How good is the firepower in Aliens compared to what we have today?

[CarnalCalligraphy]

I know what plasma is. The grammar of your response didn't seem to have any correlation with what we were talking about.

suuure.

Look, Special forces are part of no infantry.

they must be Logistic personel.

You have demonstrated complete ignorance on this topic over and over, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

You have demonstrated complete ignorance on this topic over and over, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

see? i can make baseless claims and dodge arguments too!

What do you know about special forces combat strategies? Did you know that Special Forces are trained to take out an opposition's attack helos? If that's the comparison you wish to make, let's explore it.

you know what they use? MANPADS. you know who else has MANPADS? every single unit that is a potential target of low flying aircraft. what the hell do you think they fight helicopters with? ninjitsu? archery? and strategies are battlefield level management, generals do strategies. the word you want is tactics, and they still don't work against an enemy you haven't learned to fight yet.

that being said, Have you ever seen FLIR footage of an apache helicopter taking out insurgents? it goes like this: the helicopter, completely undetected and from long range, snipes a target and makes the rest scram for cover, then circles around and hits them behind their cover, and keeps hitting them over and over as they try to figure out what's going on until no one is left. what does it have in common with a predator? both can observe and engage their prey from an advantageous position without risk of detection, preferably from above, with overwhelming firepower, using visual tracking and target adquisition systems that provides a near flawless situational awareness, and both can outmanouver and evade counter attacks with ease, if they even allow the enemy enough time to reorganize.

I only chose to debate this in order to illustrate what lengths people will go to, to rationalize the Predator's depiction as invulnerable. They always find a way.

you just went into a huge tangent to ramble on about Special Forces and how the movies about space monsters didn't fit your vision of them. if someone's going to lengths to depict something as invulberable, its you. SF die every day, they're not the GI Joes.

Sure? That's childish. The way you phrased your response confused me. It was poorly worded, to say the least. It almost seemed as though you were refuting yourself.

You realize that there is a distinction to be made between operational ground infantrymen and special forces, right? You can see the distinction being made when award eligibility is outlined.

1. A recipient (of the cib) must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

Infantryman is used to refer to all combat soldiers, but the infantry refers specifically to the Army ground forces.

I can assure you, I'm not at all ignorant. I'm part of the armed forces and will provide you with whatever proof you wish. So, you're right. You're more than capable of making baseless claims and have demonstrated your propensity for doing so more than once.

What does it matter what weaponry they use to combat the threat? Do you think that the weaponry is the only thing that distinguishes Special Forces from any other division of the armed forces? You can rest assured that the Army Rangers, or the Green Berets, or the Navy Seals are far more equipped to effectively combat an attack helicopter than any "single unit that is a potential target."

Thanks, by the way, for your description of an Apache Helicopter's practical functionality.

Semantics, eh? I think you're well aware of the fact that the term strategy is more often than not used informally as a synonym for tactics, and your contrived pedanticism isn't fooling anyone. You knew exactly what I meant.

By the way, I didn't go on any sort of a tangent. Another poster raised the issue of modern special forces, and you perpetuated that topic by injecting modern soldiers into the discussion. I was only responding to what you said.

And, Special Forces absolutely do not die every day! How misinformed are you? The US military as a whole doesn't even have a casualty every day.

[Xenomorphine]

The comments about the Predator's energy weapon are well-founded and something I've been pointing out for a while.

'Plasma' is often referenced in science-fiction because it sounds cool, but when you realise a 'plasma cannon' is basically the same thing as saying 'hot steam gun', you start to realise how poor it would be as a ranged weapon.

On the other hand, calling the Predator's gun by that term isn't something which has ever been proven on screen. All we know is that it's hot. Quite what it is we really don't know. If anything, the way it hit in slow-motion looked more like something which had at least a partial electrical effect, not a ball of plasma.

A lot like their self-destruct device... If it was really thermonuclear, it's not likely Dutch would have survived, let alone in one piece. It's got a mushroom cloud effect, but that's all. Real nuclear warheads just detonate and that's it. The thing we saw explode in the original film acted in a different way.

[chupacabras acheronsis]

Sure? That's childish. The way you phrased your response confused me. It was poorly worded, to say the least. It almost seemed as though you were refuting yourself.

it means it's not important. the point is long gone.

You realize that there is a distinction to be made between operational ground infantrymen and special forces, right? You can see the distinction being made when award eligibility is outlined.

1. A recipient (of the cib) must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

Infantryman is used to refer to all combat soldiers, but the infantry refers specifically to the Army ground forces.

i don't care what the American Army likes to call it. the distinction between Infantryman and Infantry is merely numerical anywhere sane. the word precedes your country by a long margin.

I can assure you, I'm not at all ignorant. I'm part of the armed forces and will provide you with whatever proof you wish. So, you're right. You're more than capable of making baseless claims and have demonstrated your propensity for doing so more than once.

you called it first without refering to any specific point i made.

