that there is stupid people but even then, stupid people understand completely rational thought. Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.

the korean war only lasted three years for he US though I think its still being fought officially at least

[Omega]

Hmm, Canada fought in the Korean war... I know a few local memorials to it...

South Korea wouldn't have survived if not for other countries. In fact, there was more foreign soldiers than south korea's own army!

[modman]

Hmm, Canada fought in the Korean war... I know a few local memorials to it...

South Korea wouldn't have survived if not for other countries. In fact, there was more foreign soldiers than south korea's own army!

Yeah . . . that's why it's called a proxy war.  The Cold War was not just a long standoff.  It was a bunch of smaller military conflicts with capitalists fighting communists.

[Psychedelic_hands]

stupid people understand completely rational thought

Oh they do? What do you think makes stupid people stupid then? .

Not being able to conclude to ration thought themselves, does not mean completely ration thought cannot be understood.

I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise.

Because we have minds of our own and some people want more than rational compromise.

I don't quite get what you're saying? You mean people are evil and greedy?
Well then those people shouldn't have power. Simple as that.

Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.

Try applying that to the real world, it just doesn't work that way.

I have, I've resolved tones of arguments before. Depends on the on the words.

[-Archmage-]

Quote from: -Archmage- on August 17, 2010, 11:11:57
Quote
stupid people understand completely rational thought

Oh they do? What do you think makes stupid people stupid then? Tongue.

Not being able to conclude to ration thought themselves, does not mean completely ration thought cannot be understood.

So when trying to compromise with a stupid person, they will understand the offer, and make an irrational offer/demand in return.

Quote
Quote
I just don't get why people use violence instead of rational compromise.

Because we have minds of our own and some people want more than rational compromise. Roll Eyes
I don't quite get what you're saying? You mean people are evil and greedy?
Well then those people shouldn't have power. Simple as that.

Well you've got to have a LOT of power to stop them. It's not like they come up and say, "I take over", they gloss they way around, lying, buying people off, using bad reasons to avoid problems and to get rid of things/people they don't like. So a lot of times, you don't notice tyrants, and power-hungry people until they get what they want, and start doing bad things that show.

Quote
Quote
Violence only leads to more violence, words lead to love.

Try applying that to the real world, it just doesn't work that way. No Opinion

I have, I've resolved tones of arguments before. Depends on the on the words.

If "violence only leads to more violence" were true, than wars would be never-ending. They aren't.
If "words lead to love" were true then why is it that what people say to each other, can start a conflict(sometimes violent)? Words are powerful, they can create violence more easily than they can create peace.

[Gabbe]

psych, its not like peace isn good and stuff, but it won be achieveable.

[Omega]

Is Canada and the US at peace? If so, its achievable, if not, our tanks are ready (ok, that was a bad joke).

Really, who are we to predict the future? Things change too much over time. If you tried to mention the idea of a piece of metal on wheels moving without horses (a car) to some one two hundred years ago, they'd probably laugh at you.

[Gabbe]

Then again, it is achieveable at a minimal rate, i thought you got what i ment. But total peace isn very likely nor achieveable. I mean, todays conflicts might get solved, but tomorrow there is new ones...