Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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) NewsFlash US Air Force's X-51A Waverider Mach 5 test missile goes kablooey. Which can only mean one thing: Iran is years ahead of the US in photoshop expertise   (wired.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, air forces, Iran, rocket booster, hypersonic flight, intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles, hypersonic speeds  
•       •       •

16817 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:01 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-08-15 03:32:04 PM  
4 votes:
The military has driven technology as far back as the Roman Empire. The Roman road system, for example, was originally built for troop transport, but civilians were the ultimate beneficiaries. The same could be said about Eisenhower's interstate highway system, designed during the cold war.

Military R&D often leads to advancement in civilian applications.

For instance(past and current programs):
THE INTERNET (a great place to biatch about military spending)
space program (the first astronauts were launched on what were basically ICBM's)
GPS
jet aircraft
many medical advances
computers
semiconductors
chemicals needed to mass produce biofuels
potable, desalinated drinking water anywhere in the world
cheap way to manufacture titanium
nanotechnology
...and many, many more

But NO! fark all that shiat! The military is evil

/and yes, unfortunately, we always need new and better ways to kill people
2012-08-15 03:05:05 PM  
3 votes:
That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.
2012-08-15 08:54:34 PM  
1 vote:

bdub77: hasty ambush: U.S. output expanded faster than in most advanced economies 2000-2008. The IMF reported that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The US economy expanded by 19%. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

What a bunch of cherrypicked BS. What happened from 2008-2010?

US output expanded 19% but then tanked after the bubble burst and people realized the profits weren't real.

Here's what it looks like:

[media.zenfs.com image 700x468]

This is top marginal tax rate and GDP growth. There's no correlation between top tax rate and GDP growth. In fact it's slightly negative - that doesn't mean, btw that correlation = causation, that tax rates even have any impact on GDP growth - but if they did, you'd certainly have to explain it without bringing in additional variables. I've yet to see anyone make a strong argument that, for example, manufacturing moved out of this country because of taxation and that this caused GDP growth to slow. The movement of manufacturing out of the US matches with just about every post-industrial country in the world. If anything I'd guess that wage inequality caused manufacturing to move to lower cost countries, and that taxes on the wealthiest had little if any impact, especially when you consider that the people making most of the gains in income improvements over the past 30 years were the rich.

Here's one that shows debt vs tax rates:

[farm3.static.flickr.com image 457x333]

This one's pretty simple. Lower taxes means higher debt and deficits.

Again, citing anecdotal, cherrypicked data doesn't mean that lowering taxes results in higher GDP over time. In years following tax cuts what we've seen is a staggering rise in government debt instead.

And as you can also see from the charts, the US economy grew through all changes in tax rates, so ...


If by cherry picking you mean data covering 4 different Presidential administration,of both parties, then yes cherry picking.


With all your charts you cannot show where tax cuts caused a decrease in government revenue given that many tax cuts took place during recessions which was the real cause of any revenue reduction.
Deficits do not explode because government cuts taxes but because they spend too much.

If you are arguing that government spending is essential to economic recovery and expansion I would point you to Japan , its lost decade and half along with a national debt of about 200% of its GDP,

Japan even spent their government. better they we did. They built a lot of bridges and tunnels. We financed a failed green jobs progam, socially aware puppet shows, heated swimming pools in Hawaii and bailed out GM/UAW so they can build an assembly plant in Mexico.
2012-08-15 06:07:54 PM  
1 vote:
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7270214/78737637#c78737637" target="_blank">bdub77</a>:</b> <i>Besides, where's your data that cutting taxes will create more revenues or even create economic growth?</i>

Right Here

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a">US Government Revenue<a>

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248">US Employment Datat</a>

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.conference-board.org">Conference board economic database</a>

<b>JFK Tax Cuts</b>

From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by 30%, from $117 billion to $153.

Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

<b>The Reagan tax cuts</b> (counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan's last year than they were in his first year):
<b> "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth" President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers -1994</b>

From 1982 to 1989 federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion.

the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.

The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988

Clinton Tax Cuts:

1997 , created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999.

Federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%

<b>Bush Tax Cuts:</b>
From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

After the 2003 tax cuts, the rich paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the previous 40 years.. In 2007 the top 1% of taxpayers earned 22.8% of the nation's income, yet paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, whereas in 2004 the top 1% paid 36.89% of all federal income taxes. So the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1% went from 36.89% in 2004 to 40.4% in 2007. (Incidentally, this also means that in 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% paid.)

Total federal revenue grew at a faster rate during the three years following the Bush tax cuts than it did during the three Clinton boom years of 1998-2000. From 1998 to 2000, following Bill Clinton's 1997 tax cuts, total federal revenue rose $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%. A very respectable, solid increase. But, from 2004 to 2006, total federal revenue rose $520 billion, from $1.88 trillion to $2.40 trillion, an increase of 27%. The rate of inflation for the two periods was very similar (2.55% vs. 2.98%). So, even adjusted for inflation, the revenue growth that followed Bush's tax cuts was considerably better than the revenue growth that occurred during the three most prosperous years of Clinton's presidency.

U.S. output expanded faster than in most advanced economies 2000-2008. The IMF reported that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The US economy expanded by 19%. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
2012-08-15 05:50:57 PM  
1 vote:

bdub77: verbaltoxin: It's not like I'm 100% against the private sector and want everything socialized. I'm just tired of the dogma that the free market fixes everything. Conservatives have spent 20 years at least saying, "Haw haw, gubmint gonna cum save ya? Gubmint gonna fix everything, right, libby?!" while having the exact same, utopian, unrealistic, and pie-eyed idealism about the private sector. Enough.

In the end no one wants to take responsibility for their mistakes. Iraq/Afghan wars? Mistakes. Didn't save enough money and now need SS to retire at all? Mistake. Got a degree in liberal arts at the cost of $100,000 in student loans? Mistake. Bought a house too big for your wallet? Mistake. Started a business that sucks without a good business plan but taxes supposedly making it a losing proposition? Mistake. Got knocked up, quit school, and now you're on welfare money? Mistake. Voted a dipshiat Congressman into office? Mistake. Didn't teach your kid how to be self-sufficient and they now live in your basement? Mistake.

At some point people should start looking at themselves as the problem. I include myself in this.


Some people--possibly yourself included--also need to stop thinking that ANYONE can see all future possibilities and plan accordingly regardless of the current situation. Decisions that seem perfectly rational at the time can be affected by things you could never imagine, or if you did, they seemed so unlikely it was worth the chance.

House too big for your wallet? Well, at the time when the buyer had a job and the housing market was a buyer's market, it seemed doable; then buyer gets laid off (why would you anticipate that?) and the market tanked (surprise!) and a tornado hit your town and half the residents had to relocate making buyer's property suddenly valueless--now the house that was affordable suddenly isn't, and that's really nobody's fault.

That degree in theater arts? Hey, you were young and figured you needed a degree, and you knew friends in IATSE who said they could get you a job when you graduated. And $500 a month to pay back your loans didn't seem that impossible (when you're 18, nothing is impossible) because you hadn't figured out yet that you needed $500 a month BEYOND what you were going to need to live on. That doesn't mean you were a fool, just young and naive.

In our haste to make EVERYTHING someone's fault (either someone else's or their own) we tend to forget that decisions aren't made in a vacuum, everyone has 20/20 hindsight, and sometimes things really do strike out of the blue that throw your careful plans into ruin. There's a balance that needs to be struck, even in assigning blame.
2012-08-15 05:33:14 PM  
1 vote:

verbaltoxin: It's not like I'm 100% against the private sector and want everything socialized. I'm just tired of the dogma that the free market fixes everything. Conservatives have spent 20 years at least saying, "Haw haw, gubmint gonna cum save ya? Gubmint gonna fix everything, right, libby?!" while having the exact same, utopian, unrealistic, and pie-eyed idealism about the private sector. Enough.


In the end no one wants to take responsibility for their mistakes. Iraq/Afghan wars? Mistakes. Didn't save enough money and now need SS to retire at all? Mistake. Got a degree in liberal arts at the cost of $100,000 in student loans? Mistake. Bought a house too big for your wallet? Mistake. Started a business that sucks without a good business plan but taxes supposedly making it a losing proposition? Mistake. Got knocked up, quit school, and now you're on welfare money? Mistake. Voted a dipshiat Congressman into office? Mistake. Didn't teach your kid how to be self-sufficient and they now live in your basement? Mistake.

