|
It's really more about how fast he was stopping I'd imagine
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:It's really more about how fast he was stopping I'd imagine 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
On the ground video it looked to my untrained eye like he had decelerated to a kinda survivable speed, poor guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
Palate cleanse: The guy from Golden Knights who had a no open in feb. got better and got out of the hospital this month. MRI of what he was coming back from:https://i.imgur.com/gqMmHvg.jpg
shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Nov 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
 holy gently caressAlso i had no idea mris were that detailed now
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
That 3D maximal intensity projection technique has been around for at least a few years now. It’s quality over quantity. The real data that docs and surgeons use for diagnosis/surgical planning is still in the black and white axial images.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
That chute vid is like real life Battlefield 1942/Vietnam
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:When did the Taliban get so fashionable? How did they get designer velvet jackets and $10k thermal scopes? Are all the Taliban commandos fashionistas now? If you want your own taliban velvet jacket: https://www.facebook.com/Binmenobinomenoco/
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
I'm not gonna link it but there's footage on twitter of a sword-missile strike aftermath from Syria and it's 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/calibreobscura/status/1202962866875371521?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I'm not gonna link it but there's footage on twitter of a sword-missile strike aftermath from Syria and it's Welp. Yeah I was curious so looked it up. Those people were actually literally turned to jelly and that minivan has the most uncanny hole torn straight through it. I wouldn’t have ever thought a missile with just swords sticking out of it would ever be a thing but there it is I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
I’m curious—setting up a trap that dropped people into a gigantic food processor seems like it would be illegal under international law. How are these munitions treated? I guess the conventions only apply between combatants of signatory nations, or only if the non-signatory “accepts” the conventions which you could argue “terrorists” do not. Just asking questions here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Why would that be illegal vs blowing their bodies into pieces with explosives? Not to mention that even if people end up thinking that it's heinous enough to outlaw like poison gas and hollow points it hasn't exactly been used enough to garner enough attention for conventions against it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Why would it be treated differently than a weapon that shoots ball bearings through a person, or subjects them directly to high explosives?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I’m curious—setting up a trap that dropped people into a gigantic food processor seems like it would be illegal under international law Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
As my friend said when I showed him: it's like a slap chop for ISIS
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Why is setting someone on fire or shooting them with a hollow point bullet illegal? I know the US doesn’t give a poo poo and never ratified The Hague convention. I just haven’t seen anyone discuss whether chopping people up with a blender missile is halal
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Why is setting someone on fire or shooting them with a hollow point bullet illegal? I know the US doesn’t give a poo poo and never ratified The Hague convention. I just haven’t seen anyone discuss whether chopping people up with a blender missile is halal Setting enemy soldiers on fire is perfectly legal according to international law. Hollow points are illegal because people in the mid-late 1800s thought they were inhumane, then a few decades later they cooked up a few hundred things that were much worse and never bothered to outlaw most of them or legalize expanding bullets. At this point it's kind of quaint and kind of irrelevant in an era of widely issued body armor. War crimes laws are mostly about protecting civilians or people who have given up fighting. For the most part it's no holds barred when you're attacking active enemy soldiers, especially if they’re outside of populated areas. Obviously this becomes a bit murkier when you're fighting ununiformed insurgents or whatever. But I'd say the sword missile is actually very in line with the general goals of international law in regards to protecting noncombatants, even if it leaves a horrific mess. my kinda ape fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Dec 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
It’s an interesting discussion and I’m not taking a side to argue or passing judgment or anything. My point was just that lots of poo poo is horrific and rightfully banned or at least viewed with disfavor because it causes excessive suffering (chemical weapons, WP, cluster bombs, AP mines). The US certainly takes the no holds barred approach to killing combatants and freely applies “combatant” to whomever whenever wherever, and yes, not using high explosive is pretty good in terms of avoiding collateral damage and unwanted civilian deaths. Just odd to me that everything I’ve read online about this weapon has been “check out the badass ninja missile that shreds its targets with blades!” I guess when a child in the backseat gets hit in one of these surgical strikes, or a dude survives and only gets his arms and face sliced off, maybe the conversation will be different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Just odd to me that everything I’ve read online about this weapon has been “check out the badass ninja missile that shreds its targets with blades!” I guess when a child in the backseat gets hit in one of these surgical strikes, or a dude survives and only gets his arms and face sliced off, maybe the conversation will be different. The two times that we know this weapon has been used it has instantly killed its targets without pain. It's hard to imagine surviving a close encounter but sure, it's possible. An argument saying this type of weapon ought to be banned should probably start by confronting what normal bullets do when they don't directly hit the heart or brain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Fallom posted:The two times that we know this weapon has been used it has instantly killed its targets without pain. It's hard to imagine surviving a close encounter but sure, it's possible. Lol I wasn’t aware that we’d interviewed the targets about how it felt or that we know anything about how it works other than it pulverizes the target individuals into raspberry jam
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol I wasn’t aware that we’d interviewed the targets about how it felt *holds microphone to pile of red goop* “Can we get a statement sir?”
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:“Can we get a statement sir?”
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Saying this poo poo should be banned is like saying a bullet should be. YES it KILLS PEOPLE. That’s the IDEA. We should be thankful that the government is killing people with laser guided sword missiles fired from flying robots instead of what it used to do: turn everyone within 20 meters into hamburger
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
I'd argue that there's a qualitative difference between tools that efficiently kill people and tools that efficiently cripple people while subjecting them to a more-or-less lengthy period of debilitating suffering. The latter is worse than the former (which is not to be confused with the former being good), as it amounts to deploying torture as a weapon. On that basis it makes sense to ban most chemical weapons. I'm not making a comment on the sword missile as I don't really feel like learning more about what it does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I'd argue that there's a qualitative difference between tools that efficiently kill people and tools that efficiently cripple people. The latter is worse than the former (which is not to be confused with the former being good), as it amounts to deploying torture as a weapon. On that basis it makes sense to ban most chemical weapons. Yes, and in the middle there are tools that kill people while subjecting them to a more-or-less lengthy period of debilitating suffering. I’m not advocating banning weapons or anything, war is hell, etc. But this thing is pretty new and nobody knows anything about it other than breathless reporting about how gnarly it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Being turned to jelly by a supersonic sword is not a right, it’s a privilege.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
LibCrusher posted:Saying this poo poo should be banned is like saying a bullet should be. YES it KILLS PEOPLE. That’s the IDEA. We should be thankful that the government is killing people with laser guided sword missiles fired from flying robots instead of what it used to do: turn everyone within 20 meters into hamburger Bullet or blade, imperialism is imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
While you were having post-polygamous-marital-non-consensual sex with kafir Kurds I studied the blade missile
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
The concern is valid, especially with our given love of targeting weddings and buses full of innocent people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol I wasn’t aware that we’d interviewed the targets about how it felt or that we know anything about how it works other than it pulverizes the target individuals into raspberry jam What do you think happens between impact and jellification? Time slows to a crawl and the target gets to say “You may wonder how I ended up here...” to the camera? Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Seems like this is about as close to instantaneous death as the usual bombs, but with a drastically reduced area of effect.Phil Moscowitz posted:The US certainly takes the no holds barred approach to killing combatants What are we basing this on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
How about we outlaw killing people altogether?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What are we basing this on? Probably the last hundred-odd years of US history
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Honestly, sword-missile being viscerally gnarly is better than a bomb blast killing innocents being deemed “worth it” levels of collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
Also your president keeps pardoning war criminals
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
^That's kind of a new thing, and probably not what he's talking about.UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:Probably the last hundred-odd years of US history No, I'm being serious. We use pretty conventional weapons, so I'm curious what this no holds barred approach to killing combatants is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Just off the top of my head, the CIA is fond of killing X, and then bombing X’s funeral because Y and Z will be there (with 100 other people and kids but hey) We’re not at ruthless as Israel I guess but...lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Godholio posted:No, I'm being serious. We use pretty conventional weapons, so I'm curious what this no holds barred approach to killing combatants is. Welcome to History 101 of WWII and Vietnam, the wars where some of what we did would be reported as war crimes if another nation that we did not like had done them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 19:25
|
|