|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:The only missile defense weapons that work from space are nuclear powered, and by nuclear powered I mean they are atomic bombs. not necessarily. quote:The typical depiction of the tactic is of a satellite containing a magazine of tungsten rods and a directional thrust system. (In science fiction, the weapon is often depicted as being launched from a spaceship, instead of a satellite). When a strike is ordered, the launch vehicle would brake[1] one of the rods out of its orbit and into a suborbital trajectory that intersects the target. As the rod approaches periapsis and the target due to gravity, it picks up immense speed until it begins decelerating in the atmosphere and reaches terminal velocity shortly before impact. The rods would typically be shaped to minimize air resistance and maximize terminal velocity. we've never done it because a) delivering such a weapon platform into space would be incredibly expensive and b) icbm's and regular planes with bombs do the same trick for cheaper.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Pros: Working BMD would help mitigate the threat from NK/Iran and other regional powers, preserving balance of power and stability. Cons: Makes our former Cold War adversary turned paranoid, kelptocratic mafia state extremely nervous. Sucrose posted:Apparently Jefferson thought there would be a new Constitutional Convention like, every generation or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
double nine posted:not necessarily. I said "missile defense" weapons, which is what the article is quoting the Pentagon as wanting. Kinetic bombardment devices aren't missile defense weapons, they're just weapons. They would, frankly, be lucky to hit a totally stationary target of absolutely known position on earth, let alone a moving missile. The only missile defense weapons that work from space are lasers, which is why they called it Star Wars. But the only lasers that can hit something on Earth from space are x-ray or gamma lasers, because it turns out that a planetary atmosphere is really the perfect defense against laser weapons. And the only way to generate sufficient x-rays or gamma rays to power a laser are by exploding atomic bombs. EDIT: here's the actual quote from the article: quote:The review will also note that further development of high-energy lasers could give the United States a cost-effective way to destroy missiles shortly after their launch in what is known as “boost phase.” Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Neat, I didn't know that. Looking forward to the live-re-enactment of goldeneye
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:... They would, frankly, be lucky to hit a totally stationary target This depends heavily on your definition of "hit." If the target is a building the projectile doesn't exactly need to hit the doorbell, given that the resulting impact is equivalent to a couple kilotons of TNT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:The only missile defense weapons that work from space are nuclear powered, and by nuclear powered I mean they are atomic bombs. Brilliant pebbles would have worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
Just a reminder that Reagan torpedoed total nuclear disarmarment of the United States and Soviet Union because he just couldn't give up on SDI. Space-based BMD is massively destabilizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:cost is definitely not the problem when it comes to military spacecraft, but rather the bad precedent of starting a cold war and escalation of force in space. the best thing is the status quo where everyone just puts spy satellites in orbit and has a gentleman's agreement not to blow up other people's stuff because of the risk of space debris The article talked about adding missile detection sensors to outer space, which is not a bad idea IMO. Edit: To expand a little, the idea of putting lasers in outer space as missile defense is loving stupid, and we should keep space as un-weaponized as possible for as long as possible. But adding further sensor capabilities to orbit is not a bad idea. The expansion of missile detection all over the world is already happening right now, with the new big things being fixed installations and mobile detection vs the old school "stick radar on battleships" methods. Plus, anything that can do missile detection can also do weather detection. The ability to forecast earthquakes and tsunamis is going to be, unfortunately, more critical as climate change continues. Radars are super expensive to develop and like most technology in the world, sorry to say everyone, it is developed first for military purposes. paternity suitor fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
Microsoft is currently better than the US government. Do we have a cyberpunk emoji? https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1085881054106312705
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
 ?Data Graham posted:Wait, where was the rebuttal to Hewitt's take? Did you find a response article? So, it is I who was owned in the end. All I ask is that when I do turn into a corn cob, at least make a decent cornbread from my delicious corpse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:The article talked about adding missile detection sensors to outer space, which is not a bad idea IMO. If you read between the lines of the article, it looks like what the pentagon asked for was “reviews” of a bunch of glitzy, impossible sci-fi bullshit to get what they actually want, which is more and better spy satellites. Which is classic DoD
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:
At least your sacrifice has prevented me from making a similar misstep, so some good has come of it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Just want to make sure this part of this story gets the lols it deserves https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1085893267206467584?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:If you read between the lines of the article, it looks like what the pentagon asked for was “reviews” of a bunch of glitzy, impossible sci-fi bullshit to get what they actually want, which is more and better spy satellites. Which is classic DoD Our air defense technology is also pretty dated and not very effective, so I can easily see this as the DoD trying to slip in funding for making better air defense systems, which would be very understandable and rational.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...m=.d55036609746 It's possible that it was a mistake to hire Rudy Guiliani to do... whatever it is he is doing
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:cost is definitely not the problem when it comes to military spacecraft On the other hand, cost is absolutely the problem. Go look up how much each kilogram of stuff costs to get into orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:cost is definitely not the problem when it comes to military spacecraft Actually space launches would be pretty much the *only* thing that could demolish the USDOD's budget. Getting stuff to orbit is a goddamn poo poo wrecker in terms of work and material. EDIT: gently caress, beaten.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
The Dipshit posted:Actually space launches would be pretty much the *only* thing that could demolish the USDOD's budget. Getting stuff to orbit is a goddamn poo poo wrecker in terms of work and material. yeah, but it's not like having three redundant GPS systems in orbit is all that helpful, or even more spy satellites as far as i'm aware we have an adequate amount of stuff in space, regardless of the expense. like the dod is not hurting for resources to send what it needs into space, and it may be a good thing that the budget constraint prevents them from putting really goofy and dangerous things in space
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
I'm all for putting really goofy and dangerous things in space:
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Maybe you should have looked into that before nominating him  https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1086046912363614210
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Still very early, but... https://twitter.com/stevekornacki/status/1086020730867859461?s=21 (Interesting to see Bernie’s levels across black/white)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Mister Mind posted:Still very early, but... Interesting that Gabbard wasn’t one of the choices given that she announced. She’s a pretty decisive figure I’d like to see how she holds up in the pack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Mister Mind posted:Still very early, but... Sorry, but I would not attach any value at all to this for at least a year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Lol Bloomberg
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sorry, but I would not attach any value at all to this for at least a year. It’s all name recognition, but I think if we use it for just that it’s useful. For example Gillibrand barely polling in the combined double digits isn’t a good look for the week the press was giving her free publicity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Any poll for the next six months or more is just an expensive chart of name recognition statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:It’s all name recognition, but I think if we use it for just that it’s useful. For example Gillibrand barely polling in the combined double digits isn’t a good look for the week the press was giving her free publicity. Whether or not Gillibrand makes an impression definitely isn't going to be shaped by her announcing in January in the middle of the longest shutdown in US history and while all the usual abnormal Trump poo poo is happening. Even the people paying attention only did so long enough to move her from one column of "maybe" to another of "in."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
No Mayor Pete in those numbers is interesting. He hasn’t announced it yet but it’s been buzzing around my area that he’s been planning on running since he threw his hat in for DNC Chair. To be honest I feel he would do better trying to unseat Holcomb, but that’s just me. Indiana needs democratic leaders it can look to right now to energize the party here. Not more Donnelly’s anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sorry, but I would not attach any value at all to this for at least a year. Yeah, after posting I thought this. Especially after seeing others point out the Af-Am sample was pretty small. :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Jay Inslee isn't on that list either, it's definitely a poll about name recognition. Not that it matters ofc, he's just there to give climate change some air time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/a_cormier_/status/1086100128556040192 hosed up if true
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HayesBrown/status/1086101625779957765  Nixon was literally impeached for this
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Nixon was literally impeached for this Nixon was never impeached 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Nixon was probably going to be impeached for somewhat less than this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Not just impeached, but also removed from office most likely. He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Not just impeached, but also removed from office most likely. He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall. well trump won't do that so i wonder what else is waiting in the mueller stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Nixon surviving impeachment was mathematically impossible. Trump? I don't know. The Senate just failed to preserve a sanctions regimen in a move that makes them all look like Russian toadies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Not just impeached, but also removed from office most likely. He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall. More like the writing on the wall was highlighted and had a Klieg light shone on it for him. A delegation of Congressional Republicans visited him the night before he resigned, informing him that the votes were there in both the House and the Senate to impeach him and remove him from office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
I should clarify I don't expect Donald to be removed from office, or to resign, unless this newest Cohen story is just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 05:46
|
|