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

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9fc14ab3-f61b-4451-91f1-8f7fc7b5126b@googlegroups.com:

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"?

I was the one posted the quote dipshit. Maybe now *you* get it,
but I have serious doubts.

Also, they attributed the machine with AI. "it understood".

No, ding dong. IT concluded.

Also, it was a movie.

We would not start a war, but an aggressive enemy might get trigger
happy about one thing or other, and then we would kick in, and there
would be no MAD as they would not stand a chance of getting anything
in and would soon be destroyed themselves if they even tried.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:44:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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..

You're just a stupid, argumentative troll. Notably absent is you
disagreeing that if Russia or China targeted one of our satellites,
we would not launch nuclear weapons in response.

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.

Oh, BS and more BS. To start with, he said "targeted'. Targeting a
satellite doesn't render the satellite unable to operate. And of course
there are a whole range of options, including doing nothing.

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.

I didn't address the question to you, stupid. And interesting how you say
I'm not qualified to comment on these matters, but you're here shooting
your fool mouth off. So very typical for a lib.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:23:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Now that's another classic. The troll that denies fact that is staring him
in the face, like that libs have been howling about Trump and Russian
collusion since 2016, now pulls complete nonsense, with nothing to support
it at all, right out of tin hat conspiracy land.

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.

No, the pity is that you're a lying, stupid troll.

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.

No, just fact.

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.

KJU is the leader today. KJI was the leader. Both were sick despots,
do I need to draw pictures for you, stupid?

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?

Google still broken down under?

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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. 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.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:56:11 PM UTC-4, 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.

What is this "one" thing??? Of course we would launch nukes against any country considered a nuclear threat that tries to take out our defense systems. You seem to be wanting to inch up on the problem by talking about attacking "one" satellite. Taking out one of hundreds or thousands of satellites might not trigger an all out nuclear attack. Any response must be in proportion to the threat.

We aren't madmen.

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?

What are you talking about? What is the point of this inch by inch thing???

Did someone behind you say, "Niagra Falls"?

How does this hypothetical situation relate to the discussion?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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. 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.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally..
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have..

And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hostile
country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response..
I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go
nuclear over that? Hello?

You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and
ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that
NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed
uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocide,
a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.

Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:25:24 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:23:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
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:

<snip>

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.

Now that's another classic. The troll that denies fact that is staring him
in the face, like that libs have been howling about Trump and Russian
collusion since 2016, now pulls complete nonsense, with nothing to support
it at all, right out of tin hat conspiracy land.

Trader4 likes his delusions, and feels hurt when they get jeered at. Tough.

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.

No, the pity is that you're a lying, stupid troll.

Trader4 is too stupid to notice that he's the troll. He likes to think that pointing that he's deluded is lying, and he's too stupid to realise that this emphasises his disconnection from reality.

<snip>

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.

No, just fact.

Trader4 likes to think that he can claim that his delusions are "facts".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_missile_defense

Reagan didn't begin the research, which had been going on long before he came to power, and his Strategic Defense Initiative was a lot more ambitious than anything that ever got deployed, and totally impractical.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:30:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:44:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
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..

You're just a stupid, argumentative troll.

As opposed to Trader4, who actually is stupid, and doesn't know how to argue

> Notably absent is you disagreeing that if Russia or China targeted one of our satellites, we would not launch nuclear weapons in response.

That means that I'm sane, and don't imagine that I can second guess a tricky strategic question. Trader4 is much more confident of his strategic insights.

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.

Oh, BS and more BS. To start with, he said "targeted'. Targeting a
satellite doesn't render the satellite unable to operate.

Technically speaking, painting a satellite with a radar beam would be "targetting" it. That's not something guaranteed to provoke a response, nor interesting enough provoke any kind of discussion. You have to make it the satellite a target of an at least potentially destructive weapon to provoke a response.

> And of course there are a whole range of options, including doing nothing.

Doing nothing opens you up to the salami strategy, where each stolen slice is too small to react to, but you end up with no salami.

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.

I didn't address the question to you, stupid.

Tough.

> And interesting how you say I'm not qualified to comment on these matters, but you're here shooting your fool mouth off.

I'm not shooting my mouth off, but pointing out that the decisions are a little more complicated than you seem to be able to appreciate.

> So very typical for a lib.

Trader4 thinks that everybody else is just as stupid as he is. Somewhere between 95% and 99% of them aren't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 3:54:48 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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:

<snip>

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions.. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply.

There weren't at that stage. The build up happened after he'd agreed to let the inspectors back in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.

Look at the history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

was passed on the 8th November 2002.Iraq agreed to the Resolution on 13 November. Weapons inspectors returned on 27 November. Irak wasn't as helpful as it might have been, but it became clear they they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction or any active plans to develop any.

Dubbya reacted by starting a publicity campaign in the US trying to link Saddam to 9/11 which was total and obvious nonsense, but perceived to be necessary because the "weapons of mass destruction" issue had been defused.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 3:54:48 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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:

snip

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply.

There weren't at that stage. The build up happened after he'd agreed to let the inspectors back in.

More lies and BS. The "buildup" by the coalition, was because Iraq was
still not fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. The UN had
given Iraq a final opportunity to fully comply and with the 300K troops
staged, ready to launch the war if Iraq did not comply, Saddam still refused
to comply. Hans Blix said so in his final report to the UN, just days
before the war. And only a stupid troll would argue that what Saddam
did wasn't stupid and totally irrational. He didn't have WMDs, all he had
to do was comply. Instead he chose death and destruction. Which was
precisely my point, stupid. That history, including that very recent
example, shows that you can't rely on MAD, because there are leaders that
come to power that are truly irrational and nuts. KJU may be the next
one. Got it now? Of course not, no hope for you.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:54:20 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 3:54:48 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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:

snip

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally. Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if he did not comply.

There weren't at that stage. The build up happened after he'd agreed to let the inspectors back in.

More lies and BS.

Trader4 snips the links I posted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

They don't fit what Trader4 wants to claim, so he snips them and reiterates his own deluded version of what he thinks happens.

If he were less stupid, I could accuse him of lying, but he's merely deluded.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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. 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.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions.. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.

No, he didn't believe the US would do that. Yet he never shot down one of our satellites. So it doesn't really matter what he did or didn't think.

And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hostile
country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response.
I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go
nuclear over that? Hello?

Yes, I did respond to your question.

You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and
ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that
NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed
uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocide,
a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?

Why do you enter conversations you know apparently nothing about. We have defensive capabilities for the crappy NK missiles. Did you actually read what I wrote???

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.


Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them get past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk from NK. South Korea might be. I don't know how rapidly out defenses can take their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 12:47:14 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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:

<snip>

He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.
Are you just as stupid as Bill?

Trader4 is a little too stupid to realise that Saddam did comply with the UN resolution, let in inspectors (if not quite a many as the inspectors would have liked) but got invaded anyway.

The simple point was that MAD only works when all parties are RATIONAL.
It will fail when a leader that is irrational comes along.

Of course a leader that is totally irrational will make many other mistakes, and is unlikely to be able to put a particularly destructive attack together.

I used Saddam as a good example of a leader that chose death
and destruction even though he could have easily complied, avoided it.

Trader4 is too dim to notice that Saddam accepted UN Resolution 1441, and did let in the UN inspectors. The US-led invasion ignored this (which was trifle irrational, and decidedly dishonest).

> That was an example, get it?

It was a false example - Saddam might have exhibited bad judgement, but he clearly did all he could to avoid getting invaded.

> If you don't like that example, then insert Hitler or Pol Pot.

Hitler and Pol Pot were deluded rather than irrational. Trader4 is no less deluded, and not somebody whose opinion of anybody else's rationality are worth taking seriously.

But no, like Bill, you instead turn sideways and start
harping about Saddam, the Gulf War, that Saddam never shot down a
satellite, etc, etc, etc.

We don't agree with the deluded opinions you are expressing.

You are not equipped to realise quite how fatuously deluded you are, and resent being treated as a half-wit. That's very sad for you,but you are going to have to get used to it.

<snipped the rest of the drivel>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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. 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.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.

No, he didn't believe the US would do that. Yet he never shot down one of our satellites. So it doesn't really matter what he did or didn't think.

