What is Digg?67 Comments
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I still love that laser that shoots invisible fire. "Save me Jesus!!! Save me Jewish God! Tom Cruise use your witchcraft to help me!!"
- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12…are expected to sell for $200,00 USD and will be available late in 2007. The South Korean government plans to deploy these friendly reminders on the border between South and North Korea, to further ease relations between the countries
hahaha, those ever-so-friendly....machine guns... - stevefl209, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9>>My speakers are about to explode! How could no one detect that?
Because operationally it flies at many thousands of feet. But that would be no good for a cheap demonstration video of it in flight because it would be...(ahem)...undetectable. - painted82, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@cient750hp
That's just mainstream media crap. We are not free. Law doesn't even allow me to smoke pot in my own home at my own damn leisure without bothering anybody else. - Evolve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The liquid armor is pretty impressive. However the bullet might not penetrate the body but im sure as hell it will make a pretty big dent in the soldiers body.
But none the less it would be a vast improvement even if they still wear the original armor and only have this on the arms/legs. - kss42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7From the machine-gun robot description: "The South Korean government plans to deploy these friendly reminders on the border between South and North Korea, to further ease relations between the countries"
Nothing says "ease relations" like automated gun turrets. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5With the direct energy weapons.. when the hostage gets blinded by the laser, wouldnt he just shoot the hostage? Isnt that the whole point of holding a hostage?
- cien750hp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10so you can live free.
- washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
- Commandant of Rommelwood Academy, the Simpsons - stevefl209, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>.Lets just hope the military doesnt spend all of the money on developing those other technologies so the troops can be more bullet resistant.
I'd rather have robots getting shot at than men or women with armor. I'd rather have pilot-less surveillance drones which just might make it unnecessary to put men or women in the line of fire. Your way of thinking puts soldiers at greater risk. - Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Because your economy depends on it. That freedom nonsense is just that for many other countries live even freer without a military industrial complex.
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@stevefl209
I don't know about that. If I had a choice, I'd rather have people on the front lines than robots. As invulnerable as we can possibly make them, but people nonetheless. As hard as it is to make a robot be even remotely intelligent, it's pretty much impossible at the moment to make a robot have a "conscience". The more impersonal and remote technology is, the easier it is for us to have "collateral damage", and while humans are certainly far from perfect in this regard, I think that it is far better to have people on the scene making the immediate decisions than someone who is many miles removed from the conflict. - Boing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm highly disappointed in the lack of sharks with lasers on their freakin heads.
- pu-z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That weapon is outfitted on several cruiseships sailing on the coas of Africa. It has been used sucessfully at least once. The next time, the pirates will remember til bring ear protection...
- xdefconx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Army is still developing the XM8 as the most likely next general issue combat rifle.
The M16A1 of the Vietnam era that you seem to think we're still using is long gone.
The M16A2/A3/A4 are what's currently being used by the Army as well as the M4A1/A2.
And of course the marines use the AR15A4.
It's a great weapon. be quiet... - chromogenic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Instead of this crap, how about universal healthcare?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2schlaze..
Pretty sure everyone could figure something like that out themselves. I doubt they will ever use this for their head, but like 'evolve' said, it would be a major improvement on their lefgs, arms.. body - daveking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder how long until someone proposes deploying those turrets on the US Mexico border...
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Instead of this crap, how about a replacement for the 40+ year old M16?
- durru7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2theirs also a non-lethal(or no serious injury) weapon i saw a couple months ago that uses extremely loud sound and directs it towards an enemy, if you stand to the left or right side of the weapon respectively, you can only hear a semi-loud noise;stand in front of it at any distance within i think i mile, and you'll experience extremely loud constant sound which forces you to put down your weapon (or w/e your holding) and cover your ears.
pretty neat stuff, sorry bout my explanation :p - Mithrander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone else notice the Samsung Machine Gun Sentry video uses 'The Pirates of the Carribean' theme music?
Our only hope is that the MPAA steps in and saves us all from Samsung. - tumoas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2so very scary, but interesting.
- bubbazanetti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That loud leaf blower was not the Corax vehicle (which is has wings and can efficiently stay aloft for a long time)...and there is no way that thing in the video could stay airborne for more than an hour unrefueled...
why? it has the fuel efficiency of a gas powered weed-eater...in order for it to propel it self on blade lift alone...it has to be very light...very light means it can't carry any more fuel than your weed-eater...how long will a gas powered weed eater run unrefueled...less than an hour. - ablez3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8war is peace?
freedom is slavery?
thank you!
its all so clear now..... - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5My honest answer is I don't know.
My little boy answer is "Because they make cool *****!"
We Americans are a young society and very warlike so it makes sense that we're spending a ton of money on cool things that make people die or temporarily stop misbehaving.
Someone will chime in soon with comments on the "Military-Industrial Complex". - GeneralKickass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dugg for the technology.
- pcsperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let's hope the cost of the liquid armor, is affordable for Armed Service to purchase it for all of the Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Coasties, and Marines.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why not put the trillion dollars a year for defense, into cancer research for just one year. Just one.
- lowerlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I won't believe that liquid body armor thing works until there is a video that shows someone trying to stab someone else (wearing the liquid armor) in the chest with a knife. If he does not get hurt, then I'll be convinced.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The liquid armor is the coolest, and it will pressure governments to start researching laser weaponry.
- sagien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hate FutureWeapons. It's a good idea for a show and it's really neat that to learn about up and coming military technology, but they just try to milk so much out of one subject.
I'd've much rather watched something about the actual weapon instead of silly posturing and useless background on what they could've done with it in Waco. - StandardsDT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That ray gun was on the Future Weapons show on the Discovery channel.
- TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It been in development for yrs dumb ass. Google and you shall become enlightened (don't sue me google). It's one bad ass gun, but the last time I heard it still costs $5K a pop. That's why it hasn't been replaced yet. 400,000 x 5,000 dollars, you do that math (if your going to make it the standard rifle).
- stevefl209, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>>I think that it is far better to have people on the scene making the immediate decisions than someone who is many miles removed from the conflict.
That wasn't my intention. I only meant that abandoning other technologies only to put all effort into armor wasn't necessarily in the best interests of the soldier. Armor is worth investing in, but so are some of those other things as well. I never intended a "robot army". People will always need to be on the scene but in whatever peripheral areas it is feasible, the best way to protect a soldier from harm is to make it unnecessary for him to be in harm's way in the first place.
It's the same reasoning as giving the bomb squad armor AND robots. Without robots, bomb squad officers are at much greater risk when they don't have to be. - razrielle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yea its called the M4
- razrielle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1According to the army times the cost of a stripped down m4 is 800 dollars and 1300 for the bare minimum an infantry man would need
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
although the replacement cost of an m16 is around 590 dollars i would rather our military have more reliable weapons and can justify the extra money for the soldiers they spent tens of thousands of dollars to train, house, and feed
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/l/aainfantry1.htm - DommoOrigato, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's not that liquid armor is bad, its more likely it would be used in conjunction with regular armor for places where you need mobility. Consider dragonscale to be over your body, then having the liquid armor at your joints(like your armpits which are VERY vulnerable). Having the liquid armor in places like your thighs and such means that at least you'll have resistance to shrapnel, while the dragonskin is used to protect your torso.
I almost think it a future uniform might be something like a wetsuit(with the gel/liquid armor), and having dragonskin or an interceptor vest over the torso. That way maybe it could be possible to make the armor light, yet still offer a fair amount of protection over most of the body. - themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ 2nd video down: OMG A UFO!!!1!!!one
- blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The "pain ray" freaks me out. You know that is going to be misused and abused. Let's just hope it never gets a commercial release akin to tasers.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm highly disappointed you increased the stupidity of readers by bringing it up.
- MeltingIce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sweet inventions, but you gotta love how they used the Pirates of the Caribbean music in the sentry gun video
- cabazorro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How about ad-hoc radio networks?
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a769410988~db=all - ForeverXeros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@stevefl209
There are many problems with dehumanizing the battlefield. The most important one is that taking soldiers out of the war zone and putting them at a desk to control the the robotic/artificial war essentially divorces those soldiers from the consequences of their actions. There has to be accountability. People have to be held accountable for their actions. Based on the present lack of accountability, do you really think that a robotic war would be better? One of the greatest ways of being held accountable for your actions in war is seeing the effect your actions have on those around you. Also, the fact that there ARE men and women on the battlefield reduces the number of wars on the whole. Think about it. If you're a country that is thinking about going to war, would you be more or less likely to do so if you were sacrificing actual lives or a piece of machinery? People are a little more difficult to replace than a UAV. Putting men and women on the front lines reduces both the number of wars and the civilian casualties. You're a tad more careful waving around an M4 than a joystick.
Protect the soldiers. Give them whatever they need to perform their duties and return home safe. Just don't replace them with machines.
Sorry for the rant. I guess I feel pretty strongly about it. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's a microwave radiation gun.
Actually, this thing has been talked about for years; I'm surprised it's still in testing.
More than any of the other weapons mentioned, this one has the potential to change the battlefield completely. You can route the enemy army before the first shot is ever fired. Or, imagine if this had been used in Vietnam... no more hiding in the dense jungle brush; just start sweeping the area with this gun, and watch people pop out of the bushes and shoot them as they run. - nroose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Related Products:
* Visioneer OneTouch 7300 USB scanner - Newegg.com
* IBM eServer xSeries 226 8648 - Xeon 2.8 GHz - Server Supply.com Inc
* HP Scanjet G4050 - Buy.com"
:) - azntiger1000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I thought the reporter was kinda cute. hahaha.
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The only one that I see as usefull at would be the liquid armor. Lets just hope the military doesnt spend all of the money on developing those other technologies so the troops can be more bullet resistant.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"'So why are these weapons not being used in the battle in Iraq? Logistical problems have conspired to keep them off the battlefield' That made me lol."
Ummm... the video said that the green laser WAS being used in Iraq, at military checkpoints to stop drivers from crashing through. - swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wars are never won by technology. They are won via massive civilian casualties. If this robot or whatever can kill 1000 hajis without G.I.Joe getting blood on his jackboots, then its probably worth the countless billions of taxpayer dollars being thrown at defense contractors to come up with this *****.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is