Toys That Make Their Way Into Combat - Ralph Osterhout

[bloodypinksock]

how did i get here in the first place o.O

[MarzakProductions]

I am not supporting war. so please do not comment back screaming at me. but war stimulates economic growth. our governments want war so we can get money

[aroc11]

Yo. THAT GUY ?? wow.That was amazing what he pitched at the end. Essentially if you keep the brain alive...

[tantalus45]

you have it backwards, the military gets it first and then lets it leak out to the public as toys

[TOMHBOMB1963]

he is a commonsense man.

I have visited over 800 companies in my carreer and most management dont see whats necessary. You would be amazed how inefficient general industry is and waste money , but not as much as government and the military

regards

tom

[Wiegieboard]

He is one smart man!

[kokofan50]

part of this reminds me of how nasa when working on a new space suite looked at armour from knights

[Bunji2k6]

Wow. That really didn't feel like 26 minutes. More like 10. This guy is an excellent speaker and a great innovator, it seems.

[wraith511802003]

I find it amazing the people against technology for no reason other than paranoia,

[TechnoBlackwatch]

But wait ... if you order now, you will also receive Elvis's greatest hits.

Snakeoil sales at it's best.

[YerUncleWillie]

Um...at 1:46 that's NOT a US Army Ranger. That was, at the time, PFC or SPC (I can't remember which) Will (last name redacted by me) of the 173rd Airborne. That photo was taken in March of 2003, at Bashur Airfield, in Northern Iraq. He was wearing a ton of gear, made heavier by the fact we were all soaked to the bone. Go to Google image search, type soldier kneeling, you can see a better shot of the photo. He is clearly wearing a 17rd Airborne patch. Fury From the Sky.

[euphonium44]

This guy rocks

[glennwih]

This guy is a pussy.

[sam199166]

world peace, stop the governments and leaders!

[rustyrude]

lee harvey oswald could shoot that fast, or so they said!

[rustyrude]

so wht can't U S A win any war!

[typodaemon]

@rustyrude, because we fight wars that have no clearly defined win condition.

[kknepple]

@rustyrude Not sure Russ maybe the tree hugging hippies we have to keep in our land happy won't allow us to go in as bloody as we would like to. If that doesn't help you out maybe you should ask Hitler how he feels about your statement.

[crazygeek777]

ok this guy is my hero :P

[crazygeek777]

this guy is a genius

[crazygeek777]

this guy is amazing

[CVKent317]

It really is disturbing how the military seems to take anything and use it for destructive purposes.

[LIVEETERNALLOVE]

War: using man's best to do man's worst.

[CVKent317]

Sadly that often is the case

[envithepast]

@LIVEETERNALLOVE War: Out of man's worst comes man's best.

[LIVEETERNALLOVE]

@envithepast Theoretically.

[buzzcat3]

1. there are no terrorists

2. just wait, one day these nice tools are going to be used against us

[ArcaneKarma]

there are no terrorists? what are you on???

[dom1940]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on your perspective right?

[ArcaneKarma]

dom1940, that goes without saying. You can point out subjectivities till youre blue in the face, it changes nothing. Unless you had a fallow-up?

[Kulawendin]

The war information was interesting, but there was hardly any information about how toys and war are connected.

[Jamietran123]

this will make war run like games having a minimap knowing where your are where your allies are etc amazing

[nightsword2929]

yeah except if your shot, you can't get another life

[Jamietran123]

im sure theyll be working on repsawn points dont you worry about it :p

[nightsword2929]

Ha lol 8)

[DonCioccolato]

the war(games) and shooting others is "amazing" if you are 12 years old othervise - seek help!

[666devilretard666]

This guy is a fucking hero and ANYONE who disagrees with me (ie: liberals) can go fuck themselves

[NOOOQUARTER]

What a great American he is !! Ralph's presentation was one of the finest I've ever heard. A new Presidential Cabinet post for technology should be created & this guy put in charge of it, no nonsence straight shooter :)

[karnach3880]

Yes and USED it. Don't forget the Pax Romana was a result of Augustus' policies and work. I never feel the ends justify the means but... 2 plus centuries of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at.

[badger5079]

Pax Romana was a PR exercise. It only existed for the Roman elite. Look what happened after Augustus decided to consoloidate the Empire and create a line of succession...an inevitable downward spiral to Nero, Domitian and the Barbarians at the gates of Rome.

[karnach3880]

Heh, I get it Pax Romana a "PR" excercise :) I would put out there that any sufficiently "comfortable" society, one which has a mostly content populace will eventually decay into a "Nero" situation. Complacent and "fat and happy" are bad things when coupled with an ambitious leader or group of leaders. As I said before, as long as the populace can vote itself more "bread & circuses" it will. This inevitably leads to the Nero decay.

