http://202.80.33.17/nas/warquiz.html
If you support the US war against Iraq, and object to anti-war protests, answer these few questions before opening your mouth. You do not need to share your answers with anyone else, but you should most certainly consider them very carefully.
Begin:
1. Given Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11, and Article 5 of the United States Constitution, how do you justify the President's declaration of a preemptive war?
2. Given that the declaration of war by any person or body other than Congress violates the Constitution, and given Article 2, Section 4, how do you justify not impeaching the President?
3. In what specific way has Saddam Hussein threatened to initiate force directly against you?
4. In what specific way has Saddam Hussein threatened to initiate force directly against the United States?
5. The President maintains that Hussein/Iraq has not complied with UN demands under UN Resolution 1441. Specify the demands with which Iraq has not complied, and the exact form this noncompliance took.
6. The President refused to divulge evidence of Iraqi violations of the 1991 partial disarmament agreement to the UNMOVIC inspectors. The President lied when he claimed that the IAEA had released a report saying that Iraq was six months from completing a nuclear weapon. Some evidence presented to the United Nations by Powell proved to be plagiarized magazine articles rather than "recent" and "classified" intelligence from Great Britain as claimed. And documents alleging an attempt by Iraq to obtain nuclear weapon materials from Niger proved to be clumsy forgeries. Several countries which Bush claimed were members of the "Coalition of the Willing" have issued that statements that they are not and never have been coalition members; some outright oppose the war.
Given the above, why do you believe the President when he insists that Iraq possesses weapons of mass distruction which no one has found?
7.For twelve years, Iraq has been successfully bottled up by a combination of joint US/UK military operations and a UN-sponsored embargo. Why do you believe that Iraq now poses a significant threat to the United States?
8. Al-Qaida consists primarily of Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. CIA Director Tenet says there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever supported Al-Qaida. Why do you believe Hussein/Iraq does support Al-Qaida?
9. Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida has the stated desire of establishing a unified Muslim theocracy. Saddam Hussein maintains his power by operating a separate secular dictatorship. Why do you believe that Saddam Hussein supports an organization whose stated goal is to eliminate him?
10. Osama bin Laden is on record saying that the terrorist acts of 9-11 were in retaliation to US interference in Middle East affairs. Why do you believe that additional US intervention in the Middle East will stop terrorism?
11. Iraq's longest-ranged missile, a Scud variant, had/has a maximum range of approximately 500 miles. Iraq is thousands of miles from the continental United States. With what weapon system(s) do you believe that Iraq would strike the United States?
12. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld established the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" to deliberately provoke terrorist actions against Americans, hoping to lure them into the open. Why do believe that this military action will not also have that effect?
13. Iraq's neighbor, and often enemy, Iran has declared that there is no justification for military action against Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Syria also oppose the war. Why do you believe the war is justified? Specify your reasons.
14. Thirty years ago, Army Lieutenant William Calley was convicted of murder for obeying an illegal order leading to the deaths of civilians. Referring back to Questions 1 and 2, what specifically differentiates Calley's unlawful acts from those of the US commanders in the current Iraqi action?
15. There are now calls for war opponents to be silent and support the "troops" because the war has started. Refer to Questions 1 and 2. Why do you believe it is "patriotic" to insist that the President be allowed to continue a crime that is getting Americans killed?
16. Saddam Hussein appears to be an evil person who has done terrible things to some elements of the Iraqi population. But his last international offense, the invasion of Kuwait twelve years ago, was dealt with in Gulf War Phase I and reparations set. Since Saddam Hussein's on-going offenses were internal, shouldn't the Iraqi people deal with him internally? Explain your rationale.
17. Why do you consider an anti-war protester, who simply demands that that your Constitution be upheld, a "traitor" who supports Hussein/Iraq? Be specific in explaining how adherence to your highest law is treason.
Pencils down.
Iraqi war quiz
1. Given Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11, and Article 5 of the United States Constitution, how do you justify the President's declaration of a preemptive war?
Constitution wrote:Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules oncerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use hall be for a longer term than two years;
?? Says nothing to the affect that the US cannot declare a preemptive war
Constitution wrote:Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
?? No amendments have been made. How does this apply?
2. Given that the declaration of war by any person or body other than Congress violates the Constitution, and given Article 2, Section 4, how do you justify not impeaching the President?
Constitution wrote:Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Congress did in fact declare the war:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
That is why Bush was not impeached.
