The Walking Tank is real.

[Thaluikhain]

You see no government or private corporation is interested in spending hughe amounts of money on the R&D of new military technologies just for the heck of it.

Not entirely true. Enormous amounts of money have been spent on things that everyone new would have no application whatsoever (the "Gay Bomb" comes to mind), safe in the knowledge that the books won't be checked too closely, or with a lack of accountability if they are.

 

[Athol]

My first thoughts: "KILL IT WITH FIRE!"

I agree...

 

[maturin]

That's pretty impressive, but I can't help thinking that an RPG will put paid to all that technology unless they can cover it with what will have to be bulky armour. It doesnt seem the stealthiest machine ever made, either.

They could cover it with armour.

You need steel at least as thick as your lower arm to stop an RPG, and even then shock of impact (maybe 15 times the speed of sound) would likely scramble all the sensitive electronics and moving parts inside. Of course, hitting one of these with a rocket would be prohibitively difficult to begin with.

But I don't think anyone would ever think of armoring it. The point of a robot isn't to not get shot, it is that no one really cares if it does.

Wow robotics has really come along way from this:
That robot has such an uncanny valley effect on me.

Laughing. My. Ass. Off. More so because I didn't notice the human legs in the tiny video screen for the first thirty seconds or so. Thick, I know.

At least against anti-tank weapons. Making the walking tank proofed from small arms fire however wouldn't be as difficult, so the tank could still fill a tactical role against antagonists armed with primarily assault rifles and similar weapons. It's the rocket propelled grenades and explosive ordnance that is difficult to deal with.

I think by the time we have walking tanks, missiles and rockets will be defeated not by armor but by hard kill active protection systems that swat warheads from the air with smaller projectiles or clouds of projectiles. There are already three such systems in the world, and it's not a question of getting the technology to work but making it practical, sustainable and safe. So a walking tank would only have armor designed to defeat kinetic energy weapons that penetrate armor by velocity alone, and slower explosive warheads would be handled by the active protection systems that will be bristling from every significant vehicle. It'll be a question of who's shields are depleted first.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Ouch. Was that really necessary?

Yeah it kinda was. In my experience, being soft spoken rarely helps when you have to impart somehing of a harsh reality in people.

Speaking about puppies and sunshine might be a soft spoken matter, but war isn't. And if you try to, you'll most likely get even more emotionally disconnected from the grim reality of it.

You have a point about humans in groups. There's an old saying that says that a man is reasonable. Men are stupid.

Still, violence and war has been a part of human CULTURE since we started recording it. Probably even before. That's what we call history. It's mostly the history of war.

That's not entirely correct. War as we know it (i.e mass gatherings of several people killing eachother for territory and conquest) is a byproduct of the agricultural period of the latter stone age.

Before that, people didn't actually have any need to wage war because all of them lived in small communities and they lived off the land. They had survival skills, they knew how to catch fish, hunt game, forage for fruits, skin animals and dressing themselves with the hides and furs, make fire etc. etc. (another interesting note: archeologists and survival experts have calculated that the man of the stone age only had to do actual work each day that took a fraction of the time that most people spend at work in this day and age, which is kind of ironic considering the technological advancements)

Im not saying that people didn't kill eachother back then because they most likely did. The thing is, violence during that period would more be akin to domestic violence and aggravated assault (i.e drunken barfights, spousal abuse, crimes of passion etc.). Because while man might have been able to lead a pretty comfortable life in their communities they sure as hell didn't have the time or the resources to bicker and fight amongst themselves for any procrated periods of time, since nature would often be a cold hearted ***** and there were both dangerous predators to fend off as well as climate shifts and other nasty business to deal with. If you start to kill off people in that kind of a climate who could potentially help you in times of need, then you will die out rather quickly as a species.

BUT, then along comes the invention of agri-culture and animalhusbandry. Suddenly, the land man stood upon became important, because the food supply of an entire year rested on a paricular patch of land. This also took a lot of time to develop, so the previous survival skills were forgotten in favour of toiling in fields and shepherding animals for slaughter. Land was also difficult in using as currency since it wasn't something you could carry with you, and there weren't any legal institutions back then who could prevent intrusion of ones property. And that's when warfare was born. Humans banding together to kill other humans, either in order to take their land because their own didn't grow sufficient food or to defend their land from other people wishing to take the fruits of it away from them.

