What do you think about this? A land based space bomber. It would be only a time until after this that land based space fighters would be built (to protect the bombers) and the space race would start again! That is unless only the USA does this.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
God yes, I sure do miss the Cold War.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Rumsfeld evidently does.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I give this five posts until it hits the flameboard.
Oh, yeah, can't have the US researching new defense tech, now can we? Tell me: if anyone's going to compete and try to catch up with any new tech we develop in the future, doesn't that mean that they're already trying to catch up NOW? OUR researching more advanced technology isn't going to change that.
Four...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
(somebody can't count, evidently)
Omega, by your logic, when the USA had the ability to repave the surface of the earth with hydrogen bombs 50 times over it was downright intelligent of the USSR to ensure they could do it 100 times over.
Your next nearest rival in terms of weapons technology is about thirty years behind you and is on considerably better terms with you than the USSR was circa 1975. How about, I dunno, a break? Spend the bazillions of dollars on international aid, or buy every homeless person in America a sandwich (or fifty), or even give the money to Kenneth Lay. It'd be better spent.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Hmm... Weapons R&D is one thing, but what is with Bush's administration's habit of leaking everything to the press first?
Bombers have never been the first strike weapons of choice, I guess they want to change that.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Tell me: if anyone's going to compete and try to catch up with any new tech we develop in the future, doesn't that mean that they're already trying to catch up NOW? OUR researching more advanced technology isn't going to change that.
Yeah, Angola is really spending a huge percentage of the gross national product on bombers able to fly into space.
As is Paraguay.
With no one else in the world able to spend the vast amounts of money the way the United States does or can, that argument doesn't fly Omega.
Technology smechnology, the terrorists hit us with simple commercial aircraft. I guess that means we should research placement of machine guns on the moon.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:'They are now engaged in a grossly militarised foreign policy which seems to be their only reaction to global politics,' he said
That seems to me to be the scariest part of the article. I have not seem anything lately to contradict this statement, I don't thing GWB can understand anything else. That would require him to actually learn something of the countries he hates rather than just making plans to wipe them out.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
But, will they look cool? I'm hoping like something from the Wing Commander Games.
GO USA NUMBER 1!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:The new plane could be developed quickly by adapting shelved research for Ronald Reagan's 'Star Wars' together with plans for a reusable spacecraft called the X-33 Venture Star, under development by Nasa and Lockheed Martin.
The X-33 isn't under development. The project was cancelled. I wonder if they've forgotten that.
quote:That would require him to actually learn something of the countries he hates rather than just making plans to wipe them out.
To paraphrase an old, old saying... "Tell it to the mullahs, cause even the marines won't believe it."
US domination of space? Already got it.
Why do we want it? Simple answer follows:
From: "MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER": A Lecture Presented at the United States Air Force War College Jerry E. Pournelle, Ph.D. March 20, 1994
quote:In 1920 those in control of military planning failed to recognize the growing importance of airpower in future conflicts. A few forward thinkers dissented; to them it was obvious that by 1940 airpower would be decisive. Their vision was proved correct when German air support overcame the French artillery defenses of the river lines long enough to allow armor to cross. France fell within 45 days of a breakthrough that simply could not have been achieved without airpower. From that time on air supremacy was an important, and usually decisive, element of military victory.
Spacepower today is similar to airpower in 1920: within 20 years space supremacy will be a decisive element of military victory on land or sea. The power that has access to space and can deny access to its enemy will have an advantage at least as great as air supremacy or sea supremacy.
Moreover, space supremacy can probably be converted to air and sea supremacy. As an example for discussion, consider "THOR".
Thor consists of orbiting steel rods perhaps 20 feet long by one foot in diameter. They contain minimal terminal guidance capability, and a means of locating themselves and their targets through GPS. They can strike fixed targets with a target error radius approaching 25 feet. Few elements of air and naval power are invulnerable to bombardment by kinetic energy weapons from space. No ship can withstand the impact of 20 feet of steel rod at velocities greater than 12,000 feet per second. Airfields won’t fare much better.
*singing jauntily* Be prepared, prepared, prepared, the motto of a true Scout...
[ May 08, 2002, 12:36: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Technology smechnology, the terrorists hit us with simple commercial aircraft. I guess that means we should research placement of machine guns on the moon.
Shush! That's not supposed to get out!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Actually the US government appears blissfully unaware that the Cold War has ended; case in point is the new AL-1A anti-ICBM laser equipped version of a 747. Would someone please tell me the odds of a terrorist aquireing an ICBM with the associated launch facilities? I think these things do have guards, even in the former USSR. Yes, the USA does need to spend at least some money on defense, but the current amount is ridiculous as is the utter lack of need for space bombers. Oh and BTW, only the USA will do this. No other country has the money to waste...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Wraith: You're forgetting that terrorists aren't the ONLY threat.
China has ICBMs. Iran has the Shahab-4 Ballistic missile (capable of reaching Eastern Europe, planned upgrades will be able to reach at least as far as Germany and Italy,) and wants ICBM's. Iraq is going to have a Shahab-4 knockoff fairly soon (espionage in Iran), and they want ICBM's. Anybody friendly enough with China could probably get ICBM tech, in fact that's where Iran is getting most of its missile tech from; them, Korea, and elements in Russia.
