Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

The ROK is America's ally. Let's say America refuses to uphold it's treaty obligations and withdraws, what would the outcome be? Oh and let's not get into who wins north vs south, just stick to the rest of the world's reactions and repercussions.

njb902 wrote:The ROK is America's ally. Let's say America refuses to uphold it's treaty obligations and withdraws, what would the outcome be? Oh and let's not get into who wins north vs south, just stick to the rest of the world's reactions and repercussions.

It would not be good.

Best case scenario: South Korea is important economy on this planet with electronics and automobile. Cannot be good on global economy, if not disastrous. Also, a war between two 250000+ armies will be bloody. Not to mention the relatively warn relations between the USA and ROK. It would be bad just for honor's sake.

Worst case scenario: Imagine a mushroom cloud over Seoul! Seems unlikely, but this will be long war, especially if South Korea has to go it alone. Enough said.

Then again, if to North Korea has anything close to adequate ballistic missile tech with even a primitive nuke, they may just hit us anyone. Even if they miss wildly, any mushroom cloud on or near the US would be unnerving, even if it hits somewhere in the Mojave desert. Probably, Kim Jong Un is blowing smoke about the nuclear capability, but this a worst case scenario.

The USN will begin to equip certain vessels with weaponized lasers next year. The navy has said that these laser will give them greater ability to take out drones and small water craft. Now my question to you guys is what do you believe the real capabilities of these weapons are?

njb902 wrote:The USN will begin to equip certain vessels with weaponized lasers next year. The navy has said that these laser will give them greater ability to take out drones and small water craft. Now my question to you guys is what do you believe the real capabilities of these weapons are?

Honestly, I'd like to see more proof before I get behind the Navy on this one. A demonstration may make the weapon a deterrent against North Korea.

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:The USN will begin to equip certain vessels with weaponized lasers next year. The navy has said that these laser will give them greater ability to take out drones and small water craft. Now my question to you guys is what do you believe the real capabilities of these weapons are?

Honestly, I'd like to see more proof before I get behind the Navy on this one. A demonstration may make the weapon a deterrent against North Korea.

Looks like we did get that demonstration. Courtesy of our very own Navy.

Mindmaster wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:The USN will begin to equip certain vessels with weaponized lasers next year. The navy has said that these laser will give them greater ability to take out drones and small water craft. Now my question to you guys is what do you believe the real capabilities of these weapons are?

Honestly, I'd like to see more proof before I get behind the Navy on this one. A demonstration may make the weapon a deterrent against North Korea.

Looks like we did get that demonstration. Courtesy of our very own Navy.

It burns through that drone pretty quickly.

njb902 wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:The USN will begin to equip certain vessels with weaponized lasers next year. The navy has said that these laser will give them greater ability to take out drones and small water craft. Now my question to you guys is what do you believe the real capabilities of these weapons are?

Honestly, I'd like to see more proof before I get behind the Navy on this one. A demonstration may make the weapon a deterrent against North Korea.

Looks like we did get that demonstration. Courtesy of our very own Navy.

It burns through that drone pretty quickly.

It does, doesn't it?

I would imagine the Navy eggheads are developing a larger version that could truly act like an anti-air gun.

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:The USN will begin to equip certain vessels with weaponized lasers next year. The navy has said that these laser will give them greater ability to take out drones and small water craft. Now my question to you guys is what do you believe the real capabilities of these weapons are?

Honestly, I'd like to see more proof before I get behind the Navy on this one. A demonstration may make the weapon a deterrent against North Korea.

Looks like we did get that demonstration. Courtesy of our very own Navy.

It burns through that drone pretty quickly.

It does, doesn't it?

I would imagine the Navy eggheads are developing a larger version that could truly act like an anti-air gun.

Though I do for see problems with them not being able to fire over the horizon.

No.

Halo wrote:No.

Well who can argue with that

njb902 wrote:

Halo wrote:No.

Well who can argue with that

No... to what, exactly?

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Halo wrote:No.

Well who can argue with that

No... to what, exactly?

You, since you asked.

Halo wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:

njb902 wrote:

Halo wrote:No.

Well who can argue with that

No... to what, exactly?

You, since you asked.

I think it might like you Mindmaster

On a more serious note, should athletes be held legally responsible for their conduct on the field?

njb902 wrote:On a more serious note, should athletes be held legally responsible for their conduct on the field?

Depending on what the action is. If it's willful bodily harm towards another player, especially that which results in injury, I think they should. Take American football. Like the bounty stuff. Hurting a QB on purpose should be treated as assault. I know it may sound ridiculous, considering the sport, but trying to injury another person should be punishable, no matter what. Or regular football. Kicking someone in the shin, knees, or even crotch on purpose in an attempt to hinder the player by causing bodily injury should also be punished by more than just money or a red card.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

njb902 wrote:On a more serious note, should athletes be held legally responsible for their conduct on the field?

Depending on what the action is. If it's willful bodily harm towards another player, especially that which results in injury, I think they should. Take American football. Like the bounty stuff. Hurting a QB on purpose should be treated as assault. I know it may sound ridiculous, considering the sport, but trying to injury another person should be punishable, no matter what. Or regular football. Kicking someone in the shin, knees, or even crotch on purpose in an attempt to hinder the player by causing bodily injury should also be punished by more than just money or a red card.

I should responded earlier. njb902 was probably referring to the Zach Grienke injury in his fight with Carlos Quentin. Kinda doinked my fantasy baseball team, but it will survive and is thriving.