3. In what specific way has Saddam Hussein threatened to initiate force directly against you?
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/I ... threat.htm
Biological weapons: Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, revealed (and Iraq later admitted) the existence of an offensive biological warfare capability in Iraq including anthrax, botulinum toxin, ricin, and aflatoxin. Iraq is known to have developed these agents for use in Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aerial dispensers, as well as other means of delivery. Various sources indicate that Baghdad was almost certainly capable of resuming production of these and other weapons within days of the end of inspections in 1998.
Anthrax.
4. In what specific way has Saddam Hussein threatened to initiate force directly against the United States?
See Question 3
5. The President maintains that Hussein/Iraq has not complied with UN demands under UN Resolution 1441. Specify the demands with which Iraq has not complied, and the exact form this noncompliance took.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm
Resolution 1441 wrote:It gives UNMOVIC and IAEA, among other things, unrestricted rights of entry and travel into and throughout Iraq; provides for U.N. security for the inspectors; gives the inspectors the right to freeze sites and declare exclusion zones; and gives them the right to conduct interviews, either inside or outside the country, without the presence of Iraqi officials. Most importantly, it gives the inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq, including so-called presidential sites.
Inspectors were kicked out time and time again.
6. The President refused to divulge evidence of Iraqi violations of the 1991 partial disarmament agreement to the UNMOVIC inspectors. The President lied when he claimed that the IAEA had released a report saying that Iraq was six months from completing a nuclear weapon. Some evidence presented to the United Nations by Powell proved to be plagiarized magazine articles rather than "recent" and "classified" intelligence from Great Britain as claimed. And documents alleging an attempt by Iraq to obtain nuclear weapon materials from Niger proved to be clumsy forgeries.
Several countries which Bush claimed were members of the "Coalition of the Willing" have issued that statements that they are not and never have been coalition members; some outright oppose the war. Given the above, why do you believe the President when he insists that Iraq possesses weapons of mass distruction which no one has found?
Because of the Kurds he gassed. Anthrax.
7.For twelve years, Iraq has been successfully bottled up by a combination of joint US/UK military operations and a UN-sponsored embargo. Why do you believe that Iraq now poses a significant threat to the United States?
Because Clinton was in office and up until now we've gone easy on Iraq.
8. Al-Qaida consists primarily of Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. CIA Director Tenet says there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever supported Al-Qaida. Why do you believe Hussein/Iraq does support Al-Qaida?
Why do you believe he doesn't? As you point out later in this quiz, that Egyptians and Saudi Arabians oppose the war. No connection?
9. Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida has the stated desire of establishing a unified Muslim theocracy. Saddam Hussein maintains is power by operating separate secular dictatorship. Why do you believe that Saddam Hussein supports an organization whose stated goal is to eliminate him?
Al-Qaida imposes terror on Afghans telling them how to live. Is that unifying Muslims? Al-Qaida operates on dictatorship uch like Saddam Hussein does. Even this question is misleading. The first sentence says Al Qaida's goal is to unify uslims. Next it says that their specific goal is to eiminate Saddam. How are those exactly the same thing?
10. Osama bin Laden is on record saying that the terrorist acts of 9-11 were in retaliation to US interference in Middle East affairs. Why do you believe that additional US intervention in the Middle East will stop terrorism?
These "Middle East affairs" you speak of includes terrorism itself. Not doing anything wouldn't stop terrorism either. However, there is a better chance that intervention would reduce terrorism by eliminating the leaders of terrorism. Our threat of doing so is another reason 9-11 was done. A point OBL left out.
11. Iraq's longest-ranged missile, a Scud variant, had/has a maximum range of approximately 500 miles. Iraq is thousands of miles from the continental United States. With what weapon system(s) do you believe that Iraq would strike the United States?
Not with the Scuds we are familiar with, obviously. Is the US launching missles from the Pentagon? No. We traveled over there. Apparently Iraqis cannot figure out how to travel outside of Iraq? I should point out here that Iraq isn't supposed to even have Scud missles to begin with.
12. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld established the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" to deliberately provoke terrorist actions against Americans, hoping to lure them into the open. Why do believe that this military action will not also have that effect?
I don't think anybody believes that. In fact, the US has gone on record of warning the US that the chances of terrorist attacks have increased since the war.
13. Iraq's neighbor, and often enemy, Iran has declared that there is no justification for military action against Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Syria also oppose the war. Why do you believe the war is justified? Specify your reasons.
Iraq's other neighbors (Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan) think that it is justified. Why do you not believe the war is justified? Specify your reasons.
Besides, the only reason Iran doesn't support it is because they don't want to be sandwiched between American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They'll be happy that Saddam is out of power. Syria doesn't support the war because they support terrorism instead.