[ May 08, 2002, 12:47: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Because the last time that China launched a Nuclear weapon at the US, man did that ever suck. We gots to be prepared, yo.
[ May 08, 2002, 12:54: Message edited by: U//Magnus ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
China / US will be the preeminent 'superpower' rivals of at least the 1st half of the 21st Century.
Knowing that, it is intelligent to prepare for the fact.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I am experiencing an unusually strong feeling of deja vu.
quote:Spend the bazillions of dollars on international aid, or buy every homeless person in America a sandwich (or fifty), or even give the money to Kenneth Lay. It'd be better spent.
But I guess fighting poverty or hunger isn't all that important. Wasting money on useless defense projects should be higher on the priority list. And who actually cares, anyway?
I know Ommie or FoT don't.
[ May 08, 2002, 13:28: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Doesn't do much good to feed dead people, does it?
Besides, "The Common Defense" is the government's job.
Seeing to it that you get your daily 3000 calories is not.
Given that you are no doubt surrounded by everyday implements gleaned from the technologial spin-offs of the space race and defense R&D, and NOT by implements gleaned from welfare R&D, you should see my point.
You don't fight poverty and hunger by indiscriminately throwing money at it, you make it worse. There are plenty of countries which spend a smaller proportion of money of defense than we do, and guess what? They have poor people too. In fact, most countries' poor people are much poorer than our poor people, not counting the insane.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
However, the government, while promoting the "general welfare", might not feel so great about letting people starve on the streets.
[ May 08, 2002, 14:08: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Besides, "The Common Defense" is the government's job. Seeing to it that you get your daily 3000 calories is not.
Says you. I would submit that any government with the power to deal with the latter but chooses not to is being irresponsible.
quote: Given that you are no doubt surrounded by everyday implements gleaned from the technologial spin-offs of the space race and defense R&D, and NOT by implements gleaned from welfare R&D, you should see my point.
If a hater of Lawrence Welk wants a stuffed animal, the best way to get it is not to send away $200 to the local PBS station during their pledge drive in support their continued airing of Mr. Welk and his decrepit orchestra.
quote: You don't fight poverty and hunger by indiscriminately throwing money at it, you make it worse. There are plenty of countries which spend a smaller proportion of money of defense than we do, and guess what? They have poor people too. In fact, most countries' poor people are much poorer than our poor people, not counting the insane.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
And, I might add, nobody's bothered to tell us why America's hundreds of ICBMS with H-bomb warheads that managed just fine to satify the Republican hawks in dealing with "the Red menace" aren't good enough to deal with emerging "threats" that are still decades behind the USSR of 1990 in terms of technology.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Doesn't do much good to feed dead people, does it?
(1)
What dead people? Those ICBMs you fear so much haven't even been launched yet, you know
quote:Besides, "The Common Defense" is the government's job.
Wasting the tax payers' money isn't.
quote:Seeing to it that you get your daily 3000 calories is not.
It is when you have been puked out by the system through no fault of your own.
Bottom line: a government that has the power to deal with the latter but decides not to in favor of some obscure military initiative with more holes than a Swiss cheese, is damned irresponsible.
quote:Given that you are no doubt surrounded by everyday implements gleaned from the technologial spin-offs of the space race and defense R&D, and NOT by implements gleaned from welfare R&D, you should see my point.
Nope, I can't see it. Seems my vision is obscured by everyday implements.
Unlike you, I don't miss the Cold War. I'd rather forego a few technological advances than live in constant fear. But maybe that's just me.
quote:You don't fight poverty and hunger by indiscriminately throwing money at it, you make it worse.
Who said anything about indiscriminately throwing money?
quote:There are plenty of countries which spend a smaller proportion of money of defense than we do, and guess what? They have poor people too. In fact, most countries' poor people are much poorer than our poor people, not counting the insane.
(2)
No excuse.
[ May 08, 2002, 15:48: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
(In case you missed the joke, a 3000-calorie diet is about 1000 calories per day more than is considered healthy.. and we're a nation of fatties)
Where are these people who were 'puked out of the system for no fault of their own?' In all my years working with the public so far I can't recall meeting a single one.
I've met the physically disabled, who weren't being supported enough by their government-run HMO's... not because the govt. wouldn't give them enough money, but because the govt rules said that if you work at all, you lose all your support!
I've met the mentally disabled, but we've already discounted them, they're more victims of bad health care (more HMO's) than of poverty.
Members of the above, groups, it's not their fault. They should be treated and assisted, and (in the case of the mentally disabled) required to take their pills. Absolutely. Give them all they need, and ADD TO IT if they find a job they can do. Change the regulations that hamstring people who work part-time.
I've met the drug-addled. That's their fault.
I've met the fiscally irresponsible. That's their fault, too. You're not going to win the lottery, and you don't really need mag wheels and a DVD player if your kids' clothes have holes.
