Navy Tests Incredible Sci-Fi Weapon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Navy Sci-fi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent test firing of a new electromagnetic railgun by the U.S. Navy, exploring its technological advancements and implications. Participants also touch on the concept of environmentally friendly explosives and engage in broader reflections on military spending versus social issues, including cancer research.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express excitement about the railgun's capabilities, noting its potential to fire projectiles at high speeds and long distances.
  • Others question the necessity and ethical implications of developing such powerful weapons, suggesting that resources could be better spent on peaceful initiatives.
  • There are discussions about the environmental impact of new explosives being developed in Germany, with some participants highlighting their potential advantages.
  • Several participants reflect on the broader context of military spending compared to funding for cancer research, raising concerns about priorities in government spending.
  • Technical aspects of railgun operation are discussed, including energy storage methods and the challenges associated with high-speed projectiles.
  • Some participants share personal anecdotes related to railgun technology and its experimentation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of enthusiasm for the technological advancements of the railgun and skepticism regarding the ethical implications of such military developments. There is no consensus on the appropriateness of military spending versus social spending, with competing views presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions regarding the effectiveness and necessity of military technology, as well as the ethical considerations surrounding military expenditures compared to social issues like health research funding. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives without resolving the underlying disagreements.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in military technology, ethical implications of weaponry, environmental impacts of explosives, and the relationship between government spending priorities may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
So how viable would it be to launch a nuke with a rail gun so that it wasn't detectable until it exploded ala Metal Gear Solid?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
humanino said:
I did
  • The US did not seem to care to much about Europe until Pearl Harbor
  • Answering to the idea that "others" rely on the US to "do the dirty work for them", I am referring to events after WWII, when, for instance, France left the direction of NATO precisely not to rely and depend on the US
And I knew it was provocative.

Again, the US vs. the Soviets.
 
  • #33
humanino said:
I did. The US did not seem to care to much about Europe until Pearl Harbor. And I knew it was provocative.
The US cared, but the huge losses of life in WWI had spurred an isolationalist movement that gave the politicians an up-hill battle in arguing for intervention.

Q: Why do the French have their roads lined with trees?
A: So the Germans can march in the shade.

Continental dynamic have given rise to regional conflicts. The poor economic conditions in Germany after WWI gave rise to rabid nationalism and the rise of the Nazis and Hitler. Economic aid and cooperation might have staved off that development. I am sorry to say that the current administration in the US is devoted to engaging in economic sanctions, embargoes, and diplomatic isolationism directed at nations they don't like. That is the PRIME recipe for supporting nationalism, radicalism, and reactionary movements in one's enemies.
 
  • #34
turbo-1 said:
Q: Why do the French have their roads lined with trees?
A: So the Germans can march in the shade.
That's a good one :rolleyes:

Another aspect of the problem, claiming you are tired "to pay for the others". Most of this money invested in the military system is certainly not lost into thin air. Actually, this is a pretty good way to sustain economy. Even a good war on someone else's land is an excellent investement, despite local claims from people such as researchers, whom we can safely (temporarilly ?) ignore.

I certainly do not agree that "other countries" consider the US as a good back up plan to protect them and therefore would lower their own military budget. Such a strategy would be insane, especially now.
 

Similar threads

Boeing How Does Boeing's CHAMP Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon Work?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K