Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"Hurray! We're Capitulating!" (2)
By Henryk M. Broder
In the past, an attack on an embassy would have been reason enough to go to war. But this time the affected countries did their utmost to "de-escalate." The victims were repentant and begged the perpetrators for forgiveness. Indeed, the West was intent on not doing anything that could possibly give offense and cause these fanatical Muslims to become even angrier.
Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup. But subjectively it was a show of strength and, in the context of the "clash of civilizations," a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive -- nothing but fear, cowardice and an overriding concern about the balance of trade. Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording.
Click on a picture to launch the image gallery (10 Photos)
As different as the West's reactions to the Muslim protests were, what they had in common were origins in feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses suddenly insisted that religious sensibilities must be taken into account, especially when accompanied by violence. The representatives of open societies reacted like the inhabitants of an island about to be hit by a hurricane. Powerless against the forces of nature, they stocked up on supplies, nailed doors and windows shut and hoped that the storm would soon pass. Of course, whereas such a reaction may be an appropriate response to natural disasters, such a lack of resistance merely encourages fundamentalists. It completely justifies their view of the West as weak, decadent and completely unwilling to defend itself.
Should the age of consent be 12?
Those who react to kidnappings and beheadings, to massacres of people of other faiths, and to eruptions of collective hysteria with a call for "cultural dialogue" don't deserve any better.
"The West should desist from engaging in all provocations that produce feelings of debasement and humiliation," says psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. "We should show greater respect for the cultural identity of Muslim countries. ... For Muslims, it is important to be recognized and respected as equals." In Richter's view, what the Muslims need is "a partnership of equals."
But Richter neglects to describe what this partnership might look like. Does achieving such equality mean that we should set up separate sections for women on buses, as is the custom in Saudi Arabia? Should the marrying age for girls be reduced to 12, as is the case in Iran? And should death by stoning be our punishment for adultery, as Shariah law demands? What else could the West do to show its respect for the cultural identity of Islamic countries? Would it be sufficient to allow Horst-Eberhard Richter to decide whether, for example, a wet T-shirt contest in a German city rises to a level of criminal provocation that could cause the Muslim faithful in Hyderabad to feel debased and humiliated?
The discussion over which provocations WE should put an end to so that THEY do not feel upset inexorably leads to the realm of the absurd.
Should devout Jews be entitled to demand that non-Jews give up pork? And should they have the power to impose sanctions if their demands are not met? Can a Hindu in India run amok because the Dutch do not view cows as sacred beings? Those who believe Muslims have the right to be outraged by the Danes failing to abide by an Islamic prohibition -- especially when it's not even clear that such a prohibition even exists -- must answer such questions clearly in the affirmative. Even illiterates must then be allowed to ransack bookstores; in a world in which anyone is entitled to feel offended and humiliated, anyone can also choose which provocations he is unwilling to accept.
The comments made by German pastor Burkhard Müller on Feb. 11, 2005 on "Wort zum Sonntag," a weekly Christian program aired on the ARD public television network, demonstrate just how far we are willing to go when it comes to denying reality. "Islam is a great religion," Müller said, only minutes after the previous news program had shown scenes of burning flags, devastated embassies and holy warriors yelling "death to the infidels!" Where does it come from, this determination to disregard the facts or conveniently distort them so that they cloud our perception of reality?
A natural tendency to avoid conflict
It comes from fear. Fear may be a poor counselor, but when it comes to educating the masses, there is no more effective tool. Mao famously said: "Strike one to educate one hundred" -- an axiom that helped him solidify his power.
It is not respect for other cultures which influences behavior, but rather the awareness of just how fanatic and ruthless our adversaries are. The wilder and more brutal they appear to be, the more likely they are to attract attention and gain respect. Whether venturing into unfamiliar territory means taking a walk in a different neighborhood or visiting a foreign culture, our natural tendency is to avoid conflict.
"Nowadays acts of terrorism are not committed for their own sake, but in the name of an ideology one could call Nazi-Islamism," Romanian-American author Norman Manea told the German daily Die Welt in March 2004. The only difference, in Manea's view, is "that this ideology invokes a religion, whereas the Nazis were mythical without being religious." Manea believes that what he calls a "World War III" has already begun. "The Europeans are putting off the recognition -- as they did in the 1930s -- of the tremendous tragedy that awaits them and that has, in fact, already arrived."
