If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   When regular killing just isn't enough: New Navy missiles "catastrophically kill the target."   (wired.com) divider line 58
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

11818 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Dec 2002 at 4:05 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-12-26 03:33:39 PM
I hate when things get catastrophically killed.

Old fashioned I guess, gimme a plain old killed any day...
 
2002-12-26 04:07:27 PM
IT'S THE CATACLYSM! RUN FOR YOUR BOOTS!
 
2002-12-26 04:09:36 PM
as opposed to gently helping the target into the afterlife...sheesh
 
2002-12-26 04:10:55 PM
Dems some awfully 'spensive fireworks.
 
2002-12-26 04:11:12 PM
I think the proper term is "Jeebus!"

I can't wait for them to be included in GTA4!
 
2002-12-26 04:12:38 PM
Redundant?
 
2002-12-26 04:13:18 PM
 
2002-12-26 04:13:27 PM
This is an improvement over the days when weapons made people either dead or mostly dead.

I guess catastrophic killing is regular killing with a better SFX budget.
 
2002-12-26 04:15:22 PM
Id rather only be mildly killed.
 
lgd
2002-12-26 04:15:51 PM
Anything worth doing is worth doing in style!
 
2002-12-26 04:16:49 PM
Prof: I got GTA Vice City for Christmas. In general, I find it to be inferior to Blade II. Can anyone explain to me what the big deal is about GTA? Seems kind of boring.

/threadjack
 
2002-12-26 04:20:20 PM
I can see this working down to civilian weapons, like 22 long rifle bullets.

What ya got there Jeb?

Used to be a squirrel, I think
 
2002-12-26 04:20:37 PM
Catastrophically rectum.
 
2002-12-26 04:21:38 PM
It'll take out the playgrounds too. Yeeeee haaaaaw!

 
2002-12-26 04:23:49 PM
Great, just what we need. Why use weapons that can needlessly kill hundreds of people at once when you can needlessly kill thousands?!

Of course I'm leaving nukes out of that equation, because (a) no one's used them anyway, save for two instances, and (b) the insanity of those weapons is already apparent enough.
 
2002-12-26 04:25:10 PM
Kpar90: I think it's because you can wander around being a homicidal maniac, buy a strip club, shoot people through windshields and blow out their tires,hold-up stores, then steal army helicopters and blow everything in the city up ;)
 
2002-12-26 04:27:16 PM
Why is the pope article tagged 'hero' for denouncing war, yet this tool of destruction is subsequently tagged 'cool'?

Oh, submitters' stances.

/answers own question...goes back under rock
 
2002-12-26 04:28:59 PM
Jeez, you folks should go back to your leappads until you learn how to read.

These things are for missiles, not bombs. They are used for defense of cities, troops, ships, by more effectively shooting down and destroying incoming missiles loaded with explosives, chemicals, bacteriological elements, etc.

It's too make sure that if a missile intended for the ball bearing factory IS shot down, that its warhead DOES NOT drop onto the playground intact.

If there has to be war, then THIS IS A GOOD THING. It helps you make your missiles more effective, thus keeping you from feeling the need to stick a thermonuclear device on the end of that missile.
 
2002-12-26 04:34:05 PM
ok this article inspired me to come up with a crummy joke

What did the tall catastrophically killing missile say to the short catastrophically killing missile when he saw a scud missile...

I'd hit it!
 
2002-12-26 04:37:22 PM
Orson Scott Card will no doubt be thrilled that we are one step closer to a Dr. Device.

I know I certainly am.
 
2002-12-26 04:39:40 PM
Yeah, what RandomBob said. These catastophically kill other weapons, not people.
 
2002-12-26 04:39:57 PM
"A standard Navy missile comes at roughly $400,000 apiece."

And who do I make the check out to?
 
2002-12-26 04:40:11 PM
soylent green is people!
 
2002-12-26 04:42:39 PM
Yeah, what RandomBob said. These catastophically kill other weapons, not people.

It's probably all government euphemisms. Suicide bombers are considered weapons. All arabs are considered potential suicide bombers. These will catastophically kill said weapons.
 
2002-12-26 04:58:38 PM
It's probably all government euphemisms. Suicide bombers are considered weapons. All arabs are considered potential suicide bombers. These will catastophically kill said weapons.

Fine With me!
 
2002-12-26 05:03:55 PM
...as oppsosed to just spanking soundly and sending to bed without dinner...
 
DBD
2002-12-26 05:05:16 PM
No, not just dead. Its more dead
 
2002-12-26 05:17:39 PM
Summary: It's for use when "detaching" a warhead from its in-flight missle frame just isn't good enough.
 
2002-12-26 05:19:58 PM
My headline owns.
 
2002-12-26 05:37:27 PM
Whoa. That sounds pretty badass.
 
2002-12-26 05:41:15 PM
Can the dragon balls be used to wish the missiles back?
 
2002-12-26 05:44:33 PM
What bothers me is that they just figured this out.

"Gee, let's shoot down that missile but let the warhead continue on its way."

Not real bright.

Note that although the warhead will probably be deflected, it could go anywhere, including into a US barracks.
 
2002-12-26 05:45:18 PM
They catastrophically kill targets with extreme prejudice. I don't read links.
 
2002-12-26 05:49:31 PM
"Now with 43% more death!"

ZipBeep: A warhead is part of a missile. And most anti-missile defense weapons are designed to shoot down missiles--the PATRIOT missile system, CIWS 20mm gatling cannon, RAM missile, and SM-1, to name a few.
 
2002-12-26 06:10:51 PM
Anything with more explosions and loud noises must be good.
 
2002-12-26 06:21:33 PM
Regular killing is never enough, for me anyway.

Ahem.
 
2002-12-26 06:26:39 PM
Actually, this is quite simple. They just added more shrapnel.

Now these missles are used for aerial and naval defense. They are essentially SAMs. The purpose of these missles is to destroy incoming hostile targets, be they enemy aircraft or incoming missles. The problem with older missles is that they relied on the explosive power of the missle warhead and kinetic energy to destory said target. However, often that would not prove completely satisfactory...in missles, it could leave the warhead intact and let it fall down on someone...which is bad. In planes, it could cripple the aircraft, but leave it working well enough to get back to base, or let the pilot eject, thus helping the enemy. These new missles essentially make sure that the target is 'dead'...rather then "almost certainly dead'. It will make people on the US's side (and our allies) a little safer and make things more dangerous for our enemies.

P.S. What is with the people on this thread going on about using these on civilian targets or on vehicles? These missles were not remotely designed to do that. For one, the guidance systems are completely wrong, not to mention the aerodynamics.
 
2002-12-26 06:31:43 PM
"He's not dead. He's MOSTLY dead."

Just like the SCUD that hit the barracks.
 
2002-12-26 06:35:25 PM
They didn't just add more shrapnel, they added shrapnel what amounts to explosive shrapnel that waits until it's inside the target before exploding.

How would the areodynamics be wrong for attacking ground targets? Granted antiair missiles are generally pretty weak and would have a hard time decerning a ground target from ground clutter, but the shape of the missile is not really different than anti-surface missiles and either way it plays no role in what targets it can hit, just how much power to takes to move the missile.
 
2002-12-26 06:39:50 PM
True, you've got a point about the shrapnel. However, the radar and guidance systems just wouldn't work with ground targets...it just isn't specific enough.

I jumped the gun on the aerodynamics part, and I apologize.
 
2002-12-26 06:42:04 PM
What ever happened to "Killing Me Softly with his song....."
 
2002-12-26 06:44:47 PM
"The new material, because it is a combination of plastic and metal, is a little more complicated to make," Morrison said. "But we calculated the added cost is only about five percent ($20,000) increase per missile."

That's outrageous, I could replace the water filter to the ice maker in my Bentley for that much money.
 
2002-12-26 07:07:18 PM
Nebula: "We've got to stop Zerg's deathray!"

LGMs: "HYPER Death ray."

Nebula: "What's the difference?"
(Beat)

LGMs: "More death..."

/Buzz Lightyear
 
2002-12-26 07:07:59 PM
Wow, that is so cool
 
2002-12-26 07:28:36 PM
FUBAR Industries introduces its latest product
The BCOWA
'When more than plenty is still dosen't satisfy'

(*Jingle)
She's not only merely dead
She's really, most sincerely dead
 
2002-12-26 07:32:56 PM
Saw a comic on TV the other night. Said he was looking for arabs on planes.

"It's not racial profiling. Not everyone from the middle east is a terrorist. But everyone who is a terrorist is from the middle east."
 
2002-12-26 07:34:29 PM
set phasers on myrtilize... knuk knuk
 
2002-12-26 07:36:49 PM
Doesn't anyone actually read the articles
anymore? They're talking about an anti-
missle weopons. In other words, it will
be saving lives. DUH!!!

Man, you liberals are paranoid!
 
2002-12-26 07:46:24 PM
I read every word of that, 'Grove.
You tryin' to spoil all my fun?
 
2002-12-26 09:17:21 PM


I cant wait for the "home version". I could especially use some 7.62 x 39
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report