Multiple interceptor ABMs
Pat Flannery
system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
missiles?
Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
interceptor vehicles:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.xml&headline=Lockheed%20and%20Raytheon%20Vie%20for%20MKV&channel=awst
Pat
Fred J. McCall
:
:Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to
intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
thom...@flash.net
> Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
> interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.x...
It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
and other penaids.
In fact, it seems likely that the firing doctrine will still call for
launching at least two GBIs against each ICBM in order to allow for
boost-phase failures. So 10 GBI => 5 ICBM.
sferrin
wrote:
There is no way in hell the KVs have enough cross-range ability to be
chasing multiple missiles. They are strictly to go after decoys to
raise the odds of killing warheads.
Pat Flannery
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
> :
> :Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
> :system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
> :missiles?
> :Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
> :interceptor vehicles:
> :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.xml&headline=Lockheed%20and%20Raytheon%20Vie%20for%20MKV&channel=awst
> :
>
> Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to
> intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US.
>
But not in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia into
Europe.
We say they are to intercept missiles flying from Iran into Europe or
the US... then we also say that we are never going to let Iran have
IRBMs or ICBMs....so building the European ABM system is basically
sending them the message that we expect them to develop such systems and
aren't going to stop them when they do...so they can go ahead and
develop them without us stopping them.
That's a great example of the kind of "left hand doesn't know what the
right hand is doing" logic the Bush administration is noted for.
Who is our ally in the war on terror?
Pakistan.
Who developed the nuclear weapons technology that got leaked to Iran,
Syria, and North Korea?
Pakistan.
Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast?
Saudi Arabia.
Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 911 attack come from?
Saudi Arabia.
Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
Afghanistan.
Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot poppy
fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to
eradicate the poppy fields via military means?
Us, of course.
Pat
Pat Flannery
thom...@flash.net wrote:
>> Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
>> interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.x...
>>
>
> It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
> GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
> possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
> and other penaids.
>
The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
in short order.
> In fact, it seems likely that the firing doctrine will still call for
> launching at least two GBIs against each ICBM in order to allow for
> boost-phase failures. So 10 GBI => 5 ICBM.
>
As I pointed out before...5 ICBMs from _who_?
We say these are supposed to be defense from ICBMs fired from some rogue
state, and yet we say we are never going to let rogue states have ICBMs.
So if you want to send a mixed message to rogue states, that is the
perfect way to do it.
Pat
Pat Flannery
sferrin wrote:
>
> There is no way in hell the KVs have enough cross-range ability to be
> chasing multiple missiles. They are strictly to go after decoys to
> raise the odds of killing warheads.
>
How do you think the Russians are going to view this? They didn't like
the idea when it was just ten missiles, and this doesn't help things much.
We keep pushing them enough on this, and just for the sake of national
pride they might do something around the time that ABM base starts
getting built.
People say: "Oh, what will they do? This is no threat to
them."....without remembering that the Soviets had no idea that we were
going to go completely bonkers when we found out that they were
installing nuclear missiles in Cuba.
Around the time the concrete starts getting poured on that Polish launch
site it might get bombed.
They keep telling us they don't like this idea one bit, and we keep
ignoring them.
That's how wars get started.
We say the reason the base is so far east is to protect Europe also.
If that's the case then let Europe build it and pay for it - both in a
monetary and political sense.
From a strategic point of view, it would be best to get it as near to
the prospective launch point as possible, so that the missiles could be
intercepted as shortly after liftoff as possible, and before they deploy
decoys and penaids. Since this missile are supposed to be coming from
Iran or Syria, a ABM base in Turkey would not only be more effective,
but remove the problems Russia has with it.
Russia even offered us a radar base to use in their southeastern region,
but of course we turned them down. Which doesn't exactly assuage their
concerns over the ABM system being aimed at them, and not rogue
Mideastern states.
Pat
OM
wrote:
>Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
>Afghanistan.
...Yes, but according to junkies worldwide, the quality of smack
hasn't been this good since before the Soviets invaded the place.
Which just goes to show you that unless it's vodka, communism will
always ruin the quality of recreational consumables :-)
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> sferrin wrote:
>
> > There is no way in hell the KVs have enough cross-range ability to be
> > chasing multiple missiles. They are strictly to go after decoys to
> > raise the odds of killing warheads.
>
> How do you think the Russians are going to view this?
As some horribly complex conspiracy, as they seem to view
*everything.*
They didn't like
> the idea when it was just ten missiles...
And the question is "why."
, and this doesn't help things much.
> We keep pushing them enough on this, and just for the sake of national
> pride they might do something around the time that ABM base starts
> getting built.
Gosh, you're right. They just might build their own tiny little ABM
defense installation. The horror.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast?
> Saudi Arabia.
Who is our Anglo-Saxon friend in Europe?
Britain.
Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 12-21 attack come from?
Britain.
Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
Afghanistan: former British colony
Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot
poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to
eradicate the poppy fields via military means?
Britain.
Time to deal with the Brits, it seems. Along with their toadies the
Canadians. Shifty, weaselly bastards, the lot of 'em.
Jim Davis
> Afghanistan: former British colony
Really? I don't think so.
Jim Davis
eatfastnoodle
> > :
> > :Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
> > :system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
> > :missiles?
> > :Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
> > :interceptor vehicles:
I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
world scenario worth the risk and consequence of pissing off Russia.
US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
tat game? Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
Fred J. McCall
:
:I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
:world scenario worth the risk and consequence of pissing off Russia.
Why does Russia care?
:
:US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
:their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
:tat game?
:
Iran.
:
:Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
:
So what are they so pissed off about, again? That single statement is
a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
:
:US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
:knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
:
And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
missiles. And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
States has given for their deployment.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
immediate future?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
eatfastnoodle
> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
> :world scenario worth the risk and consequence of pissing off Russia.
> :
>
> Why does Russia care?
Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
European countries more tightly to the US.
> :
> :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
> :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
> :tat game?
> :
>
> Iran.
No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
and US were on good terms with each other.
> :
> :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
> :
>
> So what are they so pissed off about, again? That single statement is
> a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
> of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
It's not just military, it's political.
> :
> :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
> :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
> :
>
> And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
> missiles. And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
> States has given for their deployment.
>
> Funny how that works, isn't it?
Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
with far higher success rate.
> So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
> defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
> immediate future?
No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of
terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A
handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody
since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military
action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds
targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that
Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear
response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non-
stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its
threat)
Pat Flannery
scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
> Afghanistan: former British colony
>
>
> Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot
> poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to
> eradicate the poppy fields via military means?
>
> Britain.
>
That's just what Lyndon Larouche said! :-)
http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/Lyndon-LaRouche-Dope-Inc-Britainand39s-Opium-War-Against-the-US-t12932.html
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jim Davis wrote:
>
>
>> Afghanistan: former British colony
>>
>
> Really? I don't think so.
>
Well, at least we tried.
Rudyard Kipling
The Khyber Pass
Scott Dorsey
>Jim Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Afghanistan: former British colony
>>
>> Really? I don't think so.
>
>Well, at least we tried.
Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the
American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Pat Flannery
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
> the Russians and a few others, have all failed.
Including Alexander The Great - that's where he finally said "screw this
noise" and gave up.
Pat
Scott Dorsey
Yeah, the Russians actually tried it three times and they are apparently
considering trying again. At least the British knew when they were beaten.
OM
wrote:
>Including Alexander The Great - that's where he finally said "screw this
>noise" and gave up.
...No, his *men* were the ones who essentially gave up. One of the
rather interesting facts that history teaches us is that when told not
to fraternize with the local women, troops will do exactly wnat
they're not told to do. What Alexander discovered was that when told
*to* mix with the locals, knock their women up and thus make them part
of their people, they had to forced to under point of spear and sword.
This led to much of the dissention that previously had been only
limited to "gee, I wish I was at home spending all this plunder and
maybe seeing mom!" Ergo, when it comes to fracking around with the
local women, the grunts will always do the opposite of what the CO
wants them to do.
...On a side note, there are a few historical pieces that may or may
not be apocryphal, but give another reason as to why Alexander's army
didn't willingly mix with the local women. It basically translates
into their "tasting" and "smelling" too foreign for their tastes.
Considering that bathing in a desert region is a rare luxury, this
should surprise no one :-)
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> >Jim Davis wrote:
>
> >>> Afghanistan: former British colony
>
> >> Really? I don't think so.
>
> >Well, at least we tried.
>
> Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
> the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the
> American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.
In what alternate universe has the US government attempted to colonize
Afghanistan? What I keep heairng people bitch about is how the US is
*ignoring* Afghanistan, and not sending near enough troops there.
Norm De Plume
Lyndon LaRouche was right all along! Stop the world's heroin kingpin,
Queen Elizabeth!
Fred J. McCall
:On Jun 6, 10:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
:> :world scenario worth the risk and consequence of pissing off Russia.
:> :
:>
:> Why does Russia care?
:
:Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
:means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
:European countries more tightly to the US.
:
So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?
:
:>
:> :
:> :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
:> :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
:> :tat game?
:> :
:>
:> Iran.
:
:No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
:and US were on good terms with each other.
:
And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
STILL eat Iranian nukes.
How is that 'better'?
:
:>
:> :
:> :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
:> :
:>
:> So what are they so pissed off about, again? That single statement is
:> a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
:> of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
:>
:
:It's not just military, it's political.
:
Well, DOH!
So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
:
:>
:> :
:> :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
:> :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
:> :
:>
:> And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
:> missiles. And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
:> States has given for their deployment.
:>
:> Funny how that works, isn't it?
:>
:
:Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
:conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
:with far higher success rate.
:
Poppycock.
:
:>
:> So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
:> defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
:> immediate future?
:>
:
:No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of
:terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A
:handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody
:since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military
:action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds
:targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that
:Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear
:response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non-
:stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its
:threat)
:
I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...No, his *men* were the ones who essentially gave up.
That's because they realized that the concept of taking over all of the
world has a real problem if the world is a whole lot bigger than to
thought it is.
They had already gone a lot further than Aristotle had said was the
distance to the shores of the sea that surrounded the world.
Taking on the elephants in India was tough... they kept going the way
they were, and they would have run into the vast areas and armies of China.
Then they would have had a _real_ problem.
Lewis and Clarke accomplished a lot, but did it via a small exploration
team.
Imagine Jefferson sending out a few-thousand-man US army to have a peek
at the Louisiana Purchase, and leading the force himself.
Imagine the Federalists: "Go for it, Tommy, go for it! We'll watch out
for things around here while you're gone...yes, we will." :-D
> rather interesting facts that history teaches us is that when told not
> to fraternize with the local women, troops will do exactly wnat
> they're not told to do. What Alexander discovered was that when told
> *to* mix with the locals, knock their women up and thus make them part
> of their people, they had to forced to under point of spear and sword.
> This led to much of the dissention that previously had been only
> limited to "gee, I wish I was at home spending all this plunder and
> maybe seeing mom!" Ergo, when it comes to fracking around with the
> local women, the grunts will always do the opposite of what the CO
> wants them to do.
>
> ...On a side note, there are a few historical pieces that may or may
> not be apocryphal, but give another reason as to why Alexander's army
> didn't willingly mix with the local women. It basically translates
> into their "tasting" and "smelling" too foreign for their tastes.
> Considering that bathing in a desert region is a rare luxury, this
> should surprise no one :-)
>
That's just what they said about Jefferson...but Alexander had his
Roxanne, and TJ had his Sally Hemmings.
The strange sexual lure of exotic women.
Which makes perfect sense from a sociobiological point of view - the
wider the differences between the genetics of the two parents, the more
likely their offspring are to embody "Hybrid Fervor" - the canceling out
of most of the weak points of the two parent's recessive genetic traits,
while reinforcing the strong genetic traits.
Which shows you how just how head-in-the-ass the Nazi concept of "pure
blood" was.
They not only got it wrong...they got it _180 degrees wrong_ from a
genetic point of view.
Surprisingly, this was enforced by the mad chicken breeder - Heinrich
Himmler... who was pretty slight in stature, and wore glasses.
A classic case of "The blind leading the inbred chickens".
Now, if he had imported Haitian roosters that would have been mounting
his Aryan hens on a regular basis, the whole SS might have been avoided,
and he'd have been heavy into jazz music.
Well, at least that's my take on things. :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In what alternate universe has the US government attempted to colonize
> Afghanistan?
We're working on it as "Phase 2".
I'd write more, but no one has told me what to write yet.
Dubya
> What I keep heairng people bitch about is how the US is
> *ignoring* Afghanistan, and not sending near enough troops there.
>
As for Iraq, it's on the front burner as "Phase 1":
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/366109_pacted.html
David Addington has found a legal precedent for this in medieval Viking
law; right between the section involving trial by combat with live
weasels as weapons, and the one about gargling with a live viper for
insulting King Harold's B.O.
The guy's a fukin' legal shark!
If he was any sharper, I'd use sandpaper to dull down his brain a
bit....just on general principles. :-)
Dick
Pat Flannery
Norm De Plume wrote:
> Lyndon LaRouche was right all along! Stop the world's heroin kingpin,
> Queen Elizabeth!
>
This is a complete non-sequitur, but do you think that singing all those
blues songs eventually got him morbidly depressed?:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/sean_costello_1979_2008/Content?oid=492999
I mean, you do that year-in-and-out, and it's bound to have a profound
effect on your overall world-view.
When is the last time you heard of a bubblegum rocker dieing of a drug
overdose?
Pat
eatfastnoodle
> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Jun 6, 10:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
> :> :world scenario worth the risk and consequence of pissing off Russia.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Why does Russia care?
> :
> :Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
> :means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
> :European countries more tightly to the US.
> :
>
> So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?
Second,
They are not whining, they are actively creating problems for you. In
case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
> :> :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
> :> :tat game?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Iran.
> :
> :No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
> :and US were on good terms with each other.
> :
>
> And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
> STILL eat Iranian nukes.
>
> How is that 'better'?
It's better because if you don't piss off Russia, you may have one
more ally on your side.
OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
wait and see what result you will get.
Pat Flannery
eatfastnoodle wrote:
> OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
> wait and see what result you will get.
>
I completely agree.
President Mahmoud Ahmed...Amhed...Ahmad...
Oh, hell.... even I can't spell it, much less pronounce it.
Anyway, I'm the big cheese in Tehran who doesn't like Jews.
What's-His-Name
Tehran
Light of the Aryans and all that stuff.
Fred J. McCall
:On Jun 7, 10:56 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On Jun 6, 10:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
:> :> :world scenario worth the risk and consequence of pissing off Russia.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Why does Russia care?
:> :
:> :Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
:> :means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
:> :European countries more tightly to the US.
:> :
:>
:> So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?
:
:First, you need to read between lines.
:
Translation: You need to make things up that fit with your ideology.
:Second,
:They are not whining, they are actively creating problems for you. In
:case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.
In case you haven't noticed, Russia is pretty irrelevant to all that.
:
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
:> :> :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
:> :> :tat game?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Iran.
:> :
:> :No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
:> :and US were on good terms with each other.
:> :
:>
:> And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
:> STILL eat Iranian nukes.
:>
:> How is that 'better'?
:
:It's better because if you don't piss off Russia, you may have one
:more ally on your side.
And you may not (and probably won't). So your view is it's better to
make it EASY for the other side to nuke you.
Your view isn't very bright.
:
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
You Chinese shills are SO funny! As if China isn't spending any money
"in pursuit of 'security'"...
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
eatfastnoodle
go ahead, deploy your useless ABM. Better, invade Iran, let's see who
get the last laugh.
Rand Simberg
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>Jim Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Afghanistan: former British colony
>>>
>>> Really? I don't think so.
>>
>>Well, at least we tried.
>
>Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
>the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the
>American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.
You would think that you would have noticed that the American
government isn't trying to colonize Afghanistan, but apparently not.
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>thom...@flash.net wrote:
>>> Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
>>> interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.x...
>>>
>>
>> It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
>> GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
>> possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
>> and other penaids.
>>
>
>The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
>to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
>the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
>your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
>to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
>in short order.
Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
and decoy to a missile.
<rolling eyes>
Rand Simberg
>
>
>sferrin wrote:
>>
>> There is no way in hell the KVs have enough cross-range ability to be
>> chasing multiple missiles. They are strictly to go after decoys to
>> raise the odds of killing warheads.
>>
>
>How do you think the Russians are going to view this? They didn't like
>the idea when it was just ten missiles, and this doesn't help things much.
>We keep pushing them enough on this, and just for the sake of national
>pride they might do something around the time that ABM base starts
>getting built.
>People say: "Oh, what will they do? This is no threat to
>them."....without remembering that the Soviets had no idea that we were
>going to go completely bonkers when we found out that they were
>installing nuclear missiles in Cuba.
This is an idiotic analogy. We are not installing nuclear missiles in
Poland.
Fred J. McCall
:On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:
Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Pat Flannery
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
> :On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
> :Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> :such a way as to indicate that:
> :>
> :>thom...@flash.net wrote:
> :>>> Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
> :>>> interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.x...
> :>>>
> :>>
> :>> It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
> :>> GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
> :>> possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
> :>> and other penaids.
> :>>
> :>
> :>The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
> :>to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
> :>the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
> :>your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
> :>to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
> :>in short order.
> :
> :Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
> :and decoy to a missile.
>
Decoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
of the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
around a couple of pounds each.
Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.
This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
high in space on their way to the US.
Which brings me right back to the statement I made several postings ago:
If Europe wants to be defended from missile attack from those possible
enemies by a US ABM system...then let Europe _buy_ that ABM system from
us... at cost, or even at a profit to us.
...or build their own ABM defense, letting Russia get pissed at them,
not us.
*These are called "Witch's Hats" BTW.
Pat
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:>
:> :On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:> :Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:> :such a way as to indicate that:
:> :>
:> :>thom...@flash.net wrote:
:> :>>> Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
:> :>>> interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw060208p1.x...
:> :>>>
:> :>>
:> :>> It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
:> :>> GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
:> :>> possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
:> :>> and other penaids.
:> :>>
:> :>
:> :>The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
:> :>to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
:> :>the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
:> :>your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
:> :>to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
:> :>in short order.
:> :
:> :Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
:> :and decoy to a missile.
:>
Please don't snip everything I wrote and then leave me at the top of
the attributions.
:
:Decoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
:of the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
:thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
:You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
:around a couple of pounds each.
Wrong.
:Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
:warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
:could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
:making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
:deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.
Absolute poppycock!
:This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
:at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
:not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
:high in space on their way to the US.
Which will probably be before any dispense, which means there are no
decoys to shoot at.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Pat Flannery
Give me a citation on that.
> :Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
> :warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
> :could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
> :making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
> :deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.
>
> Absolute poppycock!
>
Again, citation.
> :This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
> :at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
> :not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
> :high in space on their way to the US.
>
> Which will probably be before any dispense, which means there are no
> decoys to shoot at.
>
>
The warheads dispense from the warhead assembly shortly after the
carrier bus gets into space - as it requires a lot less energy to fling
them in the correct directions for accurate target impact (over a
several hundred mile impact radius) at that point in the trajectory than
from the bus reentry point when it nears the target.
Once free, they can still modify their reentry course over a limited
area, but that at least gets them into the approximately right reentry
trajectory.
BTW, this is kind of fun: the present W-87 Minuteman III warheads have
three different settings for the weather over the impact site; clear
weather, rain, or snow. The warhead modifies its descent trajectory to
match the latest reported meteorological conditions over the target, and
tries to hit the target with as close as possible to a zero position
error as possible by being programmed to pass through the last 30,000
feet of atmosphere as it comes in in the correct manner as far as
trajectory and drag goes.
That generally brings it down within a city block of the target....oddly
enough, with a thermonuclear warhead that has a yield of around fifteen
times as much as the one that fell on Hiroshima, that miss distance
isn't exactly critical, to put it mildly. :-)
Pat
Fred J. McCall
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Sep/Future_Anti-Missile.htm
"Among the technologies sought by the Navy is a two-color seeker for
the SM-3. A two-color seeker combines the information from two
different wavebands of the infrared spectrum to perform RV-decoy
discrimination."
Note that this is an old article and I believe that such 2-color IR
seekers are already out there.
"On 14 October 2002, a ground based interceptor launched from the
Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Site destroyed a mock warhead
225 km above the Pacific. The test included three decoy balloons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense#cite_note-2
See also anything about test IFT-8 (for example).
:
:>
:> :
:> :Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
:> :warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
:> :could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
:> :making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
:> :deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.
:>
:> Absolute poppycock!
:>
:Again, citation.
Simple physics, Pat. Just because the vehicle can lift the weight
doesn't mean you can stuff just anything in there. Think 'volume
limited'. You can't just inflate these things easily on orbit.
:> :This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
:> :at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
:> :not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
:> :high in space on their way to the US.
:>
:> Which will probably be before any dispense, which means there are no
:> decoys to shoot at.
:>
:
:The warheads dispense from the warhead assembly shortly after the
:carrier bus gets into space - as it requires a lot less energy to fling
:them in the correct directions for accurate target impact (over a
:several hundred mile impact radius) at that point in the trajectory than
:from the bus reentry point when it nears the target.
But doing it too early decreases accuracy. This also isn't an
instantaneous process. Typically RV bussing won't start until some 6
minutes or so into the flight and will take several minutes to
accomplish.
http://www.missilethreat.com/repository/doclib/19840400-OTA-directedenergy.pdf
If you look at the flight profile shown at the start of Section 2 and
superimpose it on a map, you'll see that Poland is pretty much a good
place to catch Iranian weapons prior to bussing.
--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Eric Chomko
> On 6 Jun 2008 11:48:46 -0400, in a place far, far away,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>Jim Davis wrote:
>
> >>>> Afghanistan: former British colony
>
> >>> Really? I don't think so.
>
> >>Well, at least we tried.
>
> >Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
> >the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the
> >American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.
>
> You would think that you would have noticed that the American
> government isn't trying to colonize Afghanistan, but apparently not.
What exactly does the American government want from Afghanistan?
Eric Chomko
> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
> :wait and see what result you will get.
>
> You Chinese shills are SO funny! As if China isn't spending any money
> "in pursuit of 'security'"...
>
Chinese shill? Great work, McClod, you outted another spook. But
doesn't it take one to know one? I mean aren't you an American shill?
Eric
Scott Hedrick
"eatfastnoodle" <d12s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a328aa6-9054-4738...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>In case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.
Who's "US"? The *United States* is in great shape. If it weren't, then there
wouldn't be so many people trying to get here.
The real problem is that the rest of the world is too pathetic to actually
*do* anything when necessary, and is therefore embarassed that the United
States took on the responsibility.
> So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
> how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
Because *they* are giving missiles, or at least missile technology, to Iran.
If the US were doing it, then they'd have to be intended to stop OUR
missiles. Duh.
> :Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
> :conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
> :with far higher success rate.
> :
>
> Poppycock.
The Russians seem to think so.
> I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
> irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
Don't confuse the leadership of Iran with the Iranian people. Unfortunately,
the Iranian people have very little power over their leaders.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Scott Hedrick
>go ahead, deploy your useless ABM.
If it's so useless, why the fuss?
>Better, invade Iran, let's see who
get the last laugh.
Go ahead.
Fred J. McCall
You've confused your attributions. Most of what you show
'eatfastnoodle' above is actually what *I* wrote.
:
:"eatfastnoodle" <d12s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
:news:2a328aa6-9054-4738...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
:>In case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.
:
:Who's "US"? The *United States* is in great shape. If it weren't, then there
:wouldn't be so many people trying to get here.
:
:The real problem is that the rest of the world is too pathetic to actually
:*do* anything when necessary, and is therefore embarassed that the United
:States took on the responsibility.
:
:> So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
:> how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
:
:Because *they* are giving missiles, or at least missile technology, to Iran.
:If the US were doing it, then they'd have to be intended to stop OUR
:missiles. Duh.
:
This is a piece of illogic which I shan't even bother with.
Duh.
:> :Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
:> :conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
:> :with far higher success rate.
:> :
:>
:> Poppycock.
:
:The Russians seem to think so.
:
It wouldn't be the first time the Russians were wrong.
Do you have any idea of what the actual reliability rate of ICBMs is?
:> I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
:> irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
:
:Don't confuse the leadership of Iran with the Iranian people. Unfortunately,
:the Iranian people have very little power over their leaders.
:
I'm not confusing anything. The Iranian leadership will control the
weapons. They're the irrational ones that people keep calling on us
to assume will suddenly act rationally once they actually have their
hands on nuclear weapons.
Alan Jones
nothing. The Bush Administration wants a clear and complete political
victory. I guess that means they want Bin Laden, and every man,
women, child, and doggie associated with Al quida, including those who
only inadvertency harbor or support them, Saudi Royal Family excepted
of course.
Eric Chomko
> "eatfastnoodle" <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2a328aa6-9054-4738...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >In case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.
>
> Who's "US"? The *United States* is in great shape. If it weren't, then there
> wouldn't be so many people trying to get here.
Great shape? No. But we aren't ready to go down the tubes either.
>
> The real problem is that the rest of the world is too pathetic to actually
> *do* anything when necessary, and is therefore embarassed that the United
> States took on the responsibility.
No Scott, we take what we want and others don't like it. We don't need
to police the world.
>
> > So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
> > how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
>
> Because *they* are giving missiles, or at least missile technology, to Iran.
> If the US were doing it, then they'd have to be intended to stop OUR
> missiles. Duh.
>
> > :Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
> > :conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
> > :with far higher success rate.
> > :
>
> > Poppycock.
>
> The Russians seem to think so.
>
> > I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
> > irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
>
> Don't confuse the leadership of Iran with the Iranian people. Unfortunately,
> the Iranian people have very little power over their leaders.
>
We don't seem to do well in that regard either, I cite the Bush
administration as my example.
Don't tell me YOU think Bush is doing a great job and that we just
don't understand real politics. Go ahead defend Bush, I dare you.
Eric
Eric Chomko
> "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You've confused your attributions. Most of what you show
> 'eatfastnoodle' above is actually what *I* wrote.
Well it seems that you two are shills but simply from different
countries, so Scott wasn't THAT far off.
>
> ::"eatfastnoodle" <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> :news:2a328aa6-9054-4738...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> :>In case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.
> :
> :Who's "US"? The *United States* is in great shape. If it weren't, then there
> :wouldn't be so many people trying to get here.
> :
> :The real problem is that the rest of the world is too pathetic to actually
> :*do* anything when necessary, and is therefore embarassed that the United
> :States took on the responsibility.
> :
> :> So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
> :> how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
> :
> :Because *they* are giving missiles, or at least missile technology, to Iran.
> :If the US were doing it, then they'd have to be intended to stop OUR
> :missiles. Duh.
> :
>
> This is a piece of illogic which I shan't even bother with.
>
Why not? You are really good at illogic.
> Duh.
>
> :> :Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
> :> :conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
> :> :with far higher success rate.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poppycock.
> :
> :The Russians seem to think so.
> :
>
> It wouldn't be the first time the Russians were wrong.
>
> Do you have any idea of what the actual reliability rate of ICBMs is?
And you do? What is your sample set for actual results? Do you even
have one?
> :> I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
> :> irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
> :
> :Don't confuse the leadership of Iran with the Iranian people. Unfortunately,
> :the Iranian people have very little power over their leaders.
> :
>
> I'm not confusing anything. The Iranian leadership will control the
> weapons. They're the irrational ones that people keep calling on us
> to assume will suddenly act rationally once they actually have their
> hands on nuclear weapons.
But we know where their country is unlike a loose affiliation of
radicals that have no country.
They mess with us "bamm" they are gone...
Can't really do that when they don't have nukes.
Funny how you 2nd Amendment types can't grasp why another country
wants nukes.
Eric
sferrin
wrote:
Don't worry guys. When Barak Hussein gets in the White House the
first thing he'll do is make sure the US runs home from the middle
east with it's tail between it's legs so the liberal left will feel
good about themselves once again.
Pat Flannery
sferrin wrote:
> Don't worry guys. When Barak Hussein gets in the White House the
> first thing he'll do is make sure the US runs home from the middle
> east with it's tail between it's legs so the liberal left will feel
> good about themselves once again.
>
Yeah, look what happened when we ran out of Vietnam with our tails
between our legs...the Vietnamese were so awestruck by those B-52s that
they are now buying Boeing airliners from us:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q4/071001a_nr.html
And we are their largest trading partner:
http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/IB98033
One major export is wood products... you know, like dominoes are made
out of. :-)
Pat
Neil Gerace
> Yeah, look what happened when we ran out of Vietnam with our tails
> between our legs...the Vietnamese were so awestruck by those B-52s that
> they are now buying Boeing airliners from us:http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q4/071001a_nr.html
They're caught between Scylla and Charybdis on that one - it's either
you or France :)
OM
wrote:
>Yeah, look what happened when we ran out of Vietnam with our tails
>between our legs...the Vietnamese were so awestruck by those B-52s that
>they are now buying Boeing airliners from us:
...One of my high school buddies was one of the refugees whose father
helped push choppers off the deck of that aircraft carrier so they
could get out after Saigon fell. He went back to Vietnam for the first
time since he was 13, and from what the surviving members of his
family who couldn't get out say, within 10 years time the only ones
practicing any form of communism will be whoever's running the
government. Black market capitalism over there is so open turned a
blind eye to these days that it's almost unheard of for anyone to get
busted for it. Apparently there's one or two old followers left over
from Uncle Ho's trouncing of the French who go a little senile every
now and then and go off looking for insurrectionists to reeducate, but
they're apparently accompanied by guards whose jobs are to arrest
whoever the old poozers start yelling at, take them around to the back
of the building, tell them to go visit a relative in another town for
a day or so, and then forget the whole mess ever happened.
And if you think those whackjobs are bad? He says there's one who
still tries to get funds appropriated for VC tunnel maintainance!
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Pat Flannery
Neil Gerace wrote:
>
>> Yeah, look what happened when we ran out of Vietnam with our tails
>> between our legs...the Vietnamese were so awestruck by those B-52s that
>> they are now buying Boeing airliners from us:http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q4/071001a_nr.html
>>
>
> They're caught between Scylla and Charybdis on that one - it's either
> you or France :)
>
Not the first time they run into that combo of nations in regards to
their national policy.
I always got a kick out of how the right wing went berserk (they do that
a lot these days) about how cowardly the French were about not going
into Iraq with us.
Having, like Vietnam, been in the place once before, they probably
realized what we were about to run into.
What I need is some sort of a Muqtada al-Sadr real-time update service,
so I can tell if he's our friend or foe at any given moment. ;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...One of my high school buddies was one of the refugees whose father
> helped push choppers off the deck of that aircraft carrier so they
> could get out after Saigon fell. He went back to Vietnam for the first
> time since he was 13, and from what the surviving members of his
> family who couldn't get out say, within 10 years time the only ones
> practicing any form of communism will be whoever's running the
> government.
I alway liked what happened to the Viet Cong after North Vietnam took
over the place; expecting to be honored as heroes, they were instead
pretty much decimated...far too dangerous to have a group of skilled
revolutionaries operating in a newly communist country.
> Black market capitalism over there is so open turned a
> blind eye to these days that it's almost unheard of for anyone to get
> busted for it. Apparently there's one or two old followers left over
> from Uncle Ho's trouncing of the French who go a little senile every
> now and then and go off looking for insurrectionists to reeducate, but
> they're apparently accompanied by guards whose jobs are to arrest
> whoever the old poozers start yelling at, take them around to the back
> of the building, tell them to go visit a relative in another town for
> a day or so, and then forget the whole mess ever happened.
>
> And if you think those whackjobs are bad? He says there's one who
> still tries to get funds appropriated for VC tunnel maintainance!
>
I talked to a Vietnam vet who got into one of their major tunnel
underground storage depots after returning to the country recently, and
was frankly awestruck by the size of the place. You go down a hidden
hatch in the jungle, and next thing you know, you are in something
around the size of WalMart.