I've met the personally irresponsible. The folks who frittered away their time in school going to parties and keggers and concerts and crap, or who majored in elementary basketweaving. Or they shacked up right out of high school. Or they started making babies before they started making money. Their fault.
I've met the cheaters. They buy skoal and whiskey (and lots more useless junk) with food stamps. Sometimes they use several names, and they constantly move from destroyed place to about-to-be-destroyed place.
I've met the nothings. They do nothing but hang out all day reading conspiracy books and trying to sneak a peek at porn on the internet. Then they cash their monthly check and go home and vegetate. They aren't interested in work. It cramps their style.
We should care for the children of these mistakes, if they were also irresponsible enough to have any, but we shouldn't pay these people to keep making mistakes, OR children. Give any existing kids a better environment with some childless couple. Streamline adoption. (How do we stop them from churning out more? I dunno. Maybe those folks in California were right, and we should make Norplant a condition to receive your check. Is there Norplant for men yet?)
I live in one of the most economically depressed areas in the country, and I've never met a person who was out of a job, wanted a job, tried to get a job, was a responsible person, was capable of working, and still couldn't get a job.
I've met the 'laid off.' The vast majority didn't stay unemployed for long. But the laid-off already get support. I've never, ever known anyone who was out-of-work (and not on leave or sebatical) for the entire duration of the 2 years that a person is eligible for welfare.
So I need an example of a few of these 'pukes,' please.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Here's an insightful online rant on the subject from someone I just happen to know... he's got more experience on the subject, being many years my senior:
quote:It's Check Day......
Well, it's the first of the month, and once again, the government (both state and federal) have mailed out those packets of joy to the teeming masses. Yes, that's right, it's Check Day. Why the capital letters? Look, if somebody forgot to capitalize Christmas, or Haunakah, or Kwanza. you'd be pretty upset, right? Well, for a great segment of the population, Check Day is a high holy day, and it comes twelve times a year. And a lot of us are paying for the presents.
It is my contention that inside every little packet of taxpayer funded, computer generated fun the government mails out, they include a bus pass to the nearest mall, along with instructions on how to totally destroy the sanity of anyone unfortunate enough to work at said mall. And don't let my continued ability to generate these love letters dissuade you from the truth of this theory; I had very little sanity to begin with, so the difference is negligible. It is also my belief that the use of these packets is dependent on the receiver's following these instructions to the letter. I really don't think I'm the only one who realizes this either. 51% of my customers seem to stay far, far away on Check Day. Who knows, maybe they're not very religious. For those of us who depend on the mall for our living, we are forced to work yet another "holiday". This must be the reason for the skewing of my numbers.
So in they come, these revelers in the Church Of The Dole. They frolic, they caper, and they generally make asses of themselves and me, as I chase around behind them trying to limit the damage. Their children trail behind them, like shabbily dressed dwarves chasing Snow Off-White and Prince Alarming. The dwarves feet clatter in their three-for-a-dollar plastic sandals, as they attempt to match the strides of their Air Jordan shod parents. At least there is no worry as to their nutritional needs; the remains of their Lunch-a-Roni is evident on their clothing, sometimes shirts and pants both. The children enhance their minds with Dr. Seuss, and their bodies with leaps to the top shelves of the magazine rack, while the Prince and his consort decide which new MicroSoft publication to purchase, and whether $49.99 is enough to spend on a good hint book for Final Fantasy. They're even considerate enough to gently boot the urchins out of harms way, if their piles of discarded heavy-metal magazines threaten to knock over that new crystal vase they just had to have for the top of the new 50 inch television.
What's that? Are you asking me if I have a problem with unbridled spending, some of which will eventually find it's way into my cash register? No, that's not it at all. I am a big fan of spending money, especially somebody else's money. Which brings me to my point:
OUR TAX MONEY IS PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS SHIT....
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick and tired of sponsoring other people's shopping sprees. My wife and I work hard for what we earn, as I'm sure you do, but as a member of the retail community, I see what is happening with the money the government is sucking out of our weekly paychecks. I don't see people who receive welfare buying, necessities; they're buying crap. And good crap too. Crap that I could afford if I wasn't paying 28% in federal taxes. I don't hear welfare families discussing the purchase of a resume book; I hear them arguing over whether or not they need two or three wrestling magazines. (And I know I admitted that I watch wrestling, but I know it's fake.)
About twelve years ago, my first wife and I were having some pretty serious financial difficulties. There was a hell of a lot more out-go than there was income, and we were getting desperate. Our son was two years old, and the bulk of our meager food budget was going to feed him. My wife suggested we get Food Stamps, and I hit the roof. A huge argument followed, but eventually, I had to admit she was right. We had to eat.
One thing she said influenced my decision the most. I was working. I was paying taxes. We weren't going to be in bad shape forever. The system was in place to help families who needed it, I had been helping to fund it, and I shouldn't be ashamed to use it for a while. Get it? For a while.
Well, we got the Food Stamps, and we made our first trip to the grocery store. I asked my wife for the list the welfare office had given her. What list, she asked. The list that tells us what we're allowed to get with these things, I said. She looked at me for a minute and replied, There isn't any. The manager at the store confirmed it.
Did any of you know this? Do you realize that if you can stick it in your mouth, chew it, swallow it, not get sick, not die, or not get arrested, you can buy it with Food Stamps? And that's legally! If you watch any of the television news magazines, you've seen all the creative, illegal things you can do with them. This seems very, very wrong.
It also seems wrong that a welfare check can be cashed, and the proceeds spent on anything, legal or illegal. Clothing? Yep, get yourself some, but shop at Wal-Mart, not Saks. Shampoo? Yes. Definitely. Please. Hell, splurge and get the extra-strength, super-deodorant stuff. Phone? Electric? Heat? You betcha. But not cable. And no way should I be paying your ISP bill and the hardware you're using to hook up.
And before you start telling me about welfare reform, let me clue you in to something. Filling out twenty-four applications a week should not entitle you to a check. But right now, that's what a lot of Welfare recipients are doing, and I've got the bulging file cabinet to prove it. I finally had to stop accepting photo-copied applications from the same people week after week. If I'm paying somebody to apply for jobs that they're not qualified for, then damn it, they're going to fill the damn thing out.
Oh, and I just remembered. There was something that I found you weren't allowed to buy with Food Stamps.
Soap.
But then again, you'll have this.....
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
Damn First..... Okay, I got half way through it... enough.....
I agree though, go to any rent to own company and ask their account managers what the conditions of the majority of their customers is like....
The 50+ inch TV is in a house with 3 to 5 kids that don't have any thing clean, clothes, dishes, nor any rooms.... The DVD/VCR is there too, under the pile of garbage....
Looking at the things I have seen I would rather spend $50 Billion on a 'space bomber' then give these people money to be unresponsible with....
If it wouldn't make the 'hated' government bigger hiring people on that would act as the credit manager for these dimwits would be an even better option..... This person could go shopping with them, ensuring that they buy the proper stuff....
They have that for people that are 'mentally challenged' now, here in MI...
and
For Christ's sake, what the hell is our government thinking, wanting to protect these malcontents that are treating their children like shit by making the 50+ inch TV their priority... Skip the 'Son-of-Star-Wars' and by everyone a hit of crack...
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
"If the effort that went in research on the female bosom had gone into the space program, we would now have hot-dog stands on the moon"
Meesa Like!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
What dead people? Those ICBMs you fear so much haven't even been launched yet, you know
Shall we wait until they are?
Says you. I would submit that any government with the power to deal with the latter but chooses not to is being irresponsible.
And what of the fact that NO government that supposedly had the power to eliminate hunger actually managed to do so? And in fact made it worse?
Unlike you, I don't miss the Cold War. I'd rather forego a few technological advances than live in constant fear.
Our enemies' technology is advancing ANYWAY and it is STILL pointed at us, whether we're reasearching or not. Did you miss that? OUR defence tech level has nothing to do with whether there's a cold war or not.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:OUR defence tech level has nothing to do with whether there's a cold war or not.
Bloody hell. And I thought you did well on your SATs.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You feel otherwise, Tom? Just how do you define "Cold War"?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:And what of the fact that NO government that supposedly had the power to eliminate hunger actually managed to do so? And in fact made it worse?
Sometimes, and I think this is the case here, I just don't want to let something foolish go unnoticed and uncommented upon....but at the same time i just don't want to unscrew the unthinking can of worms that is Omega's brain.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Thank you, oh perspicacity incarnate, for that ever-useful post.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Because your last was SO much better.
Yes.
Well, no.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: China / US will be the preeminent 'superpower' rivals of at least the 1st half of the 21st Century.
Knowing that, it is intelligent to prepare for the fact.
China has no aircraft carriers (although I think I did see they bought an ex-Soviet one) Their airforce is, to put it mildly, crap. They have no plane with performance comparable to western aircraft; most are just rip offs of MIGs and we all know how well they faired in Desert Storm and Allied Force. The only military aspect to really worry about is the army, and even then it's mainly human wave attacks we have to worry about. I'm sure a few well placed Daisy Cutters should do the trick.
Anyway, most of the country is desperately poor and the Chinese government gets much of it's money from Western investment anyway. Do you really think they'll risk it?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Thank you, oh perspicacity incarnate, for that ever-useful post.
quote: perspicacity
n 1: intelligence manifested by being astute (as in business dealings) [syn: shrewdness, astuteness, perspicaciousness] 2: the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions [syn: judgment, judgement, sound judgment, sound judgement]
You're welcome.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Sarcasm fails when its target cannot perceive it, Omega.
However, Omega's example IS valid.
We can name a government which HAD the al-encompassing power to do whatever it chose, and the resources to do it with, and nevertheless manifestly failed to feed its people, and whose policies actually DID make the situation worse.
