Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave b

[Rick C]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 3:28:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 3:42:40 PM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:

Putting up lots of satellites isn't a big problem these days. Are satellites any more expensive than ICBMs?

The rocket used to get out of the atmosphere is likely to be the dominant cost.

Not really. Maybe if you were going to Mars and I'm not sure even then. The rockets are what they are, simple, basic devices with their cost dominated by their size. The satellites have a lot of money poured into design and fabrication. I suppose if you continued to use the same design over and over it could become cheap. That's what Space X is doing. I think they even send up dozens per rocket. But then they are just giving us more comms options, not protecting us from the Soviet threat... I mean rogue nations.


> A useful satellite is likely to be heavier than the business end of an ICBM, so might need a bigger rocket.

Certainly it is one that has to work. ICBMs sit underground for decades with their main function just being "ready" in case they are needed... or actually *appearing* to be ready. If you need to actually launch one it has failed in its purpose.

The satellites have to reach orbit and maintain that orbit. So their lifespans tend to be shorter. Still, same order of magnitude. I wonder if we will need more sats than nukes.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 7:18:31 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8a12da7f-4861-4a2e-8c24-9ae91f7fa201@googlegroups.com:

Putting up lots of satellites isn't a big problem these days. Are
satellites any more expensive than ICBMs?

--

There are no spaced based weapon platforms... That any of 'them'
tell any of us about.

It is against international policy ('law'?).

The big deal is not doing it mechanically, it is about breaking the
rule, and then everyone that puts up satellites wants to put up
spaced based "defenses".

We agreed to the space weapon ban because no one could do it at the time and there was no real need given the MAD balance. If we lose that balance and space based weapons are the best/only defense... yep, we will abrogate that treaty/agreement/handshake in an instant. Especially with the present leader we have. Heck, he has set Tehran on a path to nuclear weapons capability for no good reason because *he* didn't like the treaty.

Satellites are hundreds of millions each. ICBMs are single use...
likely $10M for the booster and depending on warhead configurations,
tens of millions per endpoint device. Then there is the
geopositioning, altitude maintaining, weapon pointing, payload
releasing, hardware and control costs. Then there is the who has the
button and where is the button kept thingy.

M-X missile, "The project had already cost around $20 billion up to 1998 and produced 114 missiles, at $400 million for each operational missile."

No, not so cheap.

Do we have any better technology now that would make Star-Wars defense more practical? Sure, we have lots of computing resources, but what about the inherent limitations of stabilizing the platform, etc?

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 1:56:41 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 7:18:31 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8a12da7f-4861-4a2e-8c24-9ae91f7fa201@googlegroups.com:

Putting up lots of satellites isn't a big problem these days. Are
satellites any more expensive than ICBMs?

--

There are no spaced based weapon platforms... That any of 'them'
tell any of us about.

It is against international policy ('law'?).

The big deal is not doing it mechanically, it is about breaking the
rule, and then everyone that puts up satellites wants to put up
spaced based "defenses".

We agreed to the space weapon ban because no one could do it at the time and there was no real need given the MAD balance. If we lose that balance and space based weapons are the best/only defense... yep, we will abrogate that treaty/agreement/handshake in an instant. Especially with the present leader we have. Heck, he has set Tehran on a path to nuclear weapons capability for no good reason because *he* didn't like the treaty.

Don't forget that back then we were dealing with what we believed were
govts with more than one person, that they were stable and rational. MAD may
not apply when dealing with the likes of KJU. Also, there is the real
possibility of accidental launch, where either through misinterpretation
of information or some rogue actors, weapons get launched. In that
case, having a system that has a good chance of interception seems like
a good thing. Speaking of accidental or rogue launch, anyone have any
confidence in NK having robust controls on their stuff?

BTW, did you see the latest assessment of NK from Japan? They say they
now believe it's likely that NK has made nukes small enough to fit on
missiles. Meanwhile, NK continues to test missiles with ranges of
hundreds of miles, missiles that are nuke capable if they have a warhead
that they can carry. Those could reach Seoul, the US troops in SK, etc.
And while SK, Japan and anyone with any brains sees that as really, really
bad, Trump keeps saying telling KJU that what he's doing is A-OK, that
he doesn't care about those kinds of missiles. Simply brilliant.