This sounds like an extreme exaggeration, conjuring up visions of a Day of Judgment, of an Apocalypse Now! Of course, in 1938 hardly anyone could have imagined where the policy of appeasing the Nazis would lead. History does not repeat itself, and yet there are parallels that do not bode well. The willingness to submit to self-deception is as widespread today as it was in the years leading up to World War II.
In late June 2006, every German paper reported the sensational news that Hamas was willing to recognize Israel. But the reports were not based on a binding declaration issued by the ruling prime minister and member of Hamas, but on a document drawn up by Palestinians in Israeli jails who were seeking to re-establish "national unity" between the warring Hamas and Fatah groups. The headline on the front page of Die Welt read: "Hamas Indirectly Recognizes Israel." The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote: "Hamas Apparently Ready to Recognize Israel." "Hamas Gives Way -- Indirect Recognition of Israel," wrote the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The Frankfurter Rundschau rejoiced over the "Recognition of Israel in the Middle of a Crisis," which the paper's Jerusalem correspondent described as a "manifesto for a state within the 1967 borders, which can be seen as an indirect recognition of Israel." The Berliner Zeitung went a step further when it wrote "Hamas Recognizes Israel," commenting in the corresponding article on the "realization of a necessity" and that Hamas had come to terms "with Israel's existence" and would accept a "two-state solution."
"Hurray! We're Capitulating!"
By Henryk M. Broder
The West seems to have no trouble offending the Muslim world these days. What should we do about it? We might as well surrender. After all, we're already on our way.
This essay is an excerpt of Henryk M. Broder's book "Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren," ("Hurray! We're Capitulating") published by Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag in 2006. The book spent a number of weeks atop the DER SPIEGEL bestseller list.
Buring an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI in Baghdad. But then again, he did offend them.
Ten years ago, in the spring of 1996, the world still seemed more or less okay. The towers of the World Trade Center dominated the Manhattan skyline, the American president had an affair with an intern, the Helmut Kohl era was coming to an end in Germany, and intellectuals killed time by debating over whether Francis Fukuyama was right in claiming that we have reached the "end of history" and whether capitalism had truly triumphed or socialism had merely lost the first round. In those days few were aware of the fine distinction between Islam and Islamism.
One had to look very closely to recognize the first signs of a brewing crisis. In Berlin, the Rote Grütze theater group was performing an enlightening piece called "Who Said Anything About Love?" To advertise the play, posters depicting a young man and a young woman, naked and full of innocence, were handed out in schools.
The schools had no qualms about displaying the posters, until a school official from Berlin's Tiergarten district requested a permit from the city's education authority. The agency turned down the request, arguing that the poster could hurt "the feelings of non-Christian pupils." The education authority was acting preventively and with what amounted to exaggerated concern for a cultural minority that had yet to be integrated into permissive German society. No Muslim pupils had complained about hurt feelings, nor had their parents expressed concerns about immoral harassment.
That was 10 years ago. Today everything has changed, except the resolve not to hurt the feelings of Muslims. The issue today no longer revolves around a group of Berlin pupils with an "immigration background," but around 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide -- many of whom are thin-skinned and unpredictable. At issue is freedom of opinion, one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment and democracy. And whether respect, consideration and tolerance are the right approach to dealing with cultures that, for their part, behave without respect, consideration or tolerance when it comes to anything they view as decadent, provocative and unworthy -- from women in short skirts to cartoons they deem provocative without even having seen them.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,576295,00.jpg
The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement -- a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II -- Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.
The uproar over the Muhammad cartoons was symptomatic precisely because what triggered it was so insignificant. The drawings themselves were unbelievably harmless.
It took two weeks for "spontaneous" protests to begin. On Oct. 14, 2005, 3,000 Muslims staged a demonstration on Copenhagen's town hall square after Friday prayers. In a letter to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ambassadors from 11 Islamic countries demanded that he take the "necessary steps" to avert an abuse of Islam. Rasmussen responded that it was not his responsibility to discipline journalists, and he refused to schedule a meeting with the irate ambassadors. The Egyptian foreign minister got the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) involved soon after. The OIC had already made clear what it wanted in its "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" in 1990: "All have the right to freely express their opinions in a manner that does not run counter to Shariah law." In essence, what the OIC wanted was to compel Western nations to bring their form of freedom of expression into conformity with Shariah law.