At some point people should start looking at themselves as the problem. I include myself in this.
2012-08-15 05:05:15 PM  
1 vote:

alex10294: The problem with your argument is threefold. First, it's status quo bias. It assumes that the current tax rates are somehow "right" and that reductions are therefore "wrong".



I'll stop you there. I think current tax rates are not right and reductions are wrong. I think taxes should be higher, across the board, more for wealthy but middle class taxpayers can and should be eating more taxes too. That's what happens when your government sells you out for two wars and creates an economic bubble that requires government intervention. Guess what, you have to pay for them. That means cutting spending and increasing taxes. You can't get by on cutting spending alone, not without death spiraling the economy.

Second, it equates taking and giving. Guy paying 500k in taxes gets a break and now pays 480, vs another person who pays nothing and takes 20k in benifits (on top of the benefits the govt gives all of us- roads/etc). So one guy now pays 15 times his equally divided share instead of 16, while the other pays no share and gets support. (btw: to calculate your "fair share" of federal taxes, take the 3.6 trillion and divide it by the number of taxpayers (approx 100m). The answer is about 36,000/year. Do you pay your "fair" share?).

You should equate giving and taking - that's the whole farking problem, we take too little and we give too much. The goal should be deficit and debt reduction, to take more and give less.

Giving tax breaks is the same as taking more money and then just giving it right back to that individual. The people at the low end of the scale (and the elderly) should learn to deal with lower benefits - but the people at the top should learn to deal with higher taxes.

And yes I believe in a social safety net which provides some government support for old people and people at the bottom. I don't believe in a welfare state or a continual poverty cycle which is what we currently have, however the income and wealth gap is incredibly high compared to other nations. The wealth gap, offshoring, and the plight of the middle class is very real and needs to be addressed in gov't policy. Yes I do believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I believe in socialism. I am a socialist in that regard. Prove to me that socialism doesn't work again? Germany and France would like a word.

Third, it assumes that the money is better off with the government. It's usually not. Taxes inherently reduce economic activity. Whether or not our current tax rate is the correct one, it's on a curve from 100% tax, which would stop all investment and business, to 0% where taxes have no impact on business decisions. Tax incentives work because they reduce the disincentive taxes have on investment. Thats why when cities and states want development in some area, they do it (both liberal and conservative) by tax incentives. Obama says this every week as "keep the wind tax credit".

/thinks the current rates should be about where they are. Not lower at this point, so no, I'm not an arch conservative.


Not everything should be about economic activity. That's the problem with society. Completely unregulated business and wholesale privatization doesn't work. It destroys the environment, it destroys jobs and people, it places greed above the greater good of humanity. Unchecked capitalism is a nice theory, like Communism. I know you don't believe this, but government is intended to serve the people, as corrupt as government can be in places.

As for tax rates, I disagree, I think the current rates should be higher, at least short term, to address the deficit. And as I've said many times here and other places, the federal deficit creates a tax on everyone. When your dollar is worth less each year due to rising debt, your dollar doesn't go as far, and things become more expensive. At some point it might even hyperinflate which would be worse. You pay that tax when oil prices go up and up. You just don't call it a tax, you call it exchange rate. You can't cut government spending and spur the economy, just like you can't cut taxes and spur the economy. I agree, taxes between 0 and 100, but IMO the sweet spot between economic growth and deficit reduction requires a tax rate that is above where it exists right now.

People should learn to deal with less anyway. More taxes on the middle and upper class could be a good thing, consumption would go down but perhaps so would our trade deficit.

Besides, where's your data that cutting taxes will create more revenues or even create economic growth? From what I've seen many boom cycles came in times when the taxes on the highest earners were much higher. Frank I just think the taxcut lobby is just the same supply side BS that has continually been disproven by economists.

People in the US just need to learn to live with less. The American Dream isn't over, it just needs to be reworked. Not everyone is going to be able to afford daily Starbucks, an Escalade, and a McMansion. Math and science education needs to be much better. College education should be focused on the private sector and not meat grinding people interested in math and science into psychology majors. And not everyone deserves or needs to go to college - save that money and use it to fund business.
2012-08-15 04:57:53 PM  
1 vote:

pseydtonne: Meanwhile, jets take off all the time. Their fuel is a sizable factor cheaper and safer, their maintenance is... oh right, they can be MAINTAINED instead of burned up and tossed in the ocean.



we already have re-usable rocket planes. SpaceShipOne is a rocket based plane. no tossing it away. all "rocket" means is that you don't even try to use ambient air as your oxidizer. That's it.

Now I get to do my "don't get me wrong" aw shucks stuff

i designed a turbo/ram/scramjet hybrid engine when I was a mechanical engineer in Canada. I know why you would want to harvest the fantastic compression ratio of the incident shock wave to have an ultra-efficient jet engine (it is more about saving fuel than getting to Paris in an hour). But it is going to be monstrously unstable. You are no longer trying to harness a subsonic deflagration, but now you have an engine based on a marginally controled detonation (supersonic combustion). Rockets are designed to create detonations in a very controlled fashion.

does the military need it ? nope.

commercial hypersonic travel would be a boon though.
2012-08-15 04:44:12 PM  
1 vote:

dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades...


Don't get me wrong: I loves me some rockets. I visited the Atlas Museum south of Tucson and felt like a five-year-old. For a peacenik, I have a deep and abiding love of military history.

Rockets are just a pain compared to jets. Ever notice how much co-ordination it takes to get a NASA rocket off the ground because of the pesky, protein-based cargo? A simple thunderstorm can push back the mission by days.

Meanwhile, jets take off all the time. Their fuel is a sizable factor cheaper and safer, their maintenance is... oh right, they can be MAINTAINED instead of burned up and tossed in the ocean.

If we can get jets to perform at rocket speeds and respond like jets, then we open a huge number of possibilities. Killin' folks faster is just the sexiest application (and let's face it, even a Buddhist on a vow of silence has the occasional murder dream that needs to be brushed away).

We've got a lot of aging satellites. Wouldn't be a lot easier to send a jet-like device as far up as we can (since it will still need atmosphere for wing surfaces and blade-based propulsion) and toss up nicer ones with tiny rockets?

It's not the be-all, end-all solution. It would reinvigorate the space program and maybe speed up puddle-jumping in a couple decades. Right now it means making hypsersonic transport LESS of an event, less of an expense, more dependable and more controllable.
2012-08-15 04:29:49 PM  
1 vote:

bdub77: TofuTheAlmighty: Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.

Moron. Spending money on something other than defense contractors and tax cuts for rich people is socialism.

I asked my mom, who is really against welfare, what do people on welfare spend money on?

"Alcohol and cigarettes, and some food."
"Aren't most alcohol and cigarettes made here in the US?"
"Yes."
"What else do they spend money on. Rent?"
"Yes."
"Is that spent in the US?"
"Yes."
"What about utilities. Those are US utility companies too right?"
"Yes."
"OK. Now what about tax breaks for the wealthy? Isn't that welfare?"
"No."
"Couldn't you look at tax breaks for the wealthy as a subsidy to business owners, akin to welfare, where we are not taxing our rich enough in a time when we need revenues to close the deficit gap?"
"I suppose."
"And where are they reinvesting that money not collected?"
"Here, I suppose."
"But mostly global companies, China and India."
"Probably."
"So what's worse, giving government money to poor people who disproportionately spend the money on US goods and services, or not taking money from rich people who disproportionately spend the money on foreign investments?"

This is when she stopped talking.

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of a lot of welfare spending over time (75% or so of it over 10-20 years) provided we replace the system with programs that encourage education, help people find jobs, and teach personal and financial responsibility. I am also in favor of getting rid of 75% of our defense spending over 10-20 years and similarly funding programs which move defense R&D money and technology into new business ventures.


The problem with your argument is threefold. First, it's status quo bias. It assumes that the current tax rates are somehow "right" and that reductions are therefore "wrong".
Second, it equates taking and giving. Guy paying 500k in taxes gets a break and now pays 480, vs another person who pays nothing and takes 20k in benifits (on top of the benefits the govt gives all of us- roads/etc). So one guy now pays 15 times his equally divided share instead of 16, while the other pays no share and gets support. (btw: to calculate your "fair share" of federal taxes, take the 3.6 trillion and divide it by the number of taxpayers (approx 100m). The answer is about 36,000/year. Do you pay your "fair" share?).

Third, it assumes that the money is better off with the government. It's usually not. Taxes inherently reduce economic activity. Whether or not our current tax rate is the correct one, it's on a curve from 100% tax, which would stop all investment and business, to 0% where taxes have no impact on business decisions. Tax incentives work because they reduce the disincentive taxes have on investment. Thats why when cities and states want development in some area, they do it (both liberal and conservative) by tax incentives. Obama says this every week as "keep the wind tax credit".

/thinks the current rates should be about where they are. Not lower at this point, so no, I'm not an arch conservative.
2012-08-15 04:26:09 PM  
1 vote:

dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.


ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.
2012-08-15 04:01:39 PM  
1 vote:

SonOfSpam: /eyeroll


the X-15 was a rocket, the X-51 is a SCRAM jet

\eyeroll
2012-08-15 03:51:42 PM  
1 vote:
www.sierrafoot.org

/eyeroll
2012-08-15 03:48:50 PM  
1 vote:

Hobo Jr.: This was for cruise missiles right?

Couldn't we have spent that money more wisely like going to Mars or something?


When you strip down the size of your military to the point that we have, you have to rely on expensive weapons systems to maintain capability, or you lose the ability to project power. Some would argue we have no business projecting power in the first place, to them I point to the usual Hitler footage and Stalin footage and ask if that's what you really want running amok out of range of your stuff, thereby eventually forcing you into a massive and much more expensive military build up later to deal with the problem.

/yeah, I'd prefer to be going to to Mars too
//doesn't do us much good if there's no United States on Earth to come back to later
2012-08-15 03:32:39 PM  
1 vote:

TofuTheAlmighty: Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.

Moron. Spending money on something other than defense contractors and tax cuts for rich people is socialism.


I asked my mom, who is really against welfare, what do people on welfare spend money on?

"Alcohol and cigarettes, and some food."
"Aren't most alcohol and cigarettes made here in the US?"
"Yes."
"What else do they spend money on. Rent?"
"Yes."
"Is that spent in the US?"
"Yes."
"What about utilities. Those are US utility companies too right?"
"Yes."
"OK. Now what about tax breaks for the wealthy? Isn't that welfare?"
"No."
"Couldn't you look at tax breaks for the wealthy as a subsidy to business owners, akin to welfare, where we are not taxing our rich enough in a time when we need revenues to close the deficit gap?"
"I suppose."
"And where are they reinvesting that money not collected?"
"Here, I suppose."
"But mostly global companies, China and India."
"Probably."
"So what's worse, giving government money to poor people who disproportionately spend the money on US goods and services, or not taking money from rich people who disproportionately spend the money on foreign investments?"

This is when she stopped talking.

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of a lot of welfare spending over time (75% or so of it over 10-20 years) provided we replace the system with programs that encourage education, help people find jobs, and teach personal and financial responsibility. I am also in favor of getting rid of 75% of our defense spending over 10-20 years and similarly funding programs which move defense R&D money and technology into new business ventures.
2012-08-15 03:26:40 PM  
1 vote:

DarnoKonrad: Meh, it's just a weapons platform. Don't we have enough ways to kill people at the moment?


My parents (who used to be hippies in the 70s) are now extremely pro-military research (they like the internet). Whenever they see this, they chuckle and talk about how in the 70s, people were saying we should stop military funding because "we can blow up the Earth 17 times over. There isn't any need to fund the military anymore."
2012-08-15 03:22:03 PM  
1 vote:
Yes, enemies are everywhere. Transfer pork to defense contractors, but socialized medicine is evil presumably because it includes mental healthcare which would be the Republicans' undoing.
2012-08-15 03:12:35 PM  
1 vote:

Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.


Moron. Spending money on something other than defense contractors and tax cuts for rich people is socialism.
2012-08-15 03:10:32 PM  
1 vote:
SCRAM!
2012-08-15 03:10:02 PM  
1 vote:
This qualifies as a Fark alert?
2012-08-15 03:09:41 PM  
1 vote:
Meh, it's just a weapons platform. Don't we have enough ways to kill people at the moment?
2012-08-15 03:08:54 PM  
1 vote:
X-51? His name is Aaron Stack.
2012-08-15 03:03:26 PM  
1 vote:
Where's the ka-boom? There was supposed to be an earth shattering ka-boom!
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report