Well, we're going to war, so POST AWESOME MILITARY PICS - Page 10

Drake Tungsten · March 20, 2003, 19:41

The sanctimony knows no bounds...

Chilean President™ · March 20, 2003, 19:56

Master Zen · March 20, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Illyrien

War isnt about Death.... War is about achieving some sort of goal, that people die is an unfortunate side effect.

Soooo, the bombs that explode, that's a side efect? The bullets that are in assault gun, they kill people as a side effect?

Geez...this thread IS worse than I thought

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 19:58

Everyone, CHILL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Spiffor - the primary purpose of a weapon isn't to kill, it's to make someone else aware of your capability to do so, and thereby to (hopefully) encourage him to modify his behavior.

Obviously, weapons can be used without any good reason, and used "for the fun of it" - just murder. We're not a species such that we can all safely pick flowers or argue and never let it get beyond words. Some ******* always comes along, and figures with a rock or big stick, he can take from you what you've worked for to feed yourself, and he can get stronger while you get weaker.

The Romans never had enough manpower to conquer the world - it was spread all over the place. They did have a precision and organization and an image created by their legions that went far beyond their physical ability to do damage. Often enough (depending on the enlightenment of their leaders), that could be used to dissuade enemies from attacking.

If delusional *******s like Saddam Hussein looked at more pictures like these, did a rotation at the National Training Center, or really took an honest look at the US' warfighting capabilities, Iraq would have had a vastly different history in the last 12 years.

People are dying? So what, frankly. People have been dying there every day for decades. Political prisoners, ethnic minorities, civilians affected by Saddam's cynical manipulation of sanctions and his obscene priorities of memorializing himself.

Why isn't a photo of a bag of wheat offensive? Food is the oldest weapon known to mankind. Ask any peacekeepers or support or military personnel involved in UNISOM I, UNISOM II or UNITAF, especially if they had to (because of their damned Rules of Engagement) watch as *******s with guns came along and stole food relief from starving Somalis - making those starving people load the only food that would save them and their families onto trucks, so the *******s could sell the food and buy more weapons. Any who resisted, argued too long, or loaded too slow, was shot to pieces, along with anyone nearby.

Weapons really suck if you don't have any, and someone nastier than you does.

Master Zen · March 20, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

I'm sorry... this thread would be alright, but because of timing it is not? Umm, shouldn't something morally reprehensible be intrinsically so?

Just look at the title of the thread: Well, we're going to war, so POST AWESOME MILITARY PICS

Would you take a vietnamese girl to see Platoon on your first date?

Quote:

It's not another thing. You're just hypersensitive.

Of course I am. These are terrible times and some people don't seem to take the hint.

Quote:

Screw you.

Shouldn't even have bothered to reply...

Master Zen · March 20, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Spiffor - the primary purpose of a weapon isn't to kill, it's to make someone else aware of your capability to do so, and thereby to (hopefully) encourage him to modify his behavior.

Deterrence is always a secondary purpose. Weapons are made to kill, plain and simple. If it weren't so, none would take them seriously.

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 20:17

MtG :
You bear reasonable words as mostly. But acknowledging the need for weapons (which I don't doubt) is different with showing them under a good light, like the explicit title of this thread asks to so : showing awesome military pics.
While I disagree with the "this war is sadly necessary" argument, I can admit some people defend it. It is very different with saying "Yeah, we know weapons kill duh. Hey, look at the cool explosion !"

The very spirit of this thread is to show weapons, which are a sad necessity no doubt, under a good light (aestetics). The direct consequence, wheter wanton or not, is the glorification of these tools of destruction. This is what makes me sick. Especially at the very moment these weapons do their ugly job.

ColdWizard · March 20, 2003, 20:31

MOAB

Drake Tungsten · March 20, 2003, 20:33

That's a good looking bomb.

ColdWizard · March 20, 2003, 20:33

GBU-12 (on a Tomcat on the USS Constellation)

ColdWizard · March 20, 2003, 20:34

Tomahawk launched by the USS Florida

Chilean President™ · March 20, 2003, 20:37

great pic of the Moab Cold Wizzard

ColdWizard · March 20, 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Chilean President
great pic of the Moab Cold Wizzard

I like it too. That pic is resized, the original pic I downloaded from the Navy is significantly larger.

Chilean President™ · March 20, 2003, 20:45

I only hope that you guys don't use it in Iraq

Anyway is a really cool pic.

Here is a shot of a Humvee-Sam.

MichaeltheGreat · March 20, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

Deterrence is always a secondary purpose. Weapons are made to kill, plain and simple. If it weren't so, none would take them seriously.

Deterrence is the fundamental purpose. We spend hundreds of billions developing and deploying weapons to deter the USSR after WW2. We didn't have to kill them, and they didn't kill us.

A deterred enemy may become a future ally, or at least someone tolerable for co-existence. A dead enemy is a lot less useful.

Spiffor - "glorification" is part of that whole deterrance package. If something looks like a small cardboard box, it isn't very impressive. Big sleek phallic metal things with all sorts of shiny stuff hanging off of it makes people think, and react viscerally. The more they have that effect, the more deterrence works - assuming that whoever has the shiny phallic things isn't the murdering psycho in the crowd, in which case, everybody else better get them too. Unfortunately, that whole "look at all those toys" thing is something Saddam just didn't get - he'd rather cling to the delusion that the world didn't stomp his ass last time.

Ideally, none of this stuff would get used outside a practice range.

JCG · March 20, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Deterrence is the fundamental purpose. We spend hundreds of billions developing and deploying weapons to deter the USSR after WW2. We didn't have to kill them, and they didn't kill us.

That's about the only "good" thing Nuclear weapons ever did....

Quote:

A deterred enemy may become a future ally, or at least someone tolerable for co-existence. A dead enemy is a lot less useful.

It's interesting how, if things had turned out a little differently, that could well have been the case with Iraq....Oh well.

ThePlagueRat · March 20, 2003, 21:48

I glorify medieval combat, but since this thread is so heavily restricted I guess I will have to create another thread.

Master Zen · March 20, 2003, 23:48

Actually your pics PlagueRat were some of the only decent ones on this thread

Master Zen · March 20, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Deterrence is the fundamental purpose. We spend hundreds of billions developing and deploying weapons to deter the USSR after WW2. We didn't have to kill them, and they didn't kill us.

You built those weapons to fight the USSR if it had ever turned into a hot war. Deterrance was a natural consequence of said buildup but each weapon is made to kill. Deterrence is a political tool, a weapon's lethality is a physical scientifical fact. And this is a weapons thread not a political thread if I recall...

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 23:50

The best was undoubtedly the firefighter one

Aro · March 20, 2003, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Actually your pics PlagueRat were some of the only decent ones on this thread

Mine weren't so bad...

But you're right, PlagueRat rocks!

MichaeltheGreat · March 21, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

And this is a weapons thread not a political thread if I recall...

Actually, it's a weapons pics threat, but thank you for acknowledging that it isn't a political thread. I take it your attempts at political commentary are now finished?

Alexander's Horse · March 21, 2003, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

the primary purpose of a weapon isn't to kill

Jeez - really?

You're starting to sound like Donny Rumsfeld (and I wouldn't take that as a compliment).

ThePlagueRat · March 21, 2003, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Actually your pics PlagueRat were some of the only decent ones on this thread

Thanks man.

Including some other who are even better than mine too.
Like that swiss navy, by zopperoni.(and his avatar)

Verto · March 21, 2003, 00:20

I will resist the urge to join the debate, and instead post this:

MichaeltheGreat · March 21, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Jeez - really?

You're starting to sound like Donny Rumsfeld (and I wouldn't take that as a compliment).

How often are weapons/armies used as a deterent, vs. how often they are actually used to kill?

Aro · March 21, 2003, 00:34

From the Malvinas War:
(It's the "Antelope")

Skanky Burns · March 21, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
How often are weapons/armies used as a deterent, vs. how often they are actually used to kill?

The "deterence" of a weapon is a direct function of how well it kills. As such, it is a secondary -not primary- purpose.

Master Zen · March 21, 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Actually, it's a weapons pics threat, but thank you for acknowledging that it isn't a political thread. I take it your attempts at political commentary are now finished?

My point has been made.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 01:11

Here's a weapon that won't be hurting anyone; an Iraqi Mirage fighter...