The Walking Tank is real.

[Housebroken Lunatic]

SIGINT explained in MGS3 why a walking tank is strategically flawed and here's why:

"Not only is making a tank walk on two legs a technical nightmare, but there's no point in making a walking tank to begin with. Putting legs on a tank would raise its clearance, increasing its frontal projection area. It'd also be less stable. Suppose the legs help the tank travel bad roads... I don't see the logic in that. Isn't that what treads are for? I mean, anyone who'd seriously consider making a thing like that has got to be a wacko."

He did say on two legs but the statement isn't inaccurate no matter how many legs you put on it.

Err no his statement would be inaccurate for a four-legged one.

It's not as much of a technical nightmare since balancing a large wight on two legs alone is far more difficult than doing the same on four legs (more legs = more stability, even when moving. That's why cats and many dogs can run and turn around completely while running with such precision and without tripping or falling like a human would. Bipeds are a lot more influenced by momentum, whereas quadrupeds can compensate for a lot more extrme momentum forces than a biped ever could)

Second, a four legged tank would have a much lower frontal projection area than a two legged one (ask yourself, which one is usually taller when walking normally, a human or a dog where both weigh an equal weight?), and could plausibly be made to be similar to a tracked tank.

As for stability: once again four legs = evidently more stable than two legs.

As for "bad roads", the purpose of a tank on legs wouldn't be to travel "bad roads" it would be more about climbing hills and mountains, possibly littered with trees with thick trunks and other obstacles that would be impossible for a tracked tank to move through unless it fires it's main weapon and try to blast the obstacles out of the way or ordering artillery strikes to do it. Tracks might be useful to navigate bad terrain, but they have their limits.

Legs, possibly equipped with gripping claws however (making them more akin to arms) could climb surfaces that would be impossible for a tracked vehicle.

So when considering all these aspects it is clear that Sigint's criticism certainly would apply to two legged vehicles, but not to four legged ones...

 

[Obrien Xp]

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

 

[Red Right Hand]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiing.
I want a fucking lightsaber.

They've already developed it.

But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone, they don't want to risk having millions of star wars fans breaking into top secret military bases just to find a lightsaber.

 

[Steve Dark]

We'll always have EMP. We'll always have EMP. We'll always have EMP.

Right?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Um, is that a problem? I don't think we need to know what is being developed at any given moment. Also, military development is a good thing. The military working to develop new technology and weapons gave us the computer, the internet, and the GPS just off the top of my head. This is one reason I think anyone screaming against military spending is really against progress.

What you fail to acknowledge however is the fact that military development also serves to increase warfare and the deaths of millions of people.

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. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. So in order for governmental military branches and niche private corporations to acquire the necessary approved budgets they crave, they pretty much have to always remain in favour of starting wars or making sure that the country in question is always embroiled in some conflict that would demand more advanced weapons.

To put it bluntly: private contractors working for the government makes more money if the government they are working for pursues warfare rather than peaceful foreign politics. This leads to the formation of lobby groups, supported by big companies who invests a lot of money in swaying elected politicians to pursue the most violent and warlike course of action in any given conflict.

If peace remained the trend, several private weapons manufacturers would go bankrupt because they simply wouldn't have any business to profit from.

So yes, military development might as an afterthought/consequence lead to technological advancement overall. But at what price?

Would you be willing to die as an innocent victim in a warzone simply in order to keep a country's military might working and thus have a necessity for more and more weapons?

If not, then how can you sit there and say that you are in FAVOUR of military development, when the only real reason for it ultimately leads to the deaths of other people (combatants as well as innocent people, because as we all know, the innocent bystanders always perish in larger numbers than the soldiers ever do)?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

We'll always have EMP. We'll always have EMP. We'll always have EMP.

Right?

Erm, in a nuclear strikes perhaps. Weaponized EMP applications of the non-nuclear kind are pretty heavy and large. It can be achieved on cruise missiles and similarly heavy bombs, but portable and cheap stuff to deploy against a single vehicle in infantry level? Not in this age. You might as well try to invent a decent portable laser rifle while you're at it.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I want one! That thing is awesome! I especially liked the part where it trips on the Ice but gets back up and continues on. That thing is a Champion! I don't understand what people find creepy about it. (Maybe my Uncanny Valley is screwed up?)

 

[n.s.c.m.]

For some reason I want to see this thing walking down my dirt road while delivering mail.

 

[Saltyk]

Um, is that a problem? I don't think we need to know what is being developed at any given moment. Also, military development is a good thing. The military working to develop new technology and weapons gave us the computer, the internet, and the GPS just off the top of my head. This is one reason I think anyone screaming against military spending is really against progress.

