|
JFC, were they seriously trying to intercept ICBMs with airbursting neutron warheads at high altitude to form a barrier?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Phobophilia posted:JFC, were they seriously trying to intercept ICBMs with airbursting neutron warheads at high altitude to form a barrier? Cold War was basically free reign by mad scientists, as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:JFC, were they seriously trying to intercept ICBMs with airbursting neutron warheads at high altitude to form a barrier? At first kinda, then it was just an attempt to ward off a "limited attack" (China was the focus at the time). The nuclear detonations in the atmosphere really weren't a huge problem in the grand scheme of things, the big issue was the system just wasn't going to be effective against even simplistic countermeasures. Even today there isn't a system that can intercept an ICBM warhead in its terminal phase: they move too fast and are too small, plus countermeasures are ridiculously cheap and simple compared to the cost of an interceptor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Cold War was basically free reign by mad scientists, as far as I can tell.  the true policy experts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
So when would be the time to intercept an ICBM then? Obviously while the missile is taking off would be ideal but that would require having an aircraft/missile loitering over the silos which is moot. Is it possible to shoot them down while they're in transit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So when would be the time to intercept an ICBM then? Obviously while the missile is taking off would be ideal but that would require having an aircraft/missile loitering over the silos which is moot. Is it possible to shoot them down while they're in transit? With a fast enough pursuit vehicle capable of extremely high-atmosphere flight, sure. The problem is that at the required speeds, you're going to be faced with a need to predict with insane precision if you don't plan on making last-second adjustments which may or may not black out a pilot and/or destroy a piloted craft. Being a kilometer off course means you probably can't even see the vehicle. That's why they've decided to just go with anti-missile missiles since you can subject them to much greater forces and therefore afford a little less precision in predicting the trajectory, as well as a hell of a lot more acceleration off the launcher. Also the net approach speed is probably 7-8 thousand miles per hour so visual range probably covers only a couple seconds of flight time unless you get favorable visual conditions. If you launch a missile from the plane you get a much better chance of interception but at that point why not just launch from the drat ground since you'd have to track the thing by radar one way or another in order to lead the planes onto target. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
If you google "landsknecht jurisprudence" interesting things come up. Sack of Mantua, 1630. It's from an 1853 travel guide, so we should take it with a huge grain of salt (for instance,, the officer in question wasn't even there, but very sick somewhere else) but it's a great story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:With a fast enough pursuit vehicle capable of extremely high-atmosphere flight, sure. The problem is that at the required speeds, you're going to be faced with a need to predict with insane precision if you don't plan on making last-second adjustments which may or may not black out a pilot and/or destroy a piloted craft. Being a kilometer off course means you probably can't even see the vehicle. Oh yeah for sure, I was asking in a broad sense rather than a pew pew plane sense. So what kind of missile shoots down an ICBM assuming the small airburst nuke idea mentioned earlier is off the table?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:If you google "landsknecht jurisprudence" interesting things come up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:"We, the jury, find the defendant 'too stupid to live', your honour". "Crime: stupidity. Punishment: Death" - judge Joachim d'Redd, 1630
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So when would be the time to intercept an ICBM then? Obviously while the missile is taking off would be ideal but that would require having an aircraft/missile loitering over the silos which is moot. Is it possible to shoot them down while they're in transit? We totally did this, by the way. There's four distinct periods to target ballistic missiles: The pre-launch (aka silo) phase, The boost (ascent) phase, the midcourse (space) phase, and the terminal (re-entry) phase. They each present their own challenges. The United States has put together a variety of incomplete solutions for each problem over the last 70 years or so, ranging from standing patrols of SAC bombers and interceptors that flew around the Arctic circle waiting to bomb Soviet silos, to absurd Reaganite plans to deploy massive weapons satellites that would block missiles with neutron bursts or massive wire constructs (unless the Soviets did the obvious thing and just attacked the multi-trillion-dollar satellites first), to our current Aegis missile-cruisers armed with 20-foot tall SM-3 ABMs that can be largely effective against older ballistic missiles when nearby (<40km) but remain stymied by modern land-based solid-fueled ICBMs. We've made airborne chemical lasers and planted Nike silos all over the country, we've built fighter jets that can fire missiles into space, and we've poured billions into computer hacking and intelligence to try to predict and/or prevent launches. We've made some progress, and we are probably largely capable of defending against a handful of obsolete North Korean rockets, but the reality is that MAD remains absolutely in effect with regards to Russia and China.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:If you google "landsknecht jurisprudence" interesting things come up. Any idea how much 9000 ducats would be in modern US dollar terms? I'm curious how stupid this guy supposedly was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
