Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: DeepSpace9er on May 18, 2005, 06:46:47 am
-
The Freespace Universe is sooner than your think.... either that or C&C ;7
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18space.html?ei=5065&en=60787fcf0b0f012c&ex=1116993600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1116389179-cuLSydFa9CCBN0MvzsfilA&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18space.html?ei=5065&en=60787fcf0b0f012c&ex=1116993600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1116389179-cuLSydFa9CCBN0MvzsfilA&pagewanted=print)
-
Bloody Hell, the mere THOUGHT of Space Based weapons in the world of today just reeks of the everpresent Over-Confident, Selfish, and Hypocritical American Government. C'mon, the UN CharterProhibits orbital weaponry, so what do the Americans do, they go on and build orbital weaponry. Sure, it's only intelligence and data disruption at the moment, but i give it 20 years before a project is launched (forgive the pun) to get Nuclear Weapons Launch Platforms into orbit.
General Cartwright said that the military would "provide every opportunity to ensure that it's not misunderstood" and that Global Strike simply aimed to "expand the choices that we might be able to offer to the president in crisis."
Ha! Indeed, how someone could ever think that a project named 'Global Strike' would be an offensive weapon is completely beyond me...Hell, looks like the current US Administration is just looking for another damn way to make sure that if they can't rule the world, no-bloody-one else can...:hopping:
-
Putting mirrors in space to reflect ground-based lasers over the horizon is also a violation of a treaty; the same one that forbids antimissile lasers to be stationed in space.
Airborne and ground-based lasers are not a violation, but as soon as a space vehicle is used to reflect the beam to hit over-the-horizon targets, they become a violation.
I'm not entirely against the idea of putting weapons in space (at least, no more than I am against the idea of weapons, period). It's frequently the military that pushes technology forward in this respect. The first step is developing the military uses of a new technology. The second step is developing the civilian uses by extending the military uses.
Nuclear energy is a case in point. Admittedly, it was first developed for civilian use, but it was first used as a weapon and with the development of more powerful weapons came a better understanding of the forces we were dealing with.
We haven't had a major nuclear war yet. Who's to say we'll ever have a war in space?
Wars are usually fought with consideration of the economy. The Cold War was won because the US managed to outspend the USSR. I doubt that orbital weapons are more economical than standard weapons. They will only be used when the balance tips and space technologies become advanced enough to make them economical.
Although, it has to be said that the US can probably afford to waste money on using uneconomical weaponry...
-
[q]Another Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.[/q]
:rolleyes:
This is ****ing ridiculous - they seem to be hell-bent on starting their own apocalypse now.... I don't think there's a single nation on earth that'd accept this; it'd be guarenteeing the US complete global dominance.
I have to keep checking this isn't an April fools; when I wrote ridiculous, I meant it......
-
Accept it or not, you've got to admit the prospect of something like that is just awesome. The name just fits it perfectly. But since US goverment sources couldnt be trusted to hold a gallon of water without leaking, the world knows about it years ahead of time. Who is to say that Russia or somebody else doesnt have a weapons platform of some degree in space already? Get ready for the ASAT technology to go big.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
We haven't had a major nuclear war yet. Who's to say we'll ever have a war in space?
:lol: Just because we haven't yet annihilated ourselves using nukes (which is a relatively short period of 60 years...) doesn't mean we won't never ever do so. Same goes for space.
It is interesting to notice that even with the growing budget deficit (sp?) in the US, they still seem to have enough money to divert to producing weapons that never should have even existed in the first place. So, now we can launch nukes from orbiting satellites. What's next? Launching them from the Moon? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Accept it or not, you've got to admit the prospect of something like that is just awesome. The name just fits it perfectly. But since US goverment sources couldnt be trusted to hold a gallon of water without leaking, the world knows about it years ahead of time. Who is to say that Russia or somebody else doesnt have a weapons platform of some degree in space already? Get ready for the ASAT technology to go big.
'Awesome'? I hardly find the idea of another nation having the uncontested ability to wipe out entire cities at will as being 'awesome'. Terrifying, more likely.
At least in the Cold War the 2 sides knew they couldn't start a nuclear war without themselves being destroyed....
-
uh.. guys.. since when has the US actually obeyed the UN in recent history?
not forgetting that the US also did pull out from the antiballistic missle treaty...
and let us not forget, that it was -bound- to happen..
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Although, it has to be said that the US can probably afford to waste money on using uneconomical weaponry...
That's just the thing - they can't. If the American government was a company, they'd've been bankrupt or in forced sales to pay off debts. They can't afford health care, but they can afford space guns? Please.
-
It's a shame the world doesn't have balliffs, sometimes........
-
Hm, if that happens, say goodbye to satellite communications, 'cause it won't be long until someone like, say, China, decides it's better to deny orbital space to everyone than let the US place weapons up there, and launch a few scatter bombs. Then the fun is over.
-
I don't really care. Think of it: we can already bomb Japan with weapons launched from New York. This is just moving the same capability higher.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I don't really care. Think of it: we can already bomb Japan with weapons launched from New York. This is just moving the same capability higher.
Not exactly; firstly, it's attempting to circumvent the MAD state that prevents nuclear war - might be good for the US, but it's a disturbing prospect for the rest of the world. If an effective global attack network was created, it'd mean there would be no equivalent response to a US attack.
Ultimately, the system invisaged would give the US the ability to lay waste to the entire world, with less risk and time than a conventional nuclear strike. It would also likely use methods that made it more amenable to use; nuclear weapons have a tactical disadvantage of radiation that negates their use as a weapon for taking territory, or indeed anything beyond genocidal destruction.
Secondly, it (potentially) means that space exploration will be subject to the military consent of the USAF, rather than a desire for peaceful exploration.
-
Yeah, rather invest $1 trillion to doomsday weapons than even consider putting it into some sort of anti-war efforts.
Sure, big explosions are k00l, but that is plain madness.
-
War is inevitable. History has proven that again and again. Its just how prepared you are when you goto war that matters. The Us would never lay waste to the world... otherwise whats the point. Like every other country in a global economy, the US is in a large way held up by the house of cards that the other countries in the world represent. Well maybe not that fragile but you get the point.
-
War is only inevitable as long as mankind allows it to be so.
Nulcear reactions in the Sun are inevitable, clouds in the sky are inevitable, War is manufactured by humanity, and we could give it up any time we choose, but the gains are far quicker if we encourage it. No-one wants to do anything that will help, for example, 5 generations down the line, simply because they won't be there to enjoy it. The same applies here.
-
You put it in such simple terms like 'mankind allows it to be so.' Mankind as a whole giving up conflict is utopian and impossible. THere will alwasy be fighting whether it be over ideology, land, wealth, power, etc. The heart and soul of man is filled with greed, selfishness, and lust for wealth and power. Just turning off these downward inclinations to war is totally impossible in our world. I dont care how many anti-war rallies are staged war will go on, and its how prepared you are for it when it comes.
Take the Romans for instance. They survived until they lost the will to fight, got fat, corrupt, and lazy, and they were conquered by barbarians. They werent prepared for war, the enemy was.. the US is at a crossroads to be ready to defend itself and possess technological superiority, or to give in and be 'equal' with the nations that would like nothing better than to erase the words "United States" from history.
-
The US won't destroy the world, and it's pure stupidity to think that they would do so. Ok, circumvating the fact that if the world was blown up, it would destroy the US's enviroment and probably suffocate us all with a massive dust cloud or solar radiation or whatever, the US is a foreign-dependant economy. If we blow the hell out of everyone - guess what? We're not gonna have much of an economy left, or food, for that matter.
And I doubt that the USAF would start blasting other people out of the sky if they started launching, cause guess what? Other countries would go bonkers. A) They might attack the US on the ground, or B) They might start shooting down or jamming US satellites. Have you ever heard of that F-15 that shot a satellite out of space with a missile? Imagine that X20, all aiming for strategic military satellites, such as this and GPS. For those of you who are going to say "then they wouldn't be able to use GPS themselves" - the ESA is already planning a new GPS system to be launched.
-
Actually, the simple answer is the right one. To simply turn around and say 'mankind will always be greedy and make war' is basically saying you have no trust either in your own nation or the rest of mankind to wage peace.
Considering that power and wealth are also human concepts, you are still talking about choices, you may not be able to give up your power and wealth, that is why generations in the future will suffer for it, but what you are basically implying is 'Everyone is as greedy as us, so we better get the first kick in'. Has it ever occured to you that this may not be the case, that by measuring everyone against the rod of insecurity that you seem to hold about the rest of the worlds opinions of your country, you are serving only to multiply your paranoia? Most of the world doesn't hate the US, I certainly don't, most of them just with you'd stop trying to build weapons that can kill millions of people, because lives are worth something.
It's a self-generating situation. We could stop war, but by jumping to the conclusion of 'Let's get them coz they wanna get us!', we serve only to propogate it.
Remember, Wealth and Power are as much a human-created thing as war is, just because the Romans did it 2000 years ago, doesn't pass as an excuse for humanity not to grow up.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
the US is at a crossroads to be ready to defend itself and possess technological superiority, or to give in and be 'equal' with the nations that would like nothing better than to erase the words "United States" from history.
Defend itself with nukes from whom? Terrorists? And who exactly would want to wipeout US? North Korea? IMO there is nothing wrong with maintaining an army, to protect your country from a foreign invader (in theory). But does the US really have that sort of enemy that would require it to have a orbital satellite capable of launching nukes or being able to fire a laser? I think not. It's plain and simple overkill, not to mention insane waste of money.
-
The United States, militarily, is doing, while not the right thing from a pure social view, the right thing from a technological view. They are at the top of their game, and the top dog in the world, yet they continue to advance and innovate. Now, I'M NOT SAYING THAT MAKING SPACE BASED WEAPONS, OR NUKE DEFENSE SHIELDS IS A GOOD THING. I put that in caps so people can't miss it - I'm just saying that it IS a good thing that they are continuosly advancing technology. I, however, believe that they should advance it in different areas, and move with the rest of the world, rather than against it.
But at least they're not pulling a Microsoft and sitting on their arses until they have to move. That's the only good thing.
-
America-inching us closer to apocalyptic nuclear death every day
heil bush!
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The US won't destroy the world, and it's pure stupidity to think that they would do so. Ok, circumvating the fact that if the world was blown up, it would destroy the US's enviroment and probably suffocate us all with a massive dust cloud or solar radiation or whatever, the US is a foreign-dependant economy. If we blow the hell out of everyone - guess what? We're not gonna have much of an economy left, or food, for that matter.
And I doubt that the USAF would start blasting other people out of the sky if they started launching, cause guess what? Other countries would go bonkers. A) They might attack the US on the ground, or B) They might start shooting down or jamming US satellites. Have you ever heard of that F-15 that shot a satellite out of space with a missile? Imagine that X20, all aiming for strategic military satellites, such as this and GPS. For those of you who are going to say "then they wouldn't be able to use GPS themselves" - the ESA is already planning a new GPS system to be launched.
And then the US could deploy the various laser based or kinetic energy weapons to demolish the capital cities of said country.
The point is not that the US shouldn't have space based WMD, it's that no-one should have it. No country is immune from tyranny; not the US, not the UK, not France, etc. Any weapon has a risk of use.
As for the person who was talking about countries wanting to 'erase the United States from history'; it's this sort of development that encourages other countries to develop WMD, alliances with other nations ideologically oppossed to the US - because they know if they don't, then they can very well become targets.
-
Let me summarize the thread for those just tuning in:
Oh no! The sky is falling!
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And then the US could deploy the various laser based or kinetic energy weapons to demolish the capital cities of said country.
And then said country would blow the hell out of the US with nukes. It's a one-sided nuclear MAD scenario. The US loses, because even though it can blow the hell out of the other country, it still gets irradiated, while the other country just gets blown up.
The point is not that the US shouldn't have space based WMD, it's that no-one should have it. No country is immune from tyranny; not the US, not the UK, not France, etc. Any weapon has a risk of use.
Duh. Bush is a moron, that's already established :D
As for the person who was talking about countries wanting to 'erase the United States from history'; it's this sort of development that encourages other countries to develop WMD, alliances with other nations ideologically oppossed to the US - because they know if they don't, then they can very well become targets.
It's nothing different than it was during the Cold War, except there's only one superpower, and a bunch of smaller states on the other side. The power level is the same, but the central core of the government is slightly different.
-
If I had seventy-five billion dollars at my disposal, I would create revolutionary defence systems rather than "The Most Powerful Nuke Ever".
This is utter crap! My grandma could run this nation better than Bush!
-
This is a revolutionary defense system and not a more powerful nuke. Read the article.
Even though, sadly, Bush is spending more on nuke construction.
-
They're still building nukes? Last I checked we weren't expending any of them, and were actually dismantling the ICBM. WTFH?
Still and all, let's face facts: MAD remains. France, the UK, China, and Russia all still have ballistic missile submarines. Those aren't exactly susceptible to orbital weapons, because they have to be FOUND first. Of the other nuclear-capable nations, I severely doubt anyone would actually bother attacking them unless they launched first.
