What are you saying? It’s ok because it will kill people when done quickly and less painfully? Yes they were evil regimes you listed, but murder for profit or to flex some muscles is no better even if it is painless.

@Declan: your “perspective” is laughably absent!

Gary, I’m not saying its ok. It’s just easy for some to look at this and say its a killing machine when it will be rarely or not used at all. Most of killing and cruelty in the history of mankind has been man on man.

Jonathon, maybe I didn’t do a good job at making a point. I was just responding to someone else making a comment about America using this to kill people as if no one else is responsible for the mass killings through out history.

You’re not in the best Jonathan. Everyone is entitled to an opinion…….CHiLL!

I assume your anti this weapon. It would be used within our own atmosp….

Oh actually why am I bothering, anyone who thinks this would be for interstellar travel is not really understanding of what this is

God Bless America.

This is not a weapon of mass destruction. Technology develops all the time and I am happier that the US is ahead of Russia and china in that sense !

I know it sounds really hippy-ish, but I’d prefer no one having this capability.
A weapon is a weapon and will be used to kill people. No matter how “smart” the technology, innocent people get killed by these things.

@Fergus: Read a book…

In fairness that engine could be flying you to america in 2 hours, 20 years from now. Technological advances comes from research, weather it be military, space, industrial or whatever. The US air force are developing it for their own ends but it will have other uses for sure.
Some military experts would have you believe that this hypersonic plane exists already.

I suppose they’ll use the same things the Israelis and the Brits use.

Could these things not have been achieved without war? Think about the money spent and man hours that are devoted to war and the wasted time taken up in politics because of it.

What an idiot response! Do you think you’re awake? Do you think? Evidently not…

Biggins!

Just because it can get from A to B in short order, does not make it a weapon of mass destruction. It just makes it a very fast delivery system for a weapon. And the internet you’re on right now, complaining about this, in part owes its existence to the US Military. Just putting a little context on things.

“FAIL” to anyone who still uses that word in comment sections, creative comments aren’t difficult.
Use more than one syllable next time.

I have a few more syllables for you personally Pat, but my comment will probably be deleted.

You get the picture though.

Great! even if its negative towards me, at least you’re not commenting for the sake of it, clogging the comments section with a comment no one cares about (and using a stale noughties reference in the process)…

Of course it was negative towards you Pat.

I hereby vow to write compelling, insightful comments like Pat D’arcy in future that everyone cares about.

Totally agree. Don’t need war to push innovation (does kick it into over drive all the same) but you do need an enemy and the threat from them to really keep things progressing fast.

Not a fan of war, anyone who would and has suggested such really is an idiot.

I’m sure we would eventually get to stage we are at today without innovation like this probably in another 50 to 100 years.

Oh and for posterity NO RELATION :)

If it wasnt for the catholic church in the middle ages, i think we’d be centuries ahead of where we are now.

this is so true timmy

My point exactly..Boeing may have the future commercial benefit of an invention, that if works, will truly revoloutionise passenger travel. It will be quicker and cleaner. But they could NEVER have pursued it (in the short/medium term) without defense funding….

puhlease! grow up would you!!

Weapon of mass destruction only definition you need.

However military innovation drives technology. It’s not meaning more will die or more bomb strikes just means instead of sending up bomber or drone can launch directly from the US it’s a delivery system. That’s all, does not have a H bomb on the end, does not need one. Actually h bomb tends to be on rocket into space and reenters so flight time is even faster. This is sub atmospheric engine so standard munition I would imagine. Actually if you give it thought the physics of it would ya really need explosives hitting a target at Mach 7 the Kinetic energy alone would do the job.

Last point military innovation in ww2 gave us the jet engine which revolutionised how we travel. Military innovation gave us rocket engines that took us to other worlds and put up satellites that allow us mass communications on every level. Military innovation in ww2 advanced computing and gave us the first real computers as primitive at it was set the stage for today.

So please spare me the horse s**t

Very respectful James. So you not only argue we need military developments but also argue that a war costing millions their lives was a good thing for. Our technological enhancement. Well done, as long as it doesn’t effect you, I presume?
But coming to the subject of the h-bomb: you do realise that the US is the only nation in the world ever to use such terror and the are many (I’m personally on the bench on this one) who believe that it was a terrible war crime?
But again, as long as you can have the benefits, who cares how many die!

Lol I think your the only one alright :) bomb in Japan even the war and saved lives. But your entitled to your misguided opinion.

Mind you if you don’t like military innovation please STOP using your smart phone and pc please.

Ended the war :) damn smartphone. Oh the irony

I’ll stop alright; mit dummheit kann man nicht redenen…

What point ? That your a hypocrite ? I make that point because your using a pc with the Internet which are both military innovations to state anti technology views.

I guess when electricity first came along we had people like this too