Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2014 3:54 PM
72 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NinaSabrina1999
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,417 Year: 24,258/28,606 Month: 1,559/1,786 Week: 421/423 Day: 62/119 Hour: 11/16

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 173 of 241 (446171)
01-05-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 12:17 AM


Re: What's your alternative
Here are 20 historical incidents that almost lead to nuclear war.

OH NOES!

NOT NOO KYOO LUR WARS!

And getting back to the crazy religious whackjob, wouldn't REMOVING weapons from active and ready status decrease the damage they could do?

No. It would provide ample opportunity for our frenemies, tho.

My solution?

All nuclear weapons are destroyed! Everybody lives in peace and harmony! And gumdrops and kittens and rainbows!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 12:17 AM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 175 of 241 (446174)
01-05-2008 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 1:16 AM


Re: Fix your links.
FIX YOUR EFFING LINKS.

AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:16 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:22 AM molbiogirl has responded
 Message 178 by AdminPD, posted 01-05-2008 5:10 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 177 of 241 (446200)
01-05-2008 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 1:22 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
Please list the questions I have failed to answer.

If you refuse, I can only assume you no longer wish to debate this issue any further.

And this discussion is at a close.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:22 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 2:39 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 188 of 241 (446334)
01-05-2008 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 1:22 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
Have you any intentions of continuing our discussion?

If so, please provide a list of unanswered questions so that I may answer them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:22 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 8:13 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 190 of 241 (446357)
01-05-2008 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
Please list all the question that I have left unanswered so that I might answer them.

I want to put this "issue" of unanswered questions to rest.

It's dragged on long enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 8:13 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by obvious Child, posted 01-08-2008 7:20 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 193 of 241 (447339)
01-08-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by obvious Child
01-08-2008 7:20 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
There is no point in listing them all when you refuse to even address a tiny portion.

If I answer bit by bit, I am reduced to repeatedly badgering you for yet another portion of the list. By asking you to provide the entire list at once, I am taking away your favorite cudgel.

In your absence, I have written a VERY long response to some of your questions. But before I post anything, I would like the list.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by obvious Child, posted 01-08-2008 7:20 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by obvious Child, posted 01-09-2008 7:32 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 195 of 241 (447577)
01-09-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by obvious Child
01-09-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
I'm not stupid.

I never said you were stupid. I do think, however, that you are lazy.

Message 166 writes:

And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.

And looking for a way out.

I see how you operate. I'm not falling for that trick.

It's no trick.

You have repeatedly asserted that I have not answered questions.

Message 163 writes:

And you haven't answered the question. Do you or do you not agree with what I said?

Message 166 writes:

And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.

Message 176 writes:

Furthermore, why should I answer anything you ask when you have gone out of your way to ignore virtually every question I have asked you?

Message 192 writes:

Indeed it has dragged on. Furthermore, the long list of issues that I've made that have been deliberately ignored is just as long.

Message 194 writes:

Furthermore, as I cited before, in this thread, countless acts of deliberate avoiding even to the point of pretending the questions simply didn't exist are rampant on your part.

No. After I made a detailed posting re: missile defense, you gave up.

Message 174.

You just repeated that post when I again asked what questions I may have left unanswered.

Message 189.

However, in Message 163, you were already accusing me of not answering questions. Which means, your repetition of Message 174 is not going to do me much good. I again asked that you provide a list of unanswered questions.

You repeated, again, Message 174.

What those unanswered questions prior to Message 163 may be, I don't know. Only you know.

Even if I answer the questions in Message 174, you will continue to whine that I never answer questions.

In lieu of answering questions I can't possibly divine, here is the missile defense post I composed in your absence.

Airborne Laser (ABL)

ABL is a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) mounted inside a Boeing 747-400F. It is designed to destroy tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs).

The Airborne Laser Laboratory, a less-powerful Boeing prototype, shot down several missiles in the 1980s. The COIL has been fired more than 70 times since 2004. Further testing of the ABL began in 2007 and will continue until 2009. A fleet of seven ABLs should be flying operational missions by 2009.

http://www.deagel.com/news/YAL-1A-Undergoing-Firing-of-Low-Power-Lasers-Tests_n000001382.aspx

http://www.militaryaviation.eu/transporter/Boeing/B747.htm

The current NMD system consists primarily of ground based interceptor missiles and radar in Alaska which would intercept incoming warheads in space. About 100 interceptor missiles are operational. Since North Korea is perceived to be the earliest missile threat, they are aimed at countering tens of warheads, with either simple or no countermeasures.

Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL)

In 2004, the system shot down multiple mortar rounds, demonstrating potential its battlefield application for to protection against common threats. The test represented actual mortar threat scenarios. Targets were intercepted by the THEL testbed and destroyed; both single mortar rounds and salvo were tested.

MTHEL is capable of detecting, tracking, engaging, and defeating Rockets/Artillery/Mortars (RAM), cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

The system could easily evolve into a laser-based air defense system for U.S. government agencies and allies that require near-term defense against short-range ballistic missiles, short- and long-range rockets, artillery shells, mortars, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/skyguard-laser.htm

Combat effectiveness of newer systems against tactical ballistic missiles are very high, as the Patriot PAC-3 had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Arrow Ballistic Missile Defense System

In 2004, the Arrow was launched against a Scud. The experiment was a success -- the Arrow destroyed the Scud with a direct hit. In 2005 & 2007 the system was successfully deployed in a test against a Shahab-3.

There have been over 2 dozen tests since 2001. By 2007, the Aegis had successfully intercepted its 8 out of 10. 29 successful intercepts (for all MDA systems) since 2001.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System

In June 22, 2007, the USS Decatur, using Aegis successfully performed a "Hit To Kill" intercept of a separating, medium range, ballistic missile.

In December 2007, the JDS Kongo successfully intercepted a ballistic missile with the Aegis.

---

None of these systems, none of these tests, is addressed by the 2 links you provided.

NMD: Test Failures and Technology Development
Global Security


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by obvious Child, posted 01-09-2008 7:32 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by obvious Child, posted 01-10-2008 3:06 AM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 197 of 241 (447611)
01-10-2008 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by obvious Child
01-10-2008 3:06 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
If I answer the questions in your latest post and those in Message 174, will you agree to stop with the "you never answer questions" silliness?

And, in the future, if you feel I have left a question unanswered, will you do me the courtesy of mentioning it immediately?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by obvious Child, posted 01-10-2008 3:06 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by obvious Child, posted 01-11-2008 2:55 AM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 200 of 241 (447836)
01-11-2008 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by obvious Child
01-11-2008 2:55 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
That's just the tip if the iceberg.

Did I call it or did I call it?

Message 193 writes:

By asking you to provide the entire list at once, I am taking away your favorite cudgel.

See?

That's why I have asked 3 times for a complete list.

And, in the future, if you feel I have left a question unanswered, will you do me the courtesy of mentioning it immediately?
I did.

No. You threw down the gauntlet. Message 166.

And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.

You don't mention what I've ignored. You just write a big fat check you can't cash.

So. Given that you have done exactly what I predicted you would do ("That's just the tip if the iceberg."), in order to take this potential weapon out of your hands:

Please provide me with a complete list of unanswered questions.

ABE:

Just in case you try the same dodge again:

What are you scared I might actually name them? Why should I bother, you then would only go on to explain how those people are not well understood, or some bullshit like that.

From Rat, Message 82.

Sound familiar?

I see how you operate. I'm not falling for that trick.

If you cannot answer a single simple question, you will not answer complex questions.

Message 194.

You need to come up with a better excuse! You're in creo territory.

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by obvious Child, posted 01-11-2008 2:55 AM obvious Child has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by AdminPhat, posted 01-11-2008 4:17 AM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 202 of 241 (447850)
01-11-2008 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by AdminPhat
01-11-2008 4:17 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
My intention in this topic is to discuss the future strategy for survival for humanity...

Defensive and offensive military systems are a strategy for survival. Do you consider this OT?

From your OP:

In this topic, I want to examine this and other aspects of dealing with the future on Earth for humanity.

"Other aspects."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by AdminPhat, posted 01-11-2008 4:17 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Mespo, posted 01-11-2008 2:15 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 204 of 241 (447974)
01-11-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Mespo
01-11-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
There isn't going to be a nuclear exchange with Russia or any other nuclear power in the foreseeable future. Period!

I agree, Mespo. Obvious has different ideas, tho.

I've asked that he provide cites to back up his assertion that Russia is some sort of immediate threat, but he has yet to do so.

The US will continue to look for boogey men to pick a fight with.

Indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Mespo, posted 01-11-2008 2:15 PM Mespo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Mespo, posted 01-11-2008 3:17 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded
 Message 209 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 4:09 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 207 of 241 (448001)
01-11-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Phat
01-11-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Are you saying that terrorism is insignificant in regards to a nuclear threat?

Nuclear terrorism is a distinct possibility.

Better security re: facilities and a higher level of accountability would go a long way toward reducing that threat.

Of course, none of that will help with the North Korea problem. That's a pickle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Phat, posted 01-11-2008 4:44 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 212 of 241 (448239)
01-12-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by obvious Child
01-12-2008 4:09 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
I never claimed that Russia was an immediate threat.

You began discussing Russia in Message 151.

In each of your subsequent posts, your nightmare scenarios involved Russia. And only Russia.

Message 154. Message 156. Message 160. Message 161. Message 163. Message 166.
Message 169. Message 170. Message 171.
Message 174. Message 183.

After Message 183, you stopped debating.

You mentioned, only in passing, North Korea and NSAs. And only after I brought them up.

It makes a warped kind of sense that you chose Russia as your boogeyman. After all, your fantasies involve SLBMs and ICBMs and hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons. Nobody else quite fits the bill, now do they?

Then I gave a senario (sic) which would eliminate the US's capacity to respond. I did not say that was likely, only possible.

It is possible that quantum tunneling will allow me to walk thru a wall. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Any reasonable discussion of "possibility" needs to include likelihood. Which is why I have asked (repeatedly!) that you provide cites re: the likelihood of Russia launching an all out attack on the U.S.

And that, Obvious, is a question YOU have refused to answer.

So let me ask you again: What is the likelihood of Russia launching an all out attack on the U.S.?

Do not simply offer your opinion. Provide cites.

And do not provide pseudo-cites to Amazon.

2) Go to virtual arsenals, where the weapons are implosion type and all of the shaped charges are destroyed, leaving only the machines to make them

Please provide cites (that we can read -- not your previous pseudo-cites to Amazon) that a virtual arsenal involves dismantling all nuclear weapons and destroying all the charges.

3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge

Again. Cites.

And I'd like to know how you suggest we destroy all the technical journals that have been printed and distributed in worldwide the last 60 years.

4) Missile shield is a waste of money as it is cheap to bypass.

Cites.

Note: Please address the specific systems I mentioned. And no more woefully out of date links, 'kay? Within the last 5 years will do nicely.

I have yet to see a good argument as for why hair trigger is a good idea in today's world and have been constantly ignored when asked for such a reason.

It's simple really. When a real threat is present, a real defense is necessary.

Furthermore, I'd like some answers as to how having fewer nukes is less safe.

Your "virtual arsenal" is really bad sci fi. Your premise is so far fetched that it's laughable!

Allow me to offer an analogy: I'd like someone to show me that fewer cars is less healthy for the planet.

And you did not answer the questions as I noted in my earlier posts. Please see the post as to my future requirements for your answering.

You mean this requirement? Message 199.

Don't answer whatever you don't want to.

Or this one? Message 192.

There is no point in listing them all when you refuse to even address a tiny portion.

As I pointed out earlier, your dodge is nearly word-for-word identical to one Rat offered in another thread.

Word. For. Word.

Why should I bother, you then would only go on to explain how those people are not well understood, or some bullshit like that.

From Rat, Message 82.

Sound familiar?

There is no point in listing them all when you refuse to even address a tiny portion.

Message 192.

C'mon. You can do better than a creo, can't you?

What is it? You don't want to do the work?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 4:09 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 6:54 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 216 of 241 (448366)
01-13-2008 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by obvious Child
01-12-2008 6:54 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
All you are asking for is an encyclopedia fight.

I am asking for supporting evidence. Standard operating procedure.

Forgive me if I don't accord your opinion the same respect as that of a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Q: Can you define what an literary tool means?

A: Obvious child.

Russia was merely an example to explain why predelegation is likely still around.

The Brookings Institute disagrees.

Realists work on capabilities. Likelihood has the problem of trying to judge intentions.

Dozens of think tanks disagree. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations.

A Nuclear Posture for Today
Foreign Affairs
January/February 2005
Vol 84, Number 1

The forces made up of nuclear-armed submarines, long-range bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles built by the Soviets during the Cold War are declining dramatically in both numbers and quality. Within a decade, experts predict, Russia will have a nuclear arsenal just one-tenth the size of the Soviet Union's at the peak of the superpower rivalry, because of arms control treaties, looming obsolescence and Russia's economic depression.

Obvious writes:

The immediate likelihood of the US using it against them is low, however the capabilities of it mean it could be used against them.

A missile shield is a defensive, not offensive, system. It is not used "against" anybody.

I see no reason why I have to when it is obviously clear I work from a realists point of view.

Ah. Not only do you refuse to provide evidence, you refuse to answer questions.

I see you are still unwilling to discuss hair trigger.

Nope.

From my last post: It's simple really. When a real threat is present, a real defense is necessary.

Do you actually have a response to why destruction of the shaped charges is an bad idea? ... If you do not wish to discuss the issue of how the removal of shaped charges in a virtual arsenal system can make life safer, not only in reducing the threat of terrorists stealing weapons but also in producing good accounting for weapons, as you yourself state is a good idea.

For a realist, you sure spend a lot of time living in a fantasy world where every nuclear state and every potential nuclear state is willing to completely disarm.

I've done a bit of looking, and no one, absolutely no one, is discussing this as even a remote possibility.

Nuclear Weapons in a Transformed World is a pro-VNA (virtual nuclear arsenal) and available on books.google. All the author suggests is decoupling the weapons from their delivery vehicles and dismantling the weapons.

A la Pakistan, as I mentioned earlier.

I enjoy discussions that revolve around discussing ideas.

I much prefer the informed opinion of -- oh, let's say a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute -- rather than that of a 25 year old who's read one too many Ian Fleming novels.

I never suggested that we do that. What I'm suggesting is big powers reduce down to knowledge and machinery.

I misunderstood #3:

3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge

I took "go down" to mean "the next level of destruction after weapons and machinery".

And since we'll retain all our knowledge and capacity to build, the threat of the MAD still exists. Not only is this safer, it's cheaper to maintain MAD.

Again, for a realist, you spend an awful lot of time in la la land.

A single missile carrying mylar balloons can easily confuse the interceptors.

You have yet to show that mylar decoys are a problem for the systems I highlighted in Message 195.

Don't you get it, Obvious? Your bare assertions mean nothing.

Your opinion is worthless.

If the missile shield was so successful, we would have had a unplanned launch using a flight plan similar to one from our potential enemies.

Um, is a war "similar enough" for you? Are incoming enemy missiles "unplanned enough" for you?

From Message 195:

Combat effectiveness of newer systems against tactical ballistic missiles are very high, as the Patriot PAC-3 had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Obvious writes:

...thereby rendering the radar systems our interceptors require useless.

Nope.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has280010.000/has280010_0.HTM

The detonation of a nuclear explosion outside the atmosphere, even if it were a small nuclear weapon, perhaps a few tens of kilotons, could produce sufficient direct and delayed radiation to degrade or destroy satellites in line of sight of the burst...

Only those within line of sight.

I speak as a weapons designer with specialized knowledge in electromagnetic pulse. Since 1996, I have been the provost for the Postgraduate Nuclear Weapon Design Institute within the laboratory chartered with training the next generation of nuclear weapon designers.

See? A guy who knows what he's talking about.

The issue to be addressed this morning is the impact of a high-altitude nuclear detonation over the United States to the civilian and military infrastructure ... A high-altitude nuclear detonation would produce an electromagnetic pulse ... In such an event, would military equipment deployed within the area of EMP exposure be seriously impaired?

Short answer, no. Military systems are hardened to HEMP/EMP.

Therefore, the rest of your scenario is moot.

And I already addressed your specific systems.

No. You provided two links. Neither of which discussed the systems I mentioned in Message 195.

Most of them are rendered useless by airbursting. Secondly, the sheer number we'd need to cover a single metropolitan is amazingly large. Third, the range on all of them except the arrow system is pathetic, as are their tracking systems. A incoming missile is going to traveling at massive speeds, well more then a Scud or a short ground to ground missile.

Again. Your opinion is worthless.

If you could perhaps, actually address any of these points with reasoned arguments of your own, that would be appreciated.

Unlike you, I like to rely on experts and well documented sources.

ABE:

From Message 99. Your response to Buz.

For all your islamaphobia, you could have at least researched it.

Oh no, Obvious. No no no. His uninformed, unresearched opinion is just as valid as your uninformed, unresearched opinion.

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 6:54 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 4:11 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 218 of 241 (448436)
01-13-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by purpledawn
01-13-2008 11:12 AM


Re: Virtual Arsenal
I found it interesting that mylar balloons could function as countermeasures. I think many forget that while we are creating weapons, others create countermeasures to thwart our efforts; just as we do to counter their weapons.

Just a quick note, PD. The systems in Message 195 are not affected by this countermeasure.

Obvious is referring to tests that were performed on a different missile defense system in 2000 and 2001. The tests I mentioned in Message 195 were performed 2005-2008.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2008 11:12 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014