Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 221 of 241 (448489)
01-13-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by obvious Child
01-13-2008 4:11 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Tell me how that is not offensive instead of just pretending that I never made the comment.
I know you're not joking, but seriously, Obvious. A shield as an offensive weapon? Not unless you conk somebody on the head with it.
Offensive weapons: weapons used in the act of attacking.
Defensive weapons: weapons used to defend from or resist attack. Weapons used for protection from harm or danger.
If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US.
Horse apples.
People get pissed off for all kinds of reasons. China says it's pissed off because "global stability" will be disrupted. TRANSLATION: You have one and we don't. Russia has calmed down now that we've offered to let them in under the shield.
The Brookings Institute works from an liberal point of view, where liberal in this context is very different from liberal in political ideas.
Leetle problemo, Obvious.
Liberals are notoriously anti-nuke.
A World without Nukes
Page not found – Brookings
Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.
1/10th is still easily enough to overcome missile defense. 100 missiles each with 12 MRVs is 1,200 nukes. And Russia has always had a good understanding of bypassing missile defense. So in reality, that's more then 8,000 targets, of which 1,200 are viable. Game over for missile shield.
Pull some more numbers out your ass, didja?
Your opinion is worthless.
Therefore you believe that the 20+ incidents that almost lead to accidental exchanges did not occur? Or you'll just pretend I never asked this as you did with the vast majority of questions I no longer care if you answer.
Remember, Obvious?
Obvious Message 199 writes:
Don't answer whatever you don't want to.
And I'm taking it an step further.
It's called content creation. Yahoo, Youtube, and others are doing it. Sometimes it's modifying what someone else thought of. Sometimes it's something entirely new.
OMG. I am blessed, truly blessed, to be in your presence, Obvious.
A 25 year old who is going to change nuclear policy via Youtube!
Not everything in this world has been thought of or invented, new things, new ideas, new innovation, new modifications are still possible.
Yes. We are all truly blessed by your presence.
So you want to test the weapon when an nuclear tipped enemy missile is coming?
Missile defense was 100% effective in Iraq.
The other systems, including the MTHEL, have been tested under "field conditions". The METHEL is going to be used in combat conditions in 2008.
There is no EMP issue here.
HEMP/EMP is of grave concern. I brought it up because you ignored it.
The warhead is not hitting ANYTHING except empty space.
Um. Obvious. HEMP (high altitude electromagnetic pulse) travels thru space.
A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.
404 Not Found
HEMP tests conducted in 1962 knocked out the grid in Hawaii.
The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400-500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.
Obvious writes:
Not a problem. The issue is merely blinding radar due to radiation in the area.
Nother leetle problemo, Obvious.
The radar that supports our missile defense does not rely on a single (or even a group of) satellites. Knocking out a few will not cripple the system.
That is really all you've done here. Call me names.
Aw. Did Obvious get his feelings hurt?
Please provide the quote.
But you can't refute any of it. Calling me names does not equate to a good argument. if you have a argument as to why those system will work present it. Don't just rely on ad homeni.
I simply stated a fact. Your opinion is worthless.
The irony, by the way, is delicious. Watchin you get your panties inna bunch when Buz has the AUDACITY to offer his unresearched opinion.
I just have to post that again!
From Re: Buzsaw's Supportive Data (Message 99 of Thread the new and improved obama thread). Your response to Buz.
For all your islamaphobia, you could have at least researched it.
Eee hee hee!
ABE:
An exchange between Dr. A and imageinvisible. Message 69.
Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
More observable evidence of a recent catostrophic global flood, and the resultant adaptation of surviving species to the new, greatly altered, environment; as well as the subsiquent extinction of those that could not adapt. This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
They are proof of an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environment. This process does not add any new genetic information, it can only work with what it has and for the most part results in a loss of genetic divercity/variability.
But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
You are sounding more like a creo every minute!
See what happens when you just make crap up?
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 4:11 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by obvious Child, posted 01-15-2008 4:10 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 223 of 241 (448636)
01-14-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Phat
01-14-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
A typical end of the world world view maintains that humans are incapable of rising above their petty preprogrammed survivalist mode into an altruistic we can all get along mentality.
Phat, we have an innate altruistic survival mode too. Otherwise, we wouldn't live in social, cooperative groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 01-14-2008 11:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 225 of 241 (448901)
01-15-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by obvious Child
01-15-2008 4:10 AM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Let's try this in a super dumbed down version.
Here is your original quote and my reply:
MBG 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.
And your reply:
A missile shield is a defensive, not offensive, system. It is not used "against" anybody.
Now that is comedy. A missile shield prevents an secondary strike. Therefore eliminate MAD and allowing an first strike which is clearly offensive.
Here is the definition of defensive again:
Intended or appropriate for defending against or deterring aggression or attack; "defensive weapons"; "a defensive stance".
A missile shield is defensive, not offensive.
Do you even underst....nm I know the answer to that. A missile shield, at least in theory if it ever works, removes MAD therefore disrupting global stability. Russia calmed down because they are no longer at risk from the disruption of MAD.
You didn't answer the question.
You have a penchant for going off on tangents, did you know that?
You said:
Message 213 writes:
Realists work on capabilities. Likelihood has the problem of trying to judge intentions. Hence why Russia and China are very annoyed with the US shield plan.
Message 219 writes:
If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US. Purely defensive weapons don't bring up huge outrage.
As a realist, I know you were hesitant to "judge the intentions" of China and Russia (aka If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off...); however, since you did judge their intentions (wants/fears/etc.), I responded:
MBG writes:
People get pissed off for all kinds of reasons. China says it's pissed off because "global stability" will be disrupted. TRANSLATION: You have one and we don't. Russia has calmed down now that we've offered to let them in under the shield.
Two things:
The missile shield is defensive.
Because it is defensive (offers protection against attack), Russia and China got PO'ed.
You didn't even bother to read your own article did you?
No where in the article does it even discuss pre-delegation!
Seriously! Did you think I wouldn't check?
Again. You didn't answer the question.
Here is your original quote:
Message 219 writes:
The Brookings Institute works from an liberal point of view, where liberal in this context is very different from liberal in political ideas. The liberal idea doesn't exactly have an great track record as it is partially to blame for the failure of Africa to develop.
I addressed the "liberal" question here:
Message 221 writes:
Liberals are notoriously anti-nuke.
A World without Nukes
Page not found – Brookings
Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.
I had previously posted the Brookings Institute's position on pre-delegation:
Message 155 writes:
The Brookings Institute disagrees with you. Bruce G. Blair, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Air Force nuclear launch officer, is an expert on nuclear policy and he thinks predelegation was revoked in the 1980s.
"Having spent a lot of my professional career investigating issues of nuclear control -- and having interviewed people who had been given delegated authority (to issue an order for nuclear retaliation) -- I believe that the Eisenhower precedent ended with the Reagan administration," Blair said.
David A. Rosenberg of Temple University, said the fact that the government was willing to release any predelegation documents suggested that with the end of the Cold War the policy was no longer in effect.
The biggest threat, as I've stated before and NO ONE seems to be able to argue against this, is merely the existence of the weapons themselves.
You need to address how "the liberal Brooking Institute" somehow is anti-nuke and therefore anti-pre-delegation, as that was your original contention.
You've gone from copy-pasting partial relevant issues without understanding them to just posting things hoping I wouldn't read them.
No. You've a short memory.
It's a common fact that ICBMs typically have around 6~12 MRVs. Go look it up. ... Furthermore, Russia's weapons were at time after the SALT treaties around 10,000 weapons. 1/10 of that isn't far from what I gave.
You get to make a bare assertions. Yet I must provide support for my positions? Oh, I don't think so!
Your dictate:
Message 199 writes:
Don't answer whatever you don't want to.
What we do not have an solution to is the radiation and static from an space based explosion, your own source even states that. Blinded radar = blinded interceptors. That was my entire point which you seemed to have either pretend not to exist or did not understand.
As I stated previously, our satellite system is global. A local outage will not interfere with the missile shield's radar. The radar used to track incoming missiles is a series of low-earth orbit and high earth orbit STSS (space tracking and surveillance satellites) for the detection and tracking of ballistic missiles.
Again, it's not about knocking them physically out. It's merely about blinding them for an few minutes.
They are knocked out (blinded) LOCALLY.
Big difference between that and an 18,000 mph ICBM.
ICBMs are:
1. Slow moving, fragile targets.
2. Easy to spot (bright exhaust plumes).
3. A unitary target.
The ABL can be deployed against ICBMs for boost phase intercept.
You've called my opinion worthless many times, called me a creationist and attacked me on my age.
Your opinion is worthless. You have no credibility whatsoever. That's a fact, not a "name".
You are 25. That's a fact.
I compared your methods to those of creos. I did not say: "You creo you!".
if you bothered to read my posts on that, you'd notice that when I ask for evidence, it's in a reasoned argument.
And yet you steadfastly refuse to provide evidence. You are a hypocrite. And, yes, that's me calling you a name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by obvious Child, posted 01-15-2008 4:10 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by obvious Child, posted 01-16-2008 4:19 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 234 of 241 (449320)
01-17-2008 5:27 PM


God damn Mediacom.
Despite the tech visit last Friday, my service is really slow (up to a minute to load a page) and is regularly interrupted.
They're coming out Saturday to run new cable.
Until then.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024