-
Well, part of the reason that even your allies are getting annoyed is because America will, with systems like this, feel safe to do things to non-allies, not neccesarily militaristic things, which will piss those non-allies off.
Now, if they feel they cannot touch America, who gets it in the neck? That's right, your allies, the UK, Europe (believe it or not, they are your allies, would you rather your friends at college were mates or yes-men, think about that) and various other countries across the world.
Most western countries have their hands in some pretty dubious exercises in less fortunate countries, but, as an example, the PLO hijacking or Jumbos, which seemed to be a pastime of theirs during the 80's, whilst not condoneable, did at least serve to bring peoples attention to their plight, and forced the UK government into at least acknowledging that a problem existed.
By creating a zone where you feel you are 100% safe to act in any way you choose is to set in motion a situation where you will act exactly as you please, especially with the current assumption that everyone else would do it to you if they had half a chance. So I think you'll find that the reason other countries are worried about this is because, when the **** hits the fan, it's not you it'll get sprayed all over.
Now, that may not matter to everyone safe from attack, but it sure as hell matters to those of us who stand the chance of being dirty bombed simply because we happen to be your friends.
Edit : America really needs to ask itself 'Why is it that people who backed and supported us after 9/11 and during Afghanistan are starting to turn their backs on us and say "screw you"?' It's not jelousy, it's self preservation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]Another Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.[/q]
:rolleyes:
This is ****ing ridiculous - they seem to be hell-bent on starting their own apocalypse now.... I don't think there's a single nation on earth that'd accept this; it'd be guarenteeing the US complete global dominance.
I have to keep checking this isn't an April fools; when I wrote ridiculous, I meant it......
There was an article in Popular Science about six months ago about the Rods from God and other futuristic weapons. Interesting reading, but scary as hell if they ever became reality. One of the weapons was an electromagnetic, Humvee-mounted machine gun capable of something like 6,000 per second. :shaking:
-
It's nearly impossible for me to convey the precise amount of hatred I feel for this program and all those who support it. That said, anything that helps bleed the US military dry of funds is fine by me.
-
It's a stupid idea and a stupid program, and I do not support it. That's all I have to say on the matter.
-
Perhaps a test fire can go awry and strike Pennsylvania Avenue... :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Andreas
:lol: Just because we haven't yet annihilated ourselves using nukes (which is a relatively short period of 60 years...) doesn't mean we won't never ever do so. Same goes for space.
You will note the use of the word 'yet' in my last post.
Originally posted by Black Wolf
That's just the thing - they can't. If the American government was a company, they'd've been bankrupt or in forced sales to pay off debts. They can't afford health care, but they can afford space guns? Please.
Governments don't obey the same laws of economy as companies do. If they did, socialism would collapse immediately.
Governments can get more money simply by increasing taxes. Companies have to actually provide something (either a product or a service) in order to get money. Maybe we can learn something from this?
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Governments don't obey the same laws of economy as companies do. If they did, socialism would collapse immediately.
Governments can get more money simply by increasing taxes. Companies have to actually provide something (either a product or a service) in order to get money. Maybe we can learn something from this?
I meant it in terms of if you ran the numbers straight. The US is deep in debt and losing money fast. If a company was deep in debt and losing money, they'd be in trouble.
-
It's times like this i really hate that Bush and Howard are f*** buddies!
But y'know, i've been thinking about it, and i've come the the conclusion that the US Constructing a Space Based defence grid is actually pretty good idea. I mean, think about previous schemes like this, the Missile Defence Shield for instance, that damn thing seriously hurt US relations worldwide (it was in direct conflict with various Treatys the US had signed) and the only way it would work is if the other country literally phoned ahead and told the US the target, the launch location, etc.
That debacle really flopped (although, as usual, the US claimed success), so from that humerous epsode of history, one can assume that this Defence Grid will inevitably fail. Either, the Defence Grid will be botched and the Government will have to pull the plug (a REAL embarrassment for the US Government if that happens), or it'll simply not work and/or fall out of the sky if and when it IS built.
Either way it goes, it's win/win for the rest of the world, as the severe drain on the US economy in the development, construction, and launch of the Satellites which will inevitably not work will topple the United States' already unsteady economy, thus hoisting Bush out of Government immediately, and meaning the world will be a much better & safer place for the rest of us in the World.
Also, i noticed some people are skeptical about the US using this "Defence Grid" to destroy the planet. Well, one reason, and one reason alone. If the United States is EVER in a position that would be deemed highly unfavourable, such as catastrophic economic collapse or a successful "enemy" attack (both of which are damn possible and all but inevitable), the US Government will think to itself; 'Gee lads, it seems that the American way of life is coming to an end, and just can't let that happen. If we can't exist, no one else can...*beep*' and there goes the world. And before you dismiss that, just think about it, consider the past few years and the fact that George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America, and just tell me that the afermentioned scenario is NOT totally inevitable if the US Builds her beloved 'Orbital Defence Network'...
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
And then said country would blow the hell out of the US with nukes. It's a one-sided nuclear MAD scenario. The US loses, because even though it can blow the hell out of the other country, it still gets irradiated, while the other country just gets blown up.
If that country has a nuclear arsenal left; for laser based weapons in particular, I'd imagine it'd be a lot easier to destroy a countries defenses before they could retaliate.... the whole reason for nuclea r MAD was because one side could detect and respond to a nuclear ICBM launch before it would impact; I'm not sure the same scenario can occur with a space-based strike.
Granted, submarines do possess the ability to survive and respond, but it would be dependent upon that submarine not being tracked and hunted via satellite (i.e. to relay co-ords to hunter-killers in the war; I think this is already possible), an order being made in time to said sub, and indeed that the target country has subs.
And all this is a moot point if they do magically manage to ever get a proper space based anti-ICBM defense.
Originally posted by Unknown Target
It's nothing different than it was during the Cold War, except there's only one superpower, and a bunch of smaller states on the other side. The power level is the same, but the central core of the government is slightly different.
Exactly; no single state has the power to inflict a MAD scenario, with the only possible(?) exception being China. The rest pose no retailiatory threat.
As such, the US could strike North Korea, Syria, Iran etc with literal impunity, and then send in troops to 'liberate' them without the worry of fallout effects.
I think the US - and it won;t be alone in this - will have been looking for a 'useable' non-radioactive WMD for a long time. Like (to a far lesser extent) the MOAB.
-
Right now the US Government 2005 budget is 2.5 trillion dollars. And you think that 80 billion dollars which just so happens to be spent on this will collapse the US economy? Suppose this smae money went to a failing social program? Then it wouldnt though right because it means more when it goes to social programs?
The war in Iraq is like 87 Billion a year, and dropping. THat didnt collapse the US government nor threw BUsh out of office, as he got re-elected last year by a greater number of voters than 2000. Just mentioning that in case you forgot.
-
Actually, it does mean more to spend money upon a social welfare program; there's a much better impact upon society than some funding some generals wet dream (especially considering something like $485bn has been asked to fund nuclear weapons development/refurbishment over the next 5 years).
The US, incidentally, provides about $2.2bn as aid to combat AIDs (IIRC the same amount goes to Israel, and $1.3bn was allocated to Egypt). The Official Development Assistance aid spent by the US was approx $19.7bn.
So I think there are far more useful ways to 'lose' $80bn......
-
So I think there are far more useful ways to 'lose' $80bn......
True, but I doubt they're going to get all touchy-feely and do it any time soon.
Originally posted by aldo_14
If that country has a nuclear arsenal left; for laser based weapons in particular, I'd imagine it'd be a lot easier to destroy a countries defenses before they could retaliate.... the whole reason for nuclea r MAD was because one side could detect and respond to a nuclear ICBM launch before it would impact; I'm not sure the same scenario can occur with a space-based strike.
If the US attacks any country with nuclear capability, they're instantly goign to get a counter-attack with nukes. Why? Because it's impossible to hit every single SCUD, mobile launch system, and hidden installation. That's another thing about MAD: even if the nukes impacted all the known nuclear launch sites, there were about 20,000 more that were hidden or mobile.
Granted, submarines do possess the ability to survive and respond, but it would be dependent upon that submarine not being tracked and hunted via satellite (i.e. to relay co-ords to hunter-killers in the war; I think this is already possible), an order being made in time to said sub, and indeed that the target country has subs.
True, I have no rebuff.
Exactly; no single state has the power to inflict a MAD scenario, with the only possible(?) exception being China. The rest pose no retailiatory threat.
As such, the US could strike North Korea, Syria, Iran etc with literal impunity, and then send in troops to 'liberate' them without the worry of fallout effects.
Not true. Iran and North Korea have nuclear capability, albeit it is limted. North Korea could probably nuke Los Angeles, and with help, Iran could use it's nukes from other countries to bomb the hell out of the US. Not to mention the international uproar. You thought it was bad over Iraq? Now imagine it if we bombed the entire country from space.
