Avatar of TheEvanCat
  • Last Seen: 2 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 1220 (0.27 / day)
  • VMs: 2
  • Username history
    1. TheEvanCat 12 yrs ago

Status

Recent Statuses

3 yrs ago
Current AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
2 likes
4 yrs ago
Dude, it's called method acting. If Daniel Day Lewis can do it, so can you. Idiot
1 like
5 yrs ago
"I HAVE NO BAN AND I MUST CRINGE." Rest in peace to the last of the good men in this world. I will shed a thousand tears and pour a hundred 40s of Olde English.
2 likes

Bio

Armenia - Precipice of War 2017



France - New Earth Oracle



Korea - Our World in Turmoil



Mexico - Precipice of War 2020



New York City - Fallout: War Never Changes III



Persia - The Ghost of Napoleon

Most Recent Posts

duck55223 said
Yeah. There is still a lot of viable options for funding though.


I think there are laws in place to prevent someone like Bill Gates from going rogue and building his own giant robots for personal gain after flagging a company in like, Nigeria or somewhere with lax laws.

At the most extreme they'd be branded a terrorist organization for trying to disrupt the peace with its private armies trying to one-up the US and be dismantled. Or they'd get called out under international law and INTERPOL would just arrest them for arms trafficking. There are ways.
UN is not stronk. UN will never be stronk. Plus, they're forbidden to have any sort of military whatsoever - peacekeeping is technically different because it doesn't do any sort of aggressiveness. They wouldn't fund any sort of war products anyways since their mission is peace. Case closed. UN wouldn't even fund anything if it wanted to.

And about the US: they wouldn't fund something that game changing unless it was locked to the DoD. We have export bans on advanced stuff, which is why you don't see Canada flying around F-22s or anything like that. So for the government to fund a company that doesn't seem to have any loyalty to the US government (hell, isn't it not even based there?) and using its products not for the US government but for itself? That's impossible, simply because the protocols that the DoD has in place will guarantee that the most advanced technology is used by the US Military proper, and not some random corporation. Again, Lockheed Martin doesn't have any private F-22s that it can use or sell to anyone else. That stuff was funded by the government and in exchange all of it went to the Air Force exclusively. So even if the US can fund it, it won't.
The problem with repellng all small arms fire is that it can't. Heavy rounds can go through IFV armor. Even lighter rounds hitting the guy won't go through, but they'll still leave an impact. It'll knock you on your ass even in power armor, and it would be able to disrupt the delicate machinery inside.

Not to mention the previous ergonomic concerns, along with logistics and whatnot.
duck55223 said
Military tech has grown, but Dinh told me stuff like your suits are still a bit of a ways away. We have lots of improvements to conventional weapons, and Rail-Guns and lasers, as well as more improvements to unmanned and air technology.


So as of right now, we have highly prototype exoskeletons that cost billions of dollars and look like this:



It's been thirty years but as of right now the regular military doesn't like them because they're big, clunky, and need lots of power. That's never going to change. Why saddle your entire land army with something that can run out of batteries and literally stick them and immobilize them somewhere? Where's the logistics for all those batteries going to come from? What happens when you've integrated your weapons into the suit so when you do need to ditch you're left defenseless? Armies would much rather invest in advanced body armor (which we're researching, mostly stuff like thermoplastics and even some exotic stuff like non-Newtonian shear-thickening fluid) that can allow mobility. The key word is mobility here.

Oh, and before you say anything about it's the future, we had prototype mechs in the 1960s:



Why don't we have AT-ATs today? Because they were impractical and nobody wanted to fun them, so we had to start over again with Bigdog and his friends.
Vilageidiotx said
"If you strike me down now, I will become more ripped than you can possibly imagine."


I'd pay to see an alternate ending where Obi-Wan suplexes Vader through the floor.
WilsonTurner said
Sometimes, Dinh, maybe just say you don't see why one would like something, but maybe not go on to disprove it or something? It's kind of downing, at least from my perspective, if I weren't as good with grammar or spelling [or just didn't care to use it or learn it], and find myself put down for liking this and this, and for not knowing as much as someone else. Suggestion, but I've had people rage at me for me mentioning that I'm more advanced than them, even though I'm the one writing paragraphs with descriptions and such, and they're still going half-liners with *____* and -_______-, and taking no effort to do any more. I have done what you have done with them before [except on a smaller scale] and found that everyone hated me. I'm not sure if there are as many... 'free style' roleplayers like that here, but still. Something to think about.And that doesn't mean you use logic to explain why I'm wrong. This is true, believe it or not. There are things that logic and reason will never change, sadly


I don't think I quite understand.
They have the best Prime Ministers. Sexing, drinking, gambling, and corrupting.
Meanwhile in Bandar Abbas:

Pew pew, pew pew, baby boom - Italian veterans' policies.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet