Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Successfully Tests Anti-Missile Laser
dankinit writes "MSNBC is reporting that a 'Boeing Co.-led team has successfully fired for the first time a powerful laser meant to fly aboard a modified 747 as part of a U.S. ballistic missile defense shield.' The test called 'First Light' has a budget of $474.3 million in the fiscal year 2005 and is part of a larger $10 billion dollar missile defense system."
will be "Sharks", in fulfillment of the prophecy of Dr. Evil. . .
You are not the customer.
The USSR is dead. North Korea has missiles which we *theorize* can hit the western coast of the USA, and they're not crazy enough to launch them. I think that nowdays we have a lot else we can spend money on besides a missile defense program which only half works.
Calling it star wars? and are they going to get sued for that now?
10 billion dollar squared, that must be a lot of money.
And apart from a loud "BOE-ING" sound when the laser was discharged, all went well.
Oakland can use, oh, say $20million of that. That's all. Geez.
Oh yeah, and can it stop dirty bombs in suitcases, or monitor Oakland's ports for suitcase nukes? Nope.
Ballistics, while scary, are not our biggest problem.
Yes, until 9/11 there had never been a terrorist flying a plane into a new york skyscraper, so it could never have happened.
Oh wait... it happened twice
The official site about this laser is here
""It showed they work," Kenneth Englade, an agency spokesman, said of the laser's six identical, pickup-truck-sized, modules linked to fire as a single unit. "The rest is fine-tuning."
For "fine-tuning" read: "everything the system is supposed to ultimately do." It's like writing the first 10 lines of code in a large project and saying "the rest is fine-tuning."
"Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester under former President Clinton and a critic of early missile defense deployment plans, described the test on Wednesday as very important to people working on the program.
"They deserve a lot of credit for having gotten this far," he said in a telephone interview. "But they've still got a long way to go" to demonstrate shoot-down capability."
That's all this is, something important to the people working on the program. They want more funding. But as far as actually shooting anything down, well that's an entirely different matter:
"Among other technical challenges, Coyle said, engineers must figure out ways to fire the laser for the longer time needed to zap a missile without damaging the optics through which the beam passes -- a kind of technical Catch-22."
Details, details. But give us money and we'll happily explore the Catch-22 for a lot longer!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Using a whole 747, when a shark is more than capable of wielding a laser of "frickin" spec....
Now, they still must
A- Improve duration & Power
B- Shootdown test... destroy a inflight dummy missile
And i guess C, get nuked by someone with the capability (nukes and missile range)... which is... hmmm... the Soviets? Iran? No... North Korea? No... China maybe? Aliens? Terrorists? Anyone?
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
When was the last time I got into an accident? When will my house burn down? When will I die before age 70?
Insurance. It's all about insurance...
The real question is, can this technology be extended so we can use sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads to shoot down anti-ship missiles?
Wouldn't it be just as easy to build a dome over the united states? a dome would be just as fesable and make as much financial sense as this missile system.
heh. Or a bioweapon defence system.
Several religious cults are contemplating this plan: Take your chosen followers into hiding, vaccinate them, release plague, you and chosen followers inherit the world.
Now, it is possible that "christian right" nutters in the USA are the ones most likely to have the resources to do that, may even rationalise it with "the best defence is a good offence" and do it first to stop other cults doing it, but plenty of people outside the USA are similarly evil.
A little more work, another successful test, and I think we can all grab some popcorn to celebrate.
Now all we need is a house to fill with popcorn...
I know this because God has given me a sign. And told me to stop playing with myself.
-- Kent
...can it shoot down a suitcase? Because that's where the bombs are gonna be...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This project is probably meant for defense against China but they only pointed out North Korea for diplomatic reasons. :P
You and everyone else with half a brain. However, all of our bitching won't change anything. It's the rich taking our money and making themselves and their friends richer and richer.
It doesn't have to do anything. It just has to look like it does something, then they can smile and pretend it's a useful device.
If there's a good chance your ICBMs aren't going to work, you won't even try, considering the fact that the retaliation is _sure_ to work.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
First, if you've had reasoned it a bit, having a defense [system] BEFORE you get attacked gives you much greater chances of not having [so many] lives lost.
Secondly, I doubt that asteroid and ballistic missle defenses are so different cases, that none of the research outcome of ballistic missile defenses projects couldn't be utilized later on with asteroid defenses.. Though, defending with lasers against asteroids might be way off... Well.... :)
(U.S. Army Air Defense Solider) looks like im out of the job lmao
OH MY GOD! Do you guys even CHECK the links before you mod people up? That's a goatse link, you idiots.
There hasn't been an attack because the threat of nuclear annihilation forced every war to be a COLD war.
But now america can threaten other nations with Nukes as much as they want! They have total defensive superiority!
I imagine the other countries could unite and have a ring of anti missile defense set up around U.S. Soil pretty quick but who wants another arms race? The American's that's who?
I guess that's why they never honour any treaties, what's the point if they can just NUKE everyone with NO HOPE of reprisals.
This isn't such a big deal. All they did was fire a laser from a fuselage-sized building/room. They have not proven that it will work at high altitudes, much less actually hit the target.
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
here are your Real Genius quotes
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Just think what would happen if that $10 billion went towards a couple of public school systems.
Problems caused by government are never solved by more money. Twenty mil will solve nothing except the wealth problem.
Er, given that the device is mounted in an airplane there is no requirement that it shoot down missiles over America.
It would have been quite handy, for instance, when Iraq was launching Scuds in the first Gulf War. Those were nervous times.
It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran...
This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system.
Directed energy weapons are going to be a big part of future military technology. This program is as much R&D as anything else. We are already spending a lot of money on phase 1 of an "asteroid defence[sic] system". They're called "telescopes".
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
When was the last time an asteroid of dangerous size hit North America?
think you're any safer, having pissed off the UN
If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
and the majority of the planet?
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
Not to mention an entire major religion?
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
If someone really wants to blow up a building, they're going to blow up a building.
No, that's false. There are a lot more people in the world who'd like to blow up a building than there actually buildings that have been blown up. The actual sentence should read "a sufficently motivated and capable person who wishes to damage a sufficently unprotected entity will try until stopped or success is achieved".
Its a completely false sense of security.
The US is significantly safer in many, many ways. However, it is clearly not secure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's FRICKIN LASER BEAMS attatched to their heads!
w f.html
Soundboard: http://www.theflashgames.com/dr_evil_soundboard-s
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Great point, except that the Federal government should not be involved in bailing out any city's public schools. That is a local or state matter at most. This happened with Philadelphia schools a few years ago; they became the State's problem. Now tax money from all over the state gets to be thrown away on their failing schools.
worst sig ever. . .
This is absolutely ridiculous, and i really think all this money should be invested to help the population. Some people are starving, some people are sick. Why must we all put our money in fucking crap like missiles, anti missiles, going on the moon and shit. Nobody wants to fix things here ?? Kind of like when you're a developer and you find it boring to fix old apps compared to building new apps.
Help the population, stop spending the money on crap like that. The whole terrorism thing is used by the american administration to manipulate the population...
10 billions of american dollars, this would help a great deal of people in need of basic things like a home, food and things more important than pr0tact1ng t3h us fr0m t4h m4ss1l3s!
I have a feeling than in many years ppl will laugh at this whole idea, pretty much like flying cars didn't happen when 2000 came. And the artist's rendition pic on the article page is just pure sci-fi stuff.
100% of statistics are wrong.
I would think that most people agree that a missle attack on US soil is at least a possibility (top military minds seem to think so) ... and if it is, what do you do with that information ? You spend the money.
What propaganda have you been reading that could lead you to believe that, even in spite of the fact that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? Please tell me you're not that stupid.
Anyone remember a few months back when an airline pilot got hit in the eyes by a laser beam while flying? I wonder if that was a mis-fire of this thing, and they tried to cover it up.
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
I can't believe this funding... blah blah blah.. waste ... blah money better spent... blah blah.
when has miltary research ever helped consumer products and humanity in general with unforseen new products and spawning of newer greater more worthwhile ideas/theories in science?
That we're doing this as a hedge against a resurgence of hostilities against Russia. Russia's already increasing its spying in Britain back to Cold War levels.
So damiangerous sez:
"When was the last time an asteroid of dangerous size hit North America?"
50 thousand years ago. Canyon Diablo, Arizona.
The last known planetary impact was in 1908. Tunguska, SIberia.
A couple of hours earlier, it might have hit England.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
By Michael A. Lev Tribune foreign correspondent
The list of people who let down 25-year-old Huang Jin Bao--who, in fact, left him for dead by the side of the road--includes the police officers who ignored him and the ambulance driver who refused to pick him up because he had no money.
There was also the manager of the luxury townhouse development who took no interest in Huang's nearly lifeless body lying just outside his property, even though the incident began when one of the development's subcontractors fled without paying Huang's 800 salary.
This was why Huang, an itinerant carpenter, was standing outside Merlin Champagne Town with other construction workers demanding their money when a black Volkswagen sedan sped out of the parking lot and badly injured him.
For hours afterward, Huang lay unconscious, with a broken ankle and other injuries, disregarded by the development's security guards and passersby.
The police came and went, taking little interest. The ambulance driver too. When a second police patrol later grudgingly took Huang to a hospital--dumping him and several friends at the gate--doctors turned him away because he could not pay.
Back to the driveway
So Huang's friends, who also were fleeced by the construction boss, took him home. The next morning they carried him back to the driveway of Merlin Champagne Town. There they laid him, still dazed, on a cheap blanket as they wondered how to raise the 370 needed to get him medical care.
In China, it is survival of the fittest. It is a striking fact never addressed by the communist leadership that some of the biggest social problems facing China today--the big gap between rich and poor, the exploitation of peasants--are the same type of woes that led to the revolution of 1949.
The sense of enforced community that came with Chairman Mao's era is long gone, replaced by a burgeoning free-market economic system that rewards hard work but is not developed enough to offer protection to those who are vulnerable.
There are no broad government programs to guarantee medical help for indigents and only a weak culture of reaching out to strangers in need.
Chinese people in trouble will look for help from friends, or people from the same hometown or business partners, but there is little sense of trust among people who don't know each other. Perhaps it is because China is overburdened by its population of 1.3 billion, making it impossible for people to feel responsible for everyone they see in need. Many people also ascribe a loss of public spiritedness to the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, in which minding your own business was a matter of survival.
There are few charities in China because the authoritarian government does not easily ease its controls to encourage private groups to organize. Religion, too, with its teachings of compassion or being a good Samaritan, represents only a small voice in a society where the government promotes atheism.
In the end, it may have been that Huang was ignored out of a simple concern that whoever took him to the hospital would get stuck with the medical bill.
A system in chaos
The government acknowledges the need to create a social safety net. But in the whirl of a country in transition from communism to capitalism, the system of overseeing the 100 million migrant workers like Huang who leave their peasant villages to strike it rich in the city is chaotic.
In general, migrant workers are treated as low-status outsiders who get little respect. Many, like Huang, who has only a 7th-grade education, are barely literate. There are hundreds of thousands of these itinerant construction workers in Beijing. They move from city to city, job to job, and get no medical benefits. They are paid annually and are at risk of being cheated.
In the hospital
So, where is the evidence? Oh, that's right, they trucked it away as quickly as possible, and shipped it off to other countries, before the story could be verified.
Bin Laden can make whatever claims he wants, he has plenty of reasons to lie about it though, so I think we, the public, deserve more.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperatel/y in need of the US for protection or stability.
This too shall pass.
You misunderstand. The missile defense system isn't an insurance against pissing off someone pretty big, it's a validation of pissing off someone pretty big.
Welcome to big stick foreign policy.
~Tirinal
When was the last time I got into an accident? When will my house burn down? When will I die before age 70? Insurance. It's all about insurance...
Hmm Insurance... Maybe defense spending should be allocated in a probablistic risk mitigation sort of way.
What is the probability of different kinds of nuclear attacks (obviously unknown)? What are estimated casualties? What is the cost and success rates of potential preventative measures?
Compare that to similar estimations for things like the cost to benefit return on mandating airbags, improving smoke alarms, or sponsoring aids research. Even if you don't know the value of something like the probability of a nuclear attack, you can try to calculate what it might need to be in order for specific nuclear defense research to be more valuable then an alternative protective investment.
So which is more likely, a terrorist/rouge nation launching a missle at us, or a terrorist/rouge nation driving a nuke by truck into a city?
Put it in a shipping container and send it by freight ship into NY harbor. It would be virtually impossible to stop that. The people operating the ship don't even have to know about it once you forge some paperwork. Customs doesn't get at it until the ship docks, and even then they rarely inspect more than 5% of the cargo!
It's neat, but this system seems to be too little too late in terms of national defence. I'm sure it will still prove useful to the military for protecting their own craft and such, but it does nothing for the safety of the nation in general.
=Smidge=
In summary, you FAIL IT
Insightful? Arrogant and misguided.
If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
I never said the UN would provide safety. But seeing as the UN is a collection of the majority of the nations in the world, its not generally a good idea to piss them off.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
Canada is doing quite fine, thanks. Im sure there are quite a few nations out there that feel very much as though the US has hurt them far more than helped.
If your of the opinion that military might is what makes a country great, then perhaps you should evalute what your foreign policy has done to your image internationally. Get your head out of your ass and realize that the US is not the shining light in some world of poverty, violence and dispair.
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Maybe that has to do with your foreign policy. Oh, and maybe a lot of them didnt have any problem with you until recently, when you invaded probably one of the more civilized of their nations in the middle east. You want a target for humanitarian reasons? Try Saudi Arabia. Oh right, they control a good section of your economy. Cant be pissing them off.
The US is significantly safer in many, many ways. However, it is clearly not secure.
Keep it up. Im sure your country will fall into civil war soon enough.
.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not really, you need to do both. While the US may not fear missiles being launched at us, we do have allies, chiefly Israel, that do and having a defense platform like this flying around would limit Iran or Syria's ability to launch a few missiles their way. It could also be used to keep India and Pakistan from blowing each other up with their nuclear arsenals. This could potentially eliminate the threat of nuclear missiles altogether, leaving us to focus on other threats such as terrorists obtaining the useless nuclear material from newly useless missiles and making dirty bombs to set off at locations of their choosing.
Do you honestly think you're any safer, having pissed off the UN and the majority of the planet?
Whether you supported the Iraq war or not, I think the UN has shown time and again that it lacks the balls to actually act when things need acting upon.
Ask the Sudanese if the UN passing an almost strongly-worded resolution against the genocide there did anything more than make people chuckle. Christ, they couldn't even step up to SAY they MIGHT in the FUTURE stop a GENOCIDE. Is there a trigger for UN action in their resolution? Nope. Did they acknowledge it was genocide? Of course not! Because if they acknowledged it as what it is, they have legal obligations under the international law they claim to believe so strongly in to stop it.