If those are Venetian ducats then my back of the envelope math (generously giving a ducat the original weight of 3.545 grams of nearly pure gold) says ~32 kilograms of gold which today just on its own would be worth ~1.3 million dollars. If someone can figure out how many ducats (or fractions of) an average craftsperson would've made in early 17th century Italy...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Any idea how much 9000 ducats would be in modern US dollar terms? I'm curious how stupid this guy supposedly was. This guy lost three thousand times that. (At least! The chance that he's a musketeer is twice as high!) 3000/12 = two hundred and fifty years of wages. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Any idea how much 9000 ducats would be in modern US dollar terms? I'm curious how stupid this guy supposedly was. Judging from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducat, a Ducat (of either Venetian or Hungarian origin) was about 3.5g of gold. 9000 ducats would therefore be 31.5kg of gold. The man lost 1111.13 ounces of gold, or drat near 70 lbs. Spot price of gold (XAU) is 1,292.60 USD/ounce, meaning this particular Landsknecht pissed away 1,436,832.25 USD or so, give or take a percent or two for purity and minting inconsistencies. Yep that's a hangin' type of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Judging from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducat, a Ducat (of either Venetian or Hungarian origin) was about 3.5g of gold. 9000 ducats would therefore be 31.5kg of gold. $1,436,832.25 / 250 = $5,747.33. The wages are low but they're like, common laborer low, so I don't think anyone's making five thousand a year. This means he lost the equivalent of a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
So what happened is that the guy got his hands on enough money to pretty much be set for the rest of his life if he were to use it even remotely judiciously, piddled it away gambling, and got hanged the next day because: a) anyone who doesn't just walk off with that kind of money is a goddamn idiot, and b) anyone who manages to gamble what amounts to yearly wages paid in advance through roughly the ACW in one sitting is pretty much the Batman of bad decisions and therefore a danger to the regiment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
Goddamn that would be a great story, said dude would definitely be deserving of a flogging at least. The more I read about these dudes the more they match this image in my head of drunken carousing viking fratboys just swinging and stabbing willy-nilly. While I wouldn't want to hang out with them I enjoy reading their exploits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So what happened is that the guy got his hands on enough money to pretty much be set for the rest of his life if he were to use it even remotely judiciously, piddled it away gambling, and got hanged the next day because: Did someone sent a letter to his mother so she could know about what's happened and disown him or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Goddamn that would be a great story, said dude would definitely be deserving of a flogging at least. Again with the batman references jesus we get it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Were you supposed to turn a share of the plunder over to your officers in this era?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Were you supposed to turn a share of the plunder over to your officers in this era? You are in every era comrade 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So when would be the time to intercept an ICBM then? Obviously while the missile is taking off would be ideal but that would require having an aircraft/missile loitering over the silos which is moot. Is it possible to shoot them down while they're in transit? This is what a lot of the Reagan-era "Star Wars" (Brilliant Pebbles and Space Based Interceptor and ERIS) and the...somewhat problematic GMD program try to do. It is a lot easier to calculate intercept points and identify targets in space but it costs a lot to boost stuff to that altitude. I'm pretty confident that had the US started developing a true comprehensive ABM capability that it'd be pretty effective albeit really expensive at this point. The technology isn't really the holdup, it is the politics/strategy of destabilizing MAD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Goons who know anything about the Battle of Waterloo, or that whole campaign in general - does Wellington deserve the praise given to him at the time? Was he a decent commander or was it more down to Napoleon's army being tired etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm pretty confident that had the US started developing a true comprehensive ABM capability that it'd be pretty effective albeit really expensive at this point. The technology isn't really the holdup, it is the politics/strategy of destabilizing MAD. Perhaps it's technically possible, but ABM satellites present their own problems in the sense that they are extremely vulnerable and obvious targets. I can't, for example, think of a good way of defending a satellite array itself from a few MIRV ICBMs that couldn't just as easily be applied to a ground- or air-based defense. Lasers remain the most promising avenue of missile defense technology, but it's difficult to foresee an effective system that particularly needs to be put onto a satellite. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Saki posted:Goons who know anything about the Battle of Waterloo, or that whole campaign in general - does Wellington deserve the praise given to him at the time? Was he a decent commander or was it more down to Napoleon's army being tired etc. Wellington is unquestionably a good commander. He picked a fine position to give battle. Further, the apologetics for the French side (Napoleon wasn't in his best form that day because of X, his men were tired, etc.) are just silly: commanders rarely have the perfect scenario to fight in, and I don't see those same poeple noting the divided loyalties and questionable fervour of some of Wellington's Allied formations. Waterloo is another one of those cases where we have to be careful in only talking about the two main commanders though, as several of the major incidents in the battle took place due to the initiative of subcommanders (Uxbridge and Ney's respective cavalry charges, for example). Wellington does manage to lose the dominant position securing his centre, though the fact that its defenders ran out of ammunition is usually blamed as the cause and it's questionable again whether Wellington can be held directly responsible for that. Wellington does recognize when it's time to sound the general pursuit, and does so regardless of how badly battered his army is, which is a key quality for a great commander. Time and again you see generals drive their opponent off the field, only to later write they did not pursue because they did not think their men were capable of it. Finally, don't forget the Prussians. Any attempt to say Wellington would have won without them is flawed, as even if you discount their arrival on the battlefield, you still have the roughly 10,000 casualties they inflict on the French at Ligny, most of which would not participate in Waterloo. And if you're willing to accept that but want to focus on Waterloo itself, even if the Prussians never show you've got Grouchy and 30,000 Frenchmen ineffectually chasing them about, not fighting Wellington.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Were you supposed to turn a share of the plunder over to your officers in this era?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with getting ancestor's war records from national archives? Told my grandmother for Xmas I'd find a way to get her father's First World War records. All I've got to go on is his regiments (he started in one Territorial regiment, jumped to another just before the war, got transferred to the Royal Engineers half way through), dates of service, and medals. Not sure what interesting stuff I'll find but drat if the UK government doesn't nickle and dime for it. They want three pounds per record to view a non scrambled version and his name was fairly common so there's like fifty of them... Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Edit: I can help you and run down to the archive for you if you get all the info together for me. I'm not entirely sure if you can get anything down there that's on Ancestry - it's ridiculous that they charge so much.
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
100 Years Ago What's that, you say? Putting two independently-minded visionary strategic thinkers together in nearly the same job is going to finish with them scrapping and hissing like two entire tomcats in one small box? No way! Yes, it turns out that Jackie Fisher isn't all that enthusiastic about the expedition to the Dardanelles, and he's starting to make his feelings known. Meanwhile, we meet Kenneth Best, an army chaplain who's been sent to Cairo, but until now hasn't quite been able to work out why there's so many men there. (Hint; the Suez Canal, dummkopf.) But now more men are being ordered forward, and he believes strongly but unassumingly that his place is at the front with them, so forward he goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Perhaps it's technically possible, but ABM satellites present their own problems in the sense that they are extremely vulnerable and obvious targets. I can't, for example, think of a good way of defending a satellite array itself from a few MIRV ICBMs that couldn't just as easily be applied to a ground- or air-based defense. Lasers remain the most promising avenue of missile defense technology, but it's difficult to foresee an effective system that particularly needs to be put onto a satellite. Blowing up satellites risks orbital-velocity debris tearing your own poo poo up later. It wouldn't be as exaggerated as Gravity with a big ol' chain reaction, but you'd have chunks flying around until they deorbit which means you'd best hope your important poo poo is in a higher orbit. Also the EM effects of that kind of thing (if you're nuking satellites) are kind of huge and you risk possibly radioactive debris coming