Are you just as stupid as Bill? The simple point was that MAD only works
when all parties are RATIONAL. It will fail when a leader that is irrational
comes along. I used Saddam as a good example of a leader that chose death
and destruction even though he could have easily complied, avoided it.
That was an example, get it? If you don't like that example, then insert
Hitler or Pol Pot. But no, like Bill, you instead turn sideways and start
harping about Saddam, the Gulf War, that Saddam never shot down a
satellite, etc, etc, etc.

And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hostile
country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response.
I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go
nuclear over that? Hello?

Yes, I did respond to your question.

I never saw it, I don't think you did, because you could have written
a sentence here and instead, you chose not to. A yes or no works.

You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and
ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that
NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed
uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocide,
a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?

Why do you enter conversations you know apparently nothing about. We have defensive capabilities for the crappy NK missiles. Did you actually read what I wrote???

You're the one that thinks we have defenses for the "crappy' NK missiles.
The truth is, we don't know exactly what capability they have, they
tested ICBMs that worked two years ago. And you;re the one that knows
nothing about our defenses, because if you did, you'd know that much
of it is nothing but a series of prototypes, developed over the years
and deployed hastily. That's what Obama sent to Alaska, for example.
And no one believes the system is even close to robust. We've had
a dozen or so tests and maybe a 50% success rate. Does LA getting
nuked, Chicago get's intercepted work for you?

Same is true for NK short range missiles, the new ones they keep testing,
the ones Trump keeps greenlighting as no big deal. They could reach much
of SK, including the 28K troops there and it's not clear we could shoot
them down. Those systems are more robust, but still nowhere near 100%
reliable. If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

We would have more robust systems, if Obama and now Trump had greatly
accelerated our development up to what it should be. And to defend against
those NK ICBMS, what we need is Reagan;s SDI. Had we followed through,
we would have a more robust defense, but you libs said he was nuts.
He sure doesn't look so nuts today with NK.

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.


Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them get past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk from NK. South Korea might be.

We have 28,000 troops there stupid. And this from the guy that proposed
that just "targeting" a satellite would require a nuclear response?
What happens when KJU kills tens of thousands of US troops?



I don't know how rapidly out defenses can take their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.

--

That's the only thing you've said so far that's right, you don't know.
And the answer is there is no high confidence that we can intercept
them. Hell, NK could deliver a nuke with a sub to Busan, Incheon
or even LA. They already have subs capable of launching single missiles.
And you probably don't know that we have good intel showing they are
building a ballistic missile submarine right now. I suppose you
think we can just easily shoot down whatever they launch from that too...

The overall point here is that MAD only works with rational actors.
There have been many leaders in the past who were not rational and
KJU is an example of one that might similarly be irrational too. And NK
is now a nuclear power. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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. 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.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.

No, he didn't believe the US would do that. Yet he never shot down one of our satellites. So it doesn't really matter what he did or didn't think.

Are you just as stupid as Bill? The simple point was that MAD only works
when all parties are RATIONAL. It will fail when a leader that is irrational
comes along. I used Saddam as a good example of a leader that chose death
and destruction even though he could have easily complied, avoided it.
That was an example, get it? If you don't like that example, then insert
Hitler or Pol Pot. But no, like Bill, you instead turn sideways and start
harping about Saddam, the Gulf War, that Saddam never shot down a
satellite, etc, etc, etc.

Your personal comments don't help your argument at all. It would be nice if you refrained. OK?

MAD doesn't really impact someone who is not in the nuclear picture. Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

At this point I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to want to discuss our personalities more than you want to have a rational discussion.. Which do you prefer?

And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hostile
country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response.
I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go
nuclear over that? Hello?

Yes, I did respond to your question.

I never saw it, I don't think you did, because you could have written
a sentence here and instead, you chose not to. A yes or no works.

Believe what you want. I think a lot of your argument shows you do a lot of that. I haven't written so many posts you can't find it. You know where you asked the question. You can search on those words and my reply will be in a message containing those.

You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and
ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that
NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed
uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocide,
a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?

Why do you enter conversations you know apparently nothing about. We have defensive capabilities for the crappy NK missiles. Did you actually read what I wrote???

You're the one that thinks we have defenses for the "crappy' NK missiles.
The truth is, we don't know exactly what capability they have, they
tested ICBMs that worked two years ago. And you;re the one that knows
nothing about our defenses, because if you did, you'd know that much
of it is nothing but a series of prototypes, developed over the years
and deployed hastily. That's what Obama sent to Alaska, for example.
And no one believes the system is even close to robust. We've had
a dozen or so tests and maybe a 50% success rate. Does LA getting
nuked, Chicago get's intercepted work for you?

Ok, you disagree that we can shoot down the handful of nukes NK might be able to shoot at us. Assuming you were right, which I don't acknowledge, even then MAD does not kick in because we may lose a city, but NK will no longer exist as a civilization.

Kim is not an idiot. He knows he will never actually shoot a nuke at any of our cities because of AD. You talk about him as a madman, but he is not a Saddam or a Gaddafi. Even those two knew what they were doing at the national level. They knew how to hold their power. Well, Gaddafi did until near the end. They didn't do so well against the US. But they are in the AD part of the issue not at all different from NK.

None of these countries have a chance of doing anything about our defenses.

Same is true for NK short range missiles, the new ones they keep testing,
the ones Trump keeps greenlighting as no big deal. They could reach much
of SK, including the 28K troops there and it's not clear we could shoot
them down. Those systems are more robust, but still nowhere near 100%
reliable. If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

What does "good for you" mean? It ain't happening because of AD. What NK actually does is VERY measured. They may shoot some conventional weapons and seize a ship here and there. They aren't stupid enough to provoke a conflict that will destroy their country and totally topple Kim from power, a conventional or a nuclear conflict.

We would have more robust systems, if Obama and now Trump had greatly
accelerated our development up to what it should be. And to defend against
those NK ICBMS, what we need is Reagan;s SDI. Had we followed through,
we would have a more robust defense, but you libs said he was nuts.
He sure doesn't look so nuts today with NK.

YOU LIBS???? I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you is a lib? Or I should more accurately say, anyone who points out your fallacies is a lib?

There was never any expectation SDI would work. The real reason for waving the SDI flag was to scare the shit out of the USSR which was part of why they fell apart. They knew they couldn't keep up economically even though they tried, they then failed. Most players understand war weapons are actually economic weapons as long as they are good enough or plentiful enough or scary enough to never be used. We won that battle with the USSR, but now there are many other players, and like a recent video posted in this group if not this thread, that was a finite game. We are actually playing an infinite game and don't always realize that.

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.


Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them get past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk from NK. South Korea might be.

We have 28,000 troops there stupid. And this from the guy that proposed
that just "targeting" a satellite would require a nuclear response?
What happens when KJU kills tens of thousands of US troops?

I never said that did I? I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You seem to do a lot of that. I may have said targeting a defensive satellite is an act of war. There are many acts of war that are not responded to with a nuclear response.

I don't know how rapidly out defenses can take their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.

--

That's the only thing you've said so far that's right, you don't know.
And the answer is there is no high confidence that we can intercept
them. Hell, NK could deliver a nuke with a sub to Busan, Incheon
or even LA. They already have subs capable of launching single missiles.
And you probably don't know that we have good intel showing they are
building a ballistic missile submarine right now. I suppose you
think we can just easily shoot down whatever they launch from that too...

The overall point here is that MAD only works with rational actors.
There have been many leaders in the past who were not rational and
KJU is an example of one that might similarly be irrational too. And NK
is now a nuclear power. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There is no reason to think Kim is not a rational actor. Even if he can do us harm, there is no reason to think AD won't be a sufficient deterrent to stop him from ever using a nuke against us. What he wants is to be at the power table and thinks having nukes will do that for him. If he wasn't at the elbow of China he would have been wiped from the map long ago. We can't attack NK without a response from China. But they aren't going to enter a war with the US if we respond to such an extreme aggression from NK. They won't like it and they will rattle sabers about our extent of war, but they don't want to have half a billion people wiped out either.

While Kim does a good job of appearing to be irrational, that is part of his act and everyone knows it. Three members of the same family have ruled NK for a long time now. None of them were stupid or irrational.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:13:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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. 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.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.

No, he didn't believe the US would do that. Yet he never shot down one of our satellites. So it doesn't really matter what he did or didn't think.

Are you just as stupid as Bill? The simple point was that MAD only works
when all parties are RATIONAL. It will fail when a leader that is irrational
comes along. I used Saddam as a good example of a leader that chose death
and destruction even though he could have easily complied, avoided it.
That was an example, get it? If you don't like that example, then insert
Hitler or Pol Pot. But no, like Bill, you instead turn sideways and start
harping about Saddam, the Gulf War, that Saddam never shot down a
satellite, etc, etc, etc.

Your personal comments don't help your argument at all. It would be nice if you refrained. OK?

MAD doesn't really impact someone who is not in the nuclear picture.

No shit Sherlock.



> Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

See, I would treat you as intelligent, if you didn't continue to post
stupid things and here you go again. The point, the very
clear and simple point, is that MAD only works when you're dealing with
RATIONAL, SANE, leaders. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I gave
you Saddam as an example. Did he have nuclear weapons? No, but KJU
does and he could be the next Saddam, a leader that does not behave
rationally. If you follow history, it's very stupid to think that
an irrational leader with nuclear weapons will not eventually come to
power somewhere. There have been plenty of irrational leaders throughout
history, I'm amazed that anyone would argue that.

At this point I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to want to discuss our personalities more than you want to have a rational discussion. Which do you prefer?

I've been trying to have a rational discussion, but it takes two to tango.

And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hostile
country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response.
I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go
nuclear over that? Hello?

Yes, I did respond to your question.

I never saw it, I don't think you did, because you could have written
a sentence here and instead, you chose not to. A yes or no works.

Believe what you want. I think a lot of your argument shows you do a lot of that. I haven't written so many posts you can't find it. You know where you asked the question. You can search on those words and my reply will be in a message containing those.

In other words, there was no answer or you could just give it here.
A simple yes or no works.

You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and
ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that
NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed
uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocide,
a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?

Why do you enter conversations you know apparently nothing about. We have defensive capabilities for the crappy NK missiles. Did you actually read what I wrote???

You're the one that thinks we have defenses for the "crappy' NK missiles.
The truth is, we don't know exactly what capability they have, they
tested ICBMs that worked two years ago. And you;re the one that knows
nothing about our defenses, because if you did, you'd know that much
of it is nothing but a series of prototypes, developed over the years
and deployed hastily. That's what Obama sent to Alaska, for example.
And no one believes the system is even close to robust. We've had
a dozen or so tests and maybe a 50% success rate. Does LA getting
nuked, Chicago get's intercepted work for you?

Ok, you disagree that we can shoot down the handful of nukes NK might be able to shoot at us. Assuming you were right, which I don't acknowledge, even then MAD does not kick in because we may lose a city, but NK will no longer exist as a civilization.

You don't understand what MAD even is. The concept is that because of MAD,
an enemy will not attack the US, the US will be safe from nuclear attack.
That NK no longer exists, is irrelevant. And if you doubt that our
ability to intercept a missile launch from NK is sketchy at best,
just google.

Kim is not an idiot. He knows he will never actually shoot a nuke at any of our cities because of AD. You talk about him as a madman, but he is not a Saddam or a Gaddafi.

And why exactly not? How do you know how rational he is? He's certainly
has done some things very similar to those two and some things much worse,
eg using a chemical weapon in a foreign country to kill his own brother,
antiaircraft gunning his uncle, killing anyone that's any threat,
starving 25 mil people so he can build nukes, instead of having a modern
country with a real economy.




.. Even those two knew what they were doing at the national level. They knew how to hold their power.

Saddam knew what he was doing? Well, I guess so, if you include irrationally
choosing death and destruction for his country over cooperating with the
UN weapons inspectors.
Again, the point is that Saddam behaved totally irrationally. Relying on
MAD as a defense strategy is incredibly stupid with a leader like that.
And it's only a matter of time before some similar leader with nukes arrives.
He may already have.




Well, Gaddafi did until near the end. They didn't do so well against the US. But they are in the AD part of the issue not at all different from NK..

Yadda, yadda, yadda. You just don't get the concept that MAD only works
if you are always dealing with rational actors and it will fail at some
point when some irrational leader winds up with nuclear weapons. KJU
might be that guy, which of course is why most of the world is so
concerned that he;s making them and ICBMs.

None of these countries have a chance of doing anything about our defenses.

None of which countries? I never said Iraq did. You dragged Libya into it,
of course they don't. But that wasn't the issue, wasn't the point. NK
is such a threat. They have tested ICBMS that worked, yes? They have
tested powerful nukes that worked, yes? Japanese intel recently reported
that they believe it's likely that NK has now advanced to the point that
they have nukes small enough to fit on ICBMs or other missiles. NK
continues to test shorter rang, advanced missiles, ones that are capable
of carrying nuclear weapons that could hit the 28000 US troops in SK.
That isn't Libya.

Same is true for NK short range missiles, the new ones they keep testing,
the ones Trump keeps greenlighting as no big deal. They could reach much
of SK, including the 28K troops there and it's not clear we could shoot
them down. Those systems are more robust, but still nowhere near 100%
reliable. If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

What does "good for you" mean? It ain't happening because of AD.

Again, you just don't understand that only works with a rational leader.
Did it work with Saddam? Hello? He didn't give a damn that his country
would be invaded, much of it destroyed.




> What NK actually does is VERY measured. They may shoot some conventional weapons and seize a ship here and there. They aren't stupid enough to provoke a conflict that will destroy their country and totally topple Kim from power, a conventional or a nuclear conflict.

I see and how confident are you of that assessment? It wasn't too long
ago that NK attacked and sunk a SK warship, killing 50. It wasn't too
long ago that they shelled SK forces on Yeonpyeong Island, killing SK
troops. It wasn't too long ago, KJU used chemical weapons in an airport
in Indonesia to kill his brother, he killed his uncle. He's starving
25 mil people to death, so he can build nukes and ICBMs. That doesn't
sound so rational to me.

We would have more robust systems, if Obama and now Trump had greatly
accelerated our development up to what it should be. And to defend against
those NK ICBMS, what we need is Reagan;s SDI. Had we followed through,
we would have a more robust defense, but you libs said he was nuts.
He sure doesn't look so nuts today with NK.

YOU LIBS???? I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you is a lib? Or I should more accurately say, anyone who points out your fallacies is a lib?

Do you deny that it was libs that were against SDI? Very simple, very factual.
Reagan and conservatives wanted it, the libs had their hair on fire.
And about now, with NK having ICBMS, it looks like Reagan was right,
a missile shield would be a very good idea. Incredibly, you seem to believe
we have one, when we really don't.

There was never any expectation SDI would work. The real reason for waving the SDI flag was to scare the shit out of the USSR which was part of why they fell apart.

That's partly true, engaging them in a race they couldn't afford or win
was part of Reagan's strategy. But SDI could work, it's incredibly that
anyone would sell US tech capability short. Similar could have been said
about everything from the atom bomb to stealth aircraft.



They knew they couldn't keep up economically even though they tried, they then failed. Most players understand war weapons are actually economic weapons as long as they are good enough or plentiful enough or scary enough to never be used.

But sadly you don't recognize or won't admit that only works when the other
party is also RATIONAL.


We won that battle with the USSR, but now there are many other players, and like a recent video posted in this group if not this thread, that was a finite game. We are actually playing an infinite game and don't always realize that.
>

You can count the number of nuclear powers on the fingers of your hands.
That's a whole lot closer to zero than infinity.

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.


Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them get past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk from NK. South Korea might be.

We have 28,000 troops there stupid. And this from the guy that proposed
that just "targeting" a satellite would require a nuclear response?
What happens when KJU kills tens of thousands of US troops?

I never said that did I? I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You seem to do a lot of that. I may have said targeting a defensive satellite is an act of war. There are many acts of war that are not responded to with a nuclear response.

Did someone else sit at your computer and type this:


"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. "


And while I addressed exactly that in my first reply, 10 posts later,
you're only now addressing it, but denying you posted it?

I don't know how rapidly out defenses can take their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.

--

That's the only thing you've said so far that's right, you don't know.
And the answer is there is no high confidence that we can intercept
them. Hell, NK could deliver a nuke with a sub to Busan, Incheon
or even LA. They already have subs capable of launching single missiles..
And you probably don't know that we have good intel showing they are
building a ballistic missile submarine right now. I suppose you
think we can just easily shoot down whatever they launch from that too....

The overall point here is that MAD only works with rational actors.
There have been many leaders in the past who were not rational and
KJU is an example of one that might similarly be irrational too. And NK
is now a nuclear power. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There is no reason to think Kim is not a rational actor. Even if he can do us harm, there is no reason to think AD won't be a sufficient deterrent to stop him from ever using a nuke against us.

