Slashdot Mirror

Actually not really.
The US had bases in Europe and Japan that could have reached the USSR the USSR didn't have any forward bases from which they could have launched an attack on the US.
The SS-6 Sapwood which launched Sputnik took days to ready for launch and where not based in silos.
Here are the facts from GlobalSecurity.org.
"The soviets conducted 16 flight tests to ensure the reliability of the new control design. Following the tests in December 1959, the first of the R-7 launch complexes were put on an alert and deployment of the rockets began in January 1960. In January 1960 the Soviets successfully delivered a nose cone into the pacific ocean Eight missile launches were carried out of which seven were successful. In early 1960 theR-7A missile was put on active alert.

The R-7 was never deployed in significant numbers. The missile took too long to fuel, its above ground launch facilities were large and vulnerable to attack. Finally, the system could only be only be held on standby for 24 hours before the propellant seals began to fail. Fewer than ten were believed to be nuclear deployed, wth only one dedicated ICBM pad was built at Baikonur, and six to eight in the Angara complex at Plesetsk. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-7.htm
The US also had the B-36 by the early 50s and just how interceptable it was is still up for debate. The later version could reach altitudes well above the ceiling of the MIG-15 so it may have been a real threat. The B-47 that followed could hit most targets in the USSR until the 1960s and by then the Atlas, Titan I, Titan II, and Polaris where in service along with the B-52.

The US regularly flies training missions against Russian aircraft. In an unprecedented display, recently, Indian pilots flying the most modern Su-27 variants scored significant victories against US F-15s.

Granted, these confrontations have never happened during wartime, and the F15 has an unblemished combat record (100 planes shot down to 0 lost). Some say that the US took a dive at the Cope India 04 games to encourage funding of the F-22, that seems unlikely to me (the US planes were restricted from using BVR (beyond-visual-range) missles.)

So, comparing 4th generation fighters, an argument can be made that the 1980's Russian ones are comparable to the 1970's US ones.

Bullshit.

Nope. Not bullshit at all, sadly.

Perhaps you meant we can't do better in the future? Or were you saying that we can change the past?

OT here, but the US air war was fighting with one arm tied behind it's back. The Vietnam Rules of Engagement included such wonders as only shooting at enemy aircraft or SAMs after they were fired upon. I can understand not firebombing whole cities but not taking out enemy air fields, SAM sites, anti aircraft and enemy fighters is insane.

"Just plans is how we got those silly no-liquids rules."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLX

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/tatp.htm

I recall reading that an Abrams Tank gets 1 mile/gallon and has a 60 gallon tank.

But then reading a bit into it, I'm wrong. (I'm probably thinking of a different tank.) The M1 Abrams gets 0.6 miles/gallon and has a fuel capacity of either 498 gallons or 505 gallons.