So no, they slapped them on the wrist, and China talked them out of even using a ruler to do it. Frankly, until the UN proves it is willing to fulfil its obligations, I'm inclined to believe it's nothing more than a waste of time to even let them know what's going on.
epiphani wrote:
>>> but when was there ever a missile attack on any north
>>> american target? This money seems like a complete waste,
>>> that could have been spent on a much more useful project
>>> - like, say, an asteriod defence system.
I wrote:
>> Yes, until 9/11 there had never been a terrorist flying a
>> plane into a new york skyscraper, so it could never have
>> happened. Oh wait... it happened twice
epiphani wrote:
> and look what its done to your country. Do you honestly think
> you're any safer, having pissed off the UN and the majority of
> the planet? Not to mention an entire major religion?
Are you on drugs? what does this pissing off anyone have to do with anything? Are you even following a conversation?
Way to go in making two big false presumptions, that 1. because something hasn't happened, it won't, and 2. that I'm in the US.
People who make presumptions as big as you are worth ignoring in conversation, as they end up just having little side arguments with themselves that have nothing to do with the discussion.
Of the 4 overrides in my town, NONE provided an increase in student performance. Given that spending has increased significantly since 1950, yet learning is down I somehow don't think money is the problem.
YOU FAIL IT
I'm posting as AC because i'm embarassed to ask this, but if a missile is "chromed", does it still absorb the lasers heat?
Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
Yes, because the asteroids striking North America are so prevalent and so threatening, we should definitely invest in an asteroid defense system. That would totally not be a waste of money!
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
...has about 20 tons of popcorn for sale. Please inquire at his home. Look for the Jiffy-pop foil scattered about the neighborhood.
HEY YOU!!! shut the hell up! You're giving them ideas!!
so if you need antivibration air cushions just to get a laser to lase how do you get it to work on a moving 747. it sound like they've got it to work on the ground. yay.
That the USA has a successful test of a laser weapon is good news. It will defend the homeland against Chinese nuclear missiles. Also, I'd be interested to know what technologies the Japanese contributed to the laser weapon. It would be quite handy during the next submarine incursion.
The Japanese deploy a particle beam weapon and a laser. The laser knocks out the Chinese spy satellite. The particle beam weapon knocks out the sub.
sweet.
Take a gander at the Yahoo! News article about the shocking brutality of the typical Chinese.
- Destroying the payload? If the ICBM is carrying toxic substances (viruses, bacteria, chemicals like sarin, or radioactive materials such as iodine, strontium, etc.), what happens to them? Do they just gently waft down through the atmosphere to the ground, where they could do a fair bit of damage? Biological materials might receive enough heat to be destroyed or rendered inert; radioactive materials can't.
- Actually hitting a live ICBM? It's one thing to hit a test dummy; it's quite another to hit a live missile.
- Handling a dozen (or more) ICBMs launched to arrive simultaneously at a dozen or more different sites across the US?
- Dealing with people smuggling in small weapons on ships?
- ...
This is reminiscent of the whole crypto argument: relying upon crypto to safeguard your data is like sticking a single stake in the ground and hoping the enemy will run into it. It might be a useful tool, but it's by no means the only thing we'd need to protect $REGION. Remember: we're not trying to protect against missiles. We're trying to protect against attacks using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Missiles are just one subset of that, and arguably an increasingly less important subset to boot.2nd, if you are going to launch an attack on the united states, don't make the mistake of leaving much of it left to retaliate. The US is an angry country don't wake it, if you can't defeat it.
3rd, there is no reason not to have multiple defense systems because all of them have one or more alkalis heels. Developing more then one at a time is a good idea because you might spend five years to find out that it is just is not viable. You would have to start from scratch on a new system.The military uses radiance for a lot of thing because things fail.
--Don't forget that if we worked on only on missile defense system and it failed, to blame G.W. for no developing more then one system.
WARNING: Viewing This Sig May Cause Blindness.
Yeah, they started launching space shuttles off of 747's, they track down ICBMs and their fire plume upone disentegration on re-entry destroys the missile.
"brxref
Can it selectively allow missiles to get through, say to Berkely?
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but it's still not your first first post, and you still FAIL IT.
If everyone was as sure about this seemingly peaceful world in which we are living in we'd all just simply disarm.
But the truth is, missile technology has yet to reach its zenith. A vast majority of the countries today have the resources and knowledge to buy or construct them. Many are already doing so. We see the UN warning that fissible material and delivery technology is being traded freely on the blackmarket. Eventually, even non-representitive groups will have access to missile technology.
If we had the ability to predict major world changes with sufficient lead time to re-arm our military to protect ourselves, I'd agree that this type of technology isn't needed or even useful at this time. But when you can't make such predictions, you prepare to defend against the potentual threats you can see.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
"the religion (chrisianity) has become more civilized and toned down as well."
No, your just trained by the US media to not think of it has "christian" violence.
People in general are uncomfortable with outsiders, religion preys on this weakness and exploits it. Thats how most religion (Including chistianity) operates. Fear Fear Fear. (they just skip the U&D.)
Terrorists are an extreme branch of a religion and are no different than the assholes who shoot abortion doctors. Do not assume that most (or even a significant) portion of muslim's hate us because we are free or christian. They hate us because we have been trying to control them and bombing them, and other fucked up shit for the better part of a century. It is really that simple. If we would have left the middle east alone and not tried to force them to recognize israel and wouldnt have supported israel then we wouldnt have been in this mess to begin with. Add to that the fact that we have supported dictators like the taliban and hussien and you can see why they have legit problems with us. Of course it is easier for people to unburdon themselves and just place the blame on bullshit like "they hate us for our freedom".
Yes, it really is *THAT* simple. Leave them alone. (How to achieve it is quite a bit more complicated, especially with an oil pimp in office)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Jeezes, if you would invest that kind of money in international / intercontinental relations and human aid, the world would be a much better place!
This starwars project sure cost a lot of money to combat a non-existing threat.
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Let us be clear: you hope Islam will one day kill off millions because they will not convert? And then become educated, civilized and toned down?
I kind of hope that, now that the world has seen the effects of holy wars that the education and toning down can happen without the slaughter of millions.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
From Command and Conquer: Generals expansion Zero Hour, King Raptor.
An omnidirectional barrier system capable of covering the entire US would be a good idea, though a few pinpoint barrier systems in each major city would probably be enough.
You're almost as pathetic as those who don't believe that the holocaust happened. No, wait, you probably don't believe that happened either. Get a clue, moron.
Well, that's sort of right, but misses the bigger benefit. The conventional method of stopping an incomming missile involves shooting it down while it's already descending into your own territory. If you hit it, but don't destroy the warhead, you can still get a lot of damage, as seen with scud missles.
The real benefit of using an aircraft mounted laser is the incredibly large effective range, and the ability to shoot down the missile during launch, and make any collataral damage occur to your enemy.
Maybe I wouldn't hate you if you could actually spell capitalism correctly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Doesn't someone just need to give their missiles a shiny reflective coating to foil any sort of laser defense?
No, but maybe it can stop someone, in a few years, from lobbing a nuke over the Pacific. Or maybe it can keep Fuckedupistan from shooting a newage SCUD at Weirdistan.
Can one airport security guard stop a Chinese ICBM from hitting Taipei? No, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend money on airport security. She might be able to stop another kind of attack.
Honestly, can you think of an easier target?
