Anti-aircraft missiles are fundamentally environmentally friendly.
- Aircraft are big polluters, less aircraft = less pollution.
- Aircraft often contain humans, who are also big polluters. Less humans = less pollution
Anti-aircraft missiles are fundamentally environmentally friendly.
It's satire. Original tweet was about an environmentally friendly radar system from Raytheon
The fact that so many people actually fell for it is worrying not just because reality itself has become satire but because this post should be painfully obvious. Ain't nobody marketing missiles to anyone who cares about the carbon footprint.
Not going to lie. I believed it and thought 'wow between this and the knife missile that greatly reduces civilian casualties Rathiyon are probably most morally upstanding war profiteirs of our era'
now I am just disappointed
The knife missile was actually kinda awesome in its own way tbh. Ridiculous precision for super long distance murder with as few casualties as possible.
It's also frightening that it exists.
the knife missile is so emblematic of the entire military industrial complex. can't stop engaging in unnecessary resource wars due to unnecessary casualties. instead, the military industrial complex will develop and sell a product to allow the killing of specific people in public spaces. and the more you think about the idea of being at a produce stand and someone standing next to you turning into a fine red mist, never to exist in physical space again, the more distopian it seems.
it reminds me of the episode of star trek where they encounter a planet that has eliminated war via coordinated computer simulations and voluntary genocides.
Knife missiles are real things?? Scary stuff. I'm about half way through the Culture series at the moment, never heard of them before..
It's the Hellfire AGM-114R-9X
A while back it was used to kill some dude without the other people in the same house being collateral damage, so it got meme status for a while.
Question. Are the knives really needed? I feel like getting hit with what is essentially a 5 foot long, 7 inch wide bullet, travelling at mach 1 would prove to be equally efficient at killing single targets, as strapping knives to it.
it reduces the risk of missing because the target bent over to pick up a quarter, or stepped to the side because they saw something interesting. the knives in question are basically swords that deploy radially from the missile body like an umbrella.
There have been times it's been used against a whole carful of people, and cars are bigger than seven inches.
A lot of things are pretty normal today that would've been satire 10 years ago
"environmentally friendly radar system"
so weather radar?
Aircraft shot down over shallow waters can even turn into coral reefs! Wow!
Humans are the major cause of environmental collapse.
To quote Carlin, "The earth doesn't share our prejudice against plastic... The planet is fine. The people are fucked."
Moss probably doesn't like plastic very much, Carlin was talking about the rock, not thin film on the surface
humans are the major cause for human collapse. the environment will surviveโฆ mostly
Humans are animals, which are a part of the environment. The major cause of human and environmental collapse is a bunch of rich pieces of shit upholding a cruel, unsustainable system and leading you to believe that's just 'human nature' & how things are and have always been.
.. and humans are also needed by a lot of domestic animals and plants. So it seems more comple... No it's not, it's capitalism. Kill capitalism, not beings
More importantly, it kills them when they're old and already contributed most of their pollution and the cancer care also wastes lots of plastic and resources.
Cancer care doesn't cause nearly as much waste and resources as elder care does, though. Smokers benefit the system because they die a decade or two early.
Oh cool ecofascism
make a better future for the children of the world by blowing up half of it
Killing is good way to reduce your CO2 footprint
Bombs are not environmentally friendly.
Average person's carbon footprint is 7 tons CO2 per year. Killing just one person will make a bomb environmentally friendly.
Bombs from Raytheon are environmentally friendly. Making war environmentally friendly is what Raytheon is all about. Raytheon a green company! ๐๐ฝ
Woke SAMs
You're not going to beat the mosquito or rotavirus when it comes to environmentally friendly killers. Lethality, prodigious. Carbon footprint, minimal (small amount of flatulence, don't worry about it). This comment was sponsored by Gnawed VPN.
Maybe the next iteration can have some seeds mixed in the payload to sprout little trees and plants over the wreckage.