Apparently they learned a lot of tunnel-making techniques from the
Japanese during WW II, and promptly put them to good use against both
the French and US.
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>Neil Gerace wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, look what happened when we ran out of Vietnam with our tails
>>> between our legs...the Vietnamese were so awestruck by those B-52s that
>>> they are now buying Boeing airliners from us:http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q4/071001a_nr.html
>>>
>>
>> They're caught between Scylla and Charybdis on that one - it's either
>> you or France :)
>>
>
>Not the first time they run into that combo of nations in regards to
>their national policy.
>I always got a kick out of how the right wing went berserk (they do that
>a lot these days) about how cowardly the French were about not going
>into Iraq with us.
And we love how you fantasize about history.
OM
wrote:
>I talked to a Vietnam vet who got into one of their major tunnel
>underground storage depots after returning to the country recently, and
>was frankly awestruck by the size of the place. You go down a hidden
>hatch in the jungle, and next thing you know, you are in something
>around the size of WalMart.
...Funny you should mention that. Apparently the current Vietnam
government has been negotiating with the Andromeda Strain of the
retail business, and one of the proposals was to put the first
Wal-Mart as an underground complex! I have no idea how far this has
progressed, but at least if we have to finally go back over there and
take the place back our troops will have a place to shop besides the
PX. And probably cheaper, too :-)
...On a side note, Pat, I assume you've read Marvel's "The Nam",
right? I've been thinking about "Fudd" Verzyl during this whole thread
:-)
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>And we love how you fantasize about history.
...What? The Frogs aren't cowards? Jeez, Rand...read your history and
do the math. 92% of the genes related to survival via courage were
eradicated during the Napoleonic Wars, and the other 8% has been
diluted or eradicated ever since. The most final, crippling blow came
from deaths on the Maginot Line that occurred before the boys had a
chance to reproduce, and the Third Reich further decimated that during
the occupation. Which is why the French Resistance had to import their
saboteurs from Stalin! Right now, there's probably less than 1/100th
of a percent of the population of France that has anything resembling
chutzpah, much less the ability to consider taking any risks greater
than trying out a new wine, or a new sauce for their escargot. The
concept of a Frog having any guts about them died with DeGaulle.
Rand Simberg
<om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:31:26 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>And we love how you fantasize about history.
>
>...What? The Frogs aren't cowards?
No, I didn't say that. But whether they are or not isn't relevant.
He's rewriting the history of how "the right wing went berserk about
how cowardly the French were about not going into Iraq with us."
First of all, I didn't notice the "right wing" (whatever that means--I
think it's just people who disagree with Pat) "go berserk" at all.
And the reason that the "right wing" as well as people like me, were
upset at the French wasn't because they were cowards, but because they
were on Saddam's payroll, and heavily involved in the Oil for
Palaces^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFood program. It was about the corruption, not
the cowardice.
But Pat will be Pat.
Eric Chomko
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:42:37 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
> <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >Simberg) wrote:
>
> >>And we love how you fantasize about history.
>
> >...What? The Frogs aren't cowards?
>
> No, I didn't say that. But whether they are or not isn't relevant.
>
> He's rewriting the history of how "the right wing went berserk about
> how cowardly the French were about not going into Iraq with us."
Rand, the conservatve Republican congress at the time seriously
considered changing the name of "French fries" to "Freedom fries" in
the congressional cafeteria at the time. The media got wind of this
suggestion and ran with it. So much for a liberal media...
>
> First of all, I didn't notice the "right wing" (whatever that means--I
> think it's just people who disagree with Pat) "go berserk" at all.
Uh no, Pat was specifially talking about the conservatives of the
time.
In case you didn't know, conservative = right-wing, liberal = left-
wing.
> And the reason that the "right wing" as well as people like me,
About damn time you admitted it!
> were upset at the French wasn't because they were cowards, but because they
> were on Saddam's payroll, and heavily involved in the Oil for
> Palaces^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFood program. It was about the corruption, not
> the cowardice.
>
Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt. Where are
you with that?
Are you selective with your citation of corruption? It would apper so.
> But Pat will be Pat.
And Rand will be Rand. Now what?
Eric
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...On a side note, Pat, I assume you've read Marvel's "The Nam",
> right? I've been thinking about "Fudd" Verzyl during this whole thread
> :-)
>
I think I read my last DC or Marvel comic back around 1970.
When I was reading X-Men, there was no Wolverine in it.
Since then, about the only ones I've read are Gonick's "Illustrated
History Of The Universe" ones.
Speaking of comic book-like stuff, last night a friend and I went to see
the new Indiana Jones film, although it was good, it wasn't as good as
Iron Man.
What was interesting though was this strange music video that the
National Guard had before the film, which was some sort of recruiting tool.
This was reminiscent of some sort of recruiting drive out of the movie
"Starship Troopers" and full of blood and thunder.
I didn't realize it was the National Guard that stormed the beaches at
Normandy.
Anyway, the music video seems to promise you that if you join the
National Guard, you'll get to see a lot of action indeed, sort of like
that strike on Klendathu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRthpxDM10
If you are lucky, you can even become a prisoner of the enemy, with your
very own thousand-yard-stare while you are being rescued by your Guard
compatriots.
The call to shoot Redcoats is interesting from the viewpoint of the
US-UK alliance in the War On Bugs...excuse me...War On Terror.
Anyway, after seeing what that video promises for my National Guard
experience, I'd be as likely to cuddle a cobra as join the Guard. :-D
Pat
Scott Hedrick
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:GcudndcTQpaaI8zV...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> Speaking of comic book-like stuff, last night a friend and I went to see
> the new Indiana Jones film, although it was good, it wasn't as good as
> Iron Man.
Haven't seen it yet, but some of the early scenes were filmed a short
distance from my property in New Mexico. You get north of the hills to the
north of Deming, and the biggest giveaway that you aren't in the 1940s are
the modern highway signs. There's even some old electric lines with glass
insulators running next to the railroad.
> Anyway, the music video seems to promise you that if you join the National
> Guard, you'll get to see a lot of action indeed, sort of like that strike
> on Klendathu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRthpxDM10
"The National Guard made me the man I am today!" OM, is that you?
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:31:26 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
> Simberg) wrote:
>
>
>> And we love how you fantasize about history.
>>
>
> ...What? The Frogs aren't cowards?
If they were cowards, then we'd all be singing "God Save The Queen"
before baseball...excuse me...cricket....games - as without their help
in both a military and financial sense in our war of independence
against Britain it would have been very unlikely that we would have won.
One of the major causes of the French revolution in 1789 was the fact
that their monarchy went pretty much bankrupt by financing the American
revolution.
Pat
Neil Gerace
> If they were cowards, then we'd all be singing "God Save The Queen"
> before baseball...excuse me...cricket....games - as without their help
> in both a military and financial sense in our war of independence
> against Britain it would have been very unlikely that we would have won.
Without a domestic nobility, cricket would never have gained a popular
following in the USA even had they lost the war, I think. AFAIK
cricket, as played then, required people who didn't have to work for a
living. Because only they had five days to spare to play a game.
Baseball, being all over in a few hours, was a Sunday afternoon game
for working people, IIRC. The same was true in England. The idle rich
(or professional players) played cricket, the rest played other games
including ancestors and cousins of baseball.
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
> Haven't seen it yet, but some of the early scenes were filmed a short
> distance from my property in New Mexico. You get north of the hills to the
> north of Deming, and the biggest giveaway that you aren't in the 1940s are
> the modern highway signs. There's even some old electric lines with glass
> insulators running next to the railroad.
>
Oh we've got hundreds of the old glass insulators inside of our town
itself, much less outside of it.
Other than the fact of some very strange editing slips in regards to the
story, the big problem is that you want more Indiana, Marion Ravenwood,
or especially Dr. Irina Spalko in the movie.
In the first and third movies, both the main and secondary characters
were beautifully delineated (I'm not going to mention "Temple Of Doom"
as like the three Star Wars prequels, it does not exist.)