Or have the Friends of Marx now so completely rewritten history that the numerous famines of the former USSR (for which the US supplied them grain, even in the midst of the Cold War) never happened?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
It was the capitalism of the leaders which failed communism. By capitalism I mean their need to grasp objects and power and to buy and sell things in the rest of the world without returning the wealth evenly to the rest of the people. Communism would work except for one thing, it just doesn't take into account human nature. It is not natural for us to share evenly everything we get, we like to own things. The few areas where communism has worked were all voluntary situations.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Right, and Russia was a garden paradise before the revolution. Communism came along, and all became evil. Even a child wouldn't believe such a simple cause and effect relationship. People don't up and have a revolution just because they wake up one day thinking, "Hey, my life is comfortable...lets have a revolution just for the hell of it."
But back to the topic, we're talking about the "defence" policies of the US that has (meddled/invaded/tossed Tomahawk missles at to distract the media from an intern) more South American, Balkan, Caribbean, and Middle Eastern countries than most people can comfortably name.
Compared to China that has.... uh ....well....there's Korea. Ooouu major cowboy military adventurism there. Better put a lid on them before they start contemplating invading Cuba....just because. Wait, someone's already thought of that.
PS: Don't give me that Tibet crap, it pretty much belonged to China before the British started meddling in the region...then they pulled out because it was too much trouble, and left Tibet independent. Kinda like me taking over your living room, leaving because the TV was acting up, and leaving your cat in control of it.
Not that it matters anymore, there are more Chinese in Tibet now than ethnic Tibetans, and I'm sure a democratic vote would leave Tibet in China. Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Wait....on second thought I think I can predict the next few posts:
Other: But the Chinese mass-immigrated into Tibet!
Me: Kinda like Israel (you know...that US backed country in the Middle East that no one's heard of) and their policy of planting settlements in the midst of Palestinians as human land markers?
Other: But when the Chinese do it, thats evil! Communism and mp3s are evil!
*** Yes, I realise this is treading close to a straw-man argument, but I'm sure "someone's" going to bring it up, so I just saved us all some time.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't say Communism CAUSED the famines. I said Communism made them WORSE than they were.
There were famines in Russia and China before, but never as bad as there were under the Communists. Check the statistics for yourself. And let's not forget recent events in North Korea.
It wasn't intended as a criticism of Communism, (although your explanation of why Communism can't work is pretty much identical to mine) it was a criticism of the cloud-minded belief that a big enough, powerful enough government can magically make everything better.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Now hold on a second here.
This statement:
quote:I didn't say Communism CAUSED the famines. I said Communism made them WORSE than they were.
Doesn't mesh with this argument:
quote:We can name a government which HAD the al-encompassing power to do whatever it chose, and the resources to do it with...
If they didn't have the resources in the first place then your argument fails. The USSR was not a country that had the resources to do with as it pleased.
That Stalin and his Five-Year Plans tried to, but didn't, make the USSR self-sufficient is no huge surprise if Russia was not self-sufficient agriculturally before.
Oh, and Robespierre, I adjudged the sarcasm and met same with same.
[ May 09, 2002, 15:02: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You don't have to be self-sufficient to be able to deal with a problem, even when you lack resources. There's a little thing called TRADE.
And there's also the accusations that the USSR did cause 'artificial' famines. For instance, it is said that during the Ukranian famine, the USSR was exporting grain while around 7 million of its own people starved.
Perhaps they were trying to present a different face to the outside world... wasn't there a Pulitzer winner who wrote articles that we now know covered-up the situation?
And yes, Jaymesjones, I know you were dealing with the sarcasm that way.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Sarcasm fails when its target cannot perceive it, Omega.
Arrogance and condescension, on the other hand, never fail to come across.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
...says the person called "Cartman."
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I might add once more, nobody's bothered to tell us why America's hundreds of ICBMS with H-bomb warheads that managed just fine to satify the Republican hawks in dealing with "the Red menace" aren't good enough to deal with emerging "threats" that are still decades behind the USSR of 1990 in terms of technology.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, for one thing, the "space bombers'" bombs aren't nuclear, they're conventional and kinetic.
I know, I know. Your mindset doesn't allow you to even consider the possibility that the current administration might NOT want to use nukes at every opportunity, despite the fact that a kinetic bomb would be far less far-reaching in its effects.
[ May 09, 2002, 17:30: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
How about this.....
If we are to make a 'defensive shield' against hostile first strikes, and can retaliate in a manner that is, say, more ecological friendly, then should it be persued???
To make the things called an ICBM obsolete would be a terrible thing......
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though a post that isn't filled with some sort of political axe-grinding is unheard of and unwelcome, I know, I think it should be pointed out that the U.S. already has a vehicle whose design specifications included its possible use as a thing to blow other things up with.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Ah, but the Commies almost sort have one too. And they're probably selling the plans to Iran, so, hey, we need the bombs.
Posted by Spekkio (Member # 729) on :
Yes! Now I need to do is be the top dog at my Marine Flight school and get transfered over to NASA! hehehehehe... Protecting the friendly skys world wide!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
from space.com:
quote:U.S. space: access denied
Richard Fisher, a senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that China's unmanned satellite program is "accelerating in an upward direction, rather quickly."
That acceleration, Fisher said, has ominous portent.
"They are preparing for a post-2005 conflict time frame. I think by 2005, or soon thereafter, an initial photo and radar satellite constellation will be in place. It will be sophisticated and large, and sufficient for Chinese needs to support a military campaign over Taiwan," he said.
Fisher said that China's piloted Shenzhou can be expected to contribute imaging or other reconnaissance data to the country's People's Liberation Army (PLA) in some form. "It will not be a purely science for science-sake undertaking," he said.
"Their manned space program is, first and foremost, a political exercise for the communist leadership," said "It is an exercise designed to prove the continuing worth of the communist government to the Chinese people," he said.
American reliance on space continues to grow, a fact not missed by China, Fisher said. In the PLA there is a very clear realization that space control, in the American sense, is something that they require as well, he said.
"China needs to be able to deny to the United States access and use of space, as they themselves exploit space to support their own forces," Fisher said.
To this end, Fisher said that researchers in China are busy at work on high-energy lasers to dazzle U.S. satellites. Another part of that nation's space arsenal are nanosatellites, tiny craft that can be used as anti-satellite weaponry. Furthermore, the Chinese have a small aircraft-shaped space shuttle, a vehicle easily modified to carry missiles sufficient for satellite interception, he said.
And before someone tells you that the Jamestown Foundation is one of those 'right wing wacko groups,' here's their page on China, so you can check for yourself: http://china.jamestown.org/pub-brief.htm
[ May 15, 2002, 17:54: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Their space program = USSR circa 1960.
The fact that they'll hit the USSR circa 1965 in 5 years time is hardly cause for alarm.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote: "Their manned space program is, first and foremost, a political exercise for the communist leadership," said "It is an exercise designed to prove the continuing worth of the communist government to the Chinese people," he said.
Wasn't the American space programme first and foremost a political exercise for the capitalist leadership, it was an excercise designed to prove the continuing worth of the capitalist government to the American people?
quote:To this end, Fisher said that researchers in China are busy at work on high-energy lasers to dazzle U.S. satellites.
Yes and we all know how well this concept worked for the US what is it 20 years and you still don't have a working unit.
quote:Fisher said that China's piloted Shenzhou can be expected to contribute imaging or other reconnaissance data to the country's People's Liberation Army (PLA) in some form. "It will not be a purely science for science-sake undertaking," he said.
Oh no they are going to watch you like you watch them.
quote:"They are preparing for a post-2005 conflict time frame. I think by 2005, or soon thereafter, an initial photo and radar satellite constellation will be in place. It will be sophisticated and large, and sufficient for Chinese needs to support a military campaign over Taiwan," he said.
They need a satellite to see a country 270 km away? Why don't they just get black market US gps sytems?
I can only conclude that you need a space bomber thingy to take care of this.
[ May 15, 2002, 18:32: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think the following article would be of great interest to those of us curious about such matters:
quote: Space War III began on September 11 with a direct assault on the Pentagon. That tactic made sense; with the ominous exception of Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles, terrorism is the only thing that seems to dent the US military. Terror bombs have killed more American soldiers than has combat in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. It's not that terror bombs make good weapons. They don't. It's just that space-based communication, surveillance warning, navigation, and weather watching make every other mode of attack obsolete. The rest of the world suffers a massive satellite gap with the US, and it's widening every day.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Wasn't Space War III a crappy game on the SNES?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Quite possibly.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:And there's also the accusations that the USSR did cause 'artificial' famines. For instance, it is said that during the Ukranian famine, the USSR was exporting grain while around 7 million of its own people starved.
So. . . you hold up the USSR's history as the reason why no government should ever intervene to feed its people, then brush aside counter-claims that they weren't actually, physically, able to, by stating that in fact the USSR didn't actually try to stop its citizens from starving? Back to square one then.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Honing my diversionary skills... When speaking of the Yellow Threat, Wraith mentioned the Chinese don't have any carriers. From a point of view, they do. They have been in the business of buying carriers for a long time - beginning with the old HMAS Melbourne, then moving on to the Minsk and now the Varyag (or whatever he was last named before being stricken from Ukrainan naval strength). They even tried buying the Clemenceau from the French.
Admittedly, all these ships have been bought as scrap, and in practice aren't operational. But they are nice study material if you want to learn how to build an operational carrier.
Which reminds me of my favorite naval tall tale: the Indian carrier Vikrant, which was actually two ships. First purchased as the ex-HMS Hercules, the ship was rumoredly clandestinely swapped at sea with the ex-HMCS Bonaventure when the latter was sent to Japan for scrapping. It seems the Vikrant was the ship that actually ended up being scrapped, while the somewhat more modern Bonaventure went to active service in the Indian navy under the name Vikrant... All official documentation denies this, but the ship that was cut to pieces in Japan did look more like the Hercules than the Bonaventure.
If you can smuggle a friggin' *aircraft carrier* without anybody noticing this for years, I guess it's pretty hopeless to try and ban any military technology of smaller dimensions... For all we know, China could have a huge ex-Russian SSBN fleet or something.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Actually, I did mention the old Soviet one, but your point stands. I think the Russians might notice if their SSBNs went missing though. What am I talking about? Of course they wouldn't.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:So. . . you hold up the USSR's history as the reason why no government should ever intervene to feed its people, then brush aside counter-claims that they weren't actually, physically, able to, by stating that in fact the USSR didn't actually try to stop its citizens from starving? Back to square one then.