Greenwashing final boss?
Competition for Veridian Dynamics
If I am elected president, anyone who has ever claimed to be "building a better future for our children" will have their mouths smashed off with a rifle butt.
This reminds me of Jeremy Kauffman's ad, "War is Gay," which advocated for making militarism as gay as possible. The point is that militarism, or zabernism, is considered acceptable and even encouraged as long as DEI quotas are met within the military. https://youtu.be/kdfym6LKpQ0
I would argue against having military, but that'd be pointless. If we're going to have it, it should be as representative of the population as possible. It might save the lives of underrepresented citizens when we're invading.
So you actually believe a military should have quotas based on arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender, tied to the population it is meant to protect? That is, if the population is around 50% women, the military should attempt to have 50% women in all positions? And that any disparate outcome would be evidence of racism or sexism? Would that be your position taken to its extreme, while your actual position has the same essence but is much more sensible in degree? Or what do you think?
*edit: please don't downvote mori on this, those are absolutely valid questions and a chance to clarify without angry rebuttal is always welcome
So you actually believe a military should have quotas based on arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender
Not arbitrary at all. I think the makeup should exactly mirror the population distribution as closely as it can. We invade places, it's hoards of guys and it's a lot of rape and pillage and less worry about illegal orders. I think a proper distribution would help that out a lot.
And that any disparate outcome would be evidence of racism or sexism
Nope, don't give a shit about that at all. I just think they should try to have our military not being 99% white men covering each others asses doing shit they shouldn't. DEI isn't just about combating racism/sexism, it's making sure that the staffing matches the population. A team with 20% minorities will be less likely to be overzealous on minorities. A team of 50% women will be less likely to rape or allow the rape of women in action zones.
Would that be your position taken to its extreme, while your actual position has the same essence but is much more sensible in degree? Or what do you think?
Not quite sure I grasp that series of questions. I don't think they should force minorities/women into the military, but they should try hard to be representative and mix everyone together. Nothing beats sexist/racist views in individuals like working closely with people of other races/sexes. Hell it might even drive out people that should have power over other people.
It's obviously not without issue. But we need more mixing of culture/race/sex on the daily basis or we'll be in this while male superiority complex society forever.
Realistically, the American military is likely to be fairly diverse, just not especially gender-diverse. You do not need quotas to achieve a reasonable level of racial diversity, as many men are psychographically drawn to military service regardless. An Estonian military, by contrast, is unlikely to be diverse no matter how aggressively DEI policies are applied; attempting to force diversity would effectively result in a foreign legion.
Women tend to require incentives, often in the form of college funding, to develop an interest in joining the military. They also tend to be less effective in duties involving firefighting and direct combat and can be liabilities in those particular situations. However, they are no different intellectually and are fully capable of performing engineering, technical, and similar roles, & advances in technology may help bridge some of these physical gaps in the future.
Regarding your claim that โa team with 20 percent minorities will be less likely to be overzealous toward minorities,โ the reality may be closer to the opposite. White personnel can experience anxiety about appearing prejudiced and may therefore become overly cautious or under-enforcing in certain situations. Some evidence of this can be seen in instances where white police officers avoid proactive enforcement out of fear of being accused of racism, homophobia, or similar biases. Black officers (for example), by contrast, often appear to have greater immunity from these particular concerns.
P.S. Ideally, the U.S. military and other militaries would not be searching for monsters to destroy abroad, such as inventing reasons to attack Venezuela, Iran, etc. possibly for the benefit of Israel, lol.
Yes, but is it using recycled plastics?
Flying is bad for the environment.
Sea Sparrow makes sure fewer planes can fly.
Q.E.D.
Not only that, they are an inclusive employer, freedom of rigion and they support the cyrcular economy.
This cannot be real lol
You ever see a post that makes you want to drink and have a smoke in silence while you just try to not think about how fucked up everything is
all 3 comments