What tangible benefits can be seen from advances in military technology?

[archcommus]

Are we seeing less wars?
Less military deaths in wars (per month/per year compared to 30, 50 years ago)?
How about less civilian casualities?
Cheaper wars? No way.

Does all the tech really even help in the end?

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Are we seeing less wars?
Less military deaths in wars (per month/per year compared to 30, 50 years ago)?
How about less civilian casualities?
Cheaper wars? No way.

Does all the tech really even help in the end?

The other guys die more often than our guys die.

 

[Rage187]

no more groud troops

a time will come when we can surround a city, focus some weapon on it to drive out all inhabitants without having to enter said city.

We then send in drones to root out those who were immune to the weapon and take them out.

 

[sjvlad]

Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

 

[George P Burdell]

Mark my words, one day somebody will come up with some weapons with AI that will go evil for no reason and wipe us out.

Then again, I'd be dead long before this ever happens, so I could care less.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

Oh my I can't believe you said that..... getting facts..

Current Iraq US war dead 3209

WW2 US Casualties 418,500.

I still can't believe you said that.... the numbers are not good huh... I can't even begin...nevermind.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

Check your sources. It took a few years for the war in Iraq to catch up with Pearl Harbor, let alone when the US actually entered WWII.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

OMG you are a fvcking idiot. Crack open some history books...

 

[Rumpltzer]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

LOL!! You're a twit!

 

[GMI]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

LOL!! You're a twit!

duh, everyone knows we suffer more casualties in iraq than we did from WWI, WWII, WWIII and WWIV combined

 

[sjvlad]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: sjvlad

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

Hmm, I see that.

If you asked me out of the blue I couldn't even venture a guess how many were lost in WWII. If you asked me how many were lost in Iraq I knew it was around 3000 since I heard we topped that recently. Would have never guessed that the figure was that high for WWII. Do I care that I had no idea of the ballpark figure? Not really.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

Hmm, I see that.

If you asked me out of the blue I couldn't even venture a guess how many were lost in WWII. If you asked me out many were lost in Iraq I knew it was around 3000 since I heard we topped that recently. Would have never guessed that the figure was that high for WWII. Do I care that I had no idea of the ballpark figure? Not really.

Congratulations, you're a model citizen.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

Hmm, I see that.

If you asked me out of the blue I couldn't even venture a guess how many were lost in WWII. If you asked me out many were lost in Iraq I knew it was around 3000 since I heard we topped that recently. Would have never guessed that the figure was that high for WWII. Do I care that I had no idea of the ballpark figure? Not really.

Congratulations, you're a model citizen.

Indeed I am. I know sh!t about politics, world events, and history. My father is very disappointed about that because those are his three biggest interests.

Does that make me a "fvcking idiot?" Well considering the other things I accomplish I'd have to say no. But it sure does make me dumb when it comes to history and current events.

 

[BigJ]

Considering the development of military technology has helped bring about some of the greatest advances in the modern world (computers, RADAR, advances in aircrafts anyone?), I have no doubt that the application of military technology in the civilian world will bring benefits in the future.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

Hmm, I see that.

If you asked me out of the blue I couldn't even venture a guess how many were lost in WWII. If you asked me out many were lost in Iraq I knew it was around 3000 since I heard we topped that recently. Would have never guessed that the figure was that high for WWII. Do I care that I had no idea of the ballpark figure? Not really.

Congratulations, you're a model citizen.

Indeed I am. I know sh!t about politics, world events, and history. My father is very disappointed about that because those are his three biggest interests.

Does that make me a "fvcking idiot?" Well considering the other things I accomplish I'd have to say no. But it sure does make me dumb when it comes to history and current events.

The fact that you think that more people have died in Iraq than in WORLD WAR F**KING TWO makes you a "fvcking idiot."

- M4H

 

[archcommus]

Ahh I remember where I pulled that ridiculous statement from. I recently heard on the news that the war in Iraq has now LASTED longer than WWII, or at least our involvement in WWII. Obviously not casualities, which I was way way off on and didn't stop to think for one second before typing that. I know that doesn't redeem myself, just figured I'd say it.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

Hmm, I see that.