[karnach3880]

Therefore my belief that this enormous economic stimulus package should be recognized as yet another attempt by the ruling elite to distract us with "bread & circuses" and nevermind mass media and professional wrestling!

[karnach3880]

"This video is so naive. If war ever solved anything you'd only ever be reading about it in an ancient history book. Wars still persist." -- PseudoVoodoo. Wars never solve anything? Why don't you ask the city fathers of Carthage if violence and war ever settled anything? Oh wait... you can't; they've been "solved" by war. Society and in some cases multiple societies have a moral obligation to oppose tyranny and violence from others. Defending yourself or your country is not wrong!

[badger5079]

The demise of the USSR may be analogous to the demise of Carthage. Both could presage the decline of the victorious superpower of the day.

[karnach3880]

Possibly. I do think each person is responsible for watching those in power so that the declines and abuses seen in the Roman Empire don't occur here. In a lot of cases however, I think we're already going down the road that Rome did. "bread and circuses" anyone?

[badger5079]

Rome was a republic with some disenfranchised masses and an elite senate that were supposed to prevent a dictator from taking too much power. Augustus would have admired the patriot act.

[FRTothus]

"Only the grand scale and technocratic impersonality of the crimes conceived and directed by the [U.S.] ruling elite acting under cover of state authority distinguish them from garden variety killers."

[FattKidd]

'Kill a man, you're a murderer. Kill a thousand, you're a king. Kill them all, and you're a god!'

Or, something like that.

[PseudoVoodoo]

This video is so naive. If war ever solved anything you'd only ever be reading about it in an ancient history book. Wars still persist.

No amount of "toys" made by equally puerile imbeciles will ever solve the world's problems since the problems still persist.

Was is the result when diplomacy is never given a proper, unbiased chance by proper, informed intelligent adults.

[PseudoVoodoo]

* war

[clannon]

Diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists. They'll kill you anyway.

[PseudoVoodoo]

Are we talking about American terrorists here? ;-)

[clannon]

In five days, no.

[PseudoVoodoo]

One regime being changed for another doesn't alter the fact that it's still a regime.

[clannon]

Damn... you didn't fall for that one! Americans seem to think the Obama Administration will solve everything.

[PseudoVoodoo]

And what does that tell you about American attitudes towards problems that their culture has caused?

[badger5079]

"Diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists."

True, but killing innocent civilians in an attempt to defeat terrorists merely breeds more terrorists. Unless you are simple-minded enough to think that terrorists are hatched out of terrorist eggs from a terrorist mother high on a terrorist clifftop just outside Terrortown. Terrorists are not born, they are made. If you don't understand this then you are part of the problem.

[ArcaneKarma]

well said, Badger.

[DamnHippies1]

@badger5079

What do you mean when you say "killing innocent civilians in an attempt to defeat terrorists". Because we( Americans) don't enjoy killing civilians like we think its going to win us the war.

[badger5079]

@DamnHippies1

I am talking about foreseeable collateral damage. i.e." ooops! dead civilians! - oh, well..."

[happypony141]

@badger5079 i compleeeeeetly believe in terrortown

[artx4321]

@badger5079 you mean the search for the terrorist mother is a sham i am shocked. but on a more serious note you are right ignorance is the problem

[StrainXv]

@badger5079 And you act like we just go door to door killing civilians. The small percentage that does commit war crimes is about the same amount of general populations criminals and psychotic.

[badger5079]

@StrainXv

I am not calling the motives of U.S. soldiers into question but I do question the apparent lack of ability of Western people to understand that if you keep kicking a hornets' nest you will eventually get stung. It is difficult to defeat an enemy that is prepared to die for his beliefs. Right now, the Muslim world has many more religious fanatics and would-be martyrs than the west. This extremism is a reaction to perceived and real Western intervention in Muslim countries.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079

Re: ",...many more..fanatics...than the west..."

Don't be too sure. Your argument is akin to those that advocated the Kamikaze tactics for Japan. Didn't work that well.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079

Re: ",...many more..fanatics...than the west..."

Don't be too sure. Your argument is akin to those that advocated the Kamikaze tactics for Japan. Didn't work that well then either.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

The fanaticism of the kamikaze was defeated by the fanaticism of nuclear terrorism by the U.S. My point was that a war against fanatics is usually very difficult. Japan only accepted defeat after being nuked twice. It is not possible to use the same tactic against diffuse terrorist networks, in my opinion.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 Need to read a little more history. The strategic bombing campaign and the loss of Manchuria to the Soviets were the major causes of the Japanese capitulation. The destruction of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima using nuclear weapons were almost coincidental to the decision of the Emperor and the High Command. Nevertheless, it wasn't terrorism. It was total war first advocated by their Nazi allies, and practiced by Japan herself in China and Indochina (see Rape of Nanking).

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Total War is a euphemism for exacting penalties upon civilians for a strategic goal/ It is terrorism. The strategic bombing campaign carried out included major population centres such as Tokyo and purposefully caused death and injury to thousands of civilians. That was terrorism.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Do you not find it strange that you are arguing that the nuclear bombings of Japan by the U.S. were unnecessary but also that they were not terrorist acts?

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 Not strange at all, the use of those weapons hastened the end of the war, made the invasion of the home islands unnecessary and saved countless lives on both sides. You need to get out of this 18th Century fantasy world of what you believe war really is. The object of war is to take from the enemy his ability to resist. That can mean his weapons, supplies, territories, armies,... or his will.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

My point is that if the nuclear bombings of Japan were unnecessary, then they were terrorist acts. How can so many civilians be killed unnecessarily unless in an act of terror? How can that not qualify as terrorism?

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Either the nuclear bombings were necessary to the U.S. war effort (but you already said that the loss of Manchuriaand the strategic bombing campaign were the main causes of the Japanese capitulation and that nukes were almost coincidental to the decision of the Japanese to surrender) or the nuclear bombings were unneccessary and all those Japanese civilians died as a result of nuclear bombings that were superfluous to the winning of the war in the Pacific. Which is it?

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

You said that the objective of war is to take from the enemy his ability to resist. In the Gulf War, Bush drove out Saddam's forces ferom Kuwait without taking away his ability to resist You seem to think that all wars are total wars and that the objective of any war is to defeat the enemy using any and all means possible, even if this causes the unnecessary deaths of civilians as occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

You seem to think that total war and terrorism are exactly the same, that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of total war, just like the rape of Nanking. I think that these were acts of terror. You yourself have admitted that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unneccessary to the outcome of the war.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 You misunderstand and in your ignorance inaccurately assume much. The bombing of H and N were PART of the strategic campaign that was designed to destroy Japanese industry and infrastructure. Using nuclear weaponry was simply another weapon in the same strategy. The firebomb raid on Tokyo on Mar 24-25 did more than either weapon in Aug, yet you seem to have no problem with the strategy. BTW, GHW Bush was under a UN Mandate that limited his war objectives. Not the case now.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

I just want you to be clear about the difference between total war and terrorism. I think that any act of war carried out with the intent of inducing terror in the civilian population of your enemy such as the firebombing and the nuclear bombing of major Japanese centres of population is an act of terror. You seem to think that some or all of such actions were part of what you understand as total war.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 Well, what you think and what is fact are two different things. Neither the UN nor the Geneva and Hague Conventions define terrorism in that manner. Since those two are what govern conflict between nations and other entities, it's somewhat inane to define it otherwise. So the difference for you is the INTENT (!!!) behind the use of weaponry not the physical use itself? My, aren't you out on a moral limb.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

The UN General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." I would agree.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

I find it amusing to be accused of being out on a moral limb by somebody who thinks that total war and terrorism are the same; by somebody who think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unecesssary but also that these unnecessary massacres were still somehow a justified part of the conduct of WW2 by the U.S. as opposed to terrorism.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 Again, you misunderstand. I didn't say they (H & N) were unnecessary, but only a small part of a successful war strategy. I also never equated terrorism with warfare. That was you. The definition you give is invalidated by the first two words "criminal acts" which specifically exclude acts of war (so does every other UN definition of terrorism).

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout The intentional killing of civilians in a war to break the will of the enemy is terrorism but you think that this is total war. You to understand total war as the equivalent of making all civilians of the enemy a legitimate target. I see that as terrorism.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 In the event of an aggressor nation that refuses to capitulate no matter what the outcome on the battlefield or one that continues to use civilian population centers for war industries, what is your solution? The increasingly costly attrition of your own forces and the likelihood of massive casualties of both enemy and friendly forces in an invasion? That was the choice of President Truman. At what point do enemy lives count more than your own soldiers and sailors?

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Japan was willing to surrender provided certain conditions were met. Truman decided that the surrender must be unconditional. Not all the people of H and N were involved in the war effort. The intentional mass killing of civilians in war must always be a dire last resort. This was not the case with H and N , as you have noted. Soldiers are put on the field of battle to fight and die of necessary. Civilians should be protected, if at all possible. This is a moral question.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 Truman decided no such thing. It was a joint decision at Casablanca and confirmed at Yalta by the three major allied powers. What we disagree upon is whether the 'last resort' was reached. It was. The War Department had already purchased the serial-numbered Purple Hearts required for the anticipated casualties for Operation Olympic. The US DOD is still handing out those same medals out today, 66 years later, and we're not even close to reaching the end of them.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Soldiers are supposed to die if necessary. It is more moral to have soldiers die than civilians, regardless of what side they are on.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 More moral? Morality is measured on a scale? News to me. Well let me give you some numbers - anticipated casualties for Operation Olympic (US invasion of the home islands based upon the loses suffered on Okinawa) - US - 500,000 WIA, 250,000 KIA Japan - 1,000,000 WIA, 700,000 KIA (civilian and military). Death toll for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 300,000 WIA, 150,000 KIA. So which would be better in your mind?