Satellites are hundreds of millions each. ICBMs are single use...
likely $10M for the booster and depending on warhead configurations,
tens of millions per endpoint device. Then there is the
geopositioning, altitude maintaining, weapon pointing, payload
releasing, hardware and control costs. Then there is the who has the
button and where is the button kept thingy.

M-X missile, "The project had already cost around $20 billion up to 1998 and produced 114 missiles, at $400 million for each operational missile."

No, not so cheap.

Do we have any better technology now that would make Star-Wars defense more practical? Sure, we have lots of computing resources, but what about the inherent limitations of stabilizing the platform, etc?

--

IDK, but we surely should have. One failure of both Obama and Trump that
is still ongoing is that with NK rapidly advancing, we should have been
pouring a lot of money into this for the last decade. Instead we have
a hodgepodge collection of prototypes. The stuff based in Alaska for
example, it's not even all the same, or mostly the same. It's various
stages of development. I guess it would have been cheaper and easier
for someone to put a decisive end to NK's program, but with all the
rockets and artillery they have aimed at Seoul, that wasn't a particularly
attractive option either. So, we waited and hoped and here we are.
But no worries, KJU is Trump's good buddy, I'm sure we're safe, Trump
said so.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b0efbdc9-c597-483a-8276-2222e232e861@googlegroups.com:

The rockets are what they are, simple, basic devices with their
cost dominated by their size.

The cost of the entire project is dominated by actual payload
delivery capacity.

Nothing simple at all.

An ICBM puts a mass (even if MIRV) to a spot in low earth orbit to
enable a targetted re-entry point for a gravity fall delivery of the
payload(s).

THAT is fairly easy.

Placing a heavy bird into a space orbit and then essentially
'firing' projectiles from that to an atmospheric entry point that
allows a gravity fall delivery to the target.

OR it 'fires' a powered projectile (missile) to pierce the
atmosphere with and then 'drops' a gravity fall delivery device.

Note too that the device must be able to withstand entry into the
atmosphere at a pretty good speed.

THOSE choices are not nearly as easy.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 10:41:32 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b0efbdc9-c597-483a-8276-2222e232e861@googlegroups.com:

The rockets are what they are, simple, basic devices with their
cost dominated by their size.

The cost of the entire project is dominated by actual payload
delivery capacity.

Nothing simple at all.

An ICBM puts a mass (even if MIRV) to a spot in low earth orbit to
enable a targetted re-entry point for a gravity fall delivery of the
payload(s).

And here was I thinking that an ICBM puts its payload into and elliptical orbit around the centre of mass of the. Admittedly, most of the the ellipse would go through the earth - emerging at the launch point and reentering at the target - but it is all part of a satellite orbit, depending on the maths worked out by Kepler, and explained by Newton.

You might do a fine correction burn at the apogee of the orbit to improve targetting, but that shouldn't impart much of a momentum change.

THAT is fairly easy.

Placing a heavy bird into a space orbit and then essentially
'firing' projectiles from that to an atmospheric entry point that
allows a gravity fall delivery to the target.

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the projectiles it might eventually fire.

OR it 'fires' a powered projectile (missile) to pierce the
atmosphere with and then 'drops' a gravity fall delivery device.

It's got to change the momentum of anything it wants to move to a different orbit. Orbits that intercept the surface of the earth included.

Note too that the device must be able to withstand entry into the
atmosphere at a pretty good speed.

Even ICBM payloads have to do that.

> THOSE choices are not nearly as easy.

Star Wars type satellites are up there because you can target laser beams and particle beams a lot more accurately when they are propagating outside the atmosphere. It's a different kind of battle ground, and everything up there is visible and vulnerable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:41:32 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b0efbdc9-c597-483a-8276-2222e232e861@googlegroups.com:

The rockets are what they are, simple, basic devices with their
cost dominated by their size.

The cost of the entire project is dominated by actual payload
delivery capacity.

Nothing simple at all.

If you can state it in a single sentence, it sounds simple to me. The details of constructing a rocket are not overly simple, just like the details of making silicon processors are not simple, but we've been down the road enough before so they are not "rocket science" anymore. Likewise flying rockets are not the cutting edge of technology anymore other than the ongoing cost reduction efforts. We have the technology. ICBM vs. satellite, it's pretty much the same.

An ICBM puts a mass (even if MIRV) to a spot in low earth orbit to
enable a targetted re-entry point for a gravity fall delivery of the
payload(s).

THAT is fairly easy.

Yep, just like putting a satellite into orbit is. We do this very often, everything from low earth orbit to geosynchronous. How high up are the Space X comms sats? That's all that is needed for a space weapon. They launch many at one time.

"SpaceX has plans to deploy nearly 12,000 satellites in three orbital shells by the mid-2020s: initially placing approximately 1600 in a 550-kilometer (340 mi)-altitude shell, subsequently placing ~2800 Ku- and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,150 km (710 mi) and ~7500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi).[7] The total cost of the decade-long project to design, build and deploy such a network was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be on the order of US$10 billion."

12,000 sats for $20 billion. Not a bad price at all.

Placing a heavy bird into a space orbit and then essentially
'firing' projectiles from that to an atmospheric entry point that
allows a gravity fall delivery to the target.

OR it 'fires' a powered projectile (missile) to pierce the
atmosphere with and then 'drops' a gravity fall delivery device.

Note too that the device must be able to withstand entry into the
atmosphere at a pretty good speed.

THOSE choices are not nearly as easy.

Fallacy one, a projectile does not need to be large to "pierce" the atmosphere. Meteoroids the size of a marble can make it all the way to the ground.. That's the minimum size. I expect you are thinking of the large objects like space capsules that need large, heavy heat shields to protect them from the heat of reentry.

Perhaps I missed something, but I was under the impression we were talking about defending against missiles that flew essentially in low earth orbit, above the dense atmosphere. So why is entering the atmosphere an issue for a space based defensive weapon?

Are we talking about two different things?

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9ce6b839-8fe4-44b4-bdbd-d67f5ed843b8@googlegroups.com:

Fallacy one, a projectile does not need to be large to "pierce"
the atmosphere.

I never said it did you stupid fuck, so there is no fallacy other
than your retarded inability to understand what you read.

. I expect you are thinking of the large objects like space
capsules that need large,

You expect? You are a goddamned idiot.

YOUR retarded brain came up with that stupid "gotta be big to
pierce" crap. YOU are the dumb motherfucker, boy.

Idiots like you are not even worth talking to. You try to guess
what someone is thinking based on your own stupidity, and then you
fucking believe I was thinking that way.

Here's news, dipshit.... FUCK YOU. Turn your filter on, dipshit.
You are too fucking stupid to talk to.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-
92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

> Even ICBM payloads have to do that.

Not LEO space orbit object reentry speeds.

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

How will that help fight a war. The war you are talking about will be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.

If a country attacks the defensive sats, that alone with start the war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bb707cf6-52bd-
4e31-9232-05ef7fa27ce3@googlegroups.com:

> How will that help fight a war.

That has to be one of the most stupid things you have said yet.

Communications and recon are most vital in a war and especially a
tech based war with over-the-horizon target tracking and destruction
capabilities, etc.

There are plenty of reasons it would be one of the first
infrastructure elements targetted.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bb707cf6-52bd-
4e31-9232-05ef7fa27ce3@googlegroups.com:

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

"Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to
the conclusion that your new defense system sucks." -General Beringer.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:23:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bb707cf6-52bd-
4e31-9232-05ef7fa27ce3@googlegroups.com:

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.


"Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to
the conclusion that your new defense system sucks." -General Beringer.

Exactly, didn't the crisis in that movie end by the computer running all the scenarios until it understood there was no winning?

Maybe now you "get it"?

--

Rick C.

+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:21:14 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bb707cf6-52bd-
4e31-9232-05ef7fa27ce3@googlegroups.com:

How will that help fight a war.

That has to be one of the most stupid things you have said yet.

Communications and recon are most vital in a war and especially a
tech based war with over-the-horizon target tracking and destruction
capabilities, etc.

There are plenty of reasons it would be one of the first
infrastructure elements targetted.

You seem to be much worse off thinking it matters if those sats are shot down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead.

