U.S. Marines discovered more than ten metric tons of bombs!!

31

COL Gene

on Jan 07, 2006

Bush is the person you need to look at to see WHY many young people are NOT going into the Armed Forces.

32

TARSIER

on Jan 07, 2006

I would you taint an RPG to become a WMD? I seek to be enlightened (truthfully, I do).[/QUOTE

I know of only one meaning for the word "taint" and it has nothing to do with RPGs or WMD... ;~D

But if someone loaded a Rocket Propelled Grenade with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological armament, then yes, it would be WMD, however, if it was a standard C4 loaded round, then no, (no matter how massive the destruction) it wouldn't be WMD.

Hahahaha, I have no idea what I was thinking there

Thankfully you knew what I meant.

Okay, okay, boys... while WMDs are bad and, like conventional munitions, can kill many people, they are not the same thing. The article (anybody remember the article?) said that a huge weapons stash was found. Mortar rounds and bullets and stuff. Nothing about those rounds being NBC. While a WMD can, by definition, be classified as anything that could hypothetically kill more than one person at a time (mass being more than one, apparently), "Weapons of Mass Destruction" encompass only nuclear, biological, and chemical agents that could be used against large quantities of people.

Yes, I saw through the multiple levels of sarcasm on this one, and I also saw where a simple misunderstanding had ballooned out of control. Let's not try to redefine WMD simply to justify a misunderstanding.

Finally, someone I can agree with and logically follow.

33

ParaTed2k

on Jan 07, 2006

Here is another story about the fact our military does not have the proper eqipment

Colon Gangrene, you'll get no argument from me that our military doesn't have the latest or best equipment available. However, unlike you, I don't expect Prs. Bush to be in charge of procurement. That is the job of the branches of the military.

Why are you so quick to excuse people for not doing their jobs, just so you can blame the president for it? Bush is not a dictator, nor is he the end all, be all of our government.

What kind of total fool expects the president to do EVERYONE's job for them?

34

drmiler

on Jan 07, 2006

Okay, okay, boys... while WMDs are bad and, like conventional munitions, can kill many people, they are not the same thing. The article (anybody remember the article?) said that a huge weapons stash was found. Mortar rounds and bullets and stuff. Nothing about those rounds being NBC. While a WMD can, by definition, be classified as anything that could hypothetically kill more than one person at a time (mass being more than one, apparently), "Weapons of Mass Destruction" encompass only nuclear, biological, and chemical agents that could be used against large quantities of people.

Yes, I saw through the multiple levels of sarcasm on this one, and I also saw where a simple misunderstanding had ballooned out of control. Let's not try to redefine WMD simply to justify a misunderstanding.

No need to "redefine" anything. Here are 3 various definitions for the meaning of WMD.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq. Notice that it says "generally" include but does not limit it to NBC weaponry.

weapons capable of destroying large areas and/or killing and disabling large segments of the population.
www.rocklandfire.com/cbr_info.html

Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.
www.firegrantsupport.com/high/prev/glossary.aspx

So in reality ParaTed2K "partially" incorrect.

35

Dr Guy

on Jan 07, 2006

Colon Gangrene, you'll get no argument from me that our military doesn't have the latest or best equipment available.

How about this, Col Klink. WHo has the best equipment, it not the latest and greatest? Oh, I guess you say the Bacteria! They have better than us!

let me ask you a question. Did you ever LEAD men into combat with the latest and greatest?

No? You are negligent and incompetant!. Submit yourself for summary execution for malfeasance!

36

COL Gene

on Jan 07, 2006

Parated2K

The President establishes the budget request and sets the priorities of spending for DoD. He through the Sec Def are DIRECTLY responsible for ALL aspects of the military. He was the one that in the 2000 election told Americans the active military was too small for the deployments. He did NOTHING to correct the problem he identified and then choose to fight a war that was elective and not forced upon us like WWII and Korea. If our military was not large enough and not properly equipped, Why did the Commander-in-Chief choose to go to war before we had the needed man power and equipment? This is 100% Bush!