Then a delegation of Danish Muslims traveled to the Muslim world, carrying a folder with the 12 cartoons from Jyllands-Posten, as well as of three significantly more provocative drawings in their luggage. The three drawings portrayed the Prophet as a pedophile devil, with pigs' ears and having sex with a dog. Where the bonus material came from and how it found its way into the documentation remains unclear to this day. But clearly someone was interested in generating the appropriate reaction. Newspapers in Arab countries promptly wrote that the Danish media had portrayed Muhammad as a pig, the original 12 cartoons magically turned into 120 drawings, and the Danish government was accused of being behind the whole thing.
The West has values worth defending. Doesn't it?
European Union foreign ministers met in Brussels on Jan. 30, 2006 to discuss the crisis. Some believed that Denmark had missed its chance to resolve the conflict on its own. The foreign minister of Luxembourg wasn't just speaking for his own country when he said that the entire affair was "more a Danish than a European problem." The Austrian foreign minister went even further when she said: "statements and actions that degrade a religion in an offensive way should be clearly condemned." Even the Americans abandoned their Danish allies. During the course of a single day, three State Department spokesmen used adjectives like "unacceptable," "offensive" and "objectionable." Muslims got the message.
A year ago on Feb. 3, 2006, a "Day of Anger" was proclaimed. Across the Muslim world, the Muhammad cartoons were the focus of Friday prayers. Millions of Muslims who couldn't even locate Denmark on a map demonstrated against these insults to the Prophet, incited by their imams. The embassies of Denmark and Norway were set on fire in Damascus, the Danish embassy was torched in Beirut, firebombs were hurled at the Danish consulate in Tehran, and Danish and Norwegian flags were burned in Nigeria and Algeria.
Lame. You are the emoticons here Mr. Religion.
Why is it that demonrats think our great military cannot win a civil war in Iraq while simultaneously claiming that an American civil war would be squelched by our military with ease?
Off topic...Bull...
You seem to be an avid gun supporter. Yet you also support a group of people that would relinquish you of that right given the chance. How do you reconcile this?
I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME BORE
January 24, 2007
It's nice to have a president who is not so sleazy that not a single Supreme Court justice shows up for his State of the Union address (Bill Clinton, January 1999, when eight justices stayed away to protest Clinton's disregard for the law and David Souter skipped the speech to watch "Sex and the City").
Speaking of which, the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running.
As long as we have revived the practice of celebrating multicultural milestones (briefly suspended when Condoleezza Rice became the first black female to be secretary of state), let us pause to note that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, would be the first woman to become president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.
According to the famed "polls" — or, as I call them, "surveys of uninformed people who think it's possible to get the answer wrong" — Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress — except for the fact that the Republicans' current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Fortunately, polls at this stage are nothing but name recognition contests, so please stop asking me to comment on them. "Arsenic" and "proctologist" have sky-high name recognition going for them, too.
In January, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was ... Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999). In the end, Liddy Dole's most successful run turned out to be a mad dash from her husband Bob after he accidentally popped two Viagras.
At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).
Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year. Bush did considerably better in the poll taken on Election Day.
The average poll respondent reads the above information and immediately responds that the administrations of presidents Cuomo, Dole and Dukakis were going in "the wrong direction."
Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."
Mrs. Clinton's acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, "Can a woman be elected president?" This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and ... hmmm, you know, I think that's it.
Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry — love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.
It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either.
It is as easy to imagine Americans voting for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice for president as it is difficult to imagine them voting for someone like Hillary. (Or Kevin Federline.) Hillary isn't piggybacking on Thatcher because she's a woman, she's piggybacking on Thatcher because Thatcher made it on her own, which Hillary did not.
But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts.
Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats.
He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream." But — as some of us warned you — it appears that Webb has already been fitted for his tutu by Rahm Emanuel.
Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage. I guess we should all be relieved that at least Webb's response did not involve putting a young boy's penis into a man's mouth, as characters in his novels are wont to do.
He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?
COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
No I have not. Sounds interesting though. My wife is fond of that 2-buck Chuck though.Ever heard of it? I guess the back story is the wife divorced the husband taking his vineyard and selling his wine for 2$ bucks a bottle. It's extremely good.
ROFLMAO...exactly
You're a joke DW.. thats pretty much all I have to say to you.