No they didn't The ones that they had where not very practical.
That is one reason why the Eisenhower pushed so hard to not go nuts building ICBMs because we had more than we needed.
The SS-6 Which had just gone on alert in 1959 took two days to get ready to launch and was easy to notice. The USSR had four on alert in 1962. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-7.htm
It's replacement the SS-8 didn't enter service until 1965. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-9.htm
The only bomber that could really reach the US was the Bear but they where few and the US Air Defenses where actually pretty good at that time. The M-4 could only reach the US on a one way trip and the USSR didn't make many of them. They did use them a lot for propaganda.
The Bager was a good bomber but the USSR lacked forward bases for them so they where only really a threat to Europe, Japan, and US naval forces.
So the USSR really had only 4 ICBMs that might hit the US and those took a very long time to launch. They did have around 100 Bears and maybe 20 Bisons that could have reached the US but how many would have gotten through the almost completely intact US Air Defensives is up for debate.
At the time of Cuban Missile Crisis the US several delevery systems that could threaten the USSR.
The B-52 fleet was still a real threat.
The B-47 fleet while winding down where still active and could hit the USSR from their forward bases.
The B-58 was active and could hit the USSR as well.
The Atlas was in service.
32 Atlas Ds
32 Atlas Es
80 Atlas Fs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Service_history
There was around 60 Titan Is in service, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGM-25A_Titan_I
The US has a massive advantage in Bombers and ICBMs at that time.
In the area of SLBM the US had just about as big of an advantage
And the Polaris was in service and the US had 9 SSBNs in service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Allen_class_submarine
The USSR had 21 Golf class SSBs and 8 Hotel SSBNs So the USSR had a 3 to 1 advantage in the number of boats but that doesn't really tell the whole story.
The USSR's SLBM was the R-13 which had a range of less the 400 miles. Not only that but the Subs had to surface to launch and it took up 10 minutes to launch. The math gets worse for the USSR because each sub only carried 3 R-13s. So the USSR could only threaten coastal areas of the US and had to surface within 300 miles of the coast of the US to launch. The Hotel class was very loud and had very low performance and reliability issues. The Golf was not nuclear so it had to snorkel often. The US ASW forces at the time where the best in the world and I doubt that they would averaged even once shot each.
The US force was composed of all nuclear boats. They had much higher performance than the Hotel class. When you look at the missile things really start to shift for in the direction of the US. The US boats carried 16 Polaris missiles. The A-1 had a range of over 1000 miles and could be launched while the sub stayed submerged. So while they USSR had three times the number of boats the US boats carried five times as many missiles and they had three times the range. There are reports that they warheads on the Polaris may not have not been reliable but thank goodness we will never found out.
The simple fact is that the US had a huge advantage and the USSR was really trying to bluff their way into Cuba so they could have a real threat to the US.
And this is leaving uncounted the other strike options the US had.
The tact

No they didn't The ones that they had where not very practical.
That is one reason why the Eisenhower pushed so hard to not go nuts building ICBMs because we had more than we needed.
The SS-6 Which had just gone on alert in 1959 took two days to get ready to launch and was easy to notice. The USSR had four on alert in 1962. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-7.htm
It's replacement the SS-8 didn't enter service until 1965. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-9.htm
The only bomber that could really reach the US was the Bear but they where few and the US Air Defenses where actually pretty good at that time. The M-4 could only reach the US on a one way trip and the USSR didn't make many of them. They did use them a lot for propaganda.
The Bager was a good bomber but the USSR lacked forward bases for them so they where only really a threat to Europe, Japan, and US naval forces.
So the USSR really had only 4 ICBMs that might hit the US and those took a very long time to launch. They did have around 100 Bears and maybe 20 Bisons that could have reached the US but how many would have gotten through the almost completely intact US Air Defensives is up for debate.
At the time of Cuban Missile Crisis the US several delevery systems that could threaten the USSR.
The B-52 fleet was still a real threat.
The B-47 fleet while winding down where still active and could hit the USSR from their forward bases.
The B-58 was active and could hit the USSR as well.
The Atlas was in service.
32 Atlas Ds
32 Atlas Es
80 Atlas Fs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas#Service_history
There was around 60 Titan Is in service, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGM-25A_Titan_I
The US has a massive advantage in Bombers and ICBMs at that time.
In the area of SLBM the US had just about as big of an advantage
And the Polaris was in service and the US had 9 SSBNs in service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Allen_class_submarine
The USSR had 21 Golf class SSBs and 8 Hotel SSBNs So the USSR had a 3 to 1 advantage in the number of boats but that doesn't really tell the whole story.
The USSR's SLBM was the R-13 which had a range of less the 400 miles. Not only that but the Subs had to surface to launch and it took up 10 minutes to launch. The math gets worse for the USSR because each sub only carried 3 R-13s. So the USSR could only threaten coastal areas of the US and had to surface within 300 miles of the coast of the US to launch. The Hotel class was very loud and had very low performance and reliability issues. The Golf was not nuclear so it had to snorkel often. The US ASW forces at the time where the best in the world and I doubt that they would averaged even once shot each.
The US force was composed of all nuclear boats. They had much higher performance than the Hotel class. When you look at the missile things really start to shift for in the direction of the US. The US boats carried 16 Polaris missiles. The A-1 had a range of over 1000 miles and could be launched while the sub stayed submerged. So while they USSR had three times the number of boats the US boats carried five times as many missiles and they had three times the range. There are reports that they warheads on the Polaris may not have not been reliable but thank goodness we will never found out.
The simple fact is that the US had a huge advantage and the USSR was really trying to bluff their way into Cuba so they could have a real threat to the US.
And this is leaving uncounted the other strike options the US had.
The tact

I believe this and other "see through wall tech" (UWB radar) can filter out most stationary stuff (doppler effect).

