Sunday, August 07, 2005

Physics should have been mandatory at his school

OK, pop quiz: I hand you a baseball and ask you to toss it through the air as far as you can with 1 arm. (Left or right, whichever you choose. Whichever one is the strong one.) Next, I hand you a 16-pound bowling ball and ask you to toss it with the same arm in the same direction. All else being equal, which one goes further?

If you said that the lighter baseball would likely go further, give yourself a gold star. Gravity and air friction being equal, a given amount of force will generally move a lighter object further. (Sure, there are plenty of exceptions, but that's the general rule.) So explain to me how an allegedly knowledgeable on-air TV personality with years of experience with the military makes this kind of bonehead statement:

::::::::The marines, apparently, were riding in a LAV or similar armored fighting vehicle:

"The explosion flipped the 31-ton troop carrier over and caused it to burst into flames. It was not immediately clear how many of the marines had died from the explosion or from the flames. "

That's right. The explosion flipped a 31-ton APC.

And what is Wolf Blitzer's argument? That the military didn't provide good vehicles in the Al Anbar Province. And that -- and I quote verbatim, -- "an up-armored Humvee would have stood a better chance."

Do the math. If the explosion flipped vehicle weight 31 tons (plus another ton and a half or so of marines and gear), then what are the survivability chances of a 4-ton uparmored Humvee?

I'll tell you:

Anything left of the Humvee would have been parked in Syria, dumbass.
::::::::

Blitzer was on the air with a retired general who had, not seconds before, explained that the IED that did this damage was a shaped charge that likely would have killed the crew in a Bradly or an M1 Abrams tank. I can assure you, if the M1 can't keep you alive from such a bomb, a Humvee ain't gonna do it, either. It's been long enough, Blitzer. You should know better by now.