You go right on thinking that, it's typical of naive lib thinking. I
suppose you think Charlie Manson could be trusted, won over, calmed down,
let's just send him a cake and hope for the best, he's rational....



What he wants is to be at the power table and thinks having nukes will do that for him. If he wasn't at the elbow of China he would have been wiped from the map long ago. We can't attack NK without a response from China. But they aren't going to enter a war with the US if we respond to such an extreme aggression from NK. They won't like it and they will rattle sabers about our extent of war, but they don't want to have half a billion people wiped out either.

While Kim does a good job of appearing to be irrational, that is part of his act and everyone knows it. Three members of the same family have ruled NK for a long time now. None of them were stupid or irrational.

Yes, a swell idea. Let's let the fate of US cities rest on your analysis
that folks who invaded most of SK which resulted in 5 mil deaths,
seized a US ship, sunk SK warships,
shelled SK, kidnapped countless people, committed genocide for 60 years,
used chemical weapons to kill their own brother, put uncles in front of
antiaircraft guns, killed Warmbeir for stealing a poster and now have
nukes and ICBMs are rational.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:13:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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:

<snip>

Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

See, I would treat you as intelligent, if you didn't continue to post
stupid things and here you go again. The point, the very
clear and simple point, is that MAD only works when you're dealing with
RATIONAL, SANE, leaders. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I gave
you Saddam as an example. Did he have nuclear weapons? No, but KJU
does and he could be the next Saddam, a leader that does not behave
rationally.

Trader4 doesn't think that Saddam behaved rationally, because Trader4 has a false idea of what Saddam did.

Trader4 has any number of these false ideas, and lacks the capacity to correct any of them, probably because he lacks the capacity to imagine that any of his ideas are false, incomplete or wrong.

What seems clear and simple to him is only clear and simple because he's left out all the difficult bits that he can't actually follow.

If you follow history, it's very stupid to think that
an irrational leader with nuclear weapons will not eventually come to
power somewhere. There have been plenty of irrational leaders throughout
history, I'm amazed that anyone would argue that.

The problem is that their irrationality impacts their capacity to be effective leaders. Somebody irrational enough to want to use nuclear bombs on a nuclear-armed opponent is almost certainly too irrational to get control of a organisation that can give them nuclear bombs to use.

At this point I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to want to discuss our personalities more than you want to have a rational discussion. Which do you prefer?

I've been trying to have a rational discussion, but it takes two to tango..

And when one of them it Trader4, who has the intellectual equivalent of two left feet, the tango is in the too-hard basket.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:26:11 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:13:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, 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:

snip

Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

See, I would treat you as intelligent, if you didn't continue to post
stupid things and here you go again. The point, the very
clear and simple point, is that MAD only works when you're dealing with
RATIONAL, SANE, leaders. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I gave
you Saddam as an example. Did he have nuclear weapons? No, but KJU
does and he could be the next Saddam, a leader that does not behave
rationally.

Trader4 doesn't think that Saddam behaved rationally, because Trader4 has a false idea of what Saddam did.

No false ideas, I watched and followed the news and it's all
a matter of historical record. Saddam had a choice,
either full compliance with the UN inspectors or the 300K coalition
troops that were assembled and would invade, bringing assured death
and destruction to Iraq. Saddam chose the latter. That was his final
irrational act. Previously he also refused to leave Kuwait, under the
same conditions. BTW, Australia was part of the coalition in both
wars, so I guess you were there to steal their oil too, like you claim
Bush was doing.


ROFL

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:67f7c6b5-724a-41a2-bf35-d08fe9e060e5@googlegroups.com:

Technically speaking, painting a satellite with a radar beam would
be "targetting" it.

Also, simply placing it on a primary military asset target list is
also "targetting it".

There is a difference between targetting something one wishes to fire
on at the current moment, and deciding that an object or asset is to be
a target in the event of aggressions that may take place.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

We would have more robust systems, if Obama and now Trump had
greatly accelerated our development up to what it should be. And
to defend against those NK ICBMS, what we need is Reagan;s SDI.
Had we followed through, we would have a more robust defense, but
you libs said he was nuts. He sure doesn't look so nuts today with
NK.

You are such a mental midget.