"By being the scariest MoFo among them."
So why won't you libs let us take off the gloves then... You praise that Evil Saddam justifying his means of control simultaneously attacking each and every alternative method tried by the USA.
Was it in the Philippines that the USA ordered its soldiers to coat all bullets in pigs blood? Or was it the French that did this. Either way, the very second this happened, the Muslim terrorists ceased all terror activities and piece ensued. If we did this today you’d have your boys at the ACLU throwing out lawsuits left and right.
Hypocrite.
Nice try spin master. Do your fellow libs pay you to do this?
In essence i'm saying zoro fell for a propaganda piece. Essence hell I said it directly to his face. He's stupid if he believes that poorly done propagandqa crap. And if you believed it as well...then
DW only if Clinton gives all his Halliburton no bid contract money back as well...
People who get their news from Comedy Central.....
Well that's why they call liberalism a mental disorder...
Alex.....
Sour puss!
As I said, I am very proud to at one time, be his friend.
Matt will just allow any old body to post here won't he ;O)~
You're just jealous pTTTTTTTTh!
Wow being as I created this board, all current moderators should yield authority to back to me.
waddya say huh?
"Respect my authoritayyy" Eric Cartman
I didn't remember starting this board. Thanks for reminding me. It was a long time ago.
Both Ex RB members...
Gary BTW was best man at my wedding.***
***ONEBGG and I parted ways roughly 5 years ago after a 12 year friendship. It's one of the saddest moments of my life to loose such a good friend. I am proud of him today going to college. Finally he is using his God given abilities for far more than he was. I wish nothing but the best for him and his family.
"I don't delete words, just disgusting pictures"
Could you remove the picture of your dog then...
Just joking I'm sorry I could't help myself. It's been a long week.
Didn't think so. You're pitiful. Got anymore expert opinions on investigative journalism?
What do you do for a living that makes you such an expert anyway...dishwasher at Taco Bell?
This board was created by Raging Bull posters. We took this concept from there to here. I created the Bible board late giving it to Excel, and several other boards were also created during this exodus from RB. Most of which went away with their creators.
On this board, I think Midas is the only remaining carryover until I came back that is. Now look. You go away for a couple of years and look what the cat’s drag in.
And they made themselves at home even...Do these people have no shame? lolololol
Just went right over your head didn't it.
"Now show me the injury report oh great one"
Your doctor wouldn't release them to me. He did mention something about severe brain damage though.
Told me to pray for you or something like that..
Well then enlighten me as to what you really meant then. Tin foil man
Projectiles fired from an electromagnetic railgun will travel up to 290 miles in less than six minutes, exiting the atmosphere before hurling into their target at a velocity of 5,000 feet per second. The force of the impact will obliterate targets without an explosive aid.
Picture this: A massive destroyer receives the location coordinates of an enemy headquarters more than 200 miles away. Instead of launching a million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missile, it points a gun barrel in the direction of the target, diverts electric power from the ship’s engine to the gun turret, and launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile up a set of superconducting rails. The projectile leaves the barrel at hypersonic velocity—Mach 7-plus—exits the Earth’s atmosphere, re-enters under satellite guidance, and lands on the building less than six minutes later; its incredible velocity vaporizes the target with kinetic energy alone.
The U.S. Navy is developing an electromagnetic railgun that will turn destroyers into super-long-range machine guns—able to fire up to a dozen relatively inexpensive projectiles every minute. The Navy is collaborating with the British Ministry of Defence, which has a similar effort under way. In 2003, its facility in Kirkcudbright, Scotland, hosted a 1/8-scale test of an electromagnetic railgun that produced stable flight in a projectile fired out of the barrel at Mach 6. But Capt. Roger McGinnis, program manager for directed energy weapons at Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C., estimates the U.S. version won’t be “deliverable” until 2015 at the earliest.
The technology behind the electromagnetic railgun has been around for more than 20 years, but early efforts wilted because of the huge power requirements: No ship could generate or store enough electricity to fire the gun. The concept was revived a few years ago when the Navy announced plans for its next-generation battleship, the all-electric DD(X). “In the past, destroyers had 90 percent of their power tied to propulsion,” explains McGinnis. “But with DD(X), you can divert the power to whatever you need. We can stop the ship and fire the railgun as many times as we need, then divert the power back to the screws.”
The barrel of the electromagnetic railgun will contain two parallel conducting rails about 20 feet long, bridged by a sliding armature. In the current design, electric current travels up one rail, crosses the armature, and heads down the second rail. The loop induces a magnetic field that pushes the armature, and the projectile aboard it, up the rails.
The challenges that remain include ensuring that the gun can target enemy sites with precision, and creating equipment that can withstand the gargantuan pressures the gun will create. “Right now, guns are only as accurate as the targeting of the bore, and now we’re talking about 200-plus-mile ranges, so there has to be aerodynamic correction,” says Fred Beach, the assistant program manager for the electromagnetic railgun at Naval Sea Systems Command. The projectile, he says, will receive course correction information from satellites and will steer itself with movable control surfaces. And because the projectile will be subjected to up to 45,000 Gs during firing, the onboard electronics must be strengthened to withstand the acceleration. Forces inside the gun itself—particularly getting the armature to move easily within the system—are also challenging the designers. “Getting two pieces of metal to slide past each other is pretty hard—we’re getting a lot of damage to the rails,” Beach says.
The electromagnetic railgun’s projectiles will cover 290 miles in six minutes—initially traveling 8,200 feet per second and hitting their target at 5,000 feet per second. Current Navy guns, which shoot powder-ignited explosive shells, have a maximum range of 12 miles and, because they are unguided, are difficult to aim. Though guided missiles, the current long-range alternative for destroyers, can achieve ranges comparable to that of the electromagnetic railgun, their cost and storage problems are what’s driving the efforts to find an alternative. Ships can only carry up to 70 guided missiles and must return to port to restock because the missiles cannot be loaded at sea, whereas railgun projectiles can easily be loaded at sea, and by the hundreds. Also appealing is that the electromagnetic railgun’s missiles do not contain volatile explosives; the weapon does its work with kinetic energy.
NOT YOUR GRANDPA'S SHOOTIN' IRON: Rail Guns
The Big Bang: An experimental rail gun, with loads of firepower (Photo courtesy of Sam Barros' Powerlabs).
Rail Gun: Hot Facts
A projected naval rail gun with a 2.5km/sec muzzle velocity could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles, at a rate greater than 6 rounds per minute.
A test demonstrated that a rail gun projectile's kinetic energy could create a 10-foot diameter crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet - 3 to 5 times more effective than current guns.
Rail gun projectiles are smaller and easier to store: a standard AGS magazine holds 1,500 rounds; a rail gun magazine could hold 10,000 rounds in the same amount of space.
http://www.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Rail1.jpg
Source: Batelle
A gun that accelerates a bullet to a speed of 13,000 miles per hour in 0.2 seconds? Seems like a science fiction dream, but don't even blink -- with advances in rail gun technology, a new era of high-speed military weaponry is coming right at us, faster than a speeding bullet.
In the "more things change, the more they stay the same" category, we give you basic gun physics. Despite numerous advancements over the last millennium, all guns, from the blunderbuss to the M-16, have operated on the "expanding gas" principle, where an expanding ball of superheated gas is used to force a projectile through a tube.
Well, no longer. Gunpowder, as we know it, may soon become a thing of the past. Make way for the rail gun, a device that substitutes electromagnetic (EM) propulsion for gunpowder, with devastating results in speed and kinetic power. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who took out the baddies with a similar device in the movie "Eraser") would approve.
Zero to 13,000 MPH in 0.2 Seconds
An EM projector (i.e. rail gun) uses electrical energy to accelerate projectiles to extreme velocities. How fast? Tests conducted at the University of Canberra were able to accelerate a 16-gram projectile down a 5 meter barrel at 250,000 gravities, for a muzzle velocity of 5,900 meters per second. Loosely translated, that's an acceleration from 0 to 13,000 miles per hour in the span of 0.2 seconds, not bad even for Superman. This also translates to an enormous amount of kinetic energy, at a fraction of the mass needed for a normal bullet. A quick comparison: an anti-armor projectile shot from a rail gun at 3,000 m/sec (almost twice the speed of current kinetic energy penetrators) would only need to be roughly one-fifth of the mass of a standard projectile to deliver the same amount of destructive force. Electromagnetic-power also has the advantage of stealth: Reduced logistics (rounds can have a smaller weight and volume), and the lack of chemical propellant means it will be difficult for opponents to track.
How are these impressive speeds reached? A rail gun is essentially two parallel conductive metal plates through which an electrical current is passed. This electrical current creates opposed linear magnetic fields along the axis of the rails. The projectile itself is placed between the rails, and a "driver" (armature) is placed behind the projectile. The function of the armature is to close the circuit between the two rails. When the rails are energized, a third magnetic field is created in the armature which is repulsed by the fields created in the rails, thus "driving" it down the barrel. The energy required to drive projectiles at useful velocities is enormous; peak power outputs are measured in millions of amperes.
Naval Know-How
Logical choice: The Navy's DD(X) destroyer, currently under construction, could be ideally suited to carry an electromagnetic rail gun (Lockheed Martin photo).
http://www.military.com/pics/NI_Revol3.jpg
Obviously, it would be fitting for a weapon with such potential power to be housed in the most powerful vessel around. The Navy, which has been at the forefront of rail gun technology since the early 1980s, plans to incorporate rail gun technology with its next-generation surface fleet, which will include ships such as the hefty DD(X) destroyer. Ranges of up to 200 nautical miles for rail gun projectiles are envisioned, with GPS-guided projectiles traveling at six times the speed of sound. The fact that rail guns and directed-energy weapons do not require powders or explosives will free magazine space for strike and other mission areas (the trade-off is that surface ships will need to generate massive amounts of electric power to support them). A proper-sized round could provide missile-like capability. Take your standard Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile -- for the same amount of time it takes a Tomahawk to reach a target, an EM gun can deliver twice the destructive power to the same target, while operating at about 6-12 rounds per minute. At a fraction of the cost per round, tremendous volume fires could be delivered. The DD(X) destroyer, with its all-electric drive and Integrated Power System (IPS), is the first step towards full electromagentic weapon capability. The IPS can scale up to provide additional electrical power as demand grows -- the key to surface fire support capabilities.
Beans and Bullets: Other EM Applications in Combat and Logistics
The Navy has grabbed the most press with its rail gun experiments but the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and Lockheed Martin are developing an Electromagnetic (EM) Gun System in a two-phase program. The first phase (scheduled to conclude in 2005) is centered on a medium caliber gun demonstration, and demonstrating a single rotating power supply. During Phase II (2005-2007), EM technologies will be integrated into an armament test-bed, utilizing a large bore gun.
On the drawing board: A sketch of a next-generation Army vehicle equipped with an EM gun (Lockheed Martin photo).
Fired at hyper velocities (10-100 kilometers/second), projectiles weighing a fraction of a gram have enormous destructive potential, and could be fired using the stored energy of a standard armored vehicle power plant. In addition to combat (especially anti-armor and hard target applications), EM research is also looking into using rail gun technology to deliver supplies over long distances. Launched from a 100m ramp, a 300-pound aerodynamic supply package could be "shot" over intervening terrain and remotely guided to a designated landing area. The concept is sound -- it only remains to develop the correct technology.
Related Links
Sam Barros' Powerlabs
EM gadgets aren't just for multi-million dollar military projects -- a student at Michigan Technological University has gained attention for his pioneering experiments with electromagnetic technology.
The Next Revolution at Sea
Rail guns are only part of the picture in the Navy's next-generation warfare plans. Get a peek at some of the vessels and weapons on the drawing table.
Continuing on the transportation theme, laboratories utilizing electromagnetic technology are already working on a Segmented Rail Phased Induction Motor (SERAPHIM), which opens the door for high-speed ground transportation systems (i.e., next-generation monorails). Similar linear induction motors are already being used for airport transit systems, subways, amusement park rides, and industrial handling systems.
Building It Was the Easy Part…
Although the principles behind rail gun technology have been well documented and understood for nearly 50 years now, challenges remain in building a reliable, effective, and efficient EM gun. When an electrical current is passed through non-super conductive material, a fraction of that current is converted to heat by the impedance of the conductive material. Given the huge amounts of energy involved (even when energized for only milliseconds), the heat generated by a rail gun would be enough to melt the gun's rails, if used often enough. If EM guns are going to serve as practical battlefield weapons, a means of cooling them (cryogenically or otherwise) or of improving the super-conductivity of the rails must be found.
One naval proposal has suggested using liquid nitrogen to cool the rails, with a seawater-based heat exchanger to cool the electrical storage and discharge systems. In addition, to function properly, the armature must make physical contact between the rails. This requirement creates some problems: If the current is too great and the armature has too little mass to absorb the resistant heat energy being transferred to it by the electric current, the armature may melt or weld itself to the rails.