The disintegration of the Canadian federation would seem a more likely possibility than civil war in the U.S. Bush's re-election came without without so much as a tremor nation-wide. The country remains center-right, which, historically, is pretty much where we have always been.
Yes, until 9/11 there had never been a terrorist flying a plane into a new york skyscraper, so it could never have happened.
Before 9/11, we have never been attacked by ICBM or hijacked plane. Post 9/11, we have been attacked by hijacked plane. So the response is to invest in an Anti-ICBM system?
I understand your point - just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it never will. But your analysis is WAY too simple. Should we invest billions in a system to prevent invasion by mutant frogs equipped with lasers, developed by radical french anti-globalization forces? Obviously not.
We need to look at every issue, and decide what the best way to protect ourselves is. ICBMs can only be developed by countries with decent technological infrastructure, and they would never be used against us because we have the military power to destroy the government of any country that attacked us.
Of course, the scientist/engineer in me loves research like this, and I am glad the we are developing defensive weapons, instead of offenive weapons.
What would keep someone from giving their missiles a reflective mirror coating? Would this protect them, or is the laser too powerful?
It might still be handy in the airspace over Iran...
This is of course exactly why a foreigner (read non-US citizen) like myself *doesn't* like it. It allows the US to be more agressive in attacking countries which are just developing nuclear weapons - not a good thing since it entails a war.
Don't get me wrong, I hate to see countries joining the nuclear weapon club but since all of the nuclear powers are holding onto their nukes (except South Africa) and making no real effort to implement the non-profileration pact it hardly seems fair to restirct the number of nukes. There is already enough out there to wipe out human life on earth anyway.
On the other hand this system is completely unable to protect against low-tech delivery methods (shipping a nuke in a cargo container to New York City) so the system is more or less a waste of money.
Keep it up. Im sure your country will fall into civil war soon enough.
Why is it that we can't have mature discussion of military technology? Some ass always has to post wishing a previous poster and/or his country a quick death, herpies, or civil war.
Please grow up....for the children.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Actually, he/she/it is right. There's no real evidence except Bin Laden's claim of responsibility if you really sit down and think about it.
Not that this lets old binny boy off the hook, but what if he's not really the perp and the real bad guys got away? How would you ever know since our loving government didn't see fit to share all the evidence with us that they claim to have?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Or how they kidnapped Japanese civlians.
Or how they starve their own population.
Or even how they test biochemical weapons on whole families - children and all: "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth to mouth breathing."
Fuck those bastards. We should nuke them
So yeah, they're crazy enough.
Of all the evil regimes to be apologetic for, North Korea is about as bad as it gets. Anyone who defends them is objectively defending evil.
I would simply argue this: this defense system is a defense against something that should be one of our last worries. I do not envision a terrorist gaining access to the ability to launch ICBM's, though I don't deny that could happen, we can significantly reduce that chance by agreements with countries to limit how nukes that we both have. It is working with the former USSR as they reduce their nuclear stock piles, it becomes easier to keep an eye on what they do have.
further, I am much more worried about major port cities. If terrorists were able to get their hands on a nuclear device, I don't think its very easy to carry a highly effective one but you could gut part of a sail boat and sail it into port. If it is shielded for radiation purposes, it can't be seen(at least obviously) and when private sail boats approach US soil they can enter into port and dock and lolly gag their way to a custom's office. Major danger is just lolly gagging that bomb into a major port city(lets just say San Francisco) on a legal waterway until your in an area that would cause horrendous damage and just set off the bomb.
I think this money is much better spent on real anti terrorist efforts. I'm not as worried about N. Korea launching a missle on us but I do not say we shouldn't build this system. It just feels like over kill into a system that isn't worth that much to the threats it deals with. now after 9/11 I will admit that if we can imagine it, it can happen. But this system is a throwback to the arms runup we had under Reagan. I think we are throwing money at a problem that isn't in the forefront because we don't want to give up on anything by the great Reagan, but who knows, there could be reasons why this is more important.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, the US government is trying to find ways to not make our ports hellish on sailors and commercial ships while still securing our borders. I commend them on the efforts they have done because they have done them without being horribly intrusive into my sailing(contrast to new border checks on immigrants, like photos and finger prints, which I do not see as useful in preventing any crime, but possibly catching a non-suicidal criminal).
Whats the point of this? In order to be successful, it has to be able to shoot down EVERY missile.
How does the system decide on targets? Radar.
All you need to do to defeat this is drop out shards of metal which show up as targets. If each missle turns into 10,000 potential targets the system will NEVER be able to cope.
I don't know what game the pentagon is playing, they know as well as anyone who thinks critically for 5 mins that this will never work.
Unless it can burn one down from boost phase, all it'll do is make funny fallout patterns from any thing w/a NBC warhead somewhere in friendly(ish)territory.
And if someone's going to be tossing those, I think they'll be able to target the flying radar reflector aka a 747.
Proof of concept is all this thing's really good for unless you're the contractor in need of $$$.
You beat me to the punch.
Of course, what I want to know is:
Why do so many Slashdotters think federal government funding is the key to so many local issues?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Like in most wars, win, lose, or draw, as long as we kill 100:1 ratio of foreigners that's good shootin.
I may sound like a hick, but I garan-damn-tee you that you can't argue agin my logic.
America has done more damn good for the world than not, and the sooner we are a) safe from them and b) get all y'all to be regular [democratic, consumers] folks, the better off the whole world will be better off.
Yeah, let's have the Federal government take over all local schools. That way they can also achieve the high standards of the Washington D.C. school district.
-- Will program for bandwidth
If I had mod points, I'd mod that once as insightful, and then come back and mod it again funny. I did laugh.
Again, great point, except that you give no justification whatsoever for your free-market-in-the-public-school-sector attitude. If your point is that we should get rid of public schools altogether you'd have a leg to stand on...but to merely say the federal government shouldn't support local schools requires some sort of handwavy proof.
If your argument is that it isn't the federal government's domain to support education, then we'd also expect the federal government to get out of university level funding. We'd also expect the federal government to stop regulating anything other than interstate and international transactions. If its just a matter of stopping bailouts maybe you'd mention the federal deficit, or the PG&E bailout, or what about Long Term Capital? But you mention none of these...you just don't want to help out urban kids.
No, what you are saying is that it's not worth 20M to prevent the over 200,000 kids that will go through OPS in the next 20 years from getting a crappy education. Holding kids responsible for financial mismanagement by a group of adults that took place in many cases before they were moved to Oakland, entered the USA, or were BORN is a ludicrous stand to take. A rational thinker would estimate the cost of trying in a court of law, incarcerating, paying welfare for even a few of these kids will quickly surpass 20M....but a self-made know-it-all who has taken Econ 1A will just chant the familiar free-market laissez faire refrains.
It allows the US to be more agressive in attacking countries which are just developing nuclear weapons - not a good thing since it entails a war.
Well, if someone wants to avoid war with the US, the first they should do is not develop nuclear weapons. I know, seems like a no brainer, but most of the people working on nukes these days (Iran, North Korea) don't actually have any brains to speak of.
On the other hand this system is completely unable to protect against low-tech delivery methods (shipping a nuke in a cargo container to New York City) so the system is more or less a waste of money.
By your logic, inspecting cargo vessels for nuclear weapons, being completely useless against even lower tech delivery like, say, hijacking a plane, is more or less a waste of money. It's called "defense in depth", look it up sometime.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Actually, it already has. Despite what hoity toity Mr. Jones on the street corner may think while he waxes poetic under a flag he may as well be using to wipe his ass for all the respect he has for it, much of the world that could actually benefit from U.S. intervention, frequently in S. America and Africe, is ignored. None of the major countries need our support, nor have they since the end of the cold war.
It's already passed, we just haven't realized we're knocking ourselves into irrelevance with our arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world. We're being left behind, and, as my idiot countryment proved less than two weeks ago, we don't even know it yet.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
All the money in the world can't help that.
Remember general granger with his planes with a laser point defense system. Imagine f-22 raptors with a laser point defense system or general townes with his laser point defense system on his avengers. Isn't it better developing something that doesn't kill anyone but protects them. Would you rather have them make a bomb that can blow up something the size of alaska.
"OK Guys, the top brass are comming down next week, they are going to cancel our funding unless we show them something pretty dope! Ok, call Boeing, ask them if we can get a 747 nose, that way we can atleast make it look like it will fly, next we need to hide those big fat power cables. We can make up for the fact that our laser does jack shit by making it purple, fire for only 1/1000 of a second and turn some of this photo-sensitive cardbord black. Lets see if we can get another 4 years of money for this bullshit"
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
You must be joking. You call that stability what's going on in Irak? You call it stability when the US waged war in South America by shattering democracies and putting despotic dictators in power? You call it stability when the US supported Al Qaida in Afghanistan against the Soviets? You call it stability when the US supported Saddam Hussein against the Iranians? You created Bin Laden and Saddam. You create instability.
You are just a typical ignorant American. Rest of the world doesn't want your "protection". This isn't WWII. Your whole culture has changed since. Rest of the world doesn't like you anymore.
Anonymous European
Many portions of Isam feel that any other religion is inferior and almost sinful, and thus many hate Jews, Christians, etc.
Uh, huh. That would be why the Quran refers to Jews, Christians and Muslims as all "children of the book."
For instance, in the terrorst handbook thing the British found on a raid, there were discussions on why it is ok to torture. The basic idea was that Muslums are allowed to torture others because they are Gods children, while others are not allowed to.
Let me clue you into something - the muslim extremists are about as Islamic as the KKK are Christian. Taking what they say as representative of the religion is a great way to delude yourself, and justify all kinds of terrible things.
But, let's take the response one step further, you say that modern "Christian" societies have progressed beyond such barbaric reasoning? That would explain this memo from the current administration rationalizing torture in the "war on terror."
So, just who now are we suppossed to be rooting for?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
there were discussions on why it is ok to torture. The basic idea was that Muslums are allowed to torture others because they are Gods children, while others are not allowed to.
Thank God our own civilization has gotten past that.
Who shot JR?
You did, you did.
Chrisianity went through the same thing where they killed off millions because they would not convert.
:)
Bzzzt. Wrong, thanks for playing. Most estimates put the maximum number of dead during the entire Inquisition at about 30,000. That sounds horrible, but it works out to about 100 per year. Yes, it's still bad, but considering how many people were killed by secular authorities during the same period, it's relatively tame.
This is your queue to throw in the Aztecs and such. Technically, those poor souls weren't killed because they refused to convert, they were killed during a brutal conquest of their nation. To my recollection, they weren't even offered the option of converting for at least several decades, as the Church powers had to debate whether Indians had souls. Not exactly a shining moment in the history of Christianity, I'll grant you, but a far cry from the "convert or die" scenario you posited.
The problem is the difference in philosophies between the founders of each religion, more than the application of either. Jesus taught primarily about love and forgiveness; Mohammed (mhrih*), OTOH, taught primarily about conquest and how to split the booty.
*My little twist on "pbuh", or "peace be upon him", the traditional addition Moslims put to any prophet's name. Mine works out to "may he rot in hell". Cute, huh?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Who modded the parent up? It's clearly flamebait and overrated, far from being "insightful."
>Canada is doing quite fine, thanks. Im sure there >are quite a few nations out there that feel very >much as though the US has hurt them far more than >helped.
boy, it must be nice in canada not having to pay for medicine or a military, since it is all subsidized by the U.S. consumer and taxpayer.
the same is true for western europe: the only reason that their socialized health system works at all is because the major % of the cost, medicine, is price fixed by their government. which means that the U.S. consumer winds up with the jacked-up prices to cover the loses that the pharmaceutical companies would take otherwise. and so ppl here want to import drugs from canada, drugs that were made here in the USA! if the pharmaceutical companies were to tell the canadian and european governments to face an ultimatum of paying market price their system would collapse. and i wouldn't even think about china providing any innovative drugs; all that comes out of china is sars and the flu.
a drug usually takes at least 10 years to develop, and another 10 getting approved. The cost of this can reach into the billions...and yet if the market were only canada, they would not even break even.
so before denouncing the public good of policies here in the U.S., check to make sure that americans aren't getting an ass-pounding to the benefit of canadians. if you feel that canada would be better off without the U.S. you are incredibly misinformed or naive.
and dont try to tell all about canada's military...can you imagine the size of the military that would be needed to defend an area as large as canada? why bother when the USA is next door? we obviously have no plans to invade canada anytime soon, despite our depiction as being the Huns.
omg, the sky really does have to hit some people on the head before they realize things. You absolutely must be the president of the liberal party.
... against the Chinese, or maybe the rest of the planet. I seriously doubt that laser-equipped 747's would be required to stop Osama bin Laden from hijacking any more commercial aircraft and flying them into buildings.
An aware passenger population is all that is required to foil that strategy, and I'm pretty sure that everyone who flies is aware of the threat by now.
Or maybe W has seen Independence Day one time too many.
Then ask your members of Congress to scale back federal taxes so Sacramento can get that money from you instead, since they're the ones in charge of public schooling in California (unless you're talking about a different Oakland, of course).
It's interesting that giving the feds first crack at the trough gives them justification to spread into what was supposed to be the domain of the states, in your eyes as well as their own. Thanks, Sixteenth Amendment!
The whole point is to have multiple systems which can defeat incoming missiles at all points. If it passes one then the next system gets a shot. We start with the boost phase and 747, then we go to space based, then finally a ground based.
Each is going to have its own limitations, but also its own benefits.
The whole terrorism thing is used by the american administration to manipulate the population...
Yeah, just like those terrorists manipulated the planes into the sides of buildings and manipulated those 3,000 people to their deaths.
Do you think that didn't happen? This "whole terrorism thing" happened and if we don't work to prevent it, it will keep on happening.
So, adjust your tinfoil hat, and get back to work Senator Kerry...
The US is indeed militarily stronger than the rest of the world. The United Nations is also incapable of forcing peace on anyone - the US one of the few countries capable and willing to use war to make peace. Cool irony, huh?
"Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II."
There's sufficient justification for that. Starting with the Crusades in the Dark Ages, where Christian soldiers sacked and burned numerous Muslim holy sites and put entire cities to the sword, the West hasn't exactly made a good first impression. Continued US support for Israel while ignoring the humanitarian situation in Palestine has only further inflamed the Arab world. The support of Bush and numerous other preceding President (i'm not excluding the Democrats if you're thinking I'm just a crazy liberal hippie) of the Saudi Royal family and throwing money at tyrants - like Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, hasn't helped either.
The US, since WWII, has actively worked AGAINST the causes of democracy in the Middle East, choosing to leave in totalitarian leaders who censor free speech and torture their people - the Saudi family being a perfect example of this. The reason? It provides a stready supply of cheap oil. Democracy breeds instability because people realize they have a choice, thus the US has continued to support dictators.
The only way to truly ensure the safety of the United States is to work with the Arab people and encourage freedom activists in those repressive regiemes. When was the last time you heard Bush condemn the Saudi family for using Gestapo-like methods to quiet their people? When was the last time you heard America fund democracy activists in the Mideast before Iraq?
I don't particularly like this approach either because it encroaches on these countries sovereignty, but that hasn't seemed to stop the US so far; it's also a far better method than crushing civil liberties within and good-will/respect abroad.
IN response to all the people saying give this money to the school systems is it just me or has throwing money at something rarely if ever worked.
Get the drift. They are using Boeing 747 only because there are no military aircraft large enough to carry this $&#@ "phaser cannon".
Uh, he dindt limit himself to the inquisition and you should either.
What about the countless crusades?
What about the continuing battle of protestants and cathloics in ireland?
I'd bet that the numbers dead for religeous reasons are second only to natural causes. Maybe not even that.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Alas, it is not really going to be a bunch of missles that going to be the first major CBR (chemical, biological, or nuclear) attack on U.S. soil. It's going to be the first nut-job terrorist extremist, either foreign or domestic, who was manages to sneak a bogey, as a whole or piecewise, through one or more of the various ports available to them.
Coderz 4 Life
most of the people working on nukes these days (Iran, North Korea) don't actually have any brains to speak of.
While I agree in part with your larger analysis, including this comment is difficult to understand. There are quite a few truly brilliant individuals in Iran and North Korea. In fact I'd imagine that levels of intelligence are distributed in similar proportions as in your own country.
Next time leave that crap out and you'll have a much stronger argument.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Yeah Canada is doing fine on it's own, the 200+ billion in Exports to the US (90% of it's total Exports, and 60% of it's imports) aren't of any importance. Right ... Canada sure doesn't depend on the US ... you just keep thinking that.
Many other countries have massive loans to/from the US, and so on.
"True our students can barely read and write and over a third of them don't speak English, but hey look at that toilet shine!"
That's much more important than say improving our base knowledge and creating new high tech fields as well as military capabilty.
A better place to start is to string up school administrators by their budgets and take away all of their CEO paychecks and perks. It'll be amazing how many hundreds of millions of dollars a year will be freed up.
We are technically at war with North Korea, and have been for 50 years now. The North Koreans are a major source of ballistic missile proliferation as they continue to develop and export a range of sophisticated missiles to nations such as Iran and Yemen. They have tested components for a missile capable of reaching the United States. They either have, or are close to having nuclear weapons. The North Koreas bought 12 decommissioned Soviet submarines and have used them to advance their technology and may deploy weapons on them.
North Korea regularly threatens to attack the United States.
To get a sense of the nature of the North Korean government you can just look at how they treat: orphans, the US deserver who just returned after 40 years, the Japanese they kidnapped to teach their spies, and last, but not least, the victims of their gulag.
The North Koreans could teach lessons to the Iraqi Information Minister. They deny having dug the tunnels into South Korea, some of which are big enough to drive vehicles. (A handy thing if you were of a mind to invade the South, no?) They no doubt also deny their regular attempts to infiltrate groups of agents into South Korea.
The North Korean Army had million soldiers in it in 1992. The North Koreans have been willing to starve the population, significant numbers to death, in order to sustain the army.
North Korea is a designated member of the "Axis of Evil."
They seem like a bunch you might want to protect yourself against.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
nuff asked
Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.
How about a rogue state selling a bomb (everyone likes cash) to some terrorists?
And when we say "Yo! The isotopic mixture floating over what's left of Manhattan smells an awful lot like what was cookin' in your part of the world!", they reply with "So? We were paid $1B for it. What's your point? There's plenty more where that came from, and unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, we have a missile-based nuclear deterrent against any retaliatory or preemptive action you might take. By the way, we have another warhead up for sale on eBay. You're welcome to bid on it if you like. Bidding starts at $10B 'cuz we think you're special."
Should we invest billions in a system to prevent invasion by mutant frogs equipped with lasers, developed by radical french anti-globalization forces?
Why? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
We need to look at every issue
Yeah, like where are those frogs now? How long before the lasers are working? And will the lasers be on their heads, or maybe hidden in their eyes? Damn it man, we need to know!
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Beedee, beedee, beedee, Way to go, Buck!
>alkalis heels.
o ry.html
I love it when people have used terms all their life without knowing what it means. No, this is not a spelling flame. That is not remotely a simple misspelling of Achilles' heel.
please indulge me...
http://www.wordexplorations.info/Achilles-heel-st
Achilles was the son of Thetis and Peleus, the bravest hero in the Trojan war, according to Greek mythology.
When Achilles was born, his mother, Thetis, tried to make him immortal by dipping him in the river Styx. As she immersed him, she held him by one heel and forgot to dip him a second time so the heel she held could get wet too. Therefore, the place where she held him remained untouched by the magic water of the Styx and that part stayed mortal or vulnerable.
Achilles was totally invulnerable in combat, but someone took him out by nailing him in the heel with a poison arrow.
To this day, any weak point is called an "Achilles' heel". We also refer to the strong tendon that connects the muscles of the calf of the leg with the heel bone as the "Achilles' tendon".
Gosh, it almost seems as if you are expecting Kim to sit back and say "D'oh, foiled again. Damn you Americans." Kim may not be the last word in stability, but I assure you his generals are.
Do you think other countries with war aspirations won't come up with alternatives to a missile delivery system in light of a laser defense? Do you really believe that the US can fund enough defense programs to counter-act each and every possible threat? Do you really believe a nuclear missile attack is probable, especially when biological agents are much cheaper and easier to develop?
Who's to say that another hundred years of peace will occur sans a missile defense (kind of like we have now)?
The cost of the system is grotesque in light of the amount of defense it provides, and especially when the means of future warfare isn't clearly defined. In short, you are putting all your eggs in one basket, which is extremely shortsighted and naive.
Fruit of Solace.
"It showed they work," Kenneth Englade, an agency spokesman, said of the laser's six identical, pickup-truck-sized, modules linked to fire as a single unit. "The rest is fine-tuning."
Right - after you get the laser to turn on, getting it to shoot down a nuclear ICBM from a 747 (at combined speeds of over Mach 24) is just "fine-tuning". That is, if you're targeting only hundreds of billions of Pentagon tax dollars, and you've already bullshitted enough of Congress and the media (including, apparently, Slashdot headline writers) to have the contracts signed.
--
make install -not war
There are over 70 schools in the Oakland school system 20 million dollars would barely hire an extra janitor per school a year.
$20million divided by 70 schools is over $285k per year. If that's what they're paying janitors, no wonder they've got problems!
Now, where'd I put that mop? Time to brush up my cleanin' skills and look for houses in Oakland.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
"sponsoring aids research."
HIV transmission is already 100% preventable.
Primary transmission methods:
1)Sexual intercourse (esp. anal)
Prevention method: condom
2)Sharing drug needles
Prevention method: not sharing drug needles
3)Blood transfusion (minor cause)
Prevention method: donated blood is screened
Others here have talked about what a rathole money has gone down to no avail in public schools. How about
1) Offering the Oakland families some "choice" like charter schools? 2) Eliminating the teachers unions which have turned the public schools into political and multicultural advocacy centers, instead of places to learn?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Americans are paranoid nuts, and this is incurable. Spending $10B on something that fixes the problem that does not exist while at the same time making airlines seem even less secure than we thought they were - this can only happen in the US. Something tells me the "Star Wars" shit is just around the corner. $200B in military spending that can be defeated by $1M (converted to Russian roubles) in research money.