Not exactly. I hold up the USSR's history to show that a government with the power to do such things may not necessarily CARE to do such things, and that if the government has all that power for themselves, there is little other recourse for the people who MIGHT do such things.
Man, If _I_ control all the means of production, transportation, and distribution, and I say 'ah, hell, I don't care, let Voggy starve...' you're dead, dude.
All the power should never be in the hands of a single organization... even if it's a Conservative one. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That implies you've stopped running for Supreme Dictator.
Right?
[ May 28, 2002, 15:39: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'm not an organization (as anybody whose seen my apartment could tell you, organization and I are incompatible), I'm a person. And a vastly superior one, at that. Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm going to use my .357 to blow some big holes in Rob's ego at some point ... Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Can't be bigger than the holes in his logic. . .
quote:We can name a government which HAD the al-encompassing power to do whatever it chose, and the resources to do it with, and nevertheless manifestly failed to feed its people, and whose policies actually DID make the situation worse.
Or have the Friends of Marx now so completely rewritten history that the numerous famines of the former USSR (for which the US supplied them grain, even in the midst of the Cold War) never happened?
Funny, maybe I'm not reading this right. There's nothing there about the USSR choosing not to feed its people. The key word being "failed" - they can't have failed to do something they never actually did.
Then again, maybe you feel the USSR was justified in not feeding its people, and spending the money instead on ICBMs that didn't work. After all, the serfs would only have cashed in their gruel rations to buy DVDs, wouldn't they?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:The key word being "failed" - they can't have failed to do something they never actually did.
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"
The point is, putting greater or absolute power in the hands of the government is no guarantee that it will do what it should. The person to whom I responded seemed to believe that the duty of government was to feed everyone, and the only thing that was preventing that was that they lacked the power to do so.
If the USSR's government had not been in sole control of the means of production, transportation, and distribution, the grain that was exported during the famine (for political reasons, to show how GREAT it was in the USSR) could have been redirected and used to feed the people who were actually starving. Therefore the famine's effect would have been less. Therefore, the lauded all-powerful government made the problem worse.
Can you grasp that concept?
[ May 28, 2002, 19:16: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Oh, yes, I understand what you're saying NOW - but it's not what you said the first time. Back then you quite clearly said that a government with absolute power tried and failed to prevent famine. Now you're saying that they didn't try.
And yet you continue to use the USSR as proof of your twisted litle worldview, that certain people - "them" - don't deserve any sort of charity because they only waste it, and governments shouldn't try to help "them" because it doesn't work.
So what's it going to be? Should the very idea of a government taking responsibility be set aside because it wouldn't work, or are you just going to console yourself with the knowledge that any self-respecting government - even an evil Commie one - wouldn't actually try?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And yet you continue to use the USSR as proof of your twisted litle worldview, that certain people - "them" - don't deserve any sort of charity because they only waste it, and governments shouldn't try to help "them" because it doesn't work.
It's not the people receiving the help that's the problem, it's the government trying to help them. The government is the absolutely least efficient way to do ANYTHING unless your goal is to destroy something.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Exactly.
Right now, we have people going to bed hungry in the US... and the US government is (and has been, for decades) spending huge amounts of money to pay food producers NOT to produce, transport, and distribute food. In effect, to create artificial shortages.
It's the same exact problem, on a smaller scale.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, given we've had EU food mountains cropping up for about 20 years, I know how that goes. But I'm still not sure how it ties in to governments not being 'meant' to interfere, apart from they're generally hypocritical in just the whole people starving - farm subsidies thing; but then, hello? They're a govenrment? They're all hypocritical!
quote:The government is the absolutely least efficient way to do ANYTHING unless your goal is to destroy something.
Interesting wording, Omeychops. It's simultaneously criticising government defense spending since they're bound to cock it up, and implying that since the whole point of defense is to destroy things, the government is the ideal organisation to the job! 8)
Posted by Darkwing (Member # 834) on :
In the 'guns or butter' debate, I'm going to have to say "guns" every time. If you pick butter, you're just asking for someone else to rob you at gunpoint. If we waste more money on welfare, we encourage more parasites and simultaneously show other countries that we are weak. That's how things like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait happen. When the cat's away, the mice will play, and when the world thinks the US is asleep at the wheel, all the little busybodies act up. It's called the "peace dividend". Every time things start to look like the threat is receding, idiots want to carve up the military budget to feed their own pork-barrels. Then, when something happens, the military is not ready, and we spend way too much getting back up to par. Bad idea. The most expensive military is the second-best one. I hope this space bomber research actually gets conducted - the Pentagon has a habit of starting up r&d on something, then bogging it down in politics. If nothing else, whether it successfully builds a bomber or not, it will result in spin-off technology with widespread applications - previous military r&d, combined w/ space program r&d created most of the toys we take for granted, including these little bundles of electronics y'all are using to share your opinions on. What new r&d would you do to feed poor people? Genetech seems to be a sore spot for too many crybabies. Oh,no, we must stamp out Frankenfoods! Evil, twisted mad scientists must be making it to do horrible things to poor innocent masses of citizenry! BTW, according to the Institute for Food Development Policy, every nation in the world has, within it's own borders, all the resource necessary to feed their population 2000 calories a day or more. We don't have a food shortage, we have a distribution problem. Darkwing
Posted by thoughtychops (Member # 480) on :
I'm going to go with Butter on this one.
Butter is responsible for more deaths than nuclear bombs. Why, just the other day, I read an article that outlined how butter clogs up your heart if you eat it!
I envision a war where warm butter sticks are dropped from planes on a starving populace. I see them grabbing them out of the air, and eating them. I see their hearts palpatating, and arresting, and then stopping...
Operation Heart Attack. Yeah. The Bigger Guns/Butter debate is reduced to simple pragmatism when you formulate such a devious plan.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: That's how things like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait happen.
I'm having a hard time envisioning a world where this holds true...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Kuwait spent all it's money on trying to implement a socialist healthcare system and forgot to give guns to its hick population. Simple.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Kuwait spent all it's money on trying to implement a socialist healthcare system and forgot to give guns to its hick population. Simple.
Kuwait had a well equiped military, actually, the best money can buy from the Americans. Too bad the people operating those high-tech systems didn't hold up under fire.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
*slaps head*
Posted by The Ulcer Mongoose (Member # 239) on :
Damn towelheads! Don't mess with the best! Don't mess with Texas!
USA
# 1!!!!
Posted by The Defiant (Member # 818) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ulcer Mongoose: Damn towelheads! Don't mess with the best! Don't mess with Texas!
USA
# 1!!!!
Preach it, that is the most truth I've heard since hte Bible.
[ June 05, 2002, 07:11: Message edited by: The Defiant ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oy.
Let's just nuke the whole world. Yay-yay happy joy joy.
BTW: the Bible is fiction, Defiant. Interesting way of spelling "the", BTW.
Darkwing: check your PMs, pleeeeease.
[ June 05, 2002, 08:27: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I dunno, the numerical superiority the Kuwaitis faced would seem to negate the better equipment....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm sorry Jeff, but during Rob's intensive brainwashing session did he also remove your ability to sense sarcasm?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, sarcasm being sarcasm, it doesn't always translate onto the printed screen ...
... or did you decide that my "nuke 'em all" bit wasn't sarcasm? I assure you it'was!
Posted by The Breached Warp Core (Member # 818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: BTW: the Bible is fiction, Defiant. Interesting way of spelling "the", BTW.
I am a Methodist. A Christian.
[ June 06, 2002, 20:55: Message edited by: The Breached Warp Core ]
Posted by Magna Ultrus (Member # 239) on :
As opposed to an Islamic Methodist, of course. This would explain the whole no sex and lots of beans thing. No, wait, it wouldn't.
Posted by The Breached Warp Core (Member # 818) on :
Not Islamic. Just Methodist. CHRISTIAN!
Posted by Magna Ultrus (Member # 239) on :
Not Christian. Just Islamic. FUNDAMENTALIST.
What?
Posted by The Breached Warp Core (Member # 818) on :
Will you please go back to the TrekBBS? I'm sure you'd be happier.
Obviously, Methodists are Christians. It's like saying: Saab ... CAR! Or, Glock ... GUN! It's sort of, you know, obvious! Penis ... GUY! Wow.
Posted by The Breached Warp Core (Member # 818) on :
No.
Well duh.
If this is some conspiract to get me to leave it will not work. I will always be here. Even if I'm banned. But I won't be able to post, so there is Catach 22. Dang.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
It's "catch" 22.
You should read the book. It's very good, and I laughed a lot at it ... oh, it was a good book. But all the people in the Union lounge got mad 'cuz they were trying to study and I couldn't keep from laughing.
quote:I will always be here. Even if I'm banned
OooOooOooh, I so want to say something ... but CC will be mad ... so I won't. Posted by The Breached Warp Core (Member # 818) on :
MIB. Yeah, you would anyway even if I didn't say that. If I have to listen to Trek on cassette and only have Win 3.1 and netscape for a free 30 day trial that expired April 30 2002 how could I acsess porn? I'm only allowed on 5 sites.
Actually I won't be here. I'll do something else.
[ June 06, 2002, 21:17: Message edited by: The Breached Warp Core ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Um. That wasn't what I was going to say, dude. More like "silly newbies, go AWAAAAY! Leave us old-timers in PEACE!"
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Ok...so you're a Christian...and you don't want to have sex... but you come on here and admit that you look up porn on the internet...
Good grief. And people wonder why the word "hypocrite" gets used so often in the same sentance as "religion".
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yeah, well, at least he's consistent.
Posted by The Breached Warp Core (Member # 818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Ok...so you're a Christian...and you don't want to have sex... but you come on here and admit that you look up porn on the internet...
I Don't look it up. I find that repulsive.
[ June 07, 2002, 06:52: Message edited by: The Breached Warp Core ]
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)