riddler

I think that BASE jumping from a really tall, sharp, pointy object would qualify as Stoopid BASE. But not as Stoopid as trying to land your canopy on one I'm not against this Swiss vote - I happen to think that Switzerland is the greatest democracy in the world, and if it's what they decided by vote, then it should stand. I do however, think this vote is an indication of how people can be driven en-masse to think in a certain way, even hate an entire culture, based on media and political pressure, rather than trying to think for themselves. Reminiscent of Hitler stirring up the people against Communists and Jews with an effective leaflet campaign. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

You do realize that the snow that was originally predicted for Sunday has been rescheduled to Wednesday, just to make life miserable for you here, don't you? Talk about Blow. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I'm looking for data that supports that statement - do you have any? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

There are lots of wars the US could not win, but that doesn't justify keeping an old war-relic around. With our defense budget, which is eight time larger than China's, we can afford ordnance that results in less civilian casualties. The policy is that "if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of military response," according to a 2002 briefing by Richard Boucher. Nuclear weapons are one option, but we are not limited to only using that option. I don't really remember who first suggested that - FallingOsh? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

No, you gave me military theaters (Korea, Gitmo, et al), also with no real data about why they are necessary there (only speculation). I was asking for tactical information - like a military situation in which mines are preferable, to say, air strikes. Supporting data would be nice, of course, but not having it never stopped you before. Not true - as I already said, we spend 1.3 billion USD per year in the U.S. HUMANITARIAN MINE ACTION program. Signing a treaty seems a much cheaper option. Retired Lt. General Robert G. Gard cites the following alternatives as viable: 1. Area denial bomblets 2. The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), a tracked vehicle that can fire a “ripple” of 12 M26 rockets. These cover an area of up to 200,000 sq. m to a range of 32km 3. The Extended Range MLRS, which has a range of 45km. The above can be used in a war zone, as a direct result of conflict, rather than leaving silent killers in the ground for decades. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I hear the Medical Core tried to designate a carrier for the serpents of Caduceus, but they all died. It's all fun and games until the dog gets shot. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

No you haven't. You've said they are necessary at the Korean border, but I already stated in my first post that I had heard that. No one said why they are necessary, other than speculation that they are cheap. I discount that because we already spend billions of dollars a year to not use them. Can you explain why landmines are superior to modern warfare techniques? Can you explain why they are cheaper if we don't use them, but spend billions of dollars on the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program? Sure, and I can say that chemical weapons are valuable in specific situations, without giving any real details. The question then begs - if we don't use landmines, and spend over a billion dollars a year to educate people about their dangers and remove them, why do we need them? Wouldn't it be cheaper to sign a treaty and not spend billions every year on something we don't actually use? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I'll connect the dots for you. We don't use chemical weapons in warfare, and we are currently in the process of completely eliminating our stockpile. We've signed a treaty saying we won't use them, and other countries won't either. We don't use landmines in modern warfare. So why are we against signing a treaty against them? If it was a good idea for chemical weapons that we don't use, why is it a bad idea for landmines that we don't use? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

According to this logic, we should also reserve the right to use chemical weapons, correct? Who knows when we might need them? Of course, we have subscribed to several Chemical Weapons Conventions, the most recent being 1997. Turns out, we don't really use them in modern warfare and they typically do more harm than good in peacetime. Sounds a lot like landmines. Or are you suggesting we break our chemical weapons accord because we might need them one day? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Or perhaps Switzerland could try to be better than Iran and Saudi Arabia, and welcome people of all faiths. The "us" vs. "them" mentality that is being promoted by one political party there is contraindicative of a democracy. And by the way - my grandfather was a Baptist minister. He believed that Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and agnostics were all going to Hell. Islam does not hold a corner on religious discrimination. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Unfortunately, those were public toilet stalls And I was surprised at the number of them that got caught doing the same thing. But now I'm pretty sure about at least one subject they discuss at their secret meetings Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

It wasn't an issue - it was a question. If the U.S., by default, already tries to eliminate it's use of landmines, then why don't they sign the treaty? If we don't want to scatter mines in neighborhoods, then why do we want to reserve the right to use them? Is it because we want to be able to scatter them in neighborhoods if we feel that it's necessary? So far, I haven't heard an answer, other than for use in Korea, and I don't subscribe to that ideal. Other than Korea, is there a viable reason for us to continue to use landmines? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Assuming zero per year, then they've never amassed troops along the border. The short answer, is you don't know the answer to your own question. No - do you? Oh, wait, we've already been down that road ... Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Hoff drunk, or .... Well, Hell, nothing beats that, really. Edit - found a better clicky. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

A taser would definitely not have been useful in that situation. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

No, I don't. Can you tell me? Nice theory, but that doesn't explain the real and actual casualties from Korean landmines, both from troops and civilians at the border AND landmine washout to civilian areas. And landmines completely make up the difference? I doubt that. If that were the case, we could eliminate nukes and just use landmines everywhere. It's also an expensive price, in terms of civilians and children injured, just to placate fear-driven politics. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I'm glad you feel the need to shelter the South Koreans - I wonder how you would feel about them all immigrating to the U.S.? My guess is the South Koreans are more worried about immigration than invasion, and they think, as a few here do, that landmines are a good solution to that problem. Anyway, I'm not an expert, but if there were to be a full-scale ground invasion of South Korea by the North, it seems our intelligence (poor as it is sometimes) would probably detect the massive troop build-up along the border (satellite photos are good enough to see that). There would be enough time to redeploy South Korean and U.S. forces to the area, and as the first Gulf War showed, air assault on ground forces does more damage than randomly scattered land-mines. I've been reading more about them, and this article claims the U.S. resistance was originally more about the proposed ban on anti-tank as well as anti-personnel devices. The fallout of the mines at the Korean border: Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Are you saying we need to relocate everyone that lives within ten miles of the Mexico border? I think the cost of that would outweigh any savings. Or were you saying move everyone 10 miles over in the Mexico side? I think the government of Mexico might have an issue with that. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

In the wake of the announcement that the U.S. will not support a landmine ban, it seems there is a lot of conflicting data. The U.S. is the only member of NATO that won't join the treaty which bans their "use, stockpiling, production or transfer". At the same time, the U.S. "has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported any since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997". So we generally abide by the treaty, and spend $1.5 billion annually to help fight against them worldwide. So why the double-speak? I read one person's theory that they are necessary at the North-Korean border. Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I don't see what all the hubbub is about. It's not like they are going to kick out everyone that doesn't pledge allegiance to their flag; they are just not going to give money to candidates that don't. I would think any worthwhile Republican candidate wouldn't want money from the GOP, anyway, because that reeks of socialism. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

And for more entertaining sound-bites from the "fair and balanced" news network, please read up on the daily "Internal Memos" distributed by Fox News vice-president John Moody, directing reporters on how to report the news in a rather unfair and unbalanced way. A few excerpts: Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Maybe that's the problem with the uptight right-wingers at Fox News. Maybe if they spent a little more time getting it on, they could chill out a bit, instead of spewing the hate. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Spring is also a great time to start playing with the new toys that the Pentagon has fast-tracked. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/us.afghanistan/index.html I vote yes. Although I support Obama, he hasn't shown the ability to say no to his military commanders. I believe that we have a duty to find and kill Osama Bin Laden, however, it seems that Afghanistan is turning into another nation-building effort. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

They had time-travelling in Dallas? I guess I should've watched it. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD