Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I'm fairly sure "UAV Engineer" above sold some washing machines to the DOD, maybe they'll let you use one?i've shit myself about 5 times in the last year.
I'm fairly sure "UAV Engineer" above sold some washing machines to the DOD, maybe they'll let you use one?i've shit myself about 5 times in the last year.
Duh you dufus... I told you to post it so we could laugh at you for being stupidYou realise all this is written down, for anyone to read?
Warheads are not nukesSo you worked on warhead containing UAVs, but then you said that you never said that
Ohhh yeahhhSomeone on the moon could detect the "you mad" and butthurt radiation emanating from your position now.
Either you did or you didn't work on these "warhead drones" but going full retard and trying to troll me, I think you'll find is pointless.Totally! moar characters
I actually machined a lot of warheads for unmanned aerial dronesEither you did or you didn't work on these "warhead drones" but going full retard and trying to troll me, I think you'll find is pointless.
So what is it Mr DOD Insider? Did you or did you not work on "warhead containing" unmanned aerial vehicles?
Would it assist you if I wrote my posts in crayon or magic markers instead? Something you have some familiarity with perhaps?
I said I worked on UAVs that were in competition for the DOD to contract. How much more obvious do I have to make it for you Einstein?Either you did or you didn't work on these "warhead drones" but going full retard and trying to troll me, I think you'll find is pointless.
So what is it Mr DOD Insider? Did you or did you not work on "warhead containing" unmanned aerial vehicles?
Would it assist you if I wrote my posts in crayon or magic markers instead? Something you have some familiarity with perhaps?
You clearly claimed it was a nuclear warhead, anyone who reads that thread can see that.I said I worked on UAVs that were in competition for the DOD to contract. How much more obvious do I have to make it for you Einstein?
The DOD doesnt have competitions for UAVs which are just going to be flown around like kites, not containing warheads. Obviously if my design would have been chosen, it would have been equipped with a warhead. That is one of the requirements for nearly every current UAV, with the exception of nanoscale UAVs which are for surveillance, and even then, some are equipped with mini warheads.
Need any more knowledge bombs dropped?
I missed the link to the thread in conversation in your previous post. Where did you put it again?You clearly claimed it was a nuclear warhead, anyone who reads that thread can see that.
Do your legs never get tired from all the back pedalling?
He doesn't have one. He thinks he is trolling me all good like, but the reverse is true, seeing as I'm here for some late night conversation to keep me sane while I wait for results to pop up.I actually machined a lot of warheads for unmanned aerial drones
In particular the transom mount for the hellfire missle
Do you have a point Harrekin? You did a lot better racially attacking my wife last night than you are this morning.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/570166-north-korea-says-its-missiles.htmlI missed the link to the thread in conversation in your previous post. Where did you put it again?
He doesn't have one. He thinks he is trolling me all good like, but the reverse is true, seeing as I'm here for some late night conversation to keep me sane while I wait for results to pop up.
I will not admit that. As last semester I worked on the algorithm to create the math to create a computer control system to control an inherently unstable flying object (aka a missile in this instance)Ok due to PM's received, I'll admit that fb360 is probably some kind of engineer.
However, as I am man enough to not lie about that, how about you admit you havnt the slightest clue how nuclear weapon or rockets/missiles work. (What you design is neither)
Well don't try use your actual knowledge of one field as some kind of a false positive when claiming you know something about which you do not.I will not admit that. As last semester I worked on the algorithm to create the math to create a computer control system to control an inherently unstable flying object (aka a missile in this instance)
I will admit, as I have in this thread, that I do not work on nukes, and have a VERY limited knowledge of nuclear weapons. The missiles and rockets I work on are far from nukes though. You need to understand that. I work on the engineering side, not the chemical side, nor the warhead side. I design objects that fly well, and the systems that allow them to do so.
No not necessarily. I claimed that if they indeed had a nuke, that it would have most likely detonated due to the failure, and most likely due to impact. This is because even though nukes are capable of being remotely detonated dynamically, the North Koreans do not possess the satellite technology that would allow them to do that. So I created a basic example using "impact". Sure it could be atmospheric pressure, but the point is that the nuke has to be constrained in some way that allows for detonation, and as a result of my previous satellite point, it will most likely be statically, with pressure. Ergo, that static constraint would have triggered detonation. Yes it was a bad example which led to questioning, however I thought everyone would pickup that it was just an example and get back to the main argumentWell don't try use your actual knowledge of one field as some kind of a false positive when claiming you know something about which you do not.
The only reason I originally joined in that other thread is because you made the assertion that if North Korea hadve launched a rocket containing a nuclear weapon and then that launch failed that the weapon would have detonated (your words "where was the ka-boom?"). This as I said is blatantly false, because of the specific way nuclear weapons are designed.
I will admit that I did backpedal on the Japanese bombs, but that in my opinion, was only a matter of semantics, as it is still an "impact", just an atmospheric "impact".You also claimed the Japanese bombs were detonated on/by impact, and back pedalled that too.
Had you not asserted these things you would've gone untrolled. Had you not tried to backpedal on EVERYTHING you said you would've gone untrolled. Had you not jumped in "name dropping" your credentials and claiming to be smarter that everyone else you would've gone untrolled.
Dont blame me and cry foul that someone trolled onto it, if it hasn't been me it would've been someone else.
Stop trying to show off and have a discussion, oh and for the love of God don't send pictures/videos of your face to people btw, it's not a good idea on this sort of site.
Aside from that, welcome to RIU Politics
Should be described as dated, not outdated.Our Air Force, outdated? Compared to whose? cn
How will I go to prison?Attempting to sell designs to the Govt whilst having a belief that is contrary to their view on cannabis and publicly displaying such is unwise.
Lots of people on this site have been caught, stated their moral position to a Judge and told "Off to prison you go cos the law don't give a fuck."
What if you sent one to someone who just happened to be Johnny Law from your area?
You can't just be intelligent, you've gotta be smart.
With a steak house?Harrekin,
What about the Chinese Sizzler? China could knock out our whole Navy is a matter of minutes.
When China starts using those sort of things on US ships, THAT is when we find out what DARPA have been working on all these yearsHarrekin,
What about the Chinese Sizzler? China could knock out our whole Navy is a matter of minutes.
The Trinity test was detonated on top of a 200-foot tower.I used it as a basic example to explain my point that the test rocket fired by North Korea didn't have a nuke in it, and wasn't their best attempt at getting a nuke to the USA...
My example was that if they were to have a nuclear warhead that failed as it did, it would have detonated over them... I clearly state in that thread that it takes a catalytic reaction to trigger the detonation.
Furthermore, Harrekin couldn't even explain the basic concept of why the bomb is detonated above the target... I mean, if you can't even comprehend the premise of a blast radius, you have no business discussing the operation of a nuke lol
e;
Lastly, he is stuck on my example, even though the mechanism to trigger the catalytic reaction is semantics, and wasn't even the topic of debate...
And to be clear, my example is valid, because the first atomic bomb ever detonated was detonated at ground level as a test.