down wherever it drat well pleases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Blowing up satellites risks orbital-velocity debris tearing your own poo poo up later. It wouldn't be as exaggerated as Gravity with a big ol' chain reaction, but you'd have chunks flying around until they deorbit which means you'd best hope your important poo poo is in a higher orbit. Also the EM effects of that kind of thing (if you're nuking satellites) are kind of huge and you risk possibly radioactive debris coming down wherever it drat well pleases. Radioactive fallout from upper-atmosphere blasts is pretty negligible. Fallout's comprised of two things: pulverized bomb material, and bits of earth that are sucked up into the blast cloud and irradiated. When you set a bomb off at the edge of space, a lot of the pulverized bomb material gets sent on earth-escape trajectories, and there's since there's no earth to irradiate that's not an issue either. What is left over is distributed over a really huge volume. There are a whole lot of bad things that would result from setting nukes off in NEO, but fallout isn't really a big issue, there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Edit: I can help you and run down to the archive for you if you get all the info together for me. I'm not entirely sure if you can get anything down there that's on Ancestry - it's ridiculous that they charge so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
I looked up the cost of Melchert Christof Hagendorf's schooling from the old thread. Ten gulden a year, which makes 2.5 ducats, plus clothing allowance. (And this was from late in the war, where you found guys enlisting for two pounds of brown bread a day. Peter Hagendorf must have really given a poo poo about this.) If we ignore inflation between 1630 and the mid-late '40s, that dude lost enough to educate (but not clothe) 3,600 German five year olds for a year. Edit: Or ~1/200 the cost of maintaining the Army of Flanders for a year in peacetime (figure of 1.75 mil/year between the parts of the 80 Years' War). HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:05
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I may take you up on this when my dad gets back to me on which side of his family was in the British army. Just hit me up. It's an OK train ride for me and there's stuff I can do while I'm there. I think I'd better ring to make sure what poo poo they have in there for the army.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
I actually ended up coming across one of my ancestors in a document completely by accident, although he was a major, so he was important enough to be mentioned slightly more often than the average peasant conscript.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Perhaps it's technically possible, but ABM satellites present their own problems in the sense that they are extremely vulnerable and obvious targets. I can't, for example, think of a good way of defending a satellite array itself from a few MIRV ICBMs that couldn't just as easily be applied to a ground- or air-based defense. Lasers remain the most promising avenue of missile defense technology, but it's difficult to foresee an effective system that particularly needs to be put onto a satellite. Exoatmospheric systems don't need to be persistent. In fact the general thought it that they shouldn't be, largely for the reasons you give here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Radioactive fallout from upper-atmosphere blasts is pretty negligible. Fallout's comprised of two things: pulverized bomb material, and bits of earth that are sucked up into the blast cloud and irradiated. When you set a bomb off at the edge of space, a lot of the pulverized bomb material gets sent on earth-escape trajectories, and there's since there's no earth to irradiate that's not an issue either. What is left over is distributed over a really huge volume. Zapping a MIRV with a laser is extremely unlikely to set off a nuke, because it's going to gently caress up the detonation sequence of the explosives around the warhead, and you're not going to get the critical mass you need for an actual nuclear reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Goddamn that would be a great story, said dude would definitely be deserving of a flogging at least. the same poo poo still happens today. there's plenty of news articles about bankrupt professional athletes or some random schmuck who won the lottery, took the lump sum instead of the annual payouts, and pissed it all away on a giant house, fancy car, etc. the GIP idiot thread is also full of stories about dumbasses who blew their enlistment bonus on a really expensive vehicle which they promptly crashed if their officers didn't yell at them for being retarded and make them return it. terrible financial decisions and penis graffiti are universal to pretty much every professional military ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Zapping a MIRV with a laser is extremely unlikely to set off a nuke, because it's going to gently caress up the detonation sequence of the explosives around the warhead, and you're not going to get the critical mass you need for an actual nuclear reaction. I don't think zapping a MIRV really makes any sense, it's going to have a big ablative shield on it. If you're going to be lasering stuff it's going to be during the boost phase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 02:22
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.