Are American's defence / technology - as potrayed in movies?
370451
A lot of it is utter crap.  Now that I told you that I have to kill you.\n\nSome of it is real, some of it is being developed, and some of it is being concepted.\n\nMany things that they show in movies we may even be able to do but don't.  Sometimes it's to expensive, and other times it's jsut not practical to actually do.\n\nIn the end much of what we see in movies even in the insides of the actual military vehiles we do have is not even close to accurate.
372015
USA Military Technology vs. Iraq Technology\nI vote USA tech anytime, everytime.  Just by our technology alone will win this war. \nLike you, I'll explain later...
244435
Ulitmatey the US was.  The Bush administration showed a total lack of dilligence and competancy.  This happened on their watch.  I don't have a lot of faith in a president who reads books about pet goats when we are under attack.\n\nAlso lets hear it for the National Security Advisor, Condisleeza Rice or Can't Believuh Rice. She had no idea someone might fly planes into buildings? The World Trade center was DESIGNED to handle a hit from a 707.\nAny one read Tom Clancy's DEBT of HONOR where a 747 gets flown into the capitol...and that came out in 1995.\n\nOur foreign policy and economic policies were catylysts as well.  9/11 was a sympton of an underlying problem and a complex one at that.  See the movie Sryiana ( sp?).
543779
All military electronics are hardened against EMP. It would knock out civilian electronics by inducing a high amplitude current spike into the circuitry. (I used to work on military aircraft electronics)\n\nBasically, in a nuclear war scenario, the first detonation would be a high altitude blast, which would wipe out most electronics - communications being the main target.\n\nNot sure if there is any other method of doing it, like the Bond flick 'Goldeneye'.
689704
No, the US is totally hypocritical to think that the US has a right to certain technology but countries like Iran which are disliked by the US government don't have the same right.  The US is not the world's policeman, and that is why so many people round the world hate the US.
885376
Interesting spelling.\n\nI like how *after* a bomb attempt, they go crazy avoiding the technology that's already been foiled.  Why would a terrorist use the same technology that has already been detected?  Wouldn't they go for something more discreet, something people aren't looking for yet?\n\nI'm totally disgusted by airline security, air traffic control, shoddy maintenance, prices, too-full airplanes...airplanes SUCK since deregulation.  I'm taking a sailboat, hang-gliding, driving a lawnmower.  I'm too broke to fly on private jets, but I would if I could.  \n\nThe government--always a step behind in the war on terrorism.  Thanks, guys!
609664
I am guessing both are more than likely trained along the same lines. The US and British military seem to work together well, so that's what made me say that.
1007948
Sure, faster, more accurate, more effective weapons will get the job done for efficiently, but that's not why we strive for more technological advances in warfare -- it's not like there's some quality assurance inspector behind the front line saying, "Now, General, my sources tell me that you are only averaging about fifteen kills per mortar shell, and that is simply not acceptable if you expect a promotion this year!  You have a quota to meet, you know!"\n\nIt's an arms race out there, and has been ever since two cavemen showed up to a fight, one with a big rock and the other with a sharpened stick that he threw and killed his opponent from a distance.  The next time, a fighter from the losing tribe brought his own sharpened stick, but by that time, the innovator brought a sling made of mammoth hide or something and killed his opponent from even further away with a stone.  The next time, one of them showed up with his newest invention: the bow and arrow.  Eventually, one of them thought to bring a shield with him.  And so on, and so on and so on.\n\nWe continue to build better and better weapons because our opponents continue to build better weapons, armor and countermeasures to the weapons we already have.  If someone hadn't invented cannons, we'd still wage war with rifles and bayonets and cavalry charges.  If we hadn't decided to use airplanes in warfare, it would all be done over land, one muddy, bloody step at a time.  Armor piercing bullets wouldn't be necessary if stronger, thicker steel plating wasn't placed on vehincles and if Kevlar wasn't in every flak jacket.  It's not just because newer, shinier weapons are cool; they're necessary to give the side that has them a tactical and technological advantage on the battlefield.
553563
there not,we have had a whole new system in operation for awhile now.and every day we are getting newer high tech weapons to use.for a true,more explained detail try to send that question (WHICH IS A GOOD QUESTION) to the TV show MAIL CALL. i don't know if you have seen the show,but they answer questions such as yours in detail.its a military show about the equipment used in wars. I'm sorry i don't have the email to them but you probably can get it by looking up the shows name MAIL CALL on the web.
621428
First of all, don't listen to adm_maaf. I was on a tank in Iraq that took about a dozen rpgs while it was there, and all they did was scratch the paint. That said, an aerial bomb has a hell of a lot more destructive energy than an rpg. Not to mention the 30mm chain gun on the A-10 was specifically designed to penetrate armor. Good thing they're on our side.
136660
i would think its neither, if you have never heard this excuse: the american army needs to use there armament so people dont start saying that its just lying around useless. and they want to destroy some of it so they can explain why they got new better and more expencive ones.
484710
With operated-gun turrets and man held machine guns like on the deck sort of like the ones in the movie Pearl Harbor that the African American used. You know, that guy who did the Radio movie as well. There should be at least two air craft even though its not a carrier and a battleship. Two mini man subs.... Sonar, radar, everything. missiles but why do you want to know? Hmm? I looked at your answering history and you're obsessed with war man. Of course the above is just something I made up.
444679
With the rise in power of countries these days, we are lucky all we need to develope are bunker busting weapons.  Many countries have developed nuclear technology since the end of the "cold" war.  I'd be more concerned with the Iranians and North Koreans obtaining nuclear weapons than with the U.S. developing a weapon that could take out nuclear weapons in their silo's.
900862
Well in that respect, you could just about say that every military installation is effectively defended.......there aren't that many stories out there about people trying to sneak on and being successful.    And they do use cameras to help, and I with my own eyes have seen motion detectors being used.......\nWe all know the military has the best technology,  why they refuse to implement Any technology is a clear sign that our gov. doesn't want to stop illegal immigration.  \nAnd them saying a fence won't work, is partly true.....  if they plan on just putting a chain link up...well yea that won't work.  They need to use technology on our border.  And a fence/wall that is not just one little fence.   Layers, razor wires ,concrete, steel.....and they better make sure they take the fence at least 10 ft. underground.
155828
Most of the time they dont "let" the company's borrow anything. They have the soldiers accompany the equipment, they get filmed and they go back to post. But you figure most of the time its not real anyway. I mean with all the video technology these days you can pretty much create anything you wanted to for half of the cost of whgat it would have cost in real life. Look at the movie, True Lies, they really did not have a Harrier out there its all props and special effects.
128570
India's nuclear capability is very negligable when compared to the United States.  They have several dozen low-yield nuclear warheads (less than 100kt).  I don't know where you get your information, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they have ICBM capability, maybe MRBM capability at best.\n\nTo say that their military hardware matches up with that of the US is a bit of a stretch.  They don't have an MBT that compares to the M1A2 just to make a prime example.\n\nLet's not even compare naval forces, because there's simply no comparison.  The USN dominates the world's oceans, and the next 4 navies combined don't have the capabilities of the USN.\n\nTheir air force is fairly good, but still equipped with mostly older Soviet aircraft, such as the Mig-21 and Mig-23.  They do have some newer fighters such as the Mirage 2000, Mig-29, and Su-30, but not in comparable numbers to our F-14,15,16, and 18.  Plus the F-22 is coming into squadron service now, and is far superior to anything the Indians have.\n\nBasically, in a large scale air/sea/land conflict, the US would win.  Not easily, but win nevertheless.
417701
America is unique in the way the "West was won" - by violence.  Cowboys and Indians, lots of fighting, lots of Guns.  Followed by the "Right to Bear Arms", the Gun Lobby and Charlton Heston, Armed Police and so on.  USA is still a very young Country compared to Europe. It hasn't yet grown out of its hip shooting past.  And 9/11 has just made things worse.