What does it matter what weaponry they use to combat the threat? Do you think that the weaponry is the only thing that distinguishes Special Forces from any other division of the armed forces? You can rest assured that the Army Rangers, or the Green Berets, or the Navy Seals are far more equipped to effectively combat an attack helicopter than any "single unit that is a potential target."

more equipped how? they carry more missiles? i really don't see how something like the green berets or navy seals can have special anti-helicopter attack bonus.

Thanks, by the way, for your description of an Apache Helicopter's practical functionality.

now, do you see how the predator has many if not all of those advantages? it's a sniper you can't locate, can't catch, and can't hide from.

Semantics, eh? I think you're well aware of the fact that the term strategy is more often than not used informally as a synonym for tactics, and your contrived pedanticism isn't fooling anyone. You knew exactly what I meant.

while i don't deny i was mocking you, it stands, there's no tactics against a predator yet. you can't expect anyone, even experienced Operators to figure out how to fight it on the fly and not suffer heavy loses.

By the way, I didn't go on any sort of a tangent. Another poster raised the issue of modern special forces, and you perpetuated that topic by injecting modern soldiers into the discussion. I was only responding to what you said.

that post was refering to the colonial marines, which is actually the topic of this thread, and the extrapolation with modern soldiers. you brought the SF subject.

And, Special Forces absolutely do not die every day! How misinformed are you? The US military as a whole doesn't even have a casualty every day.

Again with the US military. you do realize there's hundreds of SF groups worldwide with the same(sometimes better) training operating right now? how about all the Intelligence agencies and police forces? most of the west world trains along with the american military so they employ the same tactics and equipment. and you don't know what they could be doing right now.

[OpenMaw]

now, do you see how the predator has many if not all of those advantages? it's a sniper you can't locate, can't catch, and can't hide from.

Not that i'm going to get into the middle of this whole thing, but I don't think that's really true. I'm pretty sure modern attack choppers like Apache's use infrared as part of their targeting system. Assuming the Predator is cloaked on the visible light spectrum, that doesn't mean he's cloaked from infrared.

[chupacabras acheronsis]

arguably. every time we see them from their own POV they are not cloaked or it can't be told if they are. IR is their natural vision type, i doubt they could do that for such a narrow spectrum as ours and not do it on their own.

and i know it's completely irrelevant but:

[RagingDragon]

I know what plasma is. The grammar of your response didn't seem to have any correlation with what we were talking about.

Look, Special forces are part of no infantry. You have demonstrated complete ignorance on this topic over and over, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. What do you know about special forces combat strategies? Did you know that Special Forces are trained to take out an opposition's attack helos? If that's the comparison you wish to make, let's explore it.

I only chose to debate this in order to illustrate what lengths people will go to, to rationalize the Predator's depiction as invulnerable. They always find a way.

Sorry dude, you lost a lot of credibility right there.  Chupa has demonstrated time and again that he knows what he's talking about, and most people on this forum ping him as their military consultant on almost a daily basis.

The only person here that I'm aware of that might know more about the military than him...

is me.

But to answer your points more directly, what I said wasn't speculation because anyone who understands anything about the basics of any sort of technology whatsoever in the history of conscious thought knows that it advances progressively, unless a civilization is exposed to higher technology levels from an outside source.

Why does this even need to be explained?  You can't make projected energy weapons without the decades of science to back it up.  Do you understand how things are even engineered, or basic science, for that matter?  So many of our inventions have come from efforts not even attempting to make what turned out.  There are tons of commercial products that have come from NASA, as they have developed the technology while trying to make other things.  Chewing gum is like this, as are thousands of other modern conveniences.

You don't get that kind of technology unless you steal it, which is historically and naturally almost impossible since you're trying to conquer people with much more advanced technology than you, or you discover it.  Discovery requires a certain linear progression, even a basic anthropology or science student could tell you that.

So how, again, is it speculation to say that Predators have technology advanced enough to create direct-energy weapons and optical camoflauge and that said technology came from one of those two sources?  Those are the only possible options, and the progression of technology through research and development, intra-societal, is definitely the most probable.  The strongest proposal I've seen against that is what Xenomorphine just said, which was slightly brilliant.

Haven't you ever played Civilization?   You can't get to plasma weapons without researching grainary because you have to store wheat before you get all down with science.

You can call things out that I say, I don't care, because I don't talk out of my ass, but what I said wasn't some wild speculation, it was just a historical, anthropological, and scientific fact, and a basic one at that.  You just flipped a wig for some as yet undetermined reason.

And I never asserted that Predators are invulnerable, never even came close to saying something like that.  I honestly think you need to re-read some posts.

Edit - To end the rant and offer something to advance the discussion, this ^ is something that makes the Predators so mysterious.  They have the behavior of tribal savages, and are very ritualistic and brutal, but possess incredibly advanced technology.

[CarnalCalligraphy]

it means it's not important. the point is long gone.

It was never important. It never meant anything.

i don't care what the American Army likes to call it. the distinction between Infantryman and Infantry is merely numerical anywhere sane. the word precedes your country by a long margin.

Well, weren't we talking about U.S. Soldiers? You raised the topic, so I assumed you did so to contrast the USCM with their 21st century counterparts. I mean, you wouldn't compare the USCM to just any army would you? If that is in fact the case, then I was right in correcting you on U.S. military terminology.

more equipped how? they carry more missiles? i really don't see how something like the green berets or navy seals can have special anti-helicopter attack bonus.

*Sighs*

You don't have the sort of command of the English language that would allow you to demand perfect formality.

Equipped
1. Supply with the necessary items for a particular purpose.
2. Prepare (someone) mentally for a particular situation or task: "I don't think he's equipped for the modern age".

The Navy Seals, for instance, have undergone far more extensive training for that sort of thing than, say, a group of Islamist radicals. If a group of extremist Muslims are capable of effectively combating an attack helicopter, what do you think the SEALS are capable of?

Regardless, this is all moot. The topic is Colonial Marines. I wish you hadn't deviated from the topic of the original discussion.

now, do you see how the predator has many if not all of those advantages? it's a sniper you can't locate, can't catch, and can't hide from.

If I had credulously accepted the premise of your analogy, perhaps I would. But I don't.

while i don't deny i was mocking you, it stands, there's no tactics against a predator yet. you can't expect anyone, even experienced Operators to figure out how to fight it on the fly and not suffer heavy loses.

Where does that stand? On what basis? Why can't I expect that?

that post was refering to the colonial marines, which is actually the topic of this thread, and the extrapolation with modern soldiers. you brought the SF subject.

The topic of this thread relates to firepower and has absolutely nothing to do with the Predator. I brought the Predator into this discussion, so you were responding to me. Again, YOU brought modern soldiers into our debate.

This is how it went down.

HappyAlien brought up a discussion I had in another thread regarding a Predator doing battle with a contemporary U.S. Special Forces group. I responded directly to him. Your very next response was this:

"in the case of predator vs modern coordinated soldiers, you gotta take into account that most of the fighting is flanking static positions or using overwhelming fire support."

That wasn't part of our discussion until you made it a part of our discussion. Perhaps you weren't reading my responses. That would make sense.

By the way, If you're extrapolating anything from modern soldiers, then surely you're doing so from U.S Soldiers: The Apotheosis of the modern soldier. As you say, the west trains with the U.S., not the other way around.

Plus, it would just make sense that you would compare United States Colonial Marines with modern United States Marines, and not just any soldier. Admittedly, I responded under the impression that you are a sensible fellow.

Sorry dude, you lost a lot of credibility right there.  Chupa has demonstrated time and again that he knows what he's talking about, and most people on this forum ping him as their military consultant on almost a daily basis.

The only person here that I'm aware of that might know more about the military than him...

is me.

Whatever you say, guy. 

But to answer your points more directly, what I said wasn't speculation because anyone who understands anything about the basics of any sort of technology whatsoever in the history of conscious thought knows that it advances progressively, unless a civilization is exposed to higher technology levels from an outside source.

What a frivolous and unfounded assertion. Technology does advance progressively most of the time assuming conditions are conducive to a healthy scientific community. The fact that we know practically nothing about Predator civilization makes what you said speculation. 

I would add that technology doesn't always progressively advance, regardless of the conditions. Many scientists are concerned that we may currently be headed towards a technological standstill. It happens.

Why does this even need to be explained?  You can't make projected energy weapons without the decades of science to back it up.

What convinced you that this needed to be explained? When did I ever refute that? 

Do you understand how things are even engineered, or basic science, for that matter?

Lol God... What are you talking about?

So many of our inventions have come from efforts not even attempting to make what turned out.

Yeah... So? 

There are tons of commercial products that have come from NASA, as they have developed the technology while trying to make other things.  Chewing gum is like this, as are thousands of other modern conveniences.

Still not seeing where this is going.

You don't get that kind of technology unless you steal it, which is historically and naturally almost impossible since you're trying to conquer people with much more advanced technology than you, or you discover it.

Okay. This is where I would have stopped reading if I didn't want to make you feel dumb. There are endless examples of barbaric tribes conquering larger, more advanced civilizations. 

Plus, you're presupposing that to steal technology, you must first conquer the civilization with said technology, and of course that's not true.

So how, again, is it speculation to say that Predators have technology advanced enough to create direct-energy weapons and optical camoflauge and that said technology came from one of those two sources?

You should work on developing reading comprehension because I never said anything like that. Clearly they have that technology. We've seen that they do. What I said was that any conclusion you reach outside of what has been established in the canon is speculation. 

Those are the only possible options, and the progression of technology through research and development, intra-societal, is definitely the most probable.

What makes it the most probable? I'd say that based on the fact that we've not seen the Predator advance technologically in over 3,000 years, it is not the most probable. 

Even if we were to assume that it is the most probable possibility, it's still just speculation.
 
No matter what either of us say, it is speculation. What I can say is that we've not seen the Predator advance technologically in over 3,000 years, and you can't simply explain that away. 

I haven't made any unfounded claims like you have. Anytime I've delved into the unknown, I have admitted that I'm merely speculating. 

Haven't you ever played Civilization?   You can't get to plasma weapons without researching grainary because you have to store wheat before you get all down with science.

LMAO!