What you fail to acknowledge however is the fact that military development also serves to increase warfare and the deaths of millions of people.

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. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. So in order for governmental military branches and niche private corporations to acquire the necessary approved budgets they crave, they pretty much have to always remain in favour of starting wars or making sure that the country in question is always embroiled in some conflict that would demand more advanced weapons.

To put it bluntly: private contractors working for the government makes more money if the government they are working for pursues warfare rather than peaceful foreign politics. This leads to the formation of lobby groups, supported by big companies who invests a lot of money in swaying elected politicians to pursue the most violent and warlike course of action in any given conflict.

If peace remained the trend, several private weapons manufacturers would go bankrupt because they simply wouldn't have any business to profit from.

So yes, military development might as an afterthought/consequence lead to technological advancement overall. But at what price?

Would you be willing to die as an innocent victim in a warzone simply in order to keep a country's military might working and thus have a necessity for more and more weapons?

If not, then how can you sit there and say that you are in FAVOUR of military development, when the only real reason for it ultimately leads to the deaths of other people (combatants as well as innocent people, because as we all know, the innocent bystanders always perish in larger numbers than the soldiers ever do)?

*sigh*
This argument? Really?

Long story short. Violence is a part of human nature. War is a part of human nature. Scratch that. Violence and War are a part of nature. You can get all hippie on me and claim that animals aren't like humans, but that is a lie. To yourself if no one else.

Dolphins kill porpoises. For fun apparently. There's a species of ant that will actually attack other ants colonies, steal their larva, and use them as slave labor to build and maintain their colony. Chimpanzees have been found to wage war, forming patrols, and annexing territory just like we humans do.
Yeah warfare is so completely wrong. And animals wouldn't do anything like that.

I'm not saying that war is okay. I think it is our duty as civilized people to find better solutions to our problems. But, hey, if I have to fight, I want the bigger stick. Innocent life lost in war is a tragedy. Life lost for any reason is regrettable. But not everything can be solved with love, man.
Peace.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

This seems to be all the 'buzz'. Hehe.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

*sigh*
This argument? Really?

Yes, this argument. I'll expose you as a fraud in a few minutes, just keep talking.

Long story short. Violence is a part of human nature. War is a part of human nature. Scratch that. Violence and War are a part of nature. You can get all hippie on me and claim that animals aren't like humans, but that is a lie. To yourself if no one else.

Yeah, call me cynical if you will but im actually quite convinced that you don't really understand the gravity of the platitueds you're spouting. Have you even been in a fight? Have you ever had to draw another persons blood in order to protect your own life?

I doubt it. If you had, then you wouldn't have been so casual when speaking of violence and the part that man has in it. Why do you think most soldiers of the non-psychopath kind are so reluctant to talk about what they have done in the line of duty? Why do you think they suffer emotional breakdowns when the gravity of what they have done hits them?

If violence and war was such an integrated part of human nature, then people would be able to kill eachoter left and right without the slightest afterthought, right?

War isn't as much a part of human nature as it is a part of human CULTURE. No indivdual rarely has any need to wage war upon others, but as soon as humans with opinions band together in societies that compete for resources you can be damn sure that someone will start a war. But the people starting wars are rarely the one fighting them. They are usually the kind of self-deceptive people like you who have most likely never been in a real violent situation, but you can sit on your ass being all smug and send other people to their deaths without thinking about it too much. Because it's always easier to let someone else do all the heavy lifting (physical as well as emotional) am I right?

Dolphins kill porpoises. For fun apparently. There's a species of ant that will actually attack other ants colonies, steal their larva, and use them as slave labor to build and maintain their colony. Chimpanzees have been found to wage war, forming patrols, and annexing territory just like we humans do.
Yeah warfare is so completely wrong. And animals wouldn't do anything like that.

First of all, any comparison to a different species is a nonsensical argument. Human bwehaviour and customs have nothing to do with the behaviour of ants or dolphins, and ants or dolphins aren't in the least bit more "natural" than humans are since we're all byproducts of life just as natural as anything else.

Second, the killing of other species can't really be compared with the killing of ones own. Normally humans don't develop as significant a connection to an ant or a dolphin as they do to other human beings. A dlophin might be "cute" according to some people, but that doesn't mean that most human can RELATE to a fucking dolphin.

I'm not saying that war is okay. I think it is our duty as civilized people to find better solutions to our problems. But, hey, if I have to fight, I want the bigger stick. Innocent life lost in war is a tragedy. Life lost for any reason is regrettable. But not everything can be solved with love, man.
Peace.