14. Thirty years ago, Army Lieutenant William Calley was convicted of murder for obeying an illegal order leading to the deaths of civilians. Referring back to Questions 1 and 2, what specifically differentiates Calley's unlawful acts from those of the US commanders in the current Iraqi action?
How can I answer this question without a little more ellaboration on the William Calley case? Incredibly rediculous question.
15. There are now calls for war opponents to be silent and support the "troops" because the war has started.
Refer to Questions 1 and 2. Why do you believe it is "patriotic" to insist that the President be allowed to continue a crime that is getting Americans killed?
Calls from whom? Certainly not the governement. Requests perhaps but people will always protest. The nice thing is that they are allowed to do so without threat of an evil dictator (read: Saddam Hussein)
Oh, and the war is not a crime.
16. Saddam Hussein appears to be an evil person who has done terrible things to some elements of the Iraqi population. But his last international offense, the invasion of Kuwait twelve years ago, was dealt with in Gulf War Phase I and reparations set. Since Saddam Hussein's on-going offenses were internal, shouldn't the Iraqi people deal with him internally?
Explain your rationale.
See resolution 1441.
17. Why do you consider an anti-war protester, who simply demands that that your Constitution be upheld, a "traitor" who supports Hussein/Iraq? Be specific in explaining how adherence to your highest law is treason.
I don't consider an anti-war protestor a traitor.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
the questions about the constitution appear to be bunk.
moving right along.
in question three you answer with a link detailing speculation about the weapons usa experts believe saddam has. you then say "anthrax" - i assume you are refering to the anthrax scare last year - a scare that has absolutely no link to saddam hussein.
your military develops anthrax as well. i could just as easily suggest that it was them.
nothing in your answer satisfies the question, which was "In what specific way has Saddam Hussein threatened to initiate force directly against you?"
the same for question four. you have not yet given an example of a direct threat of force against yourself or the united states made by saddam. to my knowledge he has never made such a threat.
you say inspectors were kicked out of iraq for #5, but the chief inspector, Hans Blix, is a vocal opponent of the military action and has many times said on the record that iraq was complying.
to number six you answer "because of the Kurds he gassed. anthrax." This answer dissapoints me corey, because the CIA has reported that the gas used was Iranian mustard gas and not anthrax. That story has been posted here several times. Your own government believes it was the Iranian army that gassed the Kurds.
I don't see how the fact that clinton was in office or your opinion on the severity of previous action against iraq suddenly makes iraq a threat to america.
to number 8, you say "why do you believe he doesn't?" well for starters, there's no proof that he does, and "CIA Director Tenet says there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever supported Al-Qaida." if the people who know OBL best and want saddam dead say that saddam is innocent, well...
Al-Qaida didn't impose anything on afghanistan. If you're refering to speculation that links them to the taliban, i would remind you that the taliban is a fundamentalist islamic group. OBL & co want to unify the arabs under a similar government. If OBL had his way, there would be no saddam, just a religous government ruling over all arabs. do you think saddam is pleased with that arragement?
for #11, you say that iraq doesn't know how to leave the country. but the question was 'with what weapons will he attack.' you say 'i don't know' but yet you maintain that he must have them. why?
why do i not believe the war is justified?
because there is no proof that saddam is armed or rearming
there is no proof that he is a terrorist
there is no indication that he has plans to attack america or any other counry
i believe that pre-emptive war is irrational. i believe that the us has no plans to liberate iraq but instead plans to rule there. i believe that with this precedent of pre-emptive war being set, america will invade other nations illegally.
you allege that syria is a terrorist nation. why? can you prove that claim?
to #15 you answer "calls from whom?" mostly journalists and members of the pro-war movement. the articles are everywhere.
if your whole case for going to war, the only thing you can prove, is that Saddam is in violation of 1441 (he did kick out inspectors), then i expect that under that same logic you will invade israel and then your own nation, both of which are in violation of international treaty and resolutions as of this posting.
moving right along.
in question three you answer with a link detailing speculation about the weapons usa experts believe saddam has. you then say "anthrax" - i assume you are refering to the anthrax scare last year - a scare that has absolutely no link to saddam hussein.
your military develops anthrax as well. i could just as easily suggest that it was them.
nothing in your answer satisfies the question, which was "In what specific way has Saddam Hussein threatened to initiate force directly against you?"
the same for question four. you have not yet given an example of a direct threat of force against yourself or the united states made by saddam. to my knowledge he has never made such a threat.
you say inspectors were kicked out of iraq for #5, but the chief inspector, Hans Blix, is a vocal opponent of the military action and has many times said on the record that iraq was complying.
to number six you answer "because of the Kurds he gassed. anthrax." This answer dissapoints me corey, because the CIA has reported that the gas used was Iranian mustard gas and not anthrax. That story has been posted here several times. Your own government believes it was the Iranian army that gassed the Kurds.