It used to be "man against nature", but agri-culture brought about "man against man".

But warfare hasn't always been something that human beings practiced.

And no, we can't kill people without the slightest afterthought. But if you talk to retired military officers they will likely admit that the military tries to brainwash you. This is because your average Joe just can't kill a person in cold blood. It's a proven fact that most bullets don't hit anyone. I think goes that for every bullet fired in war that hits someone, 10,000 did not. I might be off, but I don't feel like looking up that statistic at the moment.

Also, it's been stated that more often than not, when a soldier faces an enemy combatant, they aim high or away from them. This is because even in a war zone trained soldiers have trouble taking lives. You are right about that. And many suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. These are all facts.

Even those that do not suffer from PTSD don't like talking about the things they have done. I know plenty of people who have been in war or know a person who was. One constant is that they don't want to discuss what happened. One can only imagine what it was like. I doubt any game or movie can even come close.

Well doesn't that pretty much tell you that war isn't as "natural" to the human condition as we've been lead to believe by history?

I mean, if soldiers has to be BRAINWASHED into being able to kill other humans (even the ones pointting and shooting guns at them) and still fail in doing it most of the time, isn't warfare pretty much something that you could argue goes AGAINST human nature?

Yes humans kill, all animals kill in some way. But isn't that behaviour more brought about by necessity or a percieved necessity, rather than being in our "nature"?

I just thought the act of killing for no real purpose was a relevant matter. Most of the time, we think of animals killing for food, territory, or reproduction purposes, but we have yet to discover a reason that the dolphins kill porpoises. Hence it was an act of violence.

What about the Chimpanzees? Do you think I meant they were going to war against the local fruit trees? No, my friend. They were fighting neighboring groups of chimpanzees. stalking, ambushing, and killing other males. They would leave females alone, but WOULD kill the babies. The others might just be animals killing other types of animals, but this is not the case with the chimps.

Oh, and Chimpanzees are incredibly close to humans on the genetic level.

Well why do we swat flies that annoy us? Do we actually NEED to kill them or do we just do it to make our every day lives a little less "annoying"?

Most likely the latter. Sure we can talk about pest control reasons and justify it by claiming that they "spread disease" or whatever, but I know that when I take out the flyswat and kill bugs I find in my home I just do it because I don't want the fucking things flying around making noises, crawling in my food, landing on my body when im trying to sleep etc. etc.

I could survive without "harming a fly" (pun intended) and their lives do not threaten my existence at all really. But I kill them anyway. Mostly because they are a vastly "alien" species to me which I consider insignificant, and most importantly THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO RELATE TO.

This is also a reason why you have moral debates concerning veganism and vegetarianism. No person becomes a vegetarian because they have sympathy towards the killing of insects in the beginning. They become it because the mammals that we slaughter and eat are more easy to relate to than a bug. They have eyes reminiscent of ours, often they have legs too, breathe like we do and other similarities. WHich makes it easy to view them in an anthropomorphic light. Of course we can't really relate to them the same way as we do with other humans, but the phenomenon is nontheless related to our ability to relate to other human beings and our inability to do the same thing to "alien" species.

So, I'm going to ignore the "drone" comments because I have better things to do.

I merely meant that the military speeds the production of technology. There is probably not a thing in your home that is not in some way the byproduct of processes that resulted from military development. For example your clothes or that airplane you flew in.

Here's a site I found that goes into more detail.
http://www.aeragon.com/

Well everything that man invents is related to another invetion in some way so I don't think that really loads your argument. I mean the first wooden club that man "invented" was most likely meant to be a hunting tool and not a weapon of warfare. The same goes for a lot of other "weapons" we've invented. Javelin? hunting tool. Bows and arrows? hunting tools. Spear? Fishing and hunting tool. Nets? Fishing and hunting tool. Knife? (and sword by extension since a sword is pretty much an oversized knife originally) survival tool. Axe? Woodcutting tool. You get the picture.

So if we're going to use that rhetoric, all military development originally stems from hunting and farming equipment that got more specialized towards killing other humans.

So it's not exactly correct to say that all invention stems from military development originally, right?

Forgive me for not crying every time someone dies. In war or otherwise. But people have been dying in war for thousands of years. People will die in war for another thousand years or until we finally kill ourselves or the Sun goes supernova. Whichever comes first.

And yes, I would be upset if I found myself living in a war zone or violent location. But I don't. You want me to be upset about those poor people that do?