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Yes, some actions are more moral than others. You shouldn't need to think about that one for too long to realise it is true. I already stated that the deaths of soldiers in a war is more morally acceptable than the deaths of civilians.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 So nearly a million KIA and 2 million WIA (both civilian AND military) is more moral than a third of a million KIA and the end of the war? Not sure where you learned either math or morality, but I'd say you are in great need of instruction in both. Adding courses in political science and logic might help too.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Which ever path leads to less civilian deaths is more moral. I think that the projections that have been given for casualties of a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands are excessive. I believe that the majority of dead would have been military. By using the nuclear bomb, Truman was ensuring that the number of dead U.S. soldiers was minimised but a moral leader would have had the protection of civilians (even Japanese) as his primary concern.

[TheGreatWhiteScout]

@badger5079 Again, what you think and what are the facts are two different things. The estimates of casualties came from hard experience during the invasion of Okinawa (82 days - 55,000 US and over 150,000 Japanese military and civilian casualties). The home islands were larger with denser population centers and the evidence from Okinawa was that the civilians would fight alongside the military. If anything, the estimates were on the conservative side.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Maybe you are right. It's been interesting arguing with you.

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

Do you think that intentional mass killing of civilians is not permissible in war or do you think that such moralising belongs in the 18th century?

[badger5079]

@TheGreatWhiteScout

I have the same problem with the conventional or nuclear bombing of a major population centre by a belligerent even if it is done as a part of war if the objective is to break the will of the enemy by causing massive numbers of civilian casualties. Care should be taken by warring parties to avoid the needless deaths of civilians.

[FattKidd]

All of these toys/weapons are great! That is, until they are turned on YOU!

[orangeguru]

AMAZING!

Thanks for sharing.

[theprisoner3]

i ment bastard

[ArcaneKarma]

Amazing gear! 16:52 really took me by surprise. Im glad we have men like this on our side. Great stuff!

[DonCioccolato]

you forgot to say on which side you are...? good ones or evil ones..

[ArcaneKarma]

bah! good and evil are on both sides!

[Krumbz2003]

Great video! Interesting stuff.

[superfisto]

frightening

[FkyGGGG]

THE USA ROCKS!

LOVE MY COUNTRY and ALL its INNOVATIONS!

WE ROCK!

SORRY YOU WEEDHEAD HIPPY FAGS!...lol...YOU SUCK!

[ArcaneKarma]

It's hippie, not hippy. And if you have a problem gay Americans then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY!!!

[theprisoner3]

FKYGGGG your a freaking racist basyard :P

[pakratmak]

Fascinating stuff.

[FattKidd]

I don't this is a coincidence or just happenstance. It's indoctrination, pure and simple. The Army is using video games to find, enlist, & train future soldiers.

[Aaberg123]

Big time. They even made a first person shooter: America's Army. Made on behalf of the actual US Army :S

[ArcaneKarma]

sure, why not?

[FattKidd]

Oh, I don't know, because the US Constitution forbids a standing army?

[ArcaneKarma]

what line of the constitution?  I know that some of the founding fathers didn't like standing armies but I've never seen any precedence that suggests we can't have a standing army.

[FattKidd]

Article 1.(Powers of Congress);Section 8:'To raise & support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; (note the word 'maintain') To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;'

[FattKidd]

cont': ' To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;'

Then, there are the letters of intent from each state added as each article/section/amendment was ratified by each & every state:

[FattKidd]

cont': "That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the members of each branch of Congress; nor shall soldiers, in time of peace, be quartered upon private houses, without the consent of the owners." - NH Ratification US Constitution

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

[FattKidd]

cont':"...standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." - The Commonwealth of Virginia, as it ratified the Constitution in 1788

[FattKidd]

cont':"standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; that military shall be kept under strict subordination to & be governed by civil power." - Pennsylvania Convention

"that people have Right to bear Arms for Defence of State, as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not be kept up, that military should be kept under strict Subordination to, & governed by Civil Power." -North Carolina, in its Declaration of Rights, 1776

[ArcaneKarma]

ok! ok! I'll shut up now. lol

[FattKidd]

HA! Sorry. Didn't mean to beat on ya!

[LeGioNoFZioN]

top notch, one of my favourite videos by you yet

[dangerousprimate]

ive recently got into mini rc copters,this vid is great, i had no idea that toys would inspire the military. i have a talking point when my mates tease me for playing with "toys" now!

[Havenscope]

Exceptional video, as always. Thank you for uploading.

[voteforpeace08]

The ONLY way to STOP the militry industrial complex is to stand up and vote against it - run against it and go door to door against it

NOW