The only semi-fully-realized character in the movie is Mutt,...and
frankly you would like to know more about him as well.
Spalko is a very odd person, and you'd like to see her as being as
complex as Beloqq, cryptic as Katanga, or as lovable as Sallah in the
first one.
What was great in the first one in particular was that you could see
those characters on-screen for only a small period of time, and already
figure out exactly the sort of person they were, and figure out exactly
how they'd react to any situation they were thrown into in any sort of a
future movie that involved them.
That's superb writing.
...and this one doesn't have it.
The "Young Indiana Jones" television series did have that; and the
original idea for "Crystal Skull" was from the unfilmed future episodes
of those shows when Indiana gets involved in a archaeological quest for
the origin of the crystal skulls in South America... to run into another
young archaeologist named Beloqq for the first time.
That would have been great, and given a real edge to the words: "Once
again, Dr. Jones you see that there is nothing that you can find that I
cannot take from you".
>> Anyway, the music video seems to promise you that if you join the National
>> Guard, you'll get to see a lot of action indeed, sort of like that strike
>> on Klendathu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRthpxDM10
>>
>
> "The National Guard made me the man I am today!" OM, is that you?
>
After a IED maybe.
But don't worry... they're going to stick a cybernetic lower leg on him,
and get him from teaching a foul-mouthed civics class to leading a
trans-atmospheric mobile infantry attack on Iran.
They won't be expecting that.
Believe me, they won't.
"You are a agent of the Great Satan that is America!"
"Yes, I am.
"Now...let's examine the precise relationship between your uncle's
rotting penis and how his syphilitic blindness caused him to hit the
wrong hole on your mother's rear nine months before you were born."
Of yes, this would be worth hearing. :-D
"Did he say that I masturbate camel semen from my penis by camels using
their mouths after they are dipped in pork grease?"
"No, of course not... he said that you masturbate camel semen into your
mouth after your lips are coated in pork grease."
"Oh...okay... for a second there I thought he was insulting me."
Pat
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> What I need is some sort of a Muqtada al-Sadr real-time update
> service, so I can tell if he's our friend or foe at any given moment. ;-)
He's our enemy again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4134498.ece
Would someone just shoot this dolt...please?
Pat
Dr J R Stockton
000hse.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:52:41, Neil Gerace
<ger...@webace.com.au> posted:
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket#Playing_time>.
Most cricket is played in one-day matches; only top-level cricket uses
five days. A village cricket match, often starting late on a Saturday
morning, allows time for some work to be done beforehand - tending to
the animals, for example. And, while traditional farming is very
labour-intensive at harvest-time, it is less so in the growing season.
Cricket did have a reputation of being a game for gentlemen, of the
upper, middle, and working classes : perhaps America had an inadequate
supply even then. OTOH, a land originally peopled (aboriginals apart)
by convicts does have an annoying habit of winning its games.
For an amusing Antipodean cricket match nominally of about the present
day, read "The Fixed Period", chapter 5.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
thom...@flash.net
He may act doltish to our way of seeing things, but I'm not at all
sure he's a dolt in his context. He's continued to be a player for a
good while and shows no sign of waning.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> On Jun 12, 1:06 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> wrote:
> > He's rewriting the history of how "the right wing went berserk about
> > how cowardly the French were about not going into Iraq with us."
>
> Rand, the conservatve Republican congress at the time seriously
> considered changing the name of "French fries" to "Freedom fries" in
> the congressional cafeteria at the time.
So there were only two conservative Republicans in Congress at the
time?
The media got wind of this
> suggestion and ran with it. So much for a liberal media...
Indeed. They ran with it so much that some people who cannot be
bothered to actually do the slightest bit of research now think that
there was a major move in Congress to rename French Fries to Freedom
Fries, rather than two Representatives just doing it on a whim.
So, yeah, the liberal media strikes again.
>
> > were upset at the French wasn't because they were cowards, but because they
> > were on Saddam's payroll, and heavily involved in the Oil for
> > Palaces^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFood program. It was about the corruption, not
> > the cowardice.
>
> Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.
Let us know when that actually happens:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141
"
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
information.”
"
OM
>Indeed. They ran with it so much that some people who cannot be
>bothered to actually do the slightest bit of research now think that
>there was a major move in Congress to rename French Fries to Freedom
>Fries, rather than two Representatives just doing it on a whim.
...Actually, most political analyists agree that what derailed the
proposal was the media's hyping the fact that French Fries weren't
invented by the Frogs, but by the Belgians. Even though it didn't
exonerate the Frogs for being a bunch of chickenshit cowards with
yellow stains up their collective backs, it still sort of defused the
whole fry-renaming thing.
OM
>> Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.
>
>Let us know when that actually happens:
...And to be totally blunt about it, even if Saddam didn't have any of
the WMDs stockpiled we claim he had, the bastard still asked for what
happened to him. The only mistake made was stopping short of achieving
this a decade earlier following the Hundred-Hour War.
OM
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Cricket did have a reputation of being a game for gentlemen, of the
>upper, middle, and working classes
...And Time Lords.
OM
<ger...@webace.com.au> wrote:
>Baseball, being all over in a few hours, was a Sunday afternoon game
>for working people, IIRC.
,,,Actually, Baseball is played pretty much any day of the week, with
something like 180 games played by each team per season. In the 1920s
thru the 1940s, for Major League teams located in the really big
cities - New York, Chicago and to some extent Boston and DC - it was
not uncommon for an employer to allow his employess an occasional
afternoon off to see a game. Especially if they also got the boss a
ticket to come along! This couldn't happen every game, or no business
would get done, but enough businesses had enough fans to where teams
could get a fair amount of seats filled for each game during the week.
The only real problems from what I've been able to gather happened
when the Yankees played the Brooklyn Dodgers, because *everyone*
wanted off in order to see "Dem Bums" play one another.
...This sort of support sort ot tapered off starting in the 1950s,
with Baseball being televised for the first time. Radio had always
been an option, but TV showed you the actual pitch, hit and crowds
cheering as opposed to the possibility that the sounds you heard were
mechanically reproduced. And if your boss allowed a TV in the office,
you could watch the game, keep working somewhat, and save yourself the
price of a ticket, popcorn, beer and hot dog.
...But Baseball being a five-day game? Could you see today's
overpriced steroid-addicted drug thugs playing for more than five
*innings*? Hey, when it comes to long games, Cricket holds the crown
on that scam, uncontested!
Dale Carlson
>On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
>generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
>
>On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
>laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
>intelligence information.”
>
>On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
>information.”
That "intelligence information" turned out to be false. Not that I'm
blaming anybody.... :)
Dale
Dale Carlson
>> Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.
>
>Let us know when that actually happens:
>
>http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141
>
>"
>On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
>generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
>
>On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
>laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
>intelligence information.”
>
>On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
>information.”
>"
I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?
Many, many people have died and a great deal of our national treasury
has been depleted by all of this. I'd like to think that had I been
president, and I'd presided over such an event, I'd at least have the
courage to take responsibility. Not that your are speaking for the
president, of course. But you certainly seem to be trying to evade
responsibilty on his behalf. I guess you don't expect much from him.
Sad.
Dale
Rand Simberg
Carlson <d...@oz.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "scottl...@ix.netcom.com"
><scottl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.
>>
>>Let us know when that actually happens:
>>
>>http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141
>>
>>"
>>On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
>>generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
>>
>>On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
>>laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
>>intelligence information.”
>>
>>On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
>>information.”
>>"
>
>I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
>I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
>because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
>I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?
Actually, he had simply kept an incompetent intelligence community
"assembled" by the previous president. Which I thought was a bad idea
at the time, but I don't recall many others criticizing him for it.
Tenant was a Clinton appointee.
Dale Carlson
Simberg) wrote:
>>I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
>>I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
>>because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
>>I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?
>
>Actually, he had simply kept an incompetent intelligence community
>"assembled" by the previous president. Which I thought was a bad idea
>at the time, but I don't recall many others criticizing him for it.
>Tenant was a Clinton appointee.
OK, I'll assume that's entirely true. But it's still not an excuse.
Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.