I think the US - and it won;t be alone in this - will have been looking for a 'useable' non-radioactive WMD for a long time. Like (to a far lesser extent) the MOAB.
Exactly. I bet you if another country had the tech and the money, they'd do the same thing. While that doesn't mean that's it a good thing, it doesn't mean that the US is the "super evil superpower" that everyone keeps making it be.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
If the US attacks any country with nuclear capability, they're instantly goign to get a counter-attack with nukes. Why? Because it's impossible to hit every single SCUD, mobile launch system, and hidden installation. That's another thing about MAD: even if the nukes impacted all the known nuclear launch sites, there were about 20,000 more that were hidden or mobile.
Only if you're attacking an equal superpower (if any still exist), though. I doubt even the '2nd rate' nuclear powers like UK and France would be able to respond with anything like a devastating counter-attack.
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Not true. Iran and North Korea have nuclear capability, albeit it is limted. North Korea could probably nuke Los Angeles, and with help, Iran could use it's nukes from other countries to bomb the hell out of the US. Not to mention the international uproar. You thought it was bad over Iraq? Now imagine it if we bombed the entire country from space.
International uproar wouldn't matter much if you could destroy any country which posed a threat - economic or military - with vastly reduced risk.
AFAIK neither N.Korea or Iran have ICBM capability; I think Iran can maybe hit Israel, and N.Korea Japan, but that's about it. Nuclear weapons doesn't entail ICBM.
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Exactly. I bet you if another country had the tech and the money, they'd do the same thing. While that doesn't mean that's it a good thing, it doesn't mean that the US is the "super evil superpower" that everyone keeps making it be.
It also doesn't make it inherently better than if, say, China, France, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or India was to do the same, for example. There was supposed to be an internationally agreed moratorium on these things, after all, and it was for a good reason.
IMO there's a strong likelihood that space weapon superiority = global hegemony. Doesn't matter which hands that hegemony exists in, or whether those hands are trustworthy - as long as it exists, there's the potential for abuse of it.
-
they seem to be hell-bent on starting their own apocalypse now....
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1206-10.htm
Read this.
as he got re-elected last year by a greater number of voters than 2000.
Alot of those "new" bush voters were frightened into voting for him by the scare tactics employed by the Republican party.
EDIT: And what bugs me is that they have enough money to waste on this, yet the college financial id program is supposed to be cutback for next year.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Only if you're attacking an equal superpower (if any still exist), though. I doubt even the '2nd rate' nuclear powers like UK and France would be able to respond with anything like a devastating counter-attack.
France has the Le Redoubtable and Le Trimuphant-class ballistic missile submarines; twenty and twenty-four missile tubes, three warheads to a missile. The Brits have the capablity to nuke the US into oblivion. We should know: they use our Trident missiles for their SSBNs. Russia has been set up for such an eventuality for decades. China only has the one SSBN, an inferior one at that, but sure as hell they can destroy every major city on the western seaboard.
You see, you have to understand: survivablity of the SLBM component of the nuclear arsenal is not based on the submarines being merely hard to find: you have to find all of them. Any single Western-made or Russian-made SSBN has the capablity to devastate any nation on Earth. The Chinese could take out about twelve major US cities, possibly more: it's not public information whether their SLBMs have multiple warheads.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Granted, submarines do possess the ability to survive and respond, but it would be dependent upon that submarine not being tracked and hunted via satellite (i.e. to relay co-ords to hunter-killers in the war; I think this is already possible), an order being made in time to said sub, and indeed that the target country has subs.
...eh? I don't think so. If you refer to laser-based non-acoustic ASW, the idea was examined in the mid-80s and discarded as completely unfeasible. If close to the surface, very close, a submarine can be tracked by infrared emissions, but the boomers are creatures of the abyssal zone. They never come up. MAD, Magnetic Anomaly Detection, gear is completely ineffective at orbital distances; even aboard low-flying aircraft it isn't always effective against deep-diving submarines.
The SOSUS network of ocean-floor sonars is located in fixed points, the G-I-UK gap and Bering Sea, with a scattering off the Eastern and Western seaboards. They're not 100% effective, and in any case missile subs know them and stay away from them.
Essentially, unless you put a tailer on the guy as he's leaving port and follow him around the whole time while remaining undetected, you're not going to know where he is. Odds are about 50/50 you'll lose him at some point anyways.