37

ParaTed2k

on Jan 07, 2006

Colon Bin Gangrene, you still have no idea what you're talking about.

In a world like you halucinate to be reality, the president would have to be a total dictator to have the authority to take on all the responsibility you with to assign hime.

The president is Commander In Chief, he doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the day to day operations of ANY branch of the military. He sets policies and requests budgeting. He doesn't approve ANY of those policies nor does he spend a dime. He doesn't make contracts, nor does he do research on the latest or the greatest.

Actually, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. If you weren't such a lying little pissant, you would admit to all of it, but since the truth and you have apparently never become acquainted, I guess your measely little lies are all you have. I pity your wife. You probably cheat on her too...

38

Moderateman

on Jan 07, 2006

yep any future war we might have , we must have at least 2 years notice so we can properly prepare our military for combat.

We must also know what means the enemy will use in said warfare, what type terain, weather and oh yeh rules, lots of rules favoring the enemy.

39

TARSIER

on Jan 08, 2006

{QUOTE]No need to "redefine" anything. Here are 3 various definitions for the meaning of WMD.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq. Notice that it says "generally" include but does not limit it to NBC weaponry.

weapons capable of destroying large areas and/or killing and disabling large segments of the population.
www.rocklandfire.com/cbr_info.html

Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.
www.firegrantsupport.com/high/prev/glossary.aspx

Wow, you definitely got the best possible sources for those definitions. A emergency equipment retailer and a Fire Grant tutorial page. That definitely shows legitimacy.

40

drmiler

on Jan 08, 2006

{QUOTE]No need to "redefine" anything. Here are 3 various definitions for the meaning of WMD.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq. Notice that it says "generally" include but does not limit it to NBC weaponry.

weapons capable of destroying large areas and/or killing and disabling large segments of the population.
www.rocklandfire.com/cbr_info.html

Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.
www.firegrantsupport.com/high/prev/glossary.aspx

Wow, you definitely got the best possible sources for those definitions. A emergency equipment retailer and a Fire Grant tutorial page. That definitely shows legitimacy.

Sorry about that. Just an fyi....The very first definition is from "wikipedia" how's "that" for legitimacy? Link

So the definition stands as is! You don't like it? Then come up with a better one

41

COL Gene

on Jan 08, 2006

Issues such as the man power levels, deployments and the budget are issues that rest with the President.

42

ShadowWar

on Jan 08, 2006

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Sunday, January 08, 2006Issues such as the man power levels, deployments and the budget are issues that rest with the President.

OK your a Col. of what?? This shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Troop levels, deployments and budget are ALL set and asked for by the Staff at Pentagon, not the President, all he does is approve thier request and forwarded it to Congress for approval. Each unit Commander is responsible for asking for and having the right equipment for his unit. Right down to the Company Commander level. I know I can remember when my CO would have our yearly NCO meeting for new equipment request and TOE (go here to find out more on TOE and what it is: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/toe.htm )issues.

The only time the President has any say in what goes on is WHEN we go to war, not HOW that war is conducted. That is done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They make recommendations to the President and he can pick which one he wants. As for aquisition of new equipment and such, that rest with DARPA and they make recoomendations to the JCoS and they then request it through Congress.

And this brings up a good point I have been menaing to discuss. The HMMWV. I was in the Army when they first came out (1985) and we were told they were to replace our jeeps (which were WWII vintage!, but I loved them)

All the people screaming about we did not have enough armour on the HMMWV have no idea what they were talking about. The HMMWV was NEVER designed to be an armoured vehicle. The HMMWV (High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle) was designed as a light, highly mobile, diesel-powered, four-wheel-drive vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission. Based on the M998 chassis, using common components and kits, the HMMWV can be configured to become a troop carrier, armament carrier, S250 shelter carrier, ambulance, TOW missile carrier, and a Scout vehicle. No where was ever designed to take on the role as armoured troop transport. That is what the m113 was for.