We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
Obama prove to be so incompetent... well, I may not volunteer that
fact here, but I promise to acknowledge it when and if you should
rightly point it out :)
Dale
Hoping the need doesn't arise :)
Neil Gerace
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:52:41 -0700 (PDT), Neil Gerace
>
> >Baseball, being all over in a few hours, was a Sunday afternoon game
> >for working people, IIRC.
>
> ,,,Actually, Baseball is played pretty much any day of the week, with
> something like 180 games played by each team per season.
I was talking about when baseball was workers' recreation and players
had to work for a living - six days a week. Thanks for the history
lesson (snipped) though.
> ...But Baseball being a five-day game? Could you see today's
> overpriced steroid-addicted drug thugs playing for more than five
> *innings*? Hey, when it comes to long games, Cricket holds the crown
> on that scam, uncontested!
The recent innovation of Twenty20 cricket (20 overs per side, even
shorter than one-dayers) is renewing interest in the game in places
like India and I think the West Indies too.
Pat Flannery
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> Cricket did have a reputation of being a game for gentlemen, of the
> upper, middle, and working classes : perhaps America had an inadequate
> supply even then. OTOH, a land originally peopled (aboriginals apart)
> by convicts does have an annoying habit of winning its games.
>
I still remember Sadu, our friend from India, explaining the basic
concept of cricket to our "Distressed Gentlefolk's Wine Appreciation
and Free-Thought Society":
"Gentlemen, you must understand that this game is not about winning or
losing...it is about _drinking_. If the sun sets while the game is going
on, it's a tie."
We immediately fully supported the concept of the game, particularly
since we tended to start any games at around 7 PM, after the barbecue
was over - and any bad feeling about winning or losing teams could be
completely avoided in this manner.
We never were able to get the DGWA & FS cricket team going though, due
to the lack of any ready source of supplies for it in Jamestown, North
Dakota...although thought was given to buying wooden canoe paddles and
cutting them down into cricket bats.
Two-piece plastic oars for inflatable rafts were actually closer in
shape, but the thought of using them was considered to be too gauche to
be allowed.
In the end though, croquette stayed the official DGWA & FS game - and
the way we played it, it also was a lot more about drinking than winning
or losing*. The lads and Sadu would make frequent stops in the game to
refresh themselves with gin and tonics due to the heat....even on cool
evenings. And the lack of any indigenous rattlesnakes near Jamestown did
not make the need for gin less, as one might have swum across the
Missouri River from the western part of the state and hitched a ride
into Jamestown on a train...better safe than sorry when it comes to
those terrors.
The same went for scurvy and malaria...the gin and tonics were seen as
the sovereign cure for any threats that might wait for those bold enough
to leave the bar and head into God-knows-what sort of perils on the
croquette field.
* It was considered extremely bad form to knock your opponent's ball as
far as you could into some area that he would have a difficult time
returning from ...say down the steps that went up into the yard or into
the street where it would roll downhill for half a block or so - as it
was also to chase the person around who had done this to you while
attempting to urinate on them...but I must admit that such lapses of
taste and decorum did occur on occasion, and indeed the latter may have
discouraged the former from occurring more often.
An attempt at lawn bowling involving empty beer bottles and a croquette
ball was not successful, particularly when the resulting shattered glass
was hurled around by the lawnmower at the next lawn trimming.
Pat
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"
>
>
>
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Corruption? Going to war under false pretense is corrupt.
>
> >Let us know when that actually happens:
>
> >http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=141
>
> >"
> >On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were
> >generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
>
> >On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
> >laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by
> >intelligence information.”
>
> >On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence
> >information.”
> >"
>
> I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
> I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
> because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
I am "excusing" Bush saying things that were wrong because a *lot* of
intelligence services were wrong.
If you turn on CNN, MSNBC, ABCCBSNBC abd they're all screamign about
"London just got nuked," and you decide to call up your dad and say
"London just got nuked," you're not a liar if it turns out that London
has, instead, just suffered a power outage coupled with a really
spiffy fireworks show.
> Many, many people have died and a great deal of our national treasury
> has been depleted by all of this.
Think back to 2002-2003. Many people died and a great deal of national
treasure had just been lost due to the actions of 19 dumbasses with
boxcutters.... and here's the CIA telling the President that an enemy
nation that has actively supported terrorism is working on nuclear
bombs and biowarfare agents.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
> understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
> his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
> you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.
How exactly would Bush have gone about completely repalcing the CIA?
Not just the political appointees at the top, but also the mid-level
managers and all the way down to the analysts and guys in the field?
Oh, and how would Bush have gone about completely reworking Britains
MI6?
Much of the intelligence support of the case against Saddam came from
info and events from the late 90's. Was Bush at fault for the CIA not
having a time machine by 2003?
Many valid complaints can be made against Bush. But please base them
on facts, not lame-ass partisan nonsense.
> We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
> Obama prove to be so incompetent...
Twenty years in a whackadoodle racist church? Yeah, I don't think
"determining that Obama is incompetant to lead" is a job for the
*future.* "Guilt by association" is not a valid concept for the court
of law. But it's *perfectly* appropriate for the court of common sense.
Rand Simberg
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:16:49 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm reluctant to follow up again, but I just don't get your point.
>>>I guess you're excusing the president's "non-factual" statements
>>>because he had assembled an incompetent intelligence community?
>>>I guess the "buck stopped" at the HR department or something?
>>
>>Actually, he had simply kept an incompetent intelligence community
>>"assembled" by the previous president. Which I thought was a bad idea
>>at the time, but I don't recall many others criticizing him for it.
>>Tenant was a Clinton appointee.
>
>OK, I'll assume that's entirely true. But it's still not an excuse.
>Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
>understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
>his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
>you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.
I'm not. I said I criticized him for it at the time. I think that
not replacing Tenant immediately (and doing a thorough house cleaning
at the CIA) was one of the biggest blunders of his presidency, that
has cost the nation, and his presidency, dearly. But that doesn't
mean he lied, or committed any crimes.
>We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
>Obama prove to be so incompetent... well, I may not volunteer that
>fact here, but I promise to acknowledge it when and if you should
>rightly point it out :)
I think that a President Obama will prove incompetent in vastly
different ways, assuming that such a creature instantiates itself. I
consider it quite unlikely.
Ian Stirling
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
<snip>
> :Decoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
> :of the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
> :thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
> :You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
> :around a couple of pounds each.
>
> Wrong.
<snip>
Some comments on possible decoy design.
The decoy either contains a warhead, or a 20g magnet.
The decoy station-keeps on the magnet (or warhead).
It is opaque to radar, IR, and visible light, and painted various colours and
patterns randomly, so that it may reflect or not reflect IR at any point.
Take a oversized beach-ball, turn it inside out. On segments like an orange
place thermal compound, triggered pyrotechnically, so that when triggered,
it peels back into its original shape.
On the back of this beach-ball is a dunce-cap-like module, which houses:
Magnetic sensors to locate a magnet inside the beachball - 1g
Battery to power decoy for half an hour - 40g
6 thermally triggered arrays of 1000 1mNs thrusters at the point of the
dunces cap (assuming ISP 100, 60g of fuel), assuming a 2mm pitch, that's
about 50mm diameter. Assuming that it's 5mm thick, and made of aluminium, that
comes to around 250g.
Control electronics - 50g.
This leaves around 650g for the beach ball, pyrotechnic cutters,
and structure.
This does not seem completely implausible.
On deployment, the beachball inflates (ideally inside the bus), and then
it stationkeeps either on the warhead or the dummy magnet until drag
exceeds a few millinewtons.
When it's getting low on fuel, it begins to move backwards with the last of
the fuel, and then triggers the pyrotechnics to peel back the beachball
and allow the warhead (or dummy magnet) to reenter.
This of course means that (+-10cm) it follows a completely ballistic
trajectory until drag gets too high, and is almost impossible to tell
fake from real, unless you can actively probe the mass (shoot a dense puff
of gas to overwhelm the thrusters forex).
Pat Flannery
Ian Stirling wrote:
>
> On deployment, the beachball inflates (ideally inside the bus), and then
> it stationkeeps either on the warhead or the dummy magnet until drag
> exceeds a few millinewtons.