I've never said that everything can be solved with love, nor have I claimed that there won't be times where war is completely inevitable.

What is abundantly clear though is that when you crack platitudes like "innocent life lost in war is a tragedy", you can't really grasp the meaning of what you're saying. Like a programmed drone you just repeat it because others have said so, which is exactly the same reason why you have no intellectual blockage in promoting military development (and by extension warfare and murder of innocent civilians), and exactly the same reason why you claim that people who oppose military development are "against progress" by default.

If you knew more about the reality of war and deadly violence that men use against men, you wouldn't be as quick to say the things you say. Then again, you're probasbly a product of an industrial nation and have never had to experience any significant threat to your life posed by another person, so it isn't particularly strange that your reasoning looks the way it does.

However, speaking as someone who have been through situations that I actually had reason to fear for my life as well as use potentially lethal violence to protect myself (and that was a far cry from being in an actual war), I was terrified and I count those instances as the absolute worst parts of my life and I would've done anything to not having to go through them.

Which is why I'd never be so casual about promoting a practice that will MOST DEFINETLY lead to more warfare and slaughter of innocent people like the military industrial complex is. I might be able to do my part when it comes to violent matters and take up arms when I deem it necessary to protect the things I love. But sitting in front of a computer spouting ill-educated and frankly CHILDISH platitudes that:

"We should promote military development, because that means we can have more internets and GPS's and cool inventions! And even if people die: meh war is human nature. No reason to think about it."

Just serves to illustrate the apparent lack of experience with actual violence and war. So forgive me if this might be embarassing for you, but I seriously doubt you even know what the hell you're talking about...

 

[Saltyk]

*sigh*
This argument? Really?

Yes, this argument. I'll expose you as a fraud in a few minutes, just keep talking.

Ouch. Was that really necessary?

Long story short. Violence is a part of human nature. War is a part of human nature. Scratch that. Violence and War are a part of nature. You can get all hippie on me and claim that animals aren't like humans, but that is a lie. To yourself if no one else.

Yeah, call me cynical if you will but im actually quite convinced that you don't really understand the gravity of the platitueds you're spouting. Have you even been in a fight? Have you ever had to draw another persons blood in order to protect your own life?

I doubt it. If you had, then you wouldn't have been so casual when speaking of violence and the part that man has in it. Why do you think most soldiers of the non-psychopath kind are so reluctant to talk about what they have done in the line of duty? Why do you think they suffer emotional breakdowns when the gravity of what they have done hits them?

If violence and war was such an integrated part of human nature, then people would be able to kill eachoter left and right without the slightest afterthought, right?

War isn't as much a part of human nature as it is a part of human CULTURE. No indivdual rarely has any need to wage war upon others, but as soon as humans with opinions band together in societies that compete for resources you can be damn sure that someone will start a war. But the people starting wars are rarely the one fighting them. They are usually the kind of self-deceptive people like you who have most likely never been in a real violent situation, but you can sit on your ass being all smug and send other people to their deaths without thinking about it too much. Because it's always easier to let someone else do all the heavy lifting (physical as well as emotional) am I right?

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.

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.

Dolphins kill porpoises. For fun apparently. There's a species of ant that will actually attack other ants colonies, steal their larva, and use them as slave labor to build and maintain their colony. Chimpanzees have been found to wage war, forming patrols, and annexing territory just like we humans do.
Yeah warfare is so completely wrong. And animals wouldn't do anything like that.

First of all, any comparison to a different species is a nonsensical argument. Human bwehaviour and customs have nothing to do with the behaviour of ants or dolphins, and ants or dolphins aren't in the least bit more "natural" than humans are since we're all byproducts of life just as natural as anything else.

Second, the killing of other species can't really be compared with the killing of ones own. Normally humans don't develop as significant a connection to an ant or a dolphin as they do to other human beings. A dlophin might be "cute" according to some people, but that doesn't mean that most human can RELATE to a fucking dolphin.

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.

I'm not saying that war is okay. I think it is our duty as civilized people to find better solutions to our problems. But, hey, if I have to fight, I want the bigger stick. Innocent life lost in war is a tragedy. Life lost for any reason is regrettable. But not everything can be solved with love, man.
Peace.

I've never said that everything can be solved with love, nor have I claimed that there won't be times where war is completely inevitable.

What is abundantly clear though is that when you crack platitudes like "innocent life lost in war is a tragedy", you can't really grasp the meaning of what you're saying. Like a programmed drone you just repeat it because others have said so, which is exactly the same reason why you have no intellectual blockage in promoting military development (and by extension warfare and murder of innocent civilians), and exactly the same reason why you claim that people who oppose military development are "against progress" by default.