So if you want a wall that blocks it, keep it moving enough.

Or shake/flap/wave a solid/film enough or have moving liquids in the way e.g. water walls at an angle with big bubbles going up all the time, and/or "waterfall" walls. Not sure which is cheaper to run.

Or have big fans spinning slowly all the time. Or any cool stuff that shows up as a false blip in the motion detectors in those Alien movies ;).

Lastly, I'm no expert but 6 inches of soft wood is unlikely to stop a rifle bullet. Get some kevlar and line important bits of your walls :).

See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/rifle.htm

And note that the figures are for 5.56mm rounds which I guess won't normally penetrate as well as hunter rifle rounds.

So BBS users wrote CIA and army manuals? What? These aren't anarchy philes we're talking about here. They have and ordinary people are often shocked to find that Army manuals tell you how to kill people. "I read it, and those methods are so unfair! We are such horrible people!" I mean, you and I know that's a ridiculous attitude, but I'm not kidding when I tell you there are people out there who do have those reactions.

"nothing comes close", etc Uh huh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-14.htm

Tanks are the new battleships, mostly obsolete when being used against any medium equipped adversary on up. Good for intimidating natives carrying rifles, once they have access to anything better, tanks are just multi million dollar targets

Uh, in what made up world?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

We can't go improvin' our infrastructure now, that'd be socialist and SCARY

And we can't rely on our socialist defense now can we? That'd be socialist and SCARY too... Oh wait.

The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan

We can all look back at the wonderful decision that was made to send more troops to Korea. If we had not, we could have been bogged down in a quagmire there that would have required 50 plus years of American lives, involvement and money. What a wonderful decision it was to send more troops to Vietnam. If we had not, we could have lost over 58,000 soldier's lives; killed millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and been forced to flee the country with our tails between our legs, deserting our allies to the horrors of communist retribution. Good thing our wonderful leaders had the wisdom and courage to send "more troops." Now we are forced with the same dilemma; send more troops or face military defeat.

The question is: why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Now that time has erased the emotions of retaliation for the events of 9/11 and our country elected a new leader who campaigned on the principle of bringing an end to our involvement in these costly wars, why the call for more troops? Could it be we are again simply following the dictates of the power cabal as Major General Smedley Darlington Butler so eloquently outlined in his outstanding work, War is a Racket ?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of our quest for empire over the past six decades realizes that Obama's contemplation of whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply those who control him providing Obama with the opportunity to look "presidential." The decision to send additional troops was reached prior to the situational comedy of General McChrystal's leaked "confidential report" to the Washington Post and Obama's National Security Advisor's public admonishment of McChrystal's failure to follow the chain of command. All of this is nothing but a well-rehearsed, though poorly camouflaged hoax. Additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan within a very short period of time and Obama really has no say in the matter. The question is: why?

Could it be the US-installed puppet government in Afghanistan has new suitors who represent a very real threat to the United State's control of Afghanistan and her abundant natural resources? Is the entry of Russia and Chinese influence into Afghanistan the real reason for the need for more troops? Russia reportedly made its entry back in 2007 with the reopening of its embassy in Kabul. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Ivanov, met privately with President Karzai and offered military assistance through the Collective Security Treaty Organization. (CSTO) The CSTO is made up of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Russia is the driving force in this organization, as one might understand, due to the economic and military weakness of the other members. There were meetings with CSTO delegation in Kabul and neither the US nor the UK were invited. Were the US/UK

It's actually quite a good system, and I really don't think they're going to want to replace all that any time in the next few years.

I would worry a bit about transitioning to anything more complex than what exists already.