I don't see how the fact that clinton was in office or your opinion on the severity of previous action against iraq suddenly makes iraq a threat to america.
to number 8, you say "why do you believe he doesn't?" well for starters, there's no proof that he does, and "CIA Director Tenet says there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever supported Al-Qaida." if the people who know OBL best and want saddam dead say that saddam is innocent, well...
Al-Qaida didn't impose anything on afghanistan. If you're refering to speculation that links them to the taliban, i would remind you that the taliban is a fundamentalist islamic group. OBL & co want to unify the arabs under a similar government. If OBL had his way, there would be no saddam, just a religous government ruling over all arabs. do you think saddam is pleased with that arragement?
for #11, you say that iraq doesn't know how to leave the country. but the question was 'with what weapons will he attack.' you say 'i don't know' but yet you maintain that he must have them. why?
why do i not believe the war is justified?
because there is no proof that saddam is armed or rearming
there is no proof that he is a terrorist
there is no indication that he has plans to attack america or any other counry
i believe that pre-emptive war is irrational. i believe that the us has no plans to liberate iraq but instead plans to rule there. i believe that with this precedent of pre-emptive war being set, america will invade other nations illegally.
you allege that syria is a terrorist nation. why? can you prove that claim?
to #15 you answer "calls from whom?" mostly journalists and members of the pro-war movement. the articles are everywhere.
if your whole case for going to war, the only thing you can prove, is that Saddam is in violation of 1441 (he did kick out inspectors), then i expect that under that same logic you will invade israel and then your own nation, both of which are in violation of international treaty and resolutions as of this posting.
two words: rail gun.
this thing could have put a bullit into orbit, as in everything on this planet was in range of this gun, including the US.
this thing could have put a bullit into orbit, as in everything on this planet was in range of this gun, including the US.
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
to put it bluntly, it's a cannon. but it sits on a railcart. the reason it does this is because the re-coil would ruin the gun when it gets fired, so they put it on rails so that it rides along these tracks instead of ruining it.
the thing about Iraq is that the US has always been wrong about these guys. the US thought at one point that Iraq would have a nuke ready in a year, Israel took out the nuclear plant and found out they were only 4 months away. the same was the case in gulf war when we didn't think that they had as much bio/chem weapons but they had advanced weaponry and more then first thought.
the US kept saying this rail gun didn't exist but they found the demo "baby babylon" in the desert during gulf war. this particular baby babylon was 156 meters long with a bore size of 1000mm and it was going to shoot a 350mm bullet into the air and it could hit anything in the entire middle east with a 650kg payload. that payload could be bio/chemical, could be used toxic waste, could be a nuke. and this is only the demo, as in the real one would have been much bigger.
it was offered to the US first, and we rejected it. Gerald Bull (the brains beind this gun) then went to Iraq and they bought the idea that it could be built. they came within a dozen pipes of making this thing. and it all came from england. that's why i don;t think we should boycott french stuff, or attack sudan or whatever....they wanna make a buck off of this war i don't blame them. this guy was killed by the MOSSAD and that's the end of that. but who knows maybe this crazy son of a bitch has the schematics for it.
the thing about Iraq is that the US has always been wrong about these guys. the US thought at one point that Iraq would have a nuke ready in a year, Israel took out the nuclear plant and found out they were only 4 months away. the same was the case in gulf war when we didn't think that they had as much bio/chem weapons but they had advanced weaponry and more then first thought.
the US kept saying this rail gun didn't exist but they found the demo "baby babylon" in the desert during gulf war. this particular baby babylon was 156 meters long with a bore size of 1000mm and it was going to shoot a 350mm bullet into the air and it could hit anything in the entire middle east with a 650kg payload. that payload could be bio/chemical, could be used toxic waste, could be a nuke. and this is only the demo, as in the real one would have been much bigger.
it was offered to the US first, and we rejected it. Gerald Bull (the brains beind this gun) then went to Iraq and they bought the idea that it could be built. they came within a dozen pipes of making this thing. and it all came from england. that's why i don;t think we should boycott french stuff, or attack sudan or whatever....they wanna make a buck off of this war i don't blame them. this guy was killed by the MOSSAD and that's the end of that. but who knows maybe this crazy son of a bitch has the schematics for it.
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
yes sir. when the shot is fired the blast moves the cart backwards releasing the force of the blast.