The problem with the borders is a PC issue, the same people that hate every new weapon system also don't like our previous policy of actually shooting people trying to cross the border illegally. Why do you think the Army no longer is in charge of guarding it?
"Hello, ma'am. We're from Boeing. Terribly sorry about your dog Fluffy. Our laser misfired."
Is this real, or are we being conned again?
Uh, huh. That would be why the same book refers to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys, and you secular folks don't even wanna think about what that book says about what should happen to the atheists.
Also says its cheif prophet married a 7-year-old when he was in his 50s, but he was nice about it and waited 'til she was 9 before he "took her as his bride". (Well, at least I can see why Michael Jackson is rumored to have up :)
> Let me clue you into something - the muslim extremists are about as Islamic as the KKK are Christian. Taking what they say as representative of the religion is a great way to delude yourself, and justify all kinds of terrible things.
Let me clue you into something - it may be full of guys who fuck their cousins and their sheep (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference), but the KKK isn't within two years of completing a nuclear weapons development programme.
> So, just who now are we suppossed to be rooting for?
Unless you're a moslem, I'd suggest you root for the side that's not trying to kill or force into submission the 4.5 billion of us who haven't drunk its particular brand of theological Kool-Aid.
If you are a moslem, you're welcome to declare your allegiance with the other 4.5 billion of us at any time you like. But first - clean up your own house. The Hebrews sorta had their conquering urges beaten out of them over the millennia since the Book of Joshua was written. The Christans figured it out 500 years ago during the Reformation. You're welcome to join us, but you're long overdue, and we're getting really fucking sick of waiting.
...there is little sense of trust among people who don't know each other. Perhaps it is because China is overburdened by its population of 1.3 billion, making it impossible for people to feel responsible for everyone they see in need.
Every chyld is special. Dominate the Earth. Guh.
Have you ever dreamed of a lush planet that you could travel to somehow? With all the luxuries, except without 6 BILLION FUCKING PEOPLE
On the other hand, I just see this as the progression of a religion. Chrisianity went through the same thing where they killed off millions because they would not convert. Now most of the countries who are predominantly chrisian are more civilized and educated and the religion (chrisianity) has become more civilized and toned down as well. I hope Islam will do the same one day.
Christians have not changed at all. Since the separation of Church and State in most western countries, Christians have lost their political power. If the said separation of Church and state vanishes (as it seems is going to happen in the US), the church (or churchs) will again gain power and go back to the middle ages.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
American Christians can't do that -- they can't live without at least some kind of slaves.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
No, what you are saying is that it's not worth 20M to prevent the over 200,000 kids that will go through OPS in the next 20 years from getting a crappy education.
What you're saying is that throwing a bunch of money at a failing school system is going to magically educate 200,000 kids. Sorry, but that won't happen. Besides, all public school students are getting a crappy education. It's what you learn outside of school that determines how far you will go in life.
Next time leave that crap out and you'll have a much stronger argument.
And how do you describe people who posture and try to pick fights with the most powerful country on earth? Especially since they have zero to gain from it, and tangible benefits from playing nice. Honestly, a little chihuahua that goes around nipping the ankles of a rottweiller is just asking to get eaten. If that isn't the textbook definition of "brainless", I don't know what is.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
This can be used on other types of missiles... short ranged missiles that don't initiate armeggedon.
Maybe, just maybe an extra billion dollars in millitarization could have saved 3000 lives on 9/11/01. A billion dollars put towards health care, housing, etc. would save thousands more.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
hah. terrorists "planning" on using misiles now?
...hah!
wtf are they gonna do? ride them in from Iran? Iraq? N. Corea?
its a shame when a country cant feed its own people,
and goes out, to stick its nose in other contries buisness.
we should stick to our own immediate needs 1st.
which includes making the quality of life a little better,
not improving the quality of "military defense"
blah. im not convinced.
i voted kerry.
and in 2008, Hillary for President, Kerry for Vice President!
Well actually that's about right for a CA school system. They'll spend 1/4 of the money on doing a study on how to best spend the money, spend an eighth on actually hiring someone, and the last quarter on how it effects their mandator test results, and the rest quarter for raises for the upper management.
The days of Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent are gone. Any nation that was identified as setting off a Nuke against a US city would simply be destroyed in a retaliatory strike. The Russians wouldn't counter with a strike, and there wouldn't be Nuclear Armageddon.
It would suck, but mostly for whomever nuked the US city.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Knowing the terrorists won't get past our lasers.
1000 miles is right.
Even if they do get this laser working the way it's supposed to, it will still be insanely expensive to have 747's aloft circling the "trouble areas" of the world 24/7. Due to range limitations, it might be impossible to take out a missile launched from the center of Iran or China without leaving international airspace. Also, these 747's better have some pretty good countermeasures onboard to prevent the
enemy from just shooting them down before an attack.
Anyways, even if the entire system works as advertised, a "rogue state" could still get the nuke to the U.S. using a ship, submarine, or simply stashed away in one of the million cargo containers that arrive here each day. If highly-enriched uranium is used to make the bomb (that's the route Iran is taking), a simple lead shield would make the bomb undetectable without entirely dissasembling the cargo.
For a very detailed analysis of the technical hurdles blocking the completion of a missile defense shield, check out this article.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Mainly because Canada has the ultimate self-defense... being located right next door to the United States. Canada is like the younger brother who never learned how to fight because his older brother is the biggest bully on the block. Hey, I'm not knocking it- and I'm not condoning American excesses- but don't get all morally superior. Canada gets a hell of a free ride while largely keeping its hands clean of dirt and blood. I mean, do Canadians ever seriously consider why, with their enormous territory, they have virtually no military to speak of? It's not because they never piss anyone off- I mean, Poland wasn't exactly antagonizing Germany in 1939, that I recall.
Just curious
They'll spend 1/4 of the money on doing a study on how to best spend the money, spend an eighth on actually hiring someone, and the last quarter on how it effects their mandator test results, and the rest quarter for raises for the upper management.
;)
And then lose an eighth in the accounting?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Compare that to similar estimations for things like the cost to benefit return on mandating airbags
Funny you should mention that -- you are aware, of course, that airbags are not a safety panacea, having killed a rather large number of small women and children?
US airbag standards are set such that airbags are designed to prevent fatal injury to an idiotic 250lb 6 ft tall unbuckled adult male (read: the subgroup of people most commonly injured due to their own stupidity). The force required to do that has this weird side effect of decapitating 5 ft tall women who have to sit very close to that explosive device housed in the center of the steering wheel.
We as a society would be better off assuming that ass-hats who drove around without buckling up have, for all intents and purposes, declared themselves to be organ donors rather than mandate "safety" features which kill.
"invaded one of the more civilized of their nations in the middle east"
Huh? Explain how Iraq can gas their own citizens, invade their neighbors, and dot their landscape with mass graves while still falling under your idea of a civilized nation? I want to hear this.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
> "asteroid defence[sic] system"
Defence is the correct British English spelling for the noun, ignoramus. Defense is only used for the verb form. As advice and advise.
What if we were to build a system, have "tests" that were passed with flying colors, then declare we had an operating missile defense system. It could deter a country like North Korea from a belligerent act, deciding we would feel free to respond without fear from a missile attack. I mean the only way to expose this thing as a fraud would be to launch a successful ballistic missile attack vs America or our allies, which would be pretty crazy even if you were 100% sure it would work.