No, but at the very least you could take a stand against the people who actually pursue courses of action that leads to the deaths of thousands of people each year. You know that: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."-bit.

And also refraining from feeding and supporting an industry that is basically all about murder and death with pretty far fetched arguments that it MIGTH lead to technological progression in other fields than warfare as well.

You could also think about the fact that this progress has pretty much ALWAYS been a byproduct whenever it happened. Which means that you can't really claim that it's going to GUARANTEE progress in technological development. Consider the nuclear arms race for instance, now where do you think man would've been technologically if those weapons were launched?

Well, I do wish there was a better way. But there is nothing that I could feasibly do about it. I have my own life to live after all. Individual people do not declare war. Governments do. You can decry any nation for its acts of war, but to complain about it's citizens in nothing more than deflection.

It would be great if we could avoid the gritty reality of the world, but complaining about the "military industrial complex" does nothing to solve the actual problem. We can't agree on anything. My friends and I can't even agree on what to eat. Do you think that people will be able to agree about "holy sites", national sovereignty, or any other issue that seems likely to start a war? Mexico is practically in a state of civil war as we speak. Against drugs gangs of all things.

War is not just likely, it is inevitable. Not because of some evil government plot, or shady businessmen, but because we are humans. Conflict occurs. Sometimes major conflicts result in wars. If anything, I think we have come a long way towards peace.

Still, I want my government to maintain a policy of military development. Not just for "cool toys", but for national security. At the very least, I want to be sure that our men in uniform come home, and that we can minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. I want my uncle to come home. I want my friends to come home. And if we can prevent unnecessary deaths, all the better.

Otherwise, I'm sorry that you have had a rough time, and I will not ask what has happened, but I do hope that everything has improved and you are safe. It'd a be real shame if you couldn't "put me in my place" again.

Actually you sort of can. Take the U.S for instance. A nation founded on the principles of opposing tyranny and oppressive government. Heck americans even have a constitutional right to own weapons for that exact purpose. To be able to overthrow a government that is acting out of line.

But, as the addage goes: With great power, comes great responsibility. I.e if one has these rights, they have a responsibility in using them.

As it is today you can't really say that american citizens take their responsibility, because almost the entire world criticize american foreign policy and acts of war but barely any american citizen takes up arms against their government. And if you're actually supporting this kind of policy as well as feeding the military industrial complex, then you're pretty much saying that oppression and murder is perfectly fine as long as it only happens to other people.

Which might work for the time being, but I doubt you'll feel the same way the day you find yourself on the short end of that proverbial stick. And you probably wouldn't just accept if I walked up to you and put a gun to your face and told you that I would kill you with a flimsy reason like: "Well by using this gun on you I support an industry that MIGHT lead to technological progress sometime in the future."

Im not saying that I demand you to take up arms and put a stop to it single handedly, but the very least you could do is take a stand and realize that the military industrial complex strives towards self-perpetuation for the ABSOLUTE WORST reasons imaginable.

Saying that they do it to "safeguard freedom" isn't and has never been the real reason why they want higher and higher budgets and try to infringe more and more on individual rights of people both on their own soil and abroad. And one of their most successful deception tactics aside from scaring people into believeing that if it weren't for them, freedom would die, is to make you believe that war is always the inevitable result and that you must support the preparation for it.

Not all conflicts in human history got solved through warfare. And people against military development aren't "against progress", most likely they are against a practice that leads to the deaths of millions and do not consider a POTENTIAL (not guaranteed) leap in technology to be worth that price.

 

[Jamash]

That has to be the one of the strongest Uncanny Valley feels I've ever felt, which is remarkable considering that thing doesn't even have a head, let alone a face and eyes.

Never mind arming it, all you would have to do is butcher a Goat or a Moose (or a similar four legged animal), put it's bloody head and hide on the robot and send it towards the enemy at twilight or dusk.

Most of the enemy would kill themselves or run away before they'd be able to stop it with conventional guns.

 

[flim.geek.chic]

sooooooooooooooo we now have AT-AT 's.... cool I guess

 

[Saltyk]

Spoiler: SNIP

Ouch. Was that really necessary?

Yeah it kinda was. In my experience, being soft spoken rarely helps when you have to impart somehing of a harsh reality in people.

