US military to enhance soldier vision with dual-focus contacts

• Lan wrote on 2012-04-21 19:51

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;844692:

  I'm sorry, but this ideal world exists and it's called "outside of America where even the most expensive military force doesn't even consume half of America's military in terms of GDP and not even a quarter of the absolute cost".

  
  
  And how exactly does that constitute an ideal world? There are still wars going on, there is still slavery and there are still people without basic rights and privileges and there are still places where people do not have access to good food, clean water and a good education. To me that is less than ideal.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-21 19:55

  Quote from Lan;844730:

  And how exactly does that constitute an ideal world? There are still wars going on, there is still slavery and there are still people without basic rights and privileges and there are still places where people do not have access to good food, clean water and a good education. To me that is less than ideal.

  
  Yes, but it doesn't need a bloated military like the US's. And frankly a lot of those wars were started by the US, the rest is mostly civil war, which is something that usually doesn't involve invasions of other countries by the warring parties.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-04-21 20:10
  The USA is basically a Leroy Jenkins country. While Military is obviously important, there is no reason the USA needs to waste so much money on it. To me it just seems like the USA is being a stereotypical American; trying to get all the fame and glory, charge into battle (most of which they started themselves, as previously stated), and basically just being arrogant in general.
  
  Unless most of the other countries ask for our help, we really don't need to get involved. And even if, that still doesn't require the vast amount of money the USA wastes on its military.
• Lan wrote on 2012-04-21 20:25

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;844736:

  Yes, but it doesn't need a bloated military like the US's. And frankly a lot of those wars were started by the US, the rest is mostly civil war, which is something that usually doesn't involve invasions of other countries by the warring parties.

  
  
  If a lot of those wars were started by the US then that just means that they would have to be proactive in their military expenditures because they'll naturally have a lot of enemies. And the part about not interfering in other countries civil wars? I'm pretty sure the US is a major part of the UN security council, as such if they see civilians being killed I think it's their supposed "duty" to step in and stop the massacre of civilians.
  
  
  

  Quote from Cynic;844749:

  The USA is basically a Leroy Jenkins country. While Military is obviously important, there is no reason the USA needs to waste so much money on it. To me it just seems like the USA is being a stereotypical American; trying to get all the fame and glory, charge into battle (most of which they started themselves, as previously stated), and basically just being arrogant in general.
  
  Unless most of the other countries ask for our help, we really don't need to get involved. And even if, that still doesn't require the vast amount of money the USA wastes on its military.

  
  
  Most of the wars the US have been involved in were motivated by economic gain, the potential benefits for engaging in warfare. To my knowledge (which is limited) the only wars that were not done for economic gain were the war of 1812 (mainly about pride or something) and the World Wars where the US entered due to certain events. WW1 would be the sinking of the Lusitania among other factors and WW2 would be the attack on Pearl Harbor.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-21 22:57

  Quote from Lan;844681:

  Better to be proactive than reactive? If people only did things when they needed to then...well that wouldn't be good now would it?

  
  If going to the point we have is proactive, we've been proactive enough for quite a long time that we won't need to be to prevent almost all bad things from happening to us for... well, a long time, really.
  
  But even disregarding that, why are we out making so many enemies in the first place?
• Lan wrote on 2012-04-21 23:04

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;844907:

  If going to the point we have is proactive, we've been proactive enough for quite a long time that we won't need to be to prevent almost all bad things from happening to us for... well, a long time, really.
  
  But even disregarding that, why are we out making so many enemies in the first place?

  
  
  Well, if you're enemies methods and technology become more and more sophisticated while your technology remained static if worse came to worse you'd probably lose. Kind of like if the allies didn't adapt to the Blitzkrieg method of warfare, remember the allies fully expected the Second world war to be like the first so the french built the Maginot line which was rendered useless.
  
  Anyway about making enemies. As a Canadian I'd like to say it's just because your past governments are dumb but it would be ignorant to just say that and leave it there. There are a variety of reasons but the one that comes to the top of my head is for resources and expanding their economic influence. Someone more knowledgeable on the matter can probably elaborate to a greater degree than I can.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-21 23:12
  We can already do practically endless irreversible damage (at least considering the size of the planet). What more do we really need at this point? I'm not saying we should bomb our enemies out of existence, but... how much advancement is even necessary?
• Lan wrote on 2012-04-21 23:28

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;844922:

  We can already do practically endless irreversible damage (at least considering the size of the planet). What more do we really need at this point? I'm not saying we should bomb our enemies out of existence, but... how much advancement is even necessary?

  
  
  I'm pretty sure the US has enough firepower to destroy the world many many many times over, but they can't and wont use it. The technological advances they need are gear for standard troops to make their jobs safer and more efficient.
  
  Well there's that and spy planes. As other people's detection equipment becomes better and more sophisticated you need better and better anti-detection capabilities.
• Maenad wrote on 2012-04-21 23:29
  Something like this could constantly display the time, display warnings about upcoming weather, and much more. And you wouldn't even have to look at a phone, or a watch, or anything. It'd be right there, in the corner of your vision.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-04-21 23:39

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;843253:

  Does this mean I can finally join the air force?

  
  
  owo
  does hanna have vision problems?