Slashdot Mirror

I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Res...

Can you give me an example? Because right now this ability looks like the tiger-repellent rock to me.

The United States vs the Soviet Union, for one. There are many examples, but a notable one was the secret communication that Chairman Khrushchev made to President Kennedy. It was a very long and emotional. While the two leaders were brash with each other in public speeches, privately Khrushchev begged Kennedy:

"It is thus that we, Soviet people, and, together with US, other peoples as well, understand the questions of war and peace. I can, in any case, firmly say this for the peoples of the Socialist countries, as well as for all progressive people who want peace, happiness, and friendship among peoples. [...] Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this. [...] There, Mr. President, are my thoughts, which, if you agreed with them, could put an end to that tense situation which is disturbing all peoples. These thoughts are dictated by a sincere desire to relieve the situation, to remove the threat of war." *

I think it's pretty certain that Krushchev and Kennedy being able to talk to each other helped diffuse a situation that brought the superpowers closest to the nuclear brink.

It was after the Cuban Missile Crisis that the Moscow Washington direct hotline was installed so that the leaders could communicated directly to resolve crises.

Wow, you're a special kind of dense, aren't you?

Columbia and most of the Apollo flights were manned. Calling safe return "just an internal goal" is not only moronic, it's flat-out wrong in the case of Apollo:

"this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

JFK (emphasis mine), 25 May 1961, http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/...

Second, you seem to be deeply confused (or trolling) about the difference between a space vehicle and a launch system. Dragon is a space ship, a "vehicle"; it carries stuff. The Dragon 2 (Crew Dragon) will carry people. It is, obviously, of critical importance to return them safely. Falcon 9 first stage isn't even an entire launch system, just the most expensive part of one (the first stage). A spent first stage is a like a (really expensive) spent bullet cartridge; sure, you save money on future shots if you collect it and re-use it, but the goal of any given shot is to fire the bullet and hit the target. Similarly, the goal of a Dragon/Falcon 9 launch is to put Dragon in orbit, and recover it safely.

In fairness, it's inaccurate to say that the CRS-5 mission is successful yet. Dragon hasn't even berthed with the ISS yet, much less returned safely to Earth. That doesn't seem to be your objection at all, though.

> You could make the same list for Catholics....

And people have. There was serious public discussion about whether electing Kennedy would put the pope in charge in of the US. Sure, it was only idiots doing it, but the same class of idiots are still with us today, just with their xenophobia aimed at the latest popular target.

That's flat-out wrong.

Nope, it's the flat-out truth. You're just repeating what's become urban legend since the story first broke a decade ago.
 

They absolutely were intended to prevent a rogue launch, and were mandated by the president of the US at the time, JFK, because he specifically wanted to prevent anyone in the military from being able to launch without his order.

Have you ever actually read National Security Action Memorandum 160? (As referenced in the article.) It only applies to weapons released to NATO, not to weapons in US custody. There not one shred of evidence that JFK, or any other US President, ever mandated their use on US based missiles. (Oddly enough though, the Titan II had a use-control system that was active throughout it's service life.) The whole story that they were so mandated rests solely on an undocumented claim that Robert McNamara "saw to" the installation of the PAL systems. (It remains unclear to this day when, and by who, the systems actually were mandated.)

But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.

That's proven to be a myth.
And there's an easy way to test it. Put the debate on and listen to it.
Nixon sounds unprepared, uncertain, makes awkward pauses as if awaiting some confirmation from someone - which never comes as there is no studio audience, he fumbles with words, makes comments which are shot down by Kennedy...

Kennedy DOES look better, there is no denying that, and Nixon's attempts at charm are closer to creepy than charming.
But Nixon lost that debate both on the radio and on TV.

Oh JFC! What a ludicrous statement and you obviously have no concept of history. Let's not forget that Johnson through the trumped, made up events that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was used to begin offensive operations in Vietnam in the first place? You seem to think that only one party is capable of lying and committing these acts? Please what a lame and retarded viewpoint.

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the Johnson administration's push and omissions and stupidity were no different than the Bush administration officials saying "There's WMDs in Iraq!"

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

Humm, so you think only GW Bush was an idiot huh?

So, Johnson's administration escalated the war in Vietnam based on errors, omissions and Johnson's own stupidity. and lies.

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

He also got a lot of people killed because of his micro-managing style. Battlefield commanders had to wait for permission from DC to take out targets of opportunity. Because of that we lost a lot of planes and a lot of operations were compromised because people's hands were tied up because

“They can't bomb an outhouse without my say-so.” - Lyndon Johnson

So, he produces trumped up events to commit our troops to war, then micro manages how they operate which gets more of them killed. It sounds like the one who should be brought up on Treason charges should be LBJ!