Yes in extreme cases, however the line is much more murky. In baseball, beanballs are part of the game. In hockey and baseball, fights occur. In football, tackling is just a milder form of assault. Lets not even get into combat sports. Honestly, in some cases what is acceptable on the field of play would not be acceptable in society, but the athletes accept it and would hate it if the law was involved.

On a side note, there was (and maybe still is) sanctioned MMA events, and people entered these events with a mutually designated opponent with explicit goal of having fights, as in literally having a bar fight however with rules and official sanction to escape legal persecution. Basically, some of fights on the fight card were motivated by revenge, hatred, etc. Any thoughts.

I am very disheartened about all of these allegations regarding sexual misconduct in the American armed forces. I spent almost a third of my life in the army, and it sickens me that something like this could happen. I don't understand how this could be. I know i never swept anything like this under the rug, though I'll admit none of my people ever brought any allegations to me of a sexual nature. So I can't understand why my fellow soldiers would allow/do these things. I know i would have come down like a jdam on any of my company that did.

So I put this question to you'll. How do we fix this?

Edit: my auto correct changed jdam to jsow

Unfortunately, this kind of problem is tough to handle, due to it stemming from a basic human need/urge. We're biologically programmed for sexual behavior. I don't think it's something that can be just turned on or off. (Well, maybe on, but not off. ) Sometimes people who are perfectly normal, and would pass any kind of screening regarding the potential for this kind of behavior, turn out to be serious offenders. Especially in a strict and disciplined environment. I have never been in any branch of the armed forces, so that last sentence is an educated guess. I don't think something like this can be regulated from the beginning, those who lack the control of these urges must act first before they can be identified. Otherwise others who are in control will be punished unfairly. I think the key lies in the threat of severe punishment. I abhor rapists and molesters, and I don't believe in people being allowed a 2nd chance when it comes to violating someone else in this manner. Also, this is one of the few instances peer pressure might be usable to deter such behavior. I'm not a psychologist, nor do I have any training in identifying or practicing the prevention of this kind of behavior. It's simply my opinion.

The part of this that makes me blindingly mad is that so many of our service members that suffer these attacks aren't being given the respect they deserve from thier superiors! How can a Co in good conscious not do everything they can to make sure these cases are handled correctly? We order these kids out in harms way, sometimes to die. How can we not do everything in our power to make sure they are safe on our own bases, and god/s forbid it something does happen to see justice done.

I've been talking to a lot of my service friends lately about this. I have to say as a group we must be blind, none of us new this was such a systematic problem. It breaks my heart to think I may have done a disservice to my men/women by not being more aware.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/tech/kickstarter-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is rather disturbing.

Read this on cnn. I'm not really sure how I feel about it.

By Barbara Starr
Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with the
battlefield adage: “An Army moves on its
stomach.” That, of course, means there’s
nothing like good chow.
For the thousands of U.S. troops who will
fight in Afghanistan for another 17 months, it
is not just the quality of the food they have
to consider. Now there will be a bit less of it.
U.S. troops in Afghanistan for years have
been fed four hot meals a day, including what
is fondly known as “mid-rats” or midnight
rations.
That is a meal for troops headed back and
forth from the field or pulling a midnight
shift on base.
Those meals are served in cafeteria-style
dining halls — sometimes little more than a
tent — where troops can select items from a
buffet.
But as the United States winds down its
combat operations in Afghanistan, so, too, will
it wind down its food operations.
The Defense Department is cutting back to two
hot meals a day, most likely just lunch and
dinner.
The reason: the Pentagon is trying to scale
down the number of contractors needed to
cook and serve meals and run dining areas.
Its all about getting ready to pull troops,
equipment and everything else that supports
the war.
“We will significantly reduce contractor and
supply chain requirements,” said David Lakin,
a spokesman for U.S. Force in Afghanistan, in
an e-mail exchange with CNN.
Commanders insist, however, that the troops
will not go hungry.
Packaged foods will be available. But breakfast
and the midnight meal will now be mainly
“meals ready to eat.” Those are the bagged
rations known as “MRE’s.”
Large-quantity rations packages, which feed
multiple troops at one time, also will be
available.
The military believes “most soldiers don’t
consume the midnight meal and breakfast is
also a low attendance event.
Putting the two hot meals together through
lunch and dinner also allows for removal of
an entire dining facility shift, Lakin said.
This will put troops in the position of eating
rations for at least 17 months until the United
States ends its combat presence.
Individual commanders will have the
flexibility to make some changes in the meal
plan. But in the meantime, what are the very
top senior military officials eating, especially
those from NATO, which does not fall under
Pentagon rules?
Well a letter is being drafted to NATO
headquarters asking them to go along with the
same plan, and that means Gen. Joseph
Dunford, the four-star Marine who runs
Afghanistan operations, may soon find himself
ripping open a ration bag just like everyone
else.

So in other words, they're cutting rations in the Armed Forces?

Mindmaster wrote:So in other words, they're cutting rations in the Armed Forces?

Just in Afghanistan, and it's not that they are cutting rations but changing them.

oh and did you read the article I linked above this one?

njb902 wrote:

Mindmaster wrote:So in other words, they're cutting rations in the Armed Forces?

Just in Afghanistan, and it's not that they are cutting rations but changing them.

Oh, alright.

Yeah, that's the first I've heard of them rationing their MREs. Usually I get an email from Military.com with some articles talking about subjects such as that.

I do know that as I used to come back to hq on a late patrol mid-rats were a god send.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Unfortunately, this kind of problem is tough to handle, due to it stemming from a basic human need/urge.

This isn't really the case, though. That people get horny is not a problem. That they have no respect for others is the problem.