That war won't need any further intelligence or surveillance. We won't be targeting scud missiles in the dessert or trying to find troops in the woods.

--

Rick C.

+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

How will that help fight a war. The war you are talking about will be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.

If a country attacks the defensive sats, that alone with start the war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

--

The remaining question is if MAD works with the likes of KJU. And even
if it works with him, it's only a matter of time until we come across
some bad actor that comes to power, where it doesn't matter. Saddam
for example, clearly wasn't rational. Even after the first Gulf War
where he got crushed badly, he still wouldn't behave and chose another
war that was certain to end badly for him and the country over just
cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. Especially nuts when he
didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs. Eventually some Saddam type
will have nukes. Is it KJU? Or some muslim nuts could take
over Pakistan and not give a damn. Looking at history, it's just a
matter of time, which is why Reagan's SDI type defense makes more sense
each passing day. It wouldn't be perfect, but could offer some protection
to limit the consequences.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:02:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

How will that help fight a war. The war you are talking about will be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.

If a country attacks the defensive sats, that alone with start the war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

The remaining question is if MAD works with the likes of KJU. And even
if it works with him, it's only a matter of time until we come across
some bad actor that comes to power, where it doesn't matter.

The bad actors don't come to power without having some kind of support in the organisations that exercise that power.

Saddam for example, clearly wasn't rational. Even after the first Gulf War
where he got crushed badly, he still wouldn't behave and chose another
war that was certain to end badly for him and the country over just
cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors.

He was cooperating, but Dubbya needed an excuse to snatch the oil fields.

Saddam wasn't that crazy. His judgement wasn't great, but neither was Dubbya's.

Especially nuts when he
didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs. Eventually some Saddam type
will have nukes. Is it KJU? Or some muslim nuts could take
over Pakistan and not give a damn. Looking at history, it's just a
matter of time, which is why Reagan's SDI type defense makes more sense
each passing day. It wouldn't be perfect, but could offer some protection
to limit the consequences.

Reagan's SDI defenses wouldn't have worked when he proposed them, and the killer argument is that it is relatively cheap to saturate that kind of defense.

From time to time people argue that it would be worth having to deter the likes of Kim Jong-Il, on the grounds that he hasn't the economic capacity to build enough nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to saturate such a defense, but it seems to be more the US defense industry begging for another pork-barrel project than any kind of well-reasoned argument.

The mad dictator argument doesn't really wash. The dictator might be mad, but the organisation that translates his wishes into deeds has to be tolerably sane to be effective.

You can clearly persuade them to kill off lots of other people, but getting them to kill themselves is more difficult. Jonestown may look like a counter example,
but Jim Jones wasn't running the kind of organisation that could build nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:03:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:02:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

How will that help fight a war. The war you are talking about will be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.

If a country attacks the defensive sats, that alone with start the war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

The remaining question is if MAD works with the likes of KJU. And even
if it works with him, it's only a matter of time until we come across
some bad actor that comes to power, where it doesn't matter.

The bad actors don't come to power without having some kind of support in the organisations that exercise that power.

Totally irrelevant, of course. A crazy madman butcher is still a crazy
madman butcher.

Saddam for example, clearly wasn't rational. Even after the first Gulf War
where he got crushed badly, he still wouldn't behave and chose another
war that was certain to end badly for him and the country over just
cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors.

He was cooperating, but Dubbya needed an excuse to snatch the oil fields.

That's another one of your many lies. The UN had given Saddam a final
ultimatum for complete and immediate cooperation with UN inspectors,
the same inspectors he had played cat and mouse games with for a decade,
had kicked out, etc. In his final report to the UN, with 300,000
coalition troops ready to invade, Hans Blix said that Iraq was still
not fully cooperating as required by the UN resolution.

And it's another lie that Bush snatched the oil fields. Those oil fields
have always belonged to Iraq, we didn't take them and today the oil is
being pumped and sold by the Iraqis.

Saddam wasn't that crazy. His judgement wasn't great, but neither was Dubbya's.

You're one of the few stupid enough to believe that, but no surprise there.

