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.
-------------------- "That's the problem with nature. Something is always stinging you or oozing mucous on you. lets go watch tv." - Calvin & Hobbes
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
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 ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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!
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