> When it's getting low on fuel, it begins to move backwards with the last of
> the fuel, and then triggers the pyrotechnics to peel back the beachball
> and allow the warhead (or dummy magnet) to reenter.
>
> This of course means that (+-10cm) it follows a completely ballistic
> trajectory until drag gets too high, and is almost impossible to tell
> fake from real, unless you can actively probe the mass (shoot a dense puff
> of gas to overwhelm the thrusters forex).
>
Well, here's data and photos of the British "Chevaline II" Polaris
warhead bus showing the decoy dispensers:
http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/chevaline.htm
Here's a drawing identifying what's what on it:
http://www.slbm.info/images/chevaline.jpg
Pat
OM
wrote:
>The decoy either contains a warhead, or a 20g magnet.
"Coming soon! The Estes Alpha IV, complete with Neodymium nose cone!"
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> "Coming soon! The Estes Alpha IV, complete with Neodymium nose cone!"
>
That would explain why a lot of mine seemed to have a real proclivity
for homing in on the Earth's magnetic core shortly after launch. ;-)
Pat
Anthony Frost
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
> "Gentlemen, you must understand that this game is not about winning or
> losing...it is about _drinking_. If the sun sets while the game is going
> on, it's a tie."
Actually, I think you'll find that's a draw...
Anthony
Dale Carlson
Simberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:30:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
>Carlson <d...@oz.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>way as to indicate that:
>>OK, I'll assume that's entirely true. But it's still not an excuse.
>>Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
>>understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
>>his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
>>you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.
>
>I'm not. I said I criticized him for it at the time. I think that
>not replacing Tenant immediately (and doing a thorough house cleaning
>at the CIA) was one of the biggest blunders of his presidency, that
>has cost the nation, and his presidency, dearly. But that doesn't
>mean he lied, or committed any crimes.
I don't think I ever suggested that he lied. Only that he proved to be
incompetent. Personally, I think he's probably a nice guy. But way
over his head. Speaks more to how we chose presidents than it does
to him personally. But sometimes we get lucky.
>>We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
>>Obama prove to be so incompetent... well, I may not volunteer that
>>fact here, but I promise to acknowledge it when and if you should
>>rightly point it out :)
>
>I think that a President Obama will prove incompetent in vastly
>different ways, assuming that such a creature instantiates itself. I
>consider it quite unlikely.
You don't have one of those big-ass Ron Paul signs up in your yard,
do you? :-)
Dale
Dale Carlson
Rand Simberg
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:08:50 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:30:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
>>Carlson <d...@oz.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>>way as to indicate that:
>
>>>OK, I'll assume that's entirely true. But it's still not an excuse.
>>>Being caught with a lame holdover team in September 2001 is
>>>understandable. But we're talking about Spring 2003. Halfway though
>>>his first term. I'm not sure how one can justify this- assuming that
>>>you're trying to- which I suspect you're not.
>>
>>I'm not. I said I criticized him for it at the time. I think that
>>not replacing Tenant immediately (and doing a thorough house cleaning
>>at the CIA) was one of the biggest blunders of his presidency, that
>>has cost the nation, and his presidency, dearly. But that doesn't
>>mean he lied, or committed any crimes.
>
>I don't think I ever suggested that he lied.
I didn't mean to suggest that you did. But many do (including many
here). Just last week, some of the leftist loons in Congress
introduced a resolution for impeachment.
>Only that he proved to be
>incompetent. Personally, I think he's probably a nice guy. But way
>over his head. Speaks more to how we chose presidents than it does
>to him personally. But sometimes we get lucky.
>
>>>We (hopefully) gain wisdom with age and experience. Should president
>>>Obama prove to be so incompetent... well, I may not volunteer that
>>>fact here, but I promise to acknowledge it when and if you should
>>>rightly point it out :)
>>
>>I think that a President Obama will prove incompetent in vastly
>>different ways, assuming that such a creature instantiates itself. I
>>consider it quite unlikely.
>
>You don't have one of those big-ass Ron Paul signs up in your yard,
>do you? :-)
No, I really don't have a candidate this election. As is the case in
most elections. But I think that McCain will probably win, and that's
at least marginally better than Obama.
Pat Flannery
Anthony Frost wrote:
> If the sun sets while the game is going
> > on, it's a tie."
>
> Actually, I think you'll find that's a draw...
>
We had a very strict dress code at the DGWA & FS.
And those had better be school ties as well. ;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Dale Carlson wrote:
>
> I don't think I ever suggested that he lied. Only that he proved to be
> incompetent. Personally, I think he's probably a nice guy.
Those people he was branding with the coat-hanger wire for entry into
the DKE frat back at Yale may have thought otherwise.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Dale Carlson wrote:
> "Choose", not "chose". I need to proofread... Gomennasai...
>
Stumbled on this fascinating and wild-eyed webpage while looking around
for the branding story BTW:
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsgay.html
If nothing else, it's a lot of fun to read with great pictures:
http://mindprod.com/image/people/rovekissesbush.jpg
http://mindprod.com/image/people/bushsmooch.jpg
http://mindprod.com/image/people/bushblowkiss.jpg
http://mindprod.com/image/people/bushkisseslieberman.jpg
http://mindprod.com/image/people/harperbushkiss.jpg
Pat
Scott Hedrick
"Dale Carlson" <d...@oz.net> wrote in message
news:v4bc549lg8pbetm1k...@4ax.com...
> Speaks more to how we chose presidents than it does
> to him personally.
Anybody truly competent in the job is smart enough not to apply :)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Scott Hedrick
> Many, many people have died and a great deal of our national treasury
> has been depleted by all of this.
Doing the right thing, like Bush has done, often has a high price.
The rest of the world has been bending over and taking it up the ass so long
that they consider it normal, and condemn the US for actually doing
something substantive about terrorism.
The world is a better, safer place now, thanks in large part to George Bush.
He's done some things I don't like, and I think he's been wrong a few times,
but the number of terrorist attacks in the US in the last several years
speaks for itself. Taking the fight to the enemy's home makes a difference.
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
> Doing the right thing, like Bush has done, often has a high price.
>
Yup: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
> The rest of the world has been bending over and taking it up the ass so long
> that they consider it normal, and condemn the US for actually doing
> something substantive about terrorism.
>
Like getting all kissy-kissy with North Korea, for instance.
Our new friend:
http://blog.jinbo.net/files1/33/CINA/images/200502/080158289.jpg
> The world is a better, safer place now, thanks in large part to George Bush.
> He's done some things I don't like, and I think he's been wrong a few times,
> but the number of terrorist attacks in the US in the last several years
> speaks for itself. Taking the fight to the enemy's home makes a difference.
>
Especially if you can dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqy91GnS-Bg
Pat
Neil Gerace
> Anybody truly competent in the job is smart enough not to apply :)
"Under no circumstances should anyone who wants the job be allowed to
have it." - I forget who said that though.
Pat Flannery
Neil Gerace wrote:
>
> "Under no circumstances should anyone who wants the job be allowed to
> have it." - I forget who said that though.
>
Plato said that in "The Republic" in regards to politicians.
Pat
Scott Hedrick
"Neil Gerace" <ger...@webace.com.au> wrote in message
news:ebc71879-0e6f-4a1f...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Maybe we should institute a draft :P
Neil Gerace
> "Neil Gerace" <gera...@webace.com.au> wrote in message
> Maybe we should institute a draft :P
Democracy to apply to everyone except the CEO? I like it.
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>> "Under no circumstances should anyone who wants the job be allowed to
>> have it." - I forget who said that though.
>>
>
> Maybe we should institute a draft :P
>
That was basically Plato's idea, the jobs were supposed to pay so poorly
and be such a pain in the rear to hold that people would never want
them, and would have to be forced to hold them due to their competence
at doing them.
Pat
Dr J R Stockton
000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:10:45, Neil Gerace
<ger...@webace.com.au> posted:
ACC has used substantially that, in "The Songs of Distant Earth" chapter
11; but I think he may have used it elsewhere, and may not have
originated it.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.