Page 1 of 2
#1
I was just watching a show on discovery "future weapons" if anyone of ye know about it.
And basically it about a couple of people lusting over these ultra hi-tech weapons they've build and how efficient and fast they're at completely annihilating the enemy.

So this got me wondering. We've already got enough weapons on this planet which are already pretty decent to kill people with. Why do we keep feeling the need to continue building bigger and more powerful ways to kill more and more people faster.
Considering the amount of money that goes into developing and making all these things.

A little extract from wiki:
Quote by wiki
For 2007, the US Military budget rose to US$439.3 billion. This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (~$9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (~$33.2 billion) for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, ~$170 billion in 2007). Conversely, the military budget does allocate money for dual-use items, such as the development of infrastructure surrounding U.S. military bases. Altogether, military-related expenses totaled approximately $626.1 billion.


$626.1 billion dollars to kill people!!
How can one justify that!!
That money is enough to develop a small african country to modern standards.

So what do you people think about this.
Do we really need to keep spending all those massive amounts of money of developing more and more weapons or could we could use to develop nations and make this world a better place to live in?

I know a lot of you will not agree with me but just keep this a peaceful and civilised debate.
#2
Imagine how far the world, or at least North America could advance with even just alternative energy sources with all that money being put into research, as opposed to all those weapons. All weapons, ie. Guns, explosives, tanks, mechanical weapons anyway, should be destroyed. So if anything, if someone wants to start a war, they have to use melee weapons, and nothing else. It would at least all wars more interesting.
#3
Yes, we do. The zombie holocaust is coming...


...I can feel it ಠ_ಠ
Quote by blackenedktulu
CFH82, I love you. I didn't laugh, but my god, I love you.

Quote by Zero-Hartman
Holy shit, that was epic. A mighty roar escapeth'd my mouth.

Quote by WyvernOmega
I saw a penis.

last.fm
#4
I think having enough weapons to blow up the planet 13 times over is enough.
How I wish, how I wish
That the world, that the world
Had just one
THROAT
And my fingers were around it


Literature thread
#5
Quote by brentondig
Imagine how far the world, or at least North America could advance with even just alternative energy sources with all that money being put into research, as opposed to all those weapons. All weapons, ie. Guns, explosives, tanks, mechanical weapons anyway, should be destroyed. So if anything, if someone wants to start a war, they have to use melee weapons, and nothing else. It would at least all wars more interesting.


this man speaks the truth
#7
Quote by brentondig
Imagine how far the world, or at least North America could advance with even just alternative energy sources with all that money being put into research, as opposed to all those weapons. All weapons, ie. Guns, explosives, tanks, mechanical weapons anyway, should be destroyed. So if anything, if someone wants to start a war, they have to use melee weapons, and nothing else. It would at least all wars more interesting.

If more interesting means more brutal, bloody, and horrible. Face it hippy, you can't "destroy all weapons". They are here to stay.

Advancements in weapons advance technology itself often. Where do you think rockets came from? Or jet aircraft? Nuclear power?
#8
^ i agree with the TS and first poster. we (US) have enough nukes to kill the entire world population about 12(? not sure maybe more) times. i think its pathetic. every world leader thinks ruling well means competing in the arms race the world has going on. damn shame. think of what we could do with all that money...
Quote by monkeysintheday
I have trained a live tarantula to calm and sit on my guitar due to the awesome powers of my rocking. When I am not playing it angrily bounces about my room hitting everything that isn't me.



Quote by stef123

rageagainst64 you are a legend!
#9
Quote by seljer
Yes, or otherwise the terrorists will win

maybe if we could for once sit down and see what the terrorist actually want and come to some sorta agreement, maybe we won't have to deal with anything like terrorists then.
Rather than just bombing the shit out of countries which just ends up sparking up and fueling more terrorism and hate!
#10
Not to mention the 630 billion or whater it was you said doesnt just disappear. It goes back into the economy, paying people's salaries and whatnot. also, a large portion of our technology was at the least derived from some sort of military project (ie. the internet)
#11
If mankind never tried to advance warfare, then we would still living in caves and hitting each other with clubs. Historically speaking, militaristic advances have always translated into advances in other fields that ultimately make our lives more comfortable. Basically, without militaristic advances we wouldn't have medicine, electronics, homes, or any other comforts that we enjoy because all scientific advances in mankind's history have been brought about through military necessity.
#12
Quote by Von.
I think having enough weapons to blow up the planet 13 times over is enough.

reckon that boys a commie, pu the phone taps on him
Quote by guitardude34875
be the music, not the scene
#13
jobs and new technology found from research alone justify it I think.

then you have the practical uses of explosives.

and then add in the fact that there will always be a 'bad guy' (i.e. someone other than you) wanting to get an advantage over everyone else and you have a decent enough reason to develop weapons.

someone will always be developing weapons which forces everyone to develop weapons.

if you can get EVERYONE to stop, then good for you (and humanity). But if you can change all of humanities habits and opinions, then you can solve any problem in the world, not just the need for weapons.

until then, you're just an idealist.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Sep 9, 2008,
#14
I always rant about this to anyone who will listen.


It's sick how the US is doing this kind of thing. Imagine the cures we could accomplish for things like cancer and AIDS. Even scientific things and such. We should put money into education rather than "How can we kill this guy faster and with less energy?"
#15
Quote by guitarkid2113
We should put money into education rather than "How can we kill this guy faster and with less energy?"


see, they're combating global warming too
#16
Quote by AzureNight
If more interesting means more brutal, bloody, and horrible. Face it hippy, you can't "destroy all weapons". They are here to stay.

Advancements in weapons advance technology itself often. Where do you think rockets came from? Or jet aircraft? Nuclear power?


Things would be more brutal, bloody, and horrible if wars were fought with swords, axes, and other melee weapons.
#18
If we don't invest in modern weapons, but other countries do, we're fucked. That's why we do it, and if our weapons our so much better than our enemies, fewer of our soldiers will die in battle.

Ever hear of all those hippies passing reforms saying that "even if it saves one child's life, it's worth it" That's what this is except on a bigger scale and hippies don't like it
#20
Quote by AzureNight
If more interesting means more brutal, bloody, and horrible. Face it hippy, you can't "destroy all weapons". They are here to stay.

Advancements in weapons advance technology itself often. Where do you think rockets came from? Or jet aircraft? Nuclear power?

A lot of it even came from space and scientific research.
Although military research lead to loads of everyday things too.

Alfred Nobel never wanted dynamite to be used for blowing people up.
Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the president of the united states telling him bout how dangerous the nuclear energy is and how they shouldn't use it to make bombs. The president mostly ignored the letter and went ahead to bomb Japan anyway (even when Japan had already agreed to surrender).

Its science research that is taken a step further in military research to create deadly weapons which is toned down for use in civilian applications.
Last edited by af_the_fragile at Sep 9, 2008,
#21
I always wondered that. Yes we do need them to protect ourselves. It's part of our instincts to advance and create things to make something like war easier for us.

This is all we need:


I always wondered, why would someone create a series on giant robots, then I realized that if we fought wars with nuclear weapons we would destroy the planet so a Gundam would be the best option since it doesn't leave any chemicals or radiation when it's done.

Plus it's very mobile in space instead of a fighter jet.
#22
we should build robots to battle for us. each country would have a champion robot. and if they win they get occupation of the country.

in the red corner, equiped with Jesus, Nukes, Texas, and the Goddamn Red White and Blue, USA's champion, The Patriotic PILOTTTTT!!!!

and

in the blue corner, equiped with Sand, Camel, and Beards, he recently had a new oil change...the Middle Eastern Champion, The Allah BALLAAAAAA!!!!


i think it would go something like that, problem is the US would throw all its money into its robot and forget about other things.


edit: WTF u posted the same idea as me!!!! grrrrr
#23
Quote by TSmitty6
we should build robots to battle for us. each country would have a champion robot. and if they win they get occupation of the country.

in the red corner, equiped with Jesus, Nukes, Texas, and the Goddamn Red White and Blue, USA's champion, The Patriotic PILOTTTTT!!!!

and

in the blue corner, equiped with Sand, Camel, and Beards, he recently had a new oil change...the Middle Eastern Champion, The Allah BALLAAAAAA!!!!


i think it would go something like that, problem is the US would throw all its money into its robot and forget about other things.


edit: WTF u posted the same idea as me!!!! grrrrr

Dude you ripped off that idea from G Gundam
#25
the fact is we are humans and there will never be peace and if someone else has a bigger weapon then you could get destroyed.
#26
Quote by Lemoninfluence
jobs and new technology found from research alone justify it I think.

then you have the practical uses of explosives.

and then add in the fact that there will always be a 'bad guy' (i.e. someone other than you) wanting to get an advantage over everyone else and you have a decent enough reason to develop weapons.

someone will always be developing weapons which forces everyone to develop weapons.

if you can get EVERYONE to stop, then good for you (and humanity). But if you can change all of humanities habits and opinions, then you can solve any problem in the world, not just the need for weapons.

until then, you're just an idealist.

Yeah, but jobs could be found in many more rather peaceful areas. Like in maybe they could build a nuclear power station. Or build better cars or more efficient ways of transportation or anything.
You can't say you need to build weapons to give people jobs.

And explosives are practical and useful but i don't think a cannon or a tank is very practical. So was the F-22 fighter jet rated to be one of the most impractical and over priced fighter ever developed. They spend billions building the damn thing and now they build it, they can hardly find a use for it.

I can see how there's the whole arms race going on. Ever since Ronald Regan started the whole "Peace though Power" thing. If we don't build the biggest and baddest weapons then the other country will and they'll take over us.

I don't know, its been like that for the past 8000 years. But i just feel shouldn't we have had learnt something in all these years. Shouldn't the human community evolve to the fact that war is not a practical solution to things.

Call me an idealist, maybe i am. I don't care as i don't believe in labels. I just feel there are loads more areas where money could be spend more efficiently and in a more progressive way than building weapons. People are complaining about rising oil and food prices and here we are burning money in gasoline and napalm.
#27
The Military is not only used for Killing People.

Who rebuild the dikes after Katrina? The Army Engineers Corp.

Who helped rebuild Germany after World War II? The Army.

Who preforms food drops in poor african countries? The Air Force

Plus There are all the merits of the technology. Commercial Airliners where only able to develop because of the advances made during WWII.

Plus the Hummer.
Sig What?
#28
Quote by darth awsome
The Military is not only used for Killing People.

Who rebuild the dikes after Katrina? The Army Engineers Corp.

Who helped rebuild Germany after World War II? The Army.

Who preforms food drops in poor african countries? The Air Force

Plus There are all the merits of the technology. Commercial Airliners where only able to develop because of the advances made during WWII.

Plus the Hummer.

To start off, the Hummer is shite. The Range Rover has much better off road and on road capabilities than the hummer.

Then i'm not talking about relief efforts and all. Those happen just like once a year or twice to the max. The armed forces are doing nothing in africa. Its mostly the NGO's that are doing most of their low budget efforts to help people there.

I'm talking about the money that goes in research and development of weapons and maintaining them.
#29
Quote by darth awsome
The Military is not only used for Killing People.

Who rebuild the dikes after Katrina? The Army Engineers Corp.

Who helped rebuild Germany after World War II? The Army.

Who preforms food drops in poor african countries? The Air Force

Plus There are all the merits of the technology. Commercial Airliners where only able to develop because of the advances made during WWII.

Plus the Hummer.

Who destroyed the Germany? The Army

and i didnt saw much help from the army to help people in new orlean , its still all messed up out there

research for new weapon is just a complete waste


and ya hummer suck
Last edited by tehwoopah at Sep 9, 2008,
#30
Quote by tehwoopah
Who destroyed the Germany? The Army

and i didnt saw much help from the army to help people in new orlean , its still all messed up out there

Well of course there's going to be destruction in Germany if German forces fall back into their cities and they don't surrender.
#31
Quote by af_the_fragile
To start off, the Hummer is shite. The Range Rover has much better off road and on road capabilities than the hummer.

Then i'm not talking about relief efforts and all. Those happen just like once a year or twice to the max. The armed forces are doing nothing in africa. Its mostly the NGO's that are doing most of their low budget efforts to help people there.

I'm talking about the money that goes in research and development of weapons and maintaining them.


Range Rover makes vehicles for the army too
#32
Quote by tehwoopah
Who destroyed the Germany? The Army

and i didnt saw much help from the army to help people in new orlean , its still all messed up out there



Germany brought it on themselves.

And I take it you think New Orleans would be better off with out the Army's Help then? Rebuilding is happening but some people would rather leech off the government than get off their bums and do something.
Sig What?
#33
I don't mind.

An Israeli company has developed a gun that can shoot around corners.

They don't just work on power, making the soldiers safer is a key factor.
#34
Quote by brentondig
Imagine how far the world, or at least North America could advance with even just alternative energy sources with all that money being put into research, as opposed to all those weapons. All weapons, ie. Guns, explosives, tanks, mechanical weapons anyway, should be destroyed. So if anything, if someone wants to start a war, they have to use melee weapons, and nothing else. It would at least make all wars more interesting.


For serious? I think explosions and guns and stuff is way cooler then boring swords. I bet you like to watch paint dry too.
#35
Quote by seljer
Range Rover makes vehicles for the army too

No it doesn't. Its made for people in the country side to get around bogs n hills.
And rich people to show off.

Army wouldn't really count of the Range Rover as its one of the most unreliable car out there.
The Irish army mostly uses Nissan Pathfinders and the UN uses Land Cruisers.

Both built mainly for civilian use, bought and modified by the army....
Quote by zeppelinfreak51
For serious? I think explosions and guns and stuff is way cooler then boring swords. I bet you like to watch paint dry too.

What would you rather watch,
Troy, 300
or
Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down?

Yes, you've got your answer!!
#37
Quote by af_the_fragile
Yeah, but jobs could be found in many more rather peaceful areas. Like in maybe they could build a nuclear power station. Or build better cars or more efficient ways of transportation or anything.
You can't say you need to build weapons to give people jobs.
you'd saturate those other industries and cause unemployment and lower wages. that's assuming the factories and workers abilities are transferable.


I can see how there's the whole arms race going on. Ever since Ronald Regan started the whole "Peace though Power" thing. If we don't build the biggest and baddest weapons then the other country will and they'll take over us.

I don't know, its been like that for the past 8000 years. But i just feel shouldn't we have had learnt something in all these years. Shouldn't the human community evolve to the fact that war is not a practical solution to things.
but we haven't so all this discussion is pointless. war will happen, so we need to be prepared when it does.

Call me an idealist, maybe i am. I don't care as i don't believe in labels. I just feel there are loads more areas where money could be spend more efficiently and in a more progressive way than building weapons. People are complaining about rising oil and food prices and here we are burning money in gasoline and napalm.

unless the weapons development money is going into subsidising oil or food, it wouldn't effect that situation much.

Quote by mrwaffles
Isn't it nice to see where our taxes go? This is why I plan on moving to either Germany or Great Britain after college.

our army is one of the best financed in the world and we have higher taxes.

we're not in any better position really, it's just the old saying 'the grass looks greener on the other side'
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Sep 9, 2008,
#38
Quote by mrwaffles
Isn't it nice to see where our taxes go? This is why I plan on moving to either Germany or Great Britain after college.

See them go up quite literally in smoke?
#39
how many people does that money employee? I am sure some goes off shore for stuff but most of it is paying for people in the US to work and build the weapons etc.
#40
Quote by af_the_fragile


What would you rather watch,
Troy, 300
or
Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down?

Yes, you've got your answer!!


Exactly. Troy and 300 were boring. BHD was bad fu.cking a.ss
Page 1 of 2