If you asked me out of the blue I couldn't even venture a guess how many were lost in WWII. If you asked me out many were lost in Iraq I knew it was around 3000 since I heard we topped that recently. Would have never guessed that the figure was that high for WWII. Do I care that I had no idea of the ballpark figure? Not really.

Congratulations, you're a model citizen.

Indeed I am. I know sh!t about politics, world events, and history. My father is very disappointed about that because those are his three biggest interests.

Does that make me a "fvcking idiot?" Well considering the other things I accomplish I'd have to say no. But it sure does make me dumb when it comes to history and current events.

The fact that you think that more people have died in Iraq than in WORLD WAR F**KING TWO makes you a "fvcking idiot."

- M4H

Of course it's absolutely ridiculous to think that. If you asked me "Which war did more people die in?" and I legitimately thought it was Iraq, I would agree with you. But instead I hastily recalled a recent news blurb and didn't stop to think about what I was actually saying.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Of course it's absolutely ridiculous to think that. If you asked me "Which war did more people die in?" and I legitimately thought it was Iraq, I would agree with you. But instead I hastily recalled a recent news blurb and didn't stop to think about what I was actually saying.

So you're a mindless sheep instead of a "fvcking idiot." Way to take a step up :thumbsup:

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: archcommus
Of course it's absolutely ridiculous to think that. If you asked me "Which war did more people die in?" and I legitimately thought it was Iraq, I would agree with you. But instead I hastily recalled a recent news blurb and didn't stop to think about what I was actually saying.

So you're a mindless sheep instead of a "fvcking idiot." Way to take a step up :thumbsup:

When I'm posting on forums, yes, sometimes that's the absolute truth. Not gonna deny that.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Of course it's absolutely ridiculous to think that. If you asked me "Which war did more people die in?" and I legitimately thought it was Iraq, I would agree with you. But instead I hastily recalled a recent news blurb and didn't stop to think about what I was actually saying.

That's what you get for taking your news in sound-bite format.

I respectfully suggest you crack open a history book or two - not just to appease your old man, but to give yourself a bit more perspective on military history.

- M4H

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: archcommus
Of course it's absolutely ridiculous to think that. If you asked me "Which war did more people die in?" and I legitimately thought it was Iraq, I would agree with you. But instead I hastily recalled a recent news blurb and didn't stop to think about what I was actually saying.

That's what you get for taking your news in sound-bite format.

I respectfully suggest you crack open a history book or two - not just to appease your old man, but to give yourself a bit more perspective on military history.

- M4H

Agree and agreed. That's the other thing he hates that I don't do, read the newspaper.

 

[Manuwell]

Talking about War Casualties/Fatalities...

I've always been told that it was better to have an wounded/hurt enemy than a dead enemy because the dead one doesn't need as much resources/money/help as the wounded one.

Are the military guns less.. "deadly" than the non-military guns ?

What do you guys think ?

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: sjvlad
Sure they're not cutting down on the number of armed conflicts we take part in. That's really not the point though; people we're fighting will still be making advances in technology, even if we sit on our collective butts.

Right now we enjoy a significant tech advantage vs almost any other country. This lets maintain a very nice ratio of our soldier's deaths compared to theirs. I'd say that's what the tech is really about.

I don't know, haven't there been more American soldier casualties from Iraq than there were from WWII? All while costing billions more? Even if the "ratio" is good, the numbers still aren't pretty with all the advances in tech we've enjoyed.

As multiple people above me have said, no.

There is a bit of a spread between the two still

Hmm, I see that.

If you asked me out of the blue I couldn't even venture a guess how many were lost in WWII. If you asked me out many were lost in Iraq I knew it was around 3000 since I heard we topped that recently. Would have never guessed that the figure was that high for WWII. Do I care that I had no idea of the ballpark figure? Not really.

Congratulations, you're a model citizen.

There is no way he can be of a reasonable age and have said the things he's said. We lost over 4,000 troops in one battle , taking Iwo Jima. He must still be incredibly young, I can only hope when he gets to sixth grade, they teach him a thing or two.