Having read TFA, they suggest that this laser is to be used as part of a boost phase missle defense system. Not too long ago, the APS did a review of such a system, including hypothetical airplane based laser systems. The conclusions suggested the system would most likely be only partially effective (depending on the country launching, the target in question, and the type of rocket). Even when effective, such a system, "could cause live nuclear, chemical, or biological munitions to fall on populated areas short of the target, in the United States or other countries.".On the topic of airborne lasers, the executive summary says, "The Airborne Laser now under development could have some capability against liquid-propellant missiles, but it would be ineffective against solid-propellant ICBMs, which are more heat-resistant." The analysis took into account technical factors but did not even consider factors like cost.
It seems these programs are pretty foolish. Not bad for employing us physicists and engineers, but probably a waste of money. The "success" mentioned in the article seems to be that the laser fired. Apparently all that's left now is to make it fire long enough to disable a missle, design a targeting system, mount it and a suitable power source on an actual aircraft, and get it all to work together in an actual situation on an aircraft. In other words, it's no where close to working, and even when it does work odds are it probably won't be that useful (according to the APS).
Working on this sort of system might make sense if we had unlimited resources, but given that resources are quite limited this doesn't seem like a good way to spend them. As far as terrorism, missles just don't seem to be a vary likely attack methodology relative to other things, so it would make sense to spend most of this money on defenses that are likely to work against real imminant threats. That would include things like much more rigorous screening at ports and other homeland security items. Let's not forget that the guys who got the whole terrorism scare started used nothing but plane tickets and box cutters. It makes sense to defend against the other easy attack methods first. In terms of defense against other nations, the MAD doctrine seems to have been pretty effective and should continue to be as long as we have an imposing military. The money should be spent on maintaining a feasibile military threat to our likely agressors (even in the face of our obligations in Iraq) and on things that will definitely reduce threats like disarmerment and nuclear non-proliferation.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Other than being pissed away on Public Schools. Of course your statement is that standard inane response of someone who doesn't have a real one.
Sure it would be nice if we spent defense money elsewhere but this world is chock full of crazies who see nothing wrong with killing innocents. Some in fact think targeting innocents is far more viable.
Back to your comment. Spend the money on vouchers and let parents decide which school system or type best teaches their kids. Public Schools exist only to service the Teacher UNION and not the students. The local city here (Atlanta) is a prime example of this problem with far more admins than necessary.
We love to talk that our children our are most valuable investment but we saddle them with people protected by tenure and lawsuits. We are no longer concerned that a teacher cannot even pass the test given to the students.
That 10b will be just going down a know rat hole. Better it possibly lead to something that actually serves people.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Honestly, a little chihuahua that goes around nipping the ankles of a rottweiller is just asking to get eaten. If that isn't the textbook definition of "brainless", I don't know what is.
To the point... What is brainless? And who exactly are you calling brainless? Neither of these questions are well articulated in either of your posts. Unfortunately (fortunately if this was your intent) it will probably be read by Iranians and Koreans as an insulting slur against their national pride since it seems like you are implying that all of them are brainless.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
There are quite a few truly brilliant individuals in Iran and North Korea.
No, actually, unless they've joined the hive and had their dose of the koolaide, it's pretty safe to say that they've been snuffed out, or they escaped to somewhere else.
That's one of the things that sucks about dictatorships, and why dictators work so hard to seal the borders and run expensive policing operations. It's why Stalin murdered so many intellectuals in the 30's.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Considering how many Iranian students the US sends back to Iran after they finish graduate school here, I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Well, if someone wants to avoid war with the US, the first they should do is not develop nuclear weapons. I know, seems like a no brainer, but most of the people working on nukes these days (Iran, North Korea) don't actually have any brains to speak of.
More brains than you think. The best way to avoid war with the U.S. (or just about anyone else) is to have nukes. Being in the process of developing nukes (or bluffing like Saddam) may be risky, but if you pull it off, like Pakistan, there's a payoff called MAD.
By your logic, inspecting cargo vessels for nuclear weapons, being completely useless against even lower tech delivery like, say, hijacking a plane, is more or less a waste of money. It's called "defense in depth", look it up sometime.
That's not the logic. The logic is that stealing a small nuke into the U.S. is a much more likely vector than ICBM because only a few high-tech countries can make ICBMs and we already have a response for that which is called MAD. So whether it's a poorer country, terrorist group or a nuclear nation trying to disguise itself, laser defence or any other type of ABM weapon is essentially useless.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yes, you're right, I can't think of a single instance of genocide or empire building by a Christian nation in the past 500 years.
but to merely say the federal government shouldn't support local schools requires some sort of handwavy proof.
Umn. He's right. It's a state and local issue... Why must the feds be involved in local schools? What authority does the individual state have?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
about radars before you go making statements like that.
All your base are belong to Google.
The small country of botswana has successfully tested a short range missle with mirrors surrounding the entire outer shell.
One test eyewitness said it looked like a disco ball flying through the sky.
After checking expired auctions from ebay, this reporter found that indeed several hundred decommissioned , referbished, large disco balls were shipped to winning bidder, rocket_scientists@botswana.mil 3 months ago from a retired grandmother in Las Vegas, USA. She declined to comment fearing reprisals under the patriot act.
As I said above, the military doesn't have a choice, they do what the CIVILIAN ELECTED leadership in DC tells them to...
He said many parts of Islam feel that way, not that the Quran stated it. Learn the difference.
Let me clue you into something - the muslim extremists are about as Islamic as the KKK are Christian. Taking what they say as representative of the religion is a great way to delude yourself, and justify all kinds of terrible things.
Really? So average everyday American Christians dance in the streets of America when thousands of civilian muslems are killed? Maybe you missed the 9/11 celebrations ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST, all you had to do was turn on your tv.
But, let's take the response one step further, you say that modern "Christian" societies have progressed beyond such barbaric reasoning? That would explain this memo from the current administration rationalizing torture in the "war on terror."
That memo was from one justice department civil servent to another, and president Bush nor anyone in his administration had nothing to do with it, president Bush's response to inquiries about what field personel could do was:
'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.'
How you can twist those facts into "the current administration rationalizing torture in the "war on terror"" just boggles my mind.
Please read http://www.foresight.org/EOC/ - Online version of the Book, _Engines Of Creation_.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That is the biggest load of crap I've read today - and I've been reading Slashdot for two hours. Alot of the world needs US protection the way a whore needs the protection of her pimp.
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Religions don't hate people, people hate people. Muslem people have a far better history of religious tolerence than Christians. However, you will find alot of hatred around that region these days, possibly relating to the way Europeans keep fucking with them. In particular, taking the side of Isreal against the Palestinians, building military bases in their holy land, and supporting cruel military regimes like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein (ok we stopped doing that).
Just so you know, the US is completely dependant on foreign money (namely European and Asian), or "foreign aid", same thing really.
The US is out in front with a blank cheque, soon that debt is going to be recalled, and then, well, you're fucked.
Live it up for the next decade or two, then move to Canada, the US as a superpower is burning out extremely fast.
Also, do you really believe that "the majority of the planet" is dependent on the US? As explained, the US is in huge debt, which only looks to get worse, a lot worst (sorry, it's true), it's the US that is dependant.
Also, what it comes down to is that the majority of the world hates the US, it isn't about jealously as many Americans prefer to put it down to, it's because they hate you.. namely because you sound like complete 'jackasses', as evident in your post.
**Note I usually post crap, but usually a much higher quality level of crap than this. Usually has