Currently, the training for enlisted soldiers who will be the operator/maintainers of the JNN & SSSv3 is 39 weeks long (up from 25). Even with this length of training, there is a lot to be desired. The General Dynamics trainers at the signal school at Ft. Gordon are retired senior NCO's (>E6), but not one has actually used the JNN in the Army. Their experience is all with the old circuit switched comms gear. Knowledge of basic computer networking is seriously lacking for many. So, the end result is that soldiers spend more time learning the maximum length of a CX-11230 cable, memorizing the location of each jack on the signal entry panels, and mopping the floors of the school than actually using the equipment. When soldiers do actually use the gear, it's 100% scripted. The soldiers read the commands off a "cut sheet" and enter them verbatim into the command prompt.

With this level of training, anything more complex than TCP/IP is going to be a no-go unless it's implemented in a very transparent way to the operators.

Instead of complaining about his lack of statistics, and following up with your own lack of statistics, why not ask Google?

"...with 63% of all hospitalizations occurring among persons aged > 65 years." (just one of Google's results)

So, if you combine his figure of 36,000 deaths per year with that link's figure of 37% of hospitalizations being people under age 65, along with current population data, you can figure that the odds of a younger person dying are more like 1 in 23,000. So, his point remains, and your guesstimate of 1 in a million continues to suck ass.

Dude, you didn't even READ the X-33 article did you?

I skimmed it.

"NASA had invested $912 million in the project before cancellation and Lockheed Martin a further $357 million."

thats around around 1/8th of what NASA has spent so far on this new 40 billion dollar jaunt.

Yes, I agree that approximately $1 billion is about 1/8th of approximately $8 billion. I'm not sure what your point is, though. $1 billion or $8 billion, if it's wasted, it's wasted.

Also, I would say that part of the cost was opportunity cost: NASA didn't work on anything else at the time, and we have no Shuttle replacement right now.

Considering that the prototype was over 80% complete, with aerospike engines tested and everything, I would *hardly* call that nothing to show for.

Then I strongly disagree with you. The program was cancelled as a failure, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight. It was supposed to lead to a replacement for the Shuttle; it did not do this. Yes, some new technology was successfully developed, but I rather wish that flying hardware actually in service now had been developed.

NASA snubbed the Delta Clipper program, which was actually flying a prototype. Phase I of the DC/X program cost $12 million, and Phase II cost $60 million; add that up, and the DC/X had spent less than one-tenth of a billion dollars, and was flying a prototype.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dc-x.htm

NASA never liked the DC/X, and refused to spend $50 million to build another DC/X prototype after the only DC/X prototype was destroyed (and I blame NASA for destroying it). NASA claimed "funding constraints" were the reason they could not build another DC/X, which is why I'm so angry that they spent almost a billion dollars on X-33, only to cancel it with absolutely no flying hardware.

What would have happened had the DC/X program been given a billion dollars? I think we would have had our "space pickup truck" long before now.

the program cancellation was controversial (and in my mind stupid) considering that they were well over 80% of the way there.

I trust you can agree with me that it failed to provide an actual replacement for the Shuttle. I refuse to count that as anything other than a failure.

This is why I'm proposing a bounty that is paid only on success, not on sincere plans, or prototypes that were 80% of the way to flying.

I'll bet that the $8 billion they have spent on new launch systems must have lead to some improved technology somewhere, and there will be some benefit from it. But $8 billion has been spent and yet the future of NASA's manned spaceflight looks bleak. So, what should we do now? (My answer is not "just give NASA a whole bunch more money and hope that this time they get it right.")

steveha

You have a poor understanding of the systems.

Datalink is capable of two way communication, yes. But that is by no means it's main strength. It's main strength lies in it's ability to work with other aircraft, while one or more aircraft cruise undetected at a higher "stealthiness" level. They can get their data from other F22s, AWACS, ground stations, or other aircraft with similar systems once they come online.

So picture a CAP flight of four F-22s. Two are flying forward, with a 5-10 Nautical mile separation from the trailing pair of aircraft.

The lead planes are radio silent, they are on passive sensors only, and all the other features that make an F-22 as stealthy as possible are in use.

Meanwhile the two trailing aircraft are lit up like Christmas trees. Active radar, data link, talking to each other, talking to AWACS, ect, etc, etc.