Speaking about puppies and sunshine might be a soft spoken matter, but war isn't. And if you try to, you'll most likely get even more emotionally disconnected from the grim reality of it.

You have a point about humans in groups. There's an old saying that says that a man is reasonable. Men are stupid.

Still, violence and war has been a part of human CULTURE since we started recording it. Probably even before. That's what we call history. It's mostly the history of war.

That's not entirely correct. War as we know it (i.e mass gatherings of several people killing eachother for territory and conquest) is a byproduct of the agricultural period of the latter stone age.

Before that, people didn't actually have any need to wage war because all of them lived in small communities and they lived off the land. They had survival skills, they knew how to catch fish, hunt game, forage for fruits, skin animals and dressing themselves with the hides and furs, make fire etc. etc. (another interesting note: archeologists and survival experts have calculated that the man of the stone age only had to do actual work each day that took a fraction of the time that most people spend at work in this day and age, which is kind of ironic considering the technological advancements)

Im not saying that people didn't kill eachother back then because they most likely did. The thing is, violence during that period would more be akin to domestic violence and aggravated assault (i.e drunken barfights, spousal abuse, crimes of passion etc.). Because while man might have been able to lead a pretty comfortable life in their communities they sure as hell didn't have the time or the resources to bicker and fight amongst themselves for any procrated periods of time, since nature would often be a cold hearted ***** and there were both dangerous predators to fend off as well as climate shifts and other nasty business to deal with. If you start to kill off people in that kind of a climate who could potentially help you in times of need, then you will die out rather quickly as a species.

BUT, then along comes the invention of agri-culture and animalhusbandry. Suddenly, the land man stood upon became important, because the food supply of an entire year rested on a paricular patch of land. This also took a lot of time to develop, so the previous survival skills were forgotten in favour of toiling in fields and shepherding animals for slaughter. Land was also difficult in using as currency since it wasn't something you could carry with you, and there weren't any legal institutions back then who could prevent intrusion of ones property. And that's when warfare was born. Humans banding together to kill other humans, either in order to take their land because their own didn't grow sufficient food or to defend their land from other people wishing to take the fruits of it away from them.

It used to be "man against nature", but agri-culture brought about "man against man".

But warfare hasn't always been something that human beings practiced.

And no, we can't kill people without the slightest afterthought. But if you talk to retired military officers they will likely admit that the military tries to brainwash you. This is because your average Joe just can't kill a person in cold blood. It's a proven fact that most bullets don't hit anyone. I think goes that for every bullet fired in war that hits someone, 10,000 did not. I might be off, but I don't feel like looking up that statistic at the moment.

Also, it's been stated that more often than not, when a soldier faces an enemy combatant, they aim high or away from them. This is because even in a war zone trained soldiers have trouble taking lives. You are right about that. And many suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. These are all facts.

Even those that do not suffer from PTSD don't like talking about the things they have done. I know plenty of people who have been in war or know a person who was. One constant is that they don't want to discuss what happened. One can only imagine what it was like. I doubt any game or movie can even come close.

Well doesn't that pretty much tell you that war isn't as "natural" to the human condition as we've been lead to believe by history?

I mean, if soldiers has to be BRAINWASHED into being able to kill other humans (even the ones pointting and shooting guns at them) and still fail in doing it most of the time, isn't warfare pretty much something that you could argue goes AGAINST human nature?

Yes humans kill, all animals kill in some way. But isn't that behaviour more brought about by necessity or a percieved necessity, rather than being in our "nature"?

I just thought the act of killing for no real purpose was a relevant matter. Most of the time, we think of animals killing for food, territory, or reproduction purposes, but we have yet to discover a reason that the dolphins kill porpoises. Hence it was an act of violence.

What about the Chimpanzees? Do you think I meant they were going to war against the local fruit trees? No, my friend. They were fighting neighboring groups of chimpanzees. stalking, ambushing, and killing other males. They would leave females alone, but WOULD kill the babies. The others might just be animals killing other types of animals, but this is not the case with the chimps.

Oh, and Chimpanzees are incredibly close to humans on the genetic level.

Well why do we swat flies that annoy us? Do we actually NEED to kill them or do we just do it to make our every day lives a little less "annoying"?

Most likely the latter. Sure we can talk about pest control reasons and justify it by claiming that they "spread disease" or whatever, but I know that when I take out the flyswat and kill bugs I find in my home I just do it because I don't want the fucking things flying around making noises, crawling in my food, landing on my body when im trying to sleep etc. etc.

I could survive without "harming a fly" (pun intended) and their lives do not threaten my existence at all really. But I kill them anyway. Mostly because they are a vastly "alien" species to me which I consider insignificant, and most importantly THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO RELATE TO.

This is also a reason why you have moral debates concerning veganism and vegetarianism. No person becomes a vegetarian because they have sympathy towards the killing of insects in the beginning. They become it because the mammals that we slaughter and eat are more easy to relate to than a bug. They have eyes reminiscent of ours, often they have legs too, breathe like we do and other similarities. WHich makes it easy to view them in an anthropomorphic light. Of course we can't really relate to them the same way as we do with other humans, but the phenomenon is nontheless related to our ability to relate to other human beings and our inability to do the same thing to "alien" species.

So, I'm going to ignore the "drone" comments because I have better things to do.

I merely meant that the military speeds the production of technology. There is probably not a thing in your home that is not in some way the byproduct of processes that resulted from military development. For example your clothes or that airplane you flew in.

Here's a site I found that goes into more detail.
http://www.aeragon.com/

Well everything that man invents is related to another invetion in some way so I don't think that really loads your argument. I mean the first wooden club that man "invented" was most likely meant to be a hunting tool and not a weapon of warfare. The same goes for a lot of other "weapons" we've invented. Javelin? hunting tool. Bows and arrows? hunting tools. Spear? Fishing and hunting tool. Nets? Fishing and hunting tool. Knife? (and sword by extension since a sword is pretty much an oversized knife originally) survival tool. Axe? Woodcutting tool. You get the picture.

So if we're going to use that rhetoric, all military development originally stems from hunting and farming equipment that got more specialized towards killing other humans.

So it's not exactly correct to say that all invention stems from military development originally, right?

Forgive me for not crying every time someone dies. In war or otherwise. But people have been dying in war for thousands of years. People will die in war for another thousand years or until we finally kill ourselves or the Sun goes supernova. Whichever comes first.

And yes, I would be upset if I found myself living in a war zone or violent location. But I don't. You want me to be upset about those poor people that do?

No, but at the very least you could take a stand against the people who actually pursue courses of action that leads to the deaths of thousands of people each year. You know that: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."-bit.

And also refraining from feeding and supporting an industry that is basically all about murder and death with pretty far fetched arguments that it MIGTH lead to technological progression in other fields than warfare as well.

You could also think about the fact that this progress has pretty much ALWAYS been a byproduct whenever it happened. Which means that you can't really claim that it's going to GUARANTEE progress in technological development. Consider the nuclear arms race for instance, now where do you think man would've been technologically if those weapons were launched?

Well, I do wish there was a better way. But there is nothing that I could feasibly do about it. I have my own life to live after all. Individual people do not declare war. Governments do. You can decry any nation for its acts of war, but to complain about it's citizens in nothing more than deflection.

It would be great if we could avoid the gritty reality of the world, but complaining about the "military industrial complex" does nothing to solve the actual problem. We can't agree on anything. My friends and I can't even agree on what to eat. Do you think that people will be able to agree about "holy sites", national sovereignty, or any other issue that seems likely to start a war? Mexico is practically in a state of civil war as we speak. Against drugs gangs of all things.

War is not just likely, it is inevitable. Not because of some evil government plot, or shady businessmen, but because we are humans. Conflict occurs. Sometimes major conflicts result in wars. If anything, I think we have come a long way towards peace.

Still, I want my government to maintain a policy of military development. Not just for "cool toys", but for national security. At the very least, I want to be sure that our men in uniform come home, and that we can minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. I want my uncle to come home. I want my friends to come home. And if we can prevent unnecessary deaths, all the better.

Otherwise, I'm sorry that you have had a rough time, and I will not ask what has happened, but I do hope that everything has improved and you are safe. It'd a be real shame if you couldn't "put me in my place" again.

Actually you sort of can. Take the U.S for instance. A nation founded on the principles of opposing tyranny and oppressive government. Heck americans even have a constitutional right to own weapons for that exact purpose. To be able to overthrow a government that is acting out of line.

But, as the addage goes: With great power, comes great responsibility. I.e if one has these rights, they have a responsibility in using them.

