An explosion IS something burning really fast, like really really fast. Don't be so pedantic. you go ask anyone in an English speaking country what burned alive means and they'll tell you it means burned to death or killed with fire or other wording to the same effect. If you held a lighter against my skin you would have just burned me, until I die you would have burned me through states of severity but when I die you burned me alive

Different mission. That was just talking about the mission to get Bush on a boat in front of a banner.

Well that's not going to get shot down at all. No'siree.

Typical, perfect time for a few JDAMs and not a bomber about.

Peoples know what burn alive mean. It means burned alive. The clue is in the name.

That's what I did. I have no desire to watch these videos, so I didn't. I know that they are out there and if I wanted I could find them (I could probably still do so if they were banned somehow) if other people want to view them for whatever reasons then go ahead. I'd say they should be kept off facebook feeds (or with warnings and no thumbnail etc) and not show the videos on national news programs (talk about them is fine). Seems to me the way it is now is fine.

What the actual fuck? You pull numbers from nowhere saying a kg of 'top notch' hash should cost a dollar? You cant get a kilo of anything for that. But based on the figures your ass produces that is the reason drug kingpins are so rich and powerful. I'm sure a load of them would love to have a legit product, sell in bulk to suppliers (a lot like they do now) only without worrying about officials from another country fucking with their shit on every level. The price would be set by the market as it is with everything. Sellers want expensive, buyers want cheap, meet in the middle. Drugs are bad yet your doctors prescribe them to loads and loads of people and big chunks of population go out and imbibe large quantities of alcohol (another drug that would be class a if invented today), ok so only illegal drugs are bad and only because they say so?

And how is that different to the mega rich corp execs who sell all kinds of crap, mostly skirting the law or flatout breaking it where possible. Big oil/pharma/tobacco etc etc.

If gov's were actually serious about doing anything about it they would take control themselves. Have regulation and tax the shit out of them. Simultaneously taking in more revenue, decriminalising a large percentage of population, legitimising more businesses, freeing up police etc to deal with real crimes. Plus when you go to the drugshop you know you're getting something that's prepared and made properly not mixed with bleach or brick dust or any other nasty shit middle level dealers put in the increase weight. More money going into shops and the economy instead of the pockets of illegal business, the benefits of legalisation are endless. The benefits of it being illegal lie with the for profit prison system and lawyers.

That looks copied and pasted, but still, a drug trafficking crume? I hope that's a legal term and not a typo in official records or something lol.

Same here. I eat one good meal a day and drink practically nothing but tea white two. I don't think my body shape has changed since I was 18. I'm 31 now and do wonder if I'm just going to wake up at 40 with an extra 8 inches on the waist.

Is there a word for that? When it's both, like in French or something?

Violence is never the answer but sometimes it is the question and sometimes the answer is yes.

I'm still struggling to understand how you expect a 3.2kg slug at mach6+ to behave the same as a 1,225kg shell at mach 1+? I am talking about the railgun the US navy has and the guns they have, not a hypothetical replacement of traditional propellants with magnets.

Again this is all from a comment where I said it would be harder to hit an over the horizon target with a railgun than a conventional naval gun. I never said it was impossible, not feasible or anything like that just that it's a harder equation. Never have a seen such willful attacks on an off the cuff comments that are all strawmen and not arguing against what I said instead about how railguns work.

Well why does it fire a 3kg slug at mach 6 inflicting similar damage to a five ton school bus traveling 300 mph? I'm talking about the railgun the navy has now. It's all about small projectiles at high speed not just replacing explosive propellant worth magnets.

Maybe I should've said practical range. Yeah you can shoot further but you need a bigger barrel, more charge etc, but you need to get all that on a boat. The Nazis had a gun that could shoot London from France but it was immobile and couldn't adjust it's aim once built.

It is though, the railgun the navy is testing now shoots a 3.2kg slug at mach 6+. Try firing that the way you shoot a conventional shell. For comparison the paris gun shells weighed in at 106kg, the shell for a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun weighs up to 1,225 kg ffs with a muzzle velocity of a bit over mach 1. Maybe a different kind of railgun that fires regular shells using magnets instead of charges would be exactly the same math but it's just not the same thing and a target over the horizon needs different math for the arcs this thing will do or a projectile designed to keep a steady height over the curve of the earth. Either that or a way to elevate the thing high enough to see it's target.

Well correct me if I'm wrong but railguns do damage by firing slugs at extremely high speed and using kinetic energy to inflict damage onto the target as opposed to the conventional explosives. If you're sending a railgun slug on the similar arc as a regular shell you're either going to have to shoot it into space so it carries enough energy coming back down or you'll have to send it on a lot flatter arc so it keeps it's energy at impact, but for small target just over the horizon that's going to be harder than a conventional shot. Which is what I said. I made no comment on the possibility or feasibility of it happening.