The "stealthed" planes aren't blind. They have a composite of their passive sensors, the uplink from both of their flight mates, AWACS, and possibly dozens of data points. They don't *need* radar, they can see just as well without it, through the (for them) passive data link.

The flight sees a flight of four unfriendlys off somewhere and vectors to engage. The unfriendlys see this, and figuring they have numerical advantage turn to engage.

Meanwhile, the two aircraft they do see are cruising toward them nice and slow at say, 400 knots or so, while the two stealthy aircraft have gone supersonic. They're in weapons range before the enemy aircraft even know they exist. With a little luck, they're out of the sky before with know they exist too.

This is just one very simple, basic tactic that uses this concept. There are many more tactics you can build on this new technology.

As it comes into it's own, Air Forces will adapt, and come to expect these tactics, and they will have to evolve further. But it's still an edge.

To answer your point about the MiG-31: Data links have existed in American inventories for years as well. The F-22s use a new standard called Link 22, which replaces a roughly 10 year old standard called Link 16. Link 4 was introduced in the 1950s... But they've never been this mature, nor well integrated, or "smart". I don't know much about Russian MiG-31 data systems, but I believe you may be referring to the MiG-31BM variant. It's only about 10 years old, and exists in very few numbers. It's possible the Russians have had data link capability longer than that, but again, the existing of data links themselves are not what people who understand this plane are excited about.

Even so, the West has trailed behind the Soviets / Russians in other ways in the past. The passive sensor suites on the MiG 29 for example shocked western analysts when we finally got our hands on them. They weren't out of our capability to produce, but they far outstripped anything we had deployed. Vectored thrust is another area they've lead. The F-22 is the first serious production attempt at vectored thrust by the U.S., where the Russians have had several aircraft in production for years that utilize it.

All this is besides the point though. Data link is nice. Stealth is really nice. Having both in a well integrated package along with well trained pilots who understand how it works, who can coordinate attacks together to exploit it's advantages? That's a potential game changer.

GPP called for the military to be "pared down by 50% for the next 3 years running," by which I assume he means 1/2 of current spending next year, 1/4 of current spending the following year, and 1/8 of current spending the year after that. While I think this is pretty unrealistic (the drawdown costs would be enormous, and wipe out much of the savings) I have to note that we could spend 1/8 of our current defense budget and still have a pretty damn "serious military." This list for worldwide defense budgets for the mid-2000's makes the argument pretty compelling; we spend more than the rest of the world combined, and almost ten times as much as our nearest rival, China. Cutting out 7/8 of it isn't going to happen, nor should it ... but cutting it by, say, half over five years would be entirely reasonable, and would still leave us a large and well-equipped enough military to deal with any credible threat.

I fail to see how some "researcher" no doubt with a worthless degree in "Ancient Medievil History" or the like is more qualified that some who's, gasp, actually been in the field?

To view the active list of Army Field Manuals - excluding engineering and medical: Doctrine and Training Publications

You won't be able to access the files.

But it might just buy you a clue to what an Army college is all about.

Here is a sampling of Army field manuals in the public domain: Army Field Manuals

This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology. ... It was used with devastating effect against the German U Boat pens, canals, bridges and viaducts where the "earthquake" effect of a deep explosion undermined foundations.

Those U-boat pens had nothing on the massive, layered earth and concrete protection of modern 'hard and deep' targets: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz-imagery.htm

Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them

They don't have 10,000 pieces of long range artillery. According to this they only have about 10k-11k total pieces of artillery.

And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.

They still need some sort of delivery system, unless you think they can slingshot their Fat Man sized bombs 40 kilometers. Besides, nukes are a moot point. If they use one they lose the war and the regime doesn't survive. I'd be more worried about them using one when it became apparent that defeat was inevitable and even at that I'd be worried about them using it in the tactical sense (put one somewhere in the path of an advancing American/ROK formation and wait -- no delivery system needed) than trying to get one into Seoul.

And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how?

Who said they were going to make it all the way to Seoul? Did you pay any attention at all to what I said? They are easier to destroy when they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. They set themselves up to be cut off and make their supply lines vulnerable to American/ROK air power.

NK doctrine [globalsecurity.org] (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas

Overwhelming force concentrations play right into our advantages. Go take a look at military history ranging from WW2 to the Persian Gulf and tell me how well massed force concentrations manage against American air power.

backed by special ops in the enemy rear

Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans but even that is only going to delay the inevitable -- and special ops won't be much use against aircraft carriers or our bases in Japan.

That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out.

Doesn't have to. Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them - about 16 for every square kilometer of Seoul's area.
And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.

This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil.

And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how? NK doctrine (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas backed by special ops in the enemy rear - the plan you mention plays right into that strategy.

NK is a hostage negotiation, not strategic diplomacy.

A bit more information via http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mop.htm

warriors/ship-driver-wannabes here:

http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64b7-205.html
(read the Bleed Air section and the Prairie Air section beneath it...)

good views are in:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/prairie.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/index.html

To add to the good comments that prop is the noise introducer from other components in the shaftline, readers (who read, that is) might be interested to see this:

http://www.gibbscox.com/nsv.htm

Shock mounting in the hull helps absorb certain frequencies of noise that otherwise would be emitted.

This one has nice pretty colors for those who are visually-oriented.

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/KBay/backgroundnoise.htm

Now, for those wanting to know what a ship looks like under the stresses of the sea, and you think it's a huge honkin' piece of unbending steel, look at page 13 in:

http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wuc94/p01994.pdf

But, for all of you having wet dreams about the 16% fuel savings, keep in mind it is "UP TO", it's by NO means guaranteed. Considering volatility in fuel prices and potentially unstable regimes providing oil, some circles see smaller lightweight nuc plants as a viable alternative.

(From above: http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/ )

No, he's right. You've linked to the DAGR, and ain't hardly anyone using those yet. In Afghanistan we were issued the PLGR (that big tan thing on the guy's belt that looks like a Fisher-Price calculator. It can probably be dropped 100' onto concrete, but it sucks ass as a GPS. Most of us had assorted Garmin units that ran off AA batteries and left the PLGRs in their packing.

Crap, the link failed somehow. Here we go again

Happy now dickshit?

Yeah fair enough, my point wasn't particular about taxes, tho.

It was about the crazy emphasis the U.S.A. puts on military spending and how much corporate welfare is going on courtesy of Mr Taxpayer - all at the same time we hear "U.S.A. No 1 - U.S.A. No 1" and it starts to get old real quick.

In fact I'm an idiot for biting the troll hand but I guess I snapped this one time.

"Nearly always" is your way of acknowledging that a lot of people, including Obama, have a whole lot of egg on their face about Iraq, and that you know damned well there's a big difference between "invader" and "aggressor."

Do you think we're going to abandon our permanent military bases in Iraq? Do you think we're going to allow Iraq to take back control of their own oil resources? You do know that we own them now, don't you?

If we're invaders and not aggressors, we'd just leave the military bases and oil fields to Iraqis, and we would have left after their first election. But we're not going to leave, so stop pretending.

>I left comments on various sites, including this one and some of my comments have been disappearing.

Probably because your tinfoil conspiracies have more holes than my 10 year old jeans.

>Isn't it an awfully big coincidence that the destruction of US dollar and these fears of NK nuclear bombs and missiles are happening at exactly the same time? I wouldn't put it past the US government to do with NK what they did with Iraq: create a lie and push it to start a war so that US could have its fleet in Asia. There they could 'protect the world from crazy NK' in return for the largest debt owner of US (Japan) forgiving most of it and creating enough threat for China not to try and call US on its debt (not switching from US dollar to some other currency, say gold.) I absolutely believe that US government, the real government - banks, insurance companies, credit companies, military contractors are totally capable of starting a war even a nuclear war to protect their currency and wealth.

Except that Japan and China have even more to lose from calling in the United States' debts than the United States itself. Did you bother to see what happened to the world economy when the financial crisis hit the United States? China and Japan both have export-driven manufacturing bases, with their biggest and most profitable market being the US. It makes no economic sense for them to turn off the faucet by which the United States buys up their goods (and, employs a large chunk of their citizens). Also, as long as they hold the debt, they maintain leverage over the United States that would disappear if they called their debts in.

>A US destroyer was sent to NK shores, isn't that convenient, a single destroyer. They have cruiser missiles on destroyers now, don't they? The 'news' that NK was going to launch a missile at Hawaii came from Japan, and at about the same time Japanese Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano delivered a speech saying that Japan's confidence in US Treasuries and the US dollar "is absolutely unshakable", he also said "I have faith in the U.S. dollar's status as a reserve currency." So Japan props up the USD and at the same time supplies 'intel' that NK is preparing a strike on US territory? You make me LOL so hard.

Your knowledge of military systems is sadly lacking. There are no missiles mounted on a United States destroyer that has anywhere near the range to reach Hawaii from North Korea. Please check widely available sources on military capability before making retarded statements like that. Also, Russian, European, and probably Chinese intelligence satellites would be able to tell where a missile launch was coming from - a North Korean land-based ballistic missile, or a sea-based missile launch.

The other sites where your comments were disappearing apparently had a lower limit on the intelligence of the posts allowed. Did you make the cut?

Pretty much. Of course, any current problems with GPS are likely to be fixed once GPS III is up and running. It will combine land-based positioners with satellites that have 500 times the transmitter power. Of course, that 'not so ubiquitous' factor is still there as GPS III will allow the U.S. military to shut down GPS to selected geographic areas at will to all but sanctioned receivers. ;)

And how exactly have I got buoyancy wrong? If you're listing sideways buoyancy is (part of) what rights you. The dipping side is tries to rise up, while the rising side tries to fall down, both because they've changed in depth from where they ought to be. This is an oversimplification, but not an inaccurate one.

A wide hull would only hinder your stability, until the width is a significant multiple of the wavelength (which btw can be hundreds of metres). What you need for stability is a narrow tower structure that extends deep into the sea so that the surface waves don't have any appreciable affect on it. The surface of the sea is chaos and a structure like this needs to endure it rather than adapt to it. See Spar Platforms for example.

I looked up and said to a friend. This town is so corrupt even the stars have left it.

They all went to North Korea.

Seriously, I see this as more of a factoid than a problem. Greedy capitalist pig that I am, I kinda like not getting mugged in parking lots and being able to see the road at night. YMMV.

you could always go to North Korea.

Granted, there are a few other problems you'd have to deal with, just not light pollution.

you could always go to North Korea.

Granted, there are a few other problems you'd have to deal with, just not light pollution.

Perhaps the US Army?

AM General licensed the manufacture of civilian version of the Hummer to GM. The Hummer you buy is actually a Suburban with a HMMWV shaped body on top. AM General High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle -M998 Truck has different design specs for the military vehicle. Here is some history about this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/hmmwv-hummer.htm

... you cretinous redneck!!

This word apparently means something different to you than it does to me. Not easy to find digital sources for this, but, from a GlobalSecurity.org article:

However, the miners arrived and organized along military lines (many of them having served in the First World War.) They created a system of communication and passwords that no participant ever revealed, even to historians many decades later. In addition, to distinguish themselves from people uninvolved they wore red kerchiefs around their necks (perhaps providing the origin of the word "redneck.") They also assembled commissary wagons and brought along clergy and medical personnel.

That's from the Battle of Blair Mountain, where those "rednecks" fought thugs--and some died--for the right to unionize.

Not saying I'm going to write a curse-laden response to you, but... heads up.

All countries exercise at least some control over who can enter, but there's only one kind of country that erects barriers to who can leave. How long until you guys build a wall? Oh, apparently you've started already.

While I didn't read every article here, nothing suggests that China directly aided the DPRK in developing nuclear weapons. Much of the original reactor technology appears either home-grown or based on alterations by DPRK technologists to a reactor built with the help of the USSR. Khan (with or without official support) provided centrifuge designs and at least one working centrifuge. In addition, the DPRK apparently participated in a joint test of a nuclear device in Pakistan in 1998.

I do agree with your assessment of Kim Jong-Il and the dangers inherent in the looming succession crisis in the DPRK.