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
reno_ruelas wrote:to put it bluntly, it's a cannon. but it sits on a railcart. the reason it does this is because the re-coil would ruin the gun when it gets fired, so they put it on rails so that it rides along these tracks instead of ruining it.
the thing about Iraq is that the US has always been wrong about these guys. the US thought at one point that Iraq would have a nuke ready in a year, Israel took out the nuclear plant and found out they were only 4 months away. the same was the case in gulf war when we didn't think that they had as much bio/chem weapons but they had advanced weaponry and more then first thought.
the US kept saying this rail gun didn't exist but they found the demo "baby babylon" in the desert during gulf war. this particular baby babylon was 156 meters long with a bore size of 1000mm and it was going to shoot a 350mm bullet into the air and it could hit anything in the entire middle east with a 650kg payload. that payload could be bio/chemical, could be used toxic waste, could be a nuke. and this is only the demo, as in the real one would have been much bigger.
it was offered to the US first, and we rejected it. Gerald Bull (the brains beind this gun) then went to Iraq and they bought the idea that it could be built. they came within a dozen pipes of making this thing. and it all came from england. that's why i don;t think we should boycott french stuff, or attack sudan or whatever....they wanna make a buck off of this war i don't blame them. this guy was killed by the MOSSAD and that's the end of that. but who knows maybe this crazy son of a bitch has the schematics for it.
...
...
See. This is why certain people shouldn't be allowed near anything scientific above the level of a ruler.
A rail gun is a device which shoots a projectile using electromagnetic force created by putting current through the assembley - down one rail, over the projectile, and then back up the other rail. The rails form the "muzzle" of the gun, hence the name.
Top rail gun designs currently can launch a 2kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of close to 4km/s on roughly 6 meter rails (60s/min * 60 min/hr * 4 km/s = 14,400 km/hr. The speed of sound is ~1200 km/hr).
Why are we not more worried about a gun that can vaporize aluminum by simply launching it? Because these guns require OBSCENE amounts of power. Those top rail guns need 6.5 million amps. For those of you wondering, it takes about 500 mA (milli-amps, or 10^-3 amps) to kill a person. In short, this is a monumental amount of power to generate, and it renders rails guns essentially immobile.
Putting it on rails so the recoil doesn't harm it? I wish to God I thought you were joking.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
Johnathan wrote:Its sounds cool
According to a friend of mine (read: I don't know for sure) at these speeds aluminum slugs will simply vaporize from the force and air friction involved. When the "bullet" hits you, it's still that hot, so ouch.
Theoretically, it is possible to launch things into space with this cannon. The vaporization would be what's preventing this from happening.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
-
areusad831
- Posts: 5427
- Joined: 4/14/2002, 9:40 pm
- Location: Palmerton, PA
it's a cannon that when TESTED rides on a rail. thus i called it a rail gun. i really didn't know there was something else called a rail gun of that nature. 
looking back at this article it never called it a rail gun, rather a super gun. my bad.
NOTE TO SELF: Stop reading important articles late at night when your 1/2 asleep.
looking back at this article it never called it a rail gun, rather a super gun. my bad.
NOTE TO SELF: Stop reading important articles late at night when your 1/2 asleep.
Whenever death may surprise us,
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
let it be welcome
if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear
and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.
Nobody's gonna miss me, no tears will fall, no ones gonna weap, when i hit that road.
my boots are broken my brain is sore, fer keepin' up with thier little world, i got a heavy load.
gonna leave 'em all just like before, i'm big city bound, your always 17 in your hometown
Johnathan wrote:So if the slug is vaporized, how would it hit you?
You know how when you're cooking, the steam feels really warm, sometimes burning? Water vaporizes at 100°C. Aluminum vaporizes at 2467°C (4472.6 °F).
Here I'll pause and let you consider how it'd feel to be hit with a metal vapor that exceeds 4000°F.
You know how if you hit water, it kinda hurts? And if you belly flop, it really hurts? And if you stick your hand out the window of you car as your driving, the wind has a lot of force, to the point of pushing your hand back?
Here I'll pause and let you consider the amount of momentum that 2 kg of anything will have while travelling well over the speed of sound.
And finally, here I'll pause and let you think about what 2 kg of anything travelling faster than the speed of sound and well over temperatures of 4000°F would do to whatever it hits.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
Johnathan wrote:I'd be burned to a crisp?
Hmm. I dunno about that. I imagine that a bit of burning would take place, yes, but I also imagine quite a bit of smearing. So, I suppose you'd be a charred, 2-dimensional, 100 yard long version of yourself after all is said and done.
And yes, it would be cool.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die