Must-Have Gear
U.S. ARMY RESERVE
Feel that sense of pride again. Your prior service brings experience, knowledge and the ability to teach new Soldiers about the military -- all valuable qualities the Army Reserve needs.
One method of reducing armature "welding" is to make the armature's rail contact surfaces (brushes) out of a light metal, such as aluminum, which will vaporize into plasma (ionized gas) when energized. This process, known as metal vapor arcing (MVA), eliminates physical contact between the rails while simultaneously closing the circuit (the metal plasma is conductive.) One of the drawbacks to MVA is the buildup of metallic residue on the rails, which is formed when the metal vapor cools inside the barrel. In the same vein, if the rails are placed too close together, the current between the rails may bypass the armature (arc) and damage the rails. Given the velocity at which the armature is driven down the barrel, this friction could further add to heat build-up, and degrade the driver as it moves down the barrel.
Finally, since the individual magnetic fields created in the rails are repulsed by one another, a tremendous strain is placed on the rails as they try to push away from one another. While rail guns do not suffer from the traditional recoil forces associated with conventional expanding gas weapons, this repulsive effect can be equally destructive if not properly compensated for.
The challenges facing the development of rail guns as a practical, widespread weapon are hefty, but as better super conductive materials are researched, they come closer and closer to becoming a reality. And with the speeds that EM power can provide, you can try running, but you sure can't hide.
By Paule. Rail guns have been around longer than thirty years. The problem is their size which is why they are mounting them on ships and tanks..
http://www.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Rail2.jpg
"what does your ".. waaaaaaaaa!mean .." .. ??? "
I thought it self explanitory.
"I am quite sure you will be so pleased to tell me, in the most demeaning way possible .. ;)"
Only if you ask me nice. ;O)~
We'll let that be our little secret mmkay.
There we go with that two wrongs amkes a right argument.
"this place is turning into a zeev like place"
They need others to hear them go waaaaaaaaa!
Ever heard of an electromagnetic rail gun...? Mounted on warships they have super long ranges and produce injuries as described in that propaganda piece.
Rail guns have been in use for many decades.
Do yourself a favor and watch a show on the military channel called Future Weapons
They might be if the Demonrats didn't have so many exploitable skeletons themselves...
Government and the people are one. Try and separate the two and you will fail. People allow their governments to be tyrannical it's that simple.
No you didn't but that's ok.
Do you feel stupid for posting this? You should! Fact check buddy might save you wiping that egg off your face.
"People are entitled to their positions w/o being attacked"
Oh waaaaaa!
You sir are a sucker for propaganda. Your hatred has blinded you to the point of accepting anything that furthers your ire. The simple fact is, if this story had any, and I repeat any validity what so ever, the overeager mainstream media would have beaten GW over the head with it repeatedly. And you know this.
So like I said, you our local expert on what constitutes credible journalism; can just explain why you hate America so much and seek to harm her by spreading whatever anti-American propaganda you can find..
No, this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.
The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org and erect a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute.
The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs (note that Bill Clinton's IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush's) while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.)
[Some noticeable errors: Although the study includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died in office in 1945, the report is described as covering presidents in office "over the past 50 years." Also not true is the claim that "all the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt" — some of them authored no books until after becoming president, and George W. Bush did have a book to his credit before being elected president, 1999's A Charge to Keep. Plus, if there's a "Swanson/Crain" system for ranking intelligence, nobody else seems to have heard of it.]
In any case, IQ is a dodgy enough concept even when measured by tests designed for the purpose — trying to guess not just relative rankings but specific IQ scores based solely on writings and speeches is bound to be error-prone. Based on President George H.W. Bush's extemporaneous speech-making, for example, he couldn't "speak with clarity" to save his life, but he was clearly far more intelligent than the insultingly low IQ assigned to him above. And a recent article reports President Kennedy's IQ as 119, far below the genius-level 174 ascribed to him here.
Update: As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001.
Gary Trudeau's 26 August 2001 Doonesbury comic strip features an invisible George W. Bush being told about his ranking on the presidential I.Q. ladder by an underling. (This strip appeared on the Doonesbury web site on 2 September 2001).
Last updated: 15 July 2004