While I didn't read every article here, nothing suggests that China directly aided the DPRK in developing nuclear weapons. Much of the original reactor technology appears either home-grown or based on alterations by DPRK technologists to a reactor built with the help of the USSR. Khan (with or without official support) provided centrifuge designs and at least one working centrifuge. In addition, the DPRK apparently participated in a joint test of a nuclear device in Pakistan in 1998.

I do agree with your assessment of Kim Jong-Il and the dangers inherent in the looming succession crisis in the DPRK.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/2004_r/04-07-22emp.pdf

A congressional report from 2004:

"Report of the Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack"

"EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of
catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of
sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical
infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the
United States and Western nations to project influence and military power. "

Interesting that while US is trying to do something about Mexican drug smuggling (probably because it borders with US), they turn the blind eye (or even worse) to the Afghanistan drug production, which floods the Europe with locally-produced opium. It is estimated that Afghanistan is accountable for more than 90% of world's opium production, and most of it goes to the Europe.

It is also worth to note that before the US invasion of Afghanistan, Taliban was able to contain the problem - the drug production declined some 94% during its reign.
But ever since the fall of Taliban regime, opium production has continued to rise each year at an alarming rate:

"The increase in opium production in Afghanistan was from 185 metric tons in 2001 to 6,100 metric tons in 2006." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/drugs-market.htm

One has to wonder about the US involvement in this:
"Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?" http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3294

Hokusai's Great Wave off the Coast of Kanagawa... 15.0 points! I say this bit of software stinks. Nice try people, but it's no good. For the terminally bored, feed it the pictures from HaveYouSeenThisMan.com and see what it says. Oh, for reference, the pic I used:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/images/greatwave.jpg

get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And Kosovo, and South Korea, and Tibet, and ....

The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries around the world performing a variety of duties ...

Where are the Legions?

I believe I have made my point.

I was obsessed with the NS Savannah recently because she is such a beautiful ship - I love ships and this cargo ship looks like a yacht. Whilst I am not a fan of the Nuclear Industry in it's current form her reactor appeared to be reasonably well constructed and whilst designed to cruise at 21 knots, she outperformed her design spec by steadily cruising at 24 knots - pretty fast for a cargo ship. Check page 16 of the MARAD documentation (warning - pdf).

There is significant historical information about her operation. Until 9/11 she was part of the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) but her reactor was permanently disabled due to concerns she could be used as quite a convenient weapon of terror. Sadly, her hybrid design condemned her to a short operational life (10 years) and she is now a ghost ship. There are plans to make her a museum ship whilst waiting for her decommissioned reactor to cool down for eventual disassembly, but no one seems interested in the project. Despite that the seafarers Union have been working to maintain the ship by improving her general appearance.

NS Savannah's crew dispute was because the executive officers traditionally got paid more than the engineering crew on board the ship, this dispute, high running costs, low oil costs all contributed to her eventual demise. An interest group (with mailing list) is looking for photos and artefacts whist she was in operation.

lots more photos, her community organisation, glory days, historical landmark program, service history and specifications, floorplan and schematics, current status, passenger lounge, reactor control room, dry docked , and finally a flickr photo stream and a rather excellent photo essay of the NS Savannah. A little bit of history for you to enjoy.

That's interesting about the early ships: it looks like the Long Beach needed frequent refueling, but that was corrected in later designs, since some of the Virginia class ships went two decades without it.

IIRC the cost of refueling was a major factor in that decision. Early designs needed refueling every few years, and this is a process that takes months.

Some additional data: according to this page, in 1993 a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier cost 20% more to operate than a conventional-powered carrier, mainly due to the extra cost of refueling and decommissioning (ie removal of the irradiated parts).

, neither of which had attacked a US military base nor committed any other hostile action.

You can continue to be deluded, but throughout the '90s, there were dozens and dozens of times the Iraqi military targeted and/or fired on coalition aircraft (British, French, US, and Turkish) with SAMs or AAA.

, neither of which had attacked a US military base nor committed any other hostile action.

You can continue to be deluded, but throughout the '90s, there were dozens and dozens of times the Iraqi military targeted and/or fired on coalition aircraft (British, French, US, and Turkish) with SAMs or AAA.