As it is today you can't really say that american citizens take their responsibility, because almost the entire world criticize american foreign policy and acts of war but barely any american citizen takes up arms against their government. And if you're actually supporting this kind of policy as well as feeding the military industrial complex, then you're pretty much saying that oppression and murder is perfectly fine as long as it only happens to other people.

Which might work for the time being, but I doubt you'll feel the same way the day you find yourself on the short end of that proverbial stick. And you probably wouldn't just accept if I walked up to you and put a gun to your face and told you that I would kill you with a flimsy reason like: "Well by using this gun on you I support an industry that MIGHT lead to technological progress sometime in the future."

Im not saying that I demand you to take up arms and put a stop to it single handedly, but the very least you could do is take a stand and realize that the military industrial complex strives towards self-perpetuation for the ABSOLUTE WORST reasons imaginable.

Saying that they do it to "safeguard freedom" isn't and has never been the real reason why they want higher and higher budgets and try to infringe more and more on individual rights of people both on their own soil and abroad. And one of their most successful deception tactics aside from scaring people into believeing that if it weren't for them, freedom would die, is to make you believe that war is always the inevitable result and that you must support the preparation for it.

Not all conflicts in human history got solved through warfare. And people against military development aren't "against progress", most likely they are against a practice that leads to the deaths of millions and do not consider a POTENTIAL (not guaranteed) leap in technology to be worth that price.

I get the feeling we could discuss this in detail forever. Unfortunately I need to go to bed soon (snow and ice pretty much shut the city down for two days, and we're behind at work).

And you did make a good argument with the agriculture comparison. Something that I have never heard before. It makes sense, because human war has largely been fought over land for the entire history of war. Alexander the Great. Napoleon Bonaparte. Genghis Khan. The Crusades. You get the picture.

There was one thing I wanted to clarify about America, as I do live there. The Second Amendment was intended to protect against tyranny, yet few people acknowledge that. And dear God, don't imply that to a Gun Ban supporter. Or a member of the government. I doubt that would go over well.

Case in point. Not too long ago a group of people were arrested as domestic terrorists. Now, they wanted to kill a police officer, and then attack the funeral. The groups stated goal was to cause an upheaval against the government. Now, I'm not defending what they did. But isn't it funny that people that wanted to overturn the current government were arrested when we claim part of our right is to do that? You could suggest that we could do that without killing people, but what would be the point of having guns and weaponry to overthrow the government, then? The government would never allow such a movement to get off the ground. The FBI was even investigating Martin Luther King Jr. They wanted him to stop his efforts.

The truth is that most Americans are complacent. One of the only nations in the world that truly has a election process (the nations of Europe and Canada also come to mind), and about 50% of the population does not vote. They don't think that they can make a difference. We complain about our government, but at the end of the day, we won't do anything about it.

To be honest, I was all for national security at one point. I was okay with longer delays at the airport and all that, but now, I question it. There is no reason for full body scans and pat downs. A police officer will tell you that if you don't feel violated after a pat down they didn't do it right. And having to have a pat down to fly on a plane doesn't sit well with me. We are supposed to have protections against unwarranted searches in the Bill of Rights, we call it the Fourth Amendment. Yet, no one seems to question it.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I get the feeling we could discuss this in detail forever. Unfortunately I need to go to bed soon (snow and ice pretty much shut the city down for two days, and we're behind at work).

And you did make a good argument with the agriculture comparison. Something that I have never heard before. It makes sense, because human war has largely been fought over land for the entire history of war. Alexander the Great. Napoleon Bonaparte. Genghis Khan. The Crusades. You get the picture.

There was one thing I wanted to clarify about America, as I do live there. The Second Amendment was intended to protect against tyranny, yet few people acknowledge that. And dear God, don't imply that to a Gun Ban supporter. Or a member of the government. I doubt that would go over well.

Case in point. Not too long ago a group of people were arrested as domestic terrorists. Now, they wanted to kill a police officer, and then attack the funeral. The groups stated goal was to cause an upheaval against the government. Now, I'm not defending what they did. But isn't it funny that people that wanted to overturn the current government were arrested when we claim part of our right is to do that? You could suggest that we could do that without killing people, but what would be the point of having guns and weaponry to overthrow the government, then? The government would never allow such a movement to get off the ground. The FBI was even investigating Martin Luther King Jr. They wanted him to stop his efforts.

The truth is that most Americans are complacent. One of the only nations in the world that truly has a election process (the nations of Europe and Canada also come to mind), and about 50% of the population does not vote. They don't think that they can make a difference. We complain about our government, but at the end of the day, we won't do anything about it.

To be honest, I was all for national security at one point. I was okay with longer delays at the airport and all that, but now, I question it. There is no reason for full body scans and pat downs. A police officer will tell you that if you don't feel violated after a pat down they didn't do it right. And having to have a pat down to fly on a plane doesn't sit well with me. We are supposed to have protections against unwarranted searches in the Bill of Rights, we call it the Fourth Amendment. Yet, no one seems to question it.

Yeah I guess this could go on forever. But at least you seem to get my point and perhaps it would give rise to some much needed skepticism towards the military industrial complex's desperate hopes of self-perpetuation.

And yes im not unfamiliar with the number of voters in america, but when people say that they feel that it doesn't really matter if they vote or not they are kind of right. I mean if the country is basically governed by a two-party system then most elections will be about voting for either a "turd sandwich" or a "giant douche" (as south park so humorously put it).

Also, there's one other MAJOR aspect to consider and that is the foundation of the country. The U.S is heavily based on capitalism and free enterprise in the beginning (which was kind of noble since it mainly concerned average peasants who had spent generations living under the rules of tyrants), but the sad truth is that in a society where such virtues are so heavily integrated in government and elections you'll most likely end up with a result where only money talks and individual votes are wothless in comparison.

I mean, sure everybody gets to vote, but does everybody have the means and the resources to fund lobby groups who makes members of congress dance to the tune of their piping? And if you think about it, who brings about the most change in government? The elected president or the congress?

What good does your individual vote do if you're just an average Joe with an average income, when the corporations get to be the most influential factor of what the government does between the elections?

So I just have to say that I can sympathize with americans who don't even bother to vote. The deck is just sooo stacked against the average Joe's of the nation as it is.

But that would all be a marginal issue if it weren't for the corporations employed by the military. One can't really deny that governments are more willing to increase the budget for military spendings in times of war and with a supposed "threat of terrorism" going on, than they are during times of peace. So it's not really hard to deduce that a lot of powerful and influential corporations actually recieves increased profits during times of war than they do during times of peace. The same corporations that fund lobby groups to influence congress to act in their profitseeking interests.

Now im not going to say that I actually believe in the conspiracy theories that the government or some big corporations was behind the 9/11-attacks, because the presented "evidence" is far from watertight. But when it comes to pursuing a more warlike approach during international conflicts (either ones that directly involve the U.S and when it only involves their military allies), I have a hard time seeing why these same corporations WOULDN'T want congress to go for that rather than going for a more diplomatic and/or neutral strategy.

 

[Continuity]

Thats pretty impressive, makes you wonder what will be around in 10-20 years.

That we will have vastly inprove the flaws and it will be at least 5 stories tall........and it will have weapons...............powerful ones.

Soooooo... AT-AT walker?

 

[Weaver]

I'd love trying to sneak up on enemies with a robot making an "EEERRRAAAAAWWWOOOORRRWWAAAAWOOOOOOO" sound constantly.

 

[white_salad]

That was actually really impressive. It's shit like this that reminds me how advanced we actually are. If there is ever a commercialized version, hello epic mount!

 

[MrShowerHead]

Lets just wait for 3 years and we have our first Metal Gear.

 

[MeputthecaninthebininHL2]

With this device, one can now simply tank walk into Mordor.

 

[Wintermoot]

I wonder if they are going to make bigger ones (like the AT-AT from Star Wars)

 

[Kaltazraza]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlNTNjtjInQ&feature=related
This is far more awesome than that "tank".
Or something more like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjhyotJ7rqk&feature=related

 

[SimuLord]

I want one, even if it doesn't produce honey.

Bee jokes on this thing are everywhere.

Not everything that buzzes is a bee. I'd say a hornet's nest might be a more apt description.

 

[Frotality]

for some reason the moment i saw that a picture of a star wars AT-AT with desert camo and browning turrets mounted on its sides popped into my mind.

and seeing as that is probably the logical evolution of this machine, that is awesome.

 

[Redratson]

Thats pretty impressive, makes you wonder what will be around in 10-20 years.

That we will have vastly inprove the flaws and it will be at least 5 stories tall........and it will have weapons...............powerful ones.

Soooooo... AT-AT walker?

Sure but we cant exactly call it that or Lucas will have a fit XP