If you knew more about the reality of war and deadly violence that men use against men, you wouldn't be as quick to say the things you say. Then again, you're probasbly a product of an industrial nation and have never had to experience any significant threat to your life posed by another person, so it isn't particularly strange that your reasoning looks the way it does.

However, speaking as someone who have been through situations that I actually had reason to fear for my life as well as use potentially lethal violence to protect myself (and that was a far cry from being in an actual war), I was terrified and I count those instances as the absolute worst parts of my life and I would've done anything to not having to go through them.

Which is why I'd never be so casual about promoting a practice that will MOST DEFINETLY lead to more warfare and slaughter of innocent people like the military industrial complex is. I might be able to do my part when it comes to violent matters and take up arms when I deem it necessary to protect the things I love. But sitting in front of a computer spouting ill-educated and frankly CHILDISH platitudes that:

"We should promote military development, because that means we can have more internets and GPS's and cool inventions! And even if people die: meh war is human nature. No reason to think about it."

Just serves to illustrate the apparent lack of experience with actual violence and war. So forgive me if this might be embarassing for you, but I seriously doubt you even know what the hell you're talking about...

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/

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? 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.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well I don't imagine this thing being used as a weapon's platform anytime soon, but its still impressive. That thing is really good at keeping itself upright and moving, I can imagine that with a little work these thing could become really useful for frontline supply.

It does look a little "off" when it walks though. It seems pretty close to a living thing...

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

I want to drive one.

 

[GWarface]

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

Or what's around now. I strongly believe that any military tech that is revealed to the public is at least five years old, possibly ten. To me, it makes no sense to reveal true cutting edge technology to the world, where it can be studied and potentially copied.

More like 40-50 years old... They like keeping secrets you know...

Um, is that a problem? I don't think we need to know what is being developed at any given moment. Also, military development is a good thing. The military working to develop new technology and weapons gave us the computer, the internet, and the GPS just off the top of my head. This is one reason I think anyone screaming against military spending is really against progress.

If you want an idea of what they are working on, I'd suggest you look at Area 51. We know that it is/was a secret military development base. I suspect that there are other such places in the U.S. that never got as much press. I'd even suggest that it might just be a decoy at this point.

Anyway, I agree that anything we are seeing now is either old, obsolete, or barely holds a candle to what they really have. And anything they are willing to sell openly to other countries is as well.

Never said that it was a problem, though i do think that they could tell alot of stuff without the risc of compromising national security...
Like admitting that they have extraterrestrial technology.. Its not like other countries could copy it just by knowing that fact...

Oh, you dont have to tell me about Area 51.. Not at all...
But i suggest you look into whats going on at the S-4 complex... Thats where all the fun stuff is according to Robert Lazar and some interesting documents i have...

 

[twaddle]

this is very very old news...like 2-3 bloody years old

 

[Saltyk]

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

Or what's around now. I strongly believe that any military tech that is revealed to the public is at least five years old, possibly ten. To me, it makes no sense to reveal true cutting edge technology to the world, where it can be studied and potentially copied.

More like 40-50 years old... They like keeping secrets you know...

Um, is that a problem? I don't think we need to know what is being developed at any given moment. Also, military development is a good thing. The military working to develop new technology and weapons gave us the computer, the internet, and the GPS just off the top of my head. This is one reason I think anyone screaming against military spending is really against progress.

If you want an idea of what they are working on, I'd suggest you look at Area 51. We know that it is/was a secret military development base. I suspect that there are other such places in the U.S. that never got as much press. I'd even suggest that it might just be a decoy at this point.

Anyway, I agree that anything we are seeing now is either old, obsolete, or barely holds a candle to what they really have. And anything they are willing to sell openly to other countries is as well.

Never said that it was a problem, though i do think that they could tell alot of stuff without the risc of compromising national security...
Like admitting that they have extraterrestrial technology.. Its not like other countries could copy it just by knowing that fact...

Oh, you dont have to tell me about Area 51.. Not at all...
But i suggest you look into whats going on at the S-4 complex... Thats where all the fun stuff is according to Robert Lazar and some interesting documents i have...

Area 51 is just a military complex that they use to design and test new aircraft. I highly doubt that there are any alien technology or bodies at that location. Every UFO sighting there can be easily explained by modern technology. People want to believe that something strange is going on there, and they are right, but it's not aliens.

However, I have never heard about any S-4 complex. But like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved any secret operations to a location that wasn't well known and being watched by sightseers all the time.