Oh and let's not forget that it was the Kennedy Administration who ramped up involvement in Vietnam to begin with. Including looking the other way when the South Vietnamese President was ousted in a coup.

So, before you start making big remarks, especially while hiding you should consult your history books a bit more or shit at least Wikipedia.

I imagine you're referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though I'm not sure what court case you're referring to. Or perhaps you're just referring to the battle over school segregation Kennedy talked about eg. here.

You may be right, but I do not think for the reasons you see. I also think time might be close to the end of or beyond both of our times.

What reasons do you have in mind? (I'd like to note I listed none myself beyond a vague sort of analogy.) I also seriously doubt marriage equality will take as long as you suspect in the US, unless you're quite old (I am not).

We don't need to go back to the Moon. We went there, planted a flag, and left. There is no reason to go back to the Moon or to Mars. If China wants to waste a few hundred billion dollars on space, let them. That is one expensive flag planting ceremony.

(groan) ^This coming less than 50 years after... :

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

I am not disagreeing that information about space or life in other places would be interesting. These days I tend to think that bacteria came from outside the solar system myself, given how hardy bacteria is, and how statistically it would just be more likely it came from elsewhere with one small Earth and one big universe. I'm disagreeing with how compelling that would be as a call to action in current US society. As in, "Oh, gee, cute seamonsters on Europa. Now, what kind of cosmetics should we be producing to make the most money?"
http://www.skininc.com/treatments/cosmetics/16814576.html
"Global color cosmetics sales reached $36.8 billion in 2007, ..."

It has been said more people have walked on the Moon than have been to the bottom of the "deep ocean floor".
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_part_of_the_ocean_has_been_least_explored

We even have AI about to emerge seriously in twenty years or so (let alone new human/machine hybrids). Big yawn by most people.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm

Frankly, the world would probably be a better place if we took all that money that goes into a search for life in space and put it towards helping understand and preserve life around Earth. One example of where the money would be better spent:
http://www.mel.nist.gov/programs/slim.htm
"The United States needs to prepare for a future where products are 100% recyclable, manufacturing itself has a zero net impact on the environment, and complete disassembly and disposal of a product at its end of life is routine."

A few hundred billion spent on sustainable and resilient infrastructure done in a free and open source way, would let us bootstrap our civilization to the stars. In that sense, all the money spend on big science of other sorts has just kept us from creating space habitats. Related, on my own (self-funded) efforts to that end:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1563102&cid=31279590

Basically, the scientists at NASA have politically triumphed over the engineers. So, NASA does amazing scientific experiments with, for the most part, 1960s technology, with lots of money for science but comparatively little for innovation (and of course, the Shuttle has eaten up most of NASA's budget in general, anyway, so the engineers and scientists were just fighting over scraps left over). And beyond that, there are records showing how NASA has from the start been primarily funded for military goals (to demonstrate intimidating technical leadership):
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/JFK+Library+Releases+White+House+Tape+on+Space+Race.htm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/735/1
"We know that such recordings can shed substantial light on Kennedy's thinking on space because of another tape that was released five years ago and gained a surprising amount of media attention in the sleepy month of August 2001. That recording, number 60 in the Kennedy Library, concerned a November 1962 meeting between Kennedy, Webb, and several other top White House and NASA officials to discuss the NASA budget. During that meeting, Kennedy made the comment that "I'm not that interested in space..." explaining that he supported the lunar program because it was a race against the Soviets: "the Soviet Union has made this a test of the system. So that's why we're doing it," Kennedy explained."

O

His Addison's disease diagnosis was nationally televised? Live?

They should have used the official U.S. Government Youth Fitness Song. This was composed for and distributed by the President's Council on Youth Fitness during the 1960s, as an official U.S. Government activity. Every school in the United States got a vinyl copy. The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library redistributes this as a Presidential document.

Drop and give me twenty. Now!

Well even teddy knows Ford did the right thing.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Pro grams/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Ge rald+Ford/

The left's inability to make fundamental distinctions astounds me. America did use nuclear weapons against Japan. If was brutal and in some moments shameful, but Pearl Harbor was Japan's idea.

President Bush is not trying to make up for past failures. Although, I guess we failed when we liberated France in WWII. They aren't exactly grateful.

If America doesn't give a shit about the rest of the world why do we send billions of dollars in aid around the world? American tax payers feed more hungry people than any other nation on earth

Take a look at what John F. Kennedy (everyone's all-time favorite Democrat) said during the Cuban Missile Crisis and get off this unjustified war routine. Read the 8th paragraph.