Now due to the IED problem, which the military has not really had to worry about before they developed a new vehicle, politely refered to as the Buffalo,

It is designed to find IED's. 35 Buffalos are currently in service with US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Army ordered 15 additional Buffalos in November 2004, under a separate 11.8 million contract. Differing from other EOD vehicles, The heavily protected Buffalo enables engineers to inspect suspected objects from safe distance, using the robotic arm and video cameras, operated from the relative safety of the protected cabin. large windows of armored glass provide good visibility to the sides of the vehicle, to enable effective operation on route patrols and dealing with suspected IEDs. They can take a very heavy blast and go unhurt.

So maybe you Col. of Little Knowlwedge, and others like you need to know what your talking about before you spout off at things you do not know anything about, even if you think you do. As much as its obvious you hate the President and everything he does or stands for, get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers at the wrong people. I do not agree with everything he does, but I am at least realistic enough to know he does not make every single military decision and every single equipment decision for the entire biggest and best military in the world.

43

drmiler

on Jan 08, 2006

Wassup col? Found WRONG once again?

44

drmiler

on Jan 08, 2006

Oh for shame. And by an enlisted man to boot!

45

ShadowWar

on Jan 08, 2006

All the body Armour questions and accusations may be moot in a year or two anyway:

Army Scientists, Engineers develop Liquid Body Armor
By Tonya Johnson
Army News Service
April 21, 2004

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. -- Liquid armor for Kevlar vests is one of the newest technologies being developed at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to save Soldiers' lives.

This type of body armor is light and flexible, which allows soldiers to be more mobile and won't hinder an individual from running or aiming his or her weapon.

The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties.

"During normal handling, the STF is very deformable and flows like a liquid. However, once a bullet or frag hits the vest, it transitions to a rigid material, which prevents the projectile from penetrating the Soldier's body," said Dr. Eric Wetzel, a mechanical engineer from the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate who heads the project team.

To make liquid armor, STF is soaked into all layers of the Kevlar vest. The Kevlar fabric holds the STF in place, and also helps to stop the bullet. The saturated fabric can be soaked, draped, and sewn just like any other fabric.

Wetzel and his team have been working on this technology with Dr. Norman J. Wagner and his students from the University of Delaware for three years.

"The goal of the technology is to create a new material that is low cost and lightweight which offers equivalent or superior ballistic properties as compared to current Kevlar fabric, but has more flexibility and less thickness," said Wetzel. "This technology has a lot of potential."

Liquid armor is still undergoing laboratory tests, but Wetzel is enthusiastic about other applications that the technology might be applied to.

"The sky's the limit," said Wetzel. "We would first like to put this material in a soldier's sleeves and pants, areas that aren't protected by ballistic vests but need to remain flexible. We could also use this material for bomb blankets, to cover suspicious packages or unexploded ordnance. Liquid armor could even be applied to jump boots, so that they would stiffen during impact to support Soldiers' ankles."

In addition to saving Soldiers' lives, Wetzel said liquid armor in Kevlar vests could help those who work in law enforcement.

"Prison guards and police officers could also benefit from this technology," said Wetzel. "Liquid armor is much more stab resistant than conventional body armor. This capability is especially important for prison guards, who are most often attacked with handmade sharp weapons." I like this part!!

For their work on liquid armor, Wetzel and his team were awarded the 2002 Paul A. Siple Award, the Army's highest award for scientific achievement, at the Army Science Conference.

Very interesting stuff, I hope it is as good as they claim, it would really make movement easier for the solider. One of the biggest complaints I get from the guys I talk too is that the ceramic body armour is very heavy, hot and hard to move around in. I gues we can always add more armour so I guys can' t move at all. There comes a fine line between having enough body armour and too much that it hinders yours mission.