Especially nuts when he
didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs. Eventually some Saddam type
will have nukes. Is it KJU? Or some muslim nuts could take
over Pakistan and not give a damn. Looking at history, it's just a
matter of time, which is why Reagan's SDI type defense makes more sense
each passing day. It wouldn't be perfect, but could offer some protection
to limit the consequences.

Reagan's SDI defenses wouldn't have worked when he proposed them, and the killer argument is that it is relatively cheap to saturate that kind of defense.

And yet the fruits of that development are partly being used in the limited,
half-assed defenses that we have. I bet you weren't bitching when Obama
was deploying them. Had Reagan not begun the research, there would be
nothing to deploy.

From time to time people argue that it would be worth having to deter the likes of Kim Jong-Il,

No shit, Sherlock? You mean like I posted?


on the grounds that he hasn't the economic capacity to build enough nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to saturate such a defense, but it seems to be more the US defense industry begging for another pork-barrel project than any kind of well-reasoned argument.

The mad dictator argument doesn't really wash. The dictator might be mad, but the organisation that translates his wishes into deeds has to be tolerably sane to be effective.

Sure, you rely on that and see how it goes. Saddam gave the stupid, crazy
and illegal order to invade Kuwait. Did it get refused? Hitler, Idi AMin,
Pol Pot and a long list of others did the same.

You can clearly persuade them to kill off lots of other people, but getting them to kill themselves is more difficult. Jonestown may look like a counter example,
but Jim Jones wasn't running the kind of organisation that could build nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Those poor bastards in NK are about as brainwashed as anything Jim Jones
could ever do.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:21:14 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bb707cf6-52bd-
4e31-9232-05ef7fa27ce3@googlegroups.com:

How will that help fight a war.

That has to be one of the most stupid things you have said yet.

Communications and recon are most vital in a war and especially a
tech based war with over-the-horizon target tracking and destruction
capabilities, etc.

There are plenty of reasons it would be one of the first
infrastructure elements targetted.

You seem to be much worse off thinking it matters if those sats are shot down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead.

So, you think the US would launch a full out nuclear strike, just because
Russia or China targeted a US defense satellite? Or Russia would launch
on us if we targeted one of theirs? That seems very illogical.

That war won't need any further intelligence or surveillance. We won't be targeting scud missiles in the dessert or trying to find troops in the woods.

Sure, if it went from zero to full out nuclear war in one step. That
seems very unlikely. Far more likely would be some gradual escalation,
that starts with conventional engagement. Say for example, the things
heat up in the South China Sea, over those islands and waterways.
China shoots down a US plane, we shoot down a couple of theirs.
More tit for tat. China launches some space weapon that takes out
one of our satellites that we're using in the military ops with China.
Your expected response would be a full nuclear strike on China?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 5:26:40 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:03:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:02:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

How will that help fight a war. The war you are talking about will be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.

If a country attacks the defensive sats, that alone with start the war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

The remaining question is if MAD works with the likes of KJU. And even
if it works with him, it's only a matter of time until we come across
some bad actor that comes to power, where it doesn't matter.

The bad actors don't come to power without having some kind of support in the organisations that exercise that power.

Totally irrelevant, of course. A crazy madman butcher is still a crazy
madman butcher.

Trader4 likes to keep things simple. Realism is too complicated for him.

Saddam for example, clearly wasn't rational. Even after the first Gulf War where he got crushed badly, he still wouldn't behave and chose another
war that was certain to end badly for him and the country over just cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors.

He was cooperating, but Dubbya needed an excuse to snatch the oil fields.

That's another one of your many lies. The UN had given Saddam a final
ultimatum for complete and immediate cooperation with UN inspectors,
the same inspectors he had played cat and mouse games with for a decade,
had kicked out, etc. In his final report to the UN, with 300,000
coalition troops ready to invade, Hans Blix said that Iraq was still
not fully cooperating as required by the UN resolution.

"Fully cooperating" is one of those phrases that keeps lawyers rich.

> And it's another lie that Bush snatched the oil fields.

I didn't say that he had. He clearly wanted to, but cost of keeping a big enough occupying force in Irak to maintain control was prohibitive. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him that before the invasion, but he'd chosen not to believe them.

> Those oil fields have always belonged to Iraq, we didn't take them and today the oil is being pumped and sold by the Iraqis.

But you would have liked to the Iraquis to have signed an exclusive contract selling the oil only to the US at a price you would have dictated. Pity about that.

Saddam wasn't that crazy. His judgement wasn't great, but neither was Dubbya's.

You're one of the few stupid enough to believe that, but no surprise there.

Agreeing with you would be evidence of stupidity, but you are too dumb to realise this.

Especially nuts when he
didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs. Eventually some Saddam type
will have nukes. Is it KJU? Or some muslim nuts could take
over Pakistan and not give a damn. Looking at history, it's just a
matter of time, which is why Reagan's SDI type defense makes more sense
each passing day. It wouldn't be perfect, but could offer some protection
to limit the consequences.

Reagan's SDI defenses wouldn't have worked when he proposed them, and the killer argument is that it is relatively cheap to saturate that kind of defense.

And yet the fruits of that development are partly being used in the limited,
half-assed defenses that we have.

Really? Star wars never went anywhere.

I bet you weren't bitching when Obama
was deploying them. Had Reagan not begun the research, there would be
nothing to deploy.

Nonsense.

From time to time people argue that it would be worth having to deter the likes of Kim Jong-Il,

No shit, Sherlock? You mean like I posted?

KJU is an acronym for Kim Jong-Il? Trader4 has some odd ideas.

on the grounds that he hasn't the economic capacity to build enough nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to saturate such a defense, but it seems to be more the US defense industry begging for another pork-barrel project than any kind of well-reasoned argument.

The mad dictator argument doesn't really wash. The dictator might be mad, but the organisation that translates his wishes into deeds has to be tolerably sane to be effective.

Sure, you rely on that and see how it goes. Saddam gave the stupid, crazy
and illegal order to invade Kuwait. Did it get refused? Hitler, Idi AMin,
Pol Pot and a long list of others did the same.

It was certainly stupid, but not illegal. Saddam didn't have to be crazy to fail to predict how the international community would react to the invasion of Kuwait, any more than Dubbya had to be crazy to fail to predict how Irak would react to US occupation.

Crucially, it didn't kill off the entire invading force or the rest of the country. Mutual assured destruction comes a ot closer to doing that.

You can clearly persuade them to kill off lots of other people, but getting them to kill themselves is more difficult. Jonestown may look like a counter example, but Jim Jones wasn't running the kind of organisation that could build nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles.

Those poor bastards in NK are about as brainwashed as anything Jim Jones
could ever do.

What makes you think that? Intimidated is one thing, but brainwashed goes a lot further. And Jim Jones didn't brainwash all of his followers - lot of them ended up being murdered by the more thoroughly brainwashed faction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:56:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:21:14 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:bb707cf6-52bd-
4e31-9232-05ef7fa27ce3@googlegroups.com:

How will that help fight a war.

That has to be one of the most stupid things you have said yet.

Communications and recon are most vital in a war and especially a
tech based war with over-the-horizon target tracking and destruction
capabilities, etc.

There are plenty of reasons it would be one of the first
infrastructure elements targetted.

You seem to be much worse off thinking it matters if those sats are shot down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead.

So, you think the US would launch a full out nuclear strike, just because
Russia or China targeted a US defense satellite? Or Russia would launch
on us if we targeted one of theirs? That seems very illogical.

You don't seem to have worked out the logic of mutual assured destruction.

Any act that would diminish your capacity to wipe them out tips the balance their way. You'd have to react, and react in way that would tip the balance back your way by a significantly greater amount. Inaction wouldn't be an option.

That war won't need any further intelligence or surveillance. We won't be targeting scud missiles in the dessert or trying to find troops in the woods.

Sure, if it went from zero to full out nuclear war in one step. That
seems very unlikely. Far more likely would be some gradual escalation,
that starts with conventional engagement. Say for example, the things
heat up in the South China Sea, over those islands and waterways.
China shoots down a US plane, we shoot down a couple of theirs.
More tit for tat. China launches some space weapon that takes out
one of our satellites that we're using in the military ops with China.
Your expected response would be a full nuclear strike on China?

Trying to predict that sort of thing is a full time military intelligence. If you want to do it, apply for a job in that area - but I wouldn't like your chances.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney