Humanities desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 3

Why are modern warships so much bigger than tanks?

Why are modern warships so much bigger than tanks? More specifically, I'll pose the question in both of the following ways:

Why not build giant tanks the size of modern warships? (I read the super-heavy tank article, but it pretty much just says that super-heavy tanks were found to be unnecessary without explaining why. My guess at the primary answer to the question was that militaries don't build giant tanks because they would then be giant easy targets, and the loss of each such giant tank would be an enormous loss in cost/resources, but going by that logic, militaries shouldn't be building any giant warships either, and yet modern militaries do just that, leading us to the next question below...)
Why not build a naval fleet out of tiny warships the size of modern tanks? (I can explain aircraft carrier sizes -- they need that length of runway for the airplanes to be able to take off -- but what about warships other than aircraft carriers?)

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 04:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) For giant tanks: They couldn't drive on roads, or over bridges, due to their size and weight, and would tend to sink into soft ground, disabling them. They would also be far more visible, as you said, and cost more fuel per ability to deliver shells on target. Construction and maintenance would also be far more difficult, as it would require using cranes to lift parts a single person could lift before. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) Tiny ships might be practical in the future. The largest ships today are aircraft carriers, and they need that size for the runways, in order to accelerate and decelerate a human safely from rest to flight speed. However, when we have all unmanned planes, they can be launched like missiles and caught in nets, allowing for much smaller ships. Or, it can just launch missiles and not worry about retrieving them. Humans can probably be eliminated at many other points, as well. Humans will probably always be needed to make the targeting decisions, but they don't necessarily have to be on-board, what with satellite communications and such. A maintenance staff is still needed on-board, though, unless we want to make the ships disposable, too. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much for the reasons Sturat stated. Also, most modern warships aren't that much bigger than their WW2ish equivalents. Look at USS Missouri or the planned Montana class, bigger than todays warships. The only class where there is a trend of getting bigger seems to be carriers, but that is a result of modern technology, ie, nuclear power and jet engines on aircraft. Hope this helps.04:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)★★Retro Lord ★★

I'm not sure that you're strictly correct on that Retrolord; the new Zumwalt-class destroyer displaces 14,564 tons, while a WWII Brooklyn-class cruiser was only 9,767 tons. A WWII Fletcher-class destroyer was a mere 2,050 tons. There's a similar up-sizing in Royal Navy ships. However, you're right about big battleships - consider the Yamato-class battleships for instance. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOu couldn't have a fleet of tiny warships because it would be unproductive. A modern warship might have a crew of 100. It might have a main gun, a radar station, a few missles and perhaps an AA gun. It will also have a full kitchen, long range fuel tanks, and the facilities for its entire crew. If you were to make 25 ships with 4 crew, no ship would have all these things. Meaning one ship is vulnerable to air attack, another to submarine attack and so on. It is just more efficient in terms of ship design to build a big ship with everything on it. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you made ships that small, you'd make them unmanned. Of course, such small ships could only go a short range, unless they each had a nuclear reactor. They could be deployed by a larger ship near a combat area, though, and then return (or not) when their supplies were exhausted. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small ships wouldn't be able to make cross-ocean voyages, and it's unlikely we will be deploying tiny unmanned ships with nuclear reactors any time soon. And in todays world, you dont have some huge armada of ships battle it out firing artillery at each other for 12 hours like you might have had in WW2. Today its just a few missles and its over. Thats why one big ship> 100 small ships. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warships are much bigger than tanks, because they both serve very different purposes. A naval fleet's primary role is logistics - getting the boots on the ground, carrying the tanks and other vehicles, feeding the men, and, if necessary, naval bombardment. Tanks don't have that task. They are combat vehicles. All they have is a crew which is just enough to do the job, and enough rations of food and water to last them until the next lot arrives. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason is that tanks (other than Bolos) have to be able to maneuver around and take advantage of the terrain (e.g. defilade). The bigger the tank, the harder that is to do. Not much terrain out on the water. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Maus is why we don't make huge tanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One common political ideology

Québec political parties have common ideology: separation and Israeli political parties have Zionism. Is there any other areas or nations where their political parties have one common political ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.127 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is wrong. Zionism is not a common ideology for Israeli political parties. Hadash (Marxist) and Ale Yarok (classical liberal) are not Zionist parties. Israeli Arab parties such as United Arab List, Balad and Ta'al are anti-Zionist party. --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, all Indian political parties have one common ideology: socialism. The Constitution of India declares India a socialist state and to be a recognized party, it has to pledge alliance to socialism. Source. In Iran adherence to Islamic governance and law (Shia Islamic theocracy and Sharia) is must to gain recognition as political parties. See Political parties in Iran. In Bhutan, a political party has to pledge alliance to the monarch, all Bhutanese political parties are monarchist. --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: It's far easier for the various political parties to agree on one goal, when they aren't in power, especially if that goal is to get rid of whoever is in power now. It's once they achieve this goal, that the divisions tend to manifest themselves. For example, there were the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, which managed to tolerate each other while the Tsar was their common enemy. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And not all Quebec political parties support separation, see Politics of Quebec. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two majority political parties in the US play like polar opposites, but they agree in their most basic goals- maintain cultural, military, economic dominance of the US worldwide, etc. The fact that they market themselves as being opposite ends of a "spectrum" (liberal vs conservative) distracts from the huge areas of agreement between them. Staecker (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they seem to disagree on things that Americans generally disagree on, like gun control, abortion, health care and so on. Further, they have their own agendas stretching beyond what they actually accomplish. IBE (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

maintain cultural, military, economic dominance of the US worldwide - ^{[citation needed]} RNealK (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

double loft bed reasonable?

a room currently has a sofa-bed in it but the room is really quite small. the sofa-bed does open for two, like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futon-america.jpg

and two do use it. the room is small. the question is, how reasonable would it be to try to use the same area for a loft bed of the same open size (2 person), so a desk can go under it? Would it be very expesnive - is this something a carpenter should do custom or an ikea-like solution is best? (or DIY)

basically i'd like to know if it's reasonable to try to put that same space up in the air. Also, I don't know how to ask in a different way, but, uh, can two people (a couple) "do whatever" if the ceiling is very high above anyway, meaning that a loft bed like that wouldn't make inordinate noise versus a grounded one or be a fundamnetally different/worse experience (except for needing to climb up)? Thanks. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How high is the ceiling ? Getting a carpenter to custom build a solution will be quite expensive. An off-the-shelf loft bed should be far cheaper. Making it large enough for a couple might be problematic, though, as changing the sheets or flipping the mattress may be quite difficult. As for noise, I'd avoid bed springs, unless you have the ones where each is wrapped in fabric to prevent them from rubbing against each other. Wood can also squeak. Rubber feet should help keep noise down. Some type of hammock might be the quietest (provided it's not close enough to the wall to rock against it) and cheapest, although it's difficult to get proper back support from those. (You can place a mattress on top of the hammock.)

Something else to consider is some type of fold-up desk. This would be good if you just need a writing surface, but don't need to store lots of stuff inside. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ikea sells a full/double loft bed for $169 US: http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/50161830/ The recommend a minimum ceiling height of 8 feet 10 inches (269 cm). The bottom of the bed platform is 64 5/8 inches (164cm) from the floor, but you should be able to position the desk so you are not standing up under the bed and hitting your head. Edison (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also sell a loft bed with a desktop underneath. No drawers, though: [1]. And they can sell the desktop and shelf separately: [2]. However, I think a freestanding desk would be a better idea, as you don't want "vibrations" from the bed knocking things off the desk and shelves. StuRat (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rhetorical device on person idea or idealogy

write a passage using rhetorical device on person idea or idealogy?--106.198.236.214 (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)--106.198.236.214 (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC) sarita 3rd march 2013[reply]

I shall call my essay, "Can you not do your own homework?". When is it due? IBE (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with IBE's basic sentiment, the OP might find Scheme (linguistics), Trope (literature) and Figure of speech useful. Tevildo (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a better way of doing it. I just get a little peeved by the tone of some of these homework q's. Also, rhetorical device might be good. IBE (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take the tone personally: someone asking here may well not understand yet how to properly form the questions they need to answer (which is half the problem), and many are not really aware that they are addressing actual people rather than a search engine. Consider how this question was formatted: I would take this as someone writing down what they need to do, then adding a question mark to indicate that they don't understand and need help. All we can do is point the person to general resources, and then if they ask something more specific we can help with that. It is usually better to post nothing, if the alternative is to get cross or sarcastic with the person asking.

Sarita, what is it that you need help with? Is it that you don't understand what to do? Is it that you don't know what a rhetorical device is? If you can explain your problem more clearly, by clicking the word edit written in blue to the right of your question, we can help you more. If you're completely stuck and don't understand it at all, you might do better explaining this to your teacher and asking for more help from them. 86.140.54.54 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah sir actually i dont understand how to write this passage.

Ancient Korean script

Hello,

I've seen several videos about Gojoseon, some say it had a script. Is this right? The dolmens of Gojoseon were pointed out to have astronomical drawings.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somali British under which ethnic group category

Which ethnic group category would Somali British fall under?--Donmust90 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

People self-classify, so they can put what they like, but "Black or Black British: African" would be a logical choice. Some may prefer "Black or Black British: Other", or just "Other". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why is the Independent allowed to publish racist propaganda? isn't it hate speech?

I do not want to reference a specific article but I have to just for you to see what I'm talking about. The Independent has just opened an article with this highly inflammatory sentence: "Israel will open new “Palestinian bus routes” in the West Bank tomorrow". Why is it allowed to say that? What recourse would the victims of such racist reporting have? Can they say just whatever they want about Israel? This does not seem to me at all balanced. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom for the laws that would be applicable, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights for why they're allowed to publish it. However, that headline would be _very_ unlikely to count as "incitement to racial hatred". The Press Complaints Commission would be the first port of call for anyone who was genuinely offended. Tevildo (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the paper puts the words "Palestinian bus routes" in quotation marks is what protects them from any accusations of unbalanced or inflammatory reporting. It means that they're not using those words themselves, they're just reporting the words of others. --Viennese Waltz 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is racist about that ? Presumably most people using bus routes between Israel and Palestine would be Palestinian (since many Palestinians live in the West Bank and work in Israel). I suppose it's not the best choice of words, as some non-Palestinians will use the bus routes, too, but that's not exactly being racist. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Stu. What's racist about it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It quotes people using terms like 'apartheid' (right in the title). that is in no way neutral and slanders israel. this is clear isn't it? the question is about the legalities of publishing that. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the term 'apartheid', or anything like it, in what you posted. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the posts by the IP are very unclear. It's impossible to know what they refer to without context, either from the article [3] or from other sources about the bus routes. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Israel is absolutely an apartheid state as long as we're using actual dictionaries for all those words. People of particular ethnic groups are intentionally separated from others. Morever, it's not hate speech to direct criticism at a state, doing so at the Israeli people might be, but the government doesn't gain some immunity from criticism because their people do. i kan reed (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just to be clear, let's stay on "A" in actual dictionaries and look up absolutely. There are roads (contested) and these buses in the West Bank that are segregated, and the well-reported "Separation Fence" Those doesn't constitute the state of Israel. Applying definitions indiscriminately while claiming to be absolutely clear isn't "criticism," but something like "defamation". -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some non-Palestinians will use the bus routes, the fact that they connect to Palestinian territories makes the name accurate. As for "can they say just whatever they want about Israel?", yes, to a very large extent. There's no law requiring news agencies to be "balanced", and any such law would be a gross violation of the freedom of speech. --140.180.251.41 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example of why the First Amendment is so prized by Americans... because the most innocuous statement can be found "racist" by some people... or a few decades ago, "communist," or whatever is out of fashion at the moment. Allowing other people to say things isn't an endorsement that they're right, just that you don't have a right to silence them. Good ideas win on the merits. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wish that was always true. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's either they win on the merits or else government enforces them at the point of a gun... in which case you're trusting government to be right... there's no magic formula for getting things right, but there are some obvious ones for getting it wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My comment came as an Australian who sometimes criticises some behaviour of some Americans. I have found the attitude of some of those American people to the freedom of speech of those who disagree with them to be virtually non-existent. But that's got nothing to do with this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I know :) Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the OP to explain what is racist. To me, "Mancunian bus routes" are bus routes that link with Manchester. "Luxemburghese bus routes" are bus routes that link with Luxembourg. "Palestinian bus routes" are bus routes that link with Palestine. --Lgriot (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how I read it. Where is the problem? HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is a country, not a race. Perhaps Jews is what you were equating Israel with? As far as I know there is no anti-countrist legislation. If the newspapers of one country weren't able to talk about other countries and their perceived failings that would certainly cut down on the verbiage somewhat! Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP claims something is highly inflammatory. Who says so, besides the OP? Is there a valid source on the internet that makes that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In today's news in Israel (print and broadcast media) is a story about a proposed bus line in the West Bank whose passengers will be Palestinian Arabs exclusively. There are three daily English-language mainstream newspapers in Israel: Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and YnetNews, the electronic edition of the Hebrew Yedioth Aharonoth. Read what they published (on the Web), as this complies with Israel's laws. How the foreign press reports stories for its readers presumably reflects their laws and readership, such that the term "apartheid" may be a matter of commentary rather than reportage. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the term "apartheid"? This is a nonsense thread right now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the headline of the article. PrimeHunter linked to it upthread. --Viennese Waltz 21:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be the most hidden thing to complain about that I've (only just now) seen in some time. Why on earth isn't the thing we're complaining about displayed here? To save others the trouble of searching, I'll do it now. The Independent's headline says "Israel’s Palestinian-only buses prompt apartheid comparisons". I still don't know what the problem is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ynetnews: "Ministry launches 'Palestinians only' buses."

Haaretz: " Israel introduces 'Palestinian only' bus lines, following complaints from Jewish settlers."

Jersusalem Post: "Palestinians-only bus lines open in West Bank"

How the Israeli press report news is pretty similar to how the English press reports news. I don't see in these cases any hint of inflammatory comments.OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While the attempt to segregate Palestinians from Israelis by bus route may itself be considered discriminatory, the Independent's reporting on the event seems quite fair, to me. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible the Palestinians themselves asked for this segregated bus service? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but the article didn't make that claim. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to buy cocaine?

Where can a person buy cocaine, amphetamines, and heroin? In what state of the United States can a person buy these things? How much do they cost? How much does a buyer typically consume per day? How old do you have to be, and under what conditions can you buy these drugs? Sneazy (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this isn't a troll question, certain types of phenethylamine drugs (commonly known as "amphetamines") are available by prescription. Cocaine is occasionally still used as an anesthetic by hospitals during surgical procedures, but it is otherwise illegal to possess, much like heroin. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to assume that this isn't a trolling question - in particular with regards to street drug pricing I can think of one very good reason for wanting to know street drug pricing: a way to estimate changes in supply and demand. For instance, an increase in the price of a drug means either:

a decrease in supply e.g. due to law-enforcement being more effective
an increase in demand e.g. due to (anti-)drug education not being less affective

Bearing this in mind, this site has some useful info, but its UK-centric I'm afraid

Many thanks, davidprior ^t/_c 23:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this I can tell you that a kilo of heroin costing 35,000 dollars in Mexico costs $71,000 once it crosses the border and can cost up to $131,000 in some large cities. Low quality marijuana from Mexico costs $80 per kilo there and $2000 per kilo here. Pure cocaine costs $120,000 per kilo in America. Ryan Vesey 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

james lasun and an internet vandetta

I don't understand james lasun's story about an iranian writer with a vandetta against him. as i saw reviewed, this wasn't one or two cases but a whole campaign. surely this is so obviously cut and dried stalking/slander/libel that after the first few times he could simply say, look, stop stalking me, stop talking trash about me, and threaten (with good cause) to sue. then she would have found better things to do with her time. could you explain this to me. Note: I disagree with the edit saying this is inappropriate. I would like to see references or other information that explains this. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling James Lasun doesn't return anything that seems relevant to this. The closest article seems to be James Lasdun. Is that who you meant? Even there, I don't see anything about a vendetta. Can you point us at the story you're referring to? Rojomoke (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to become a Quaker?

How does a person become a Quaker in a non-Quaker community or Quaker upbringing? Sneazy (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are very many Quakers here, but if you check the links in Quakers, there appear to be a number of sites that you could probably consult and/or contact, and get a good answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't shun the outside world, so you'll find their meeting halls in many places. Try this site to find one near you, if you're in the US or Canada: [4]. StuRat (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a Meeting House. In the UK at least there are no Quaker communities, just Quaker believers. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are several residential Quaker communities in the UK (depending on what you mean by "community"), and plenty of Quakers editing Wikipedia I might add, but the place to start would be your local Quaker meeting house. You would be expected to attend the local meeting regularly for a year or two before being considered for membership.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (former Quaker)[reply]

First you have to fill out the common app and the Penn Supplement. Then wait until March 1 to see if you were accepted. If you were, you'll be a Quaker. If you would like to become a nurse, I think you have a slightly better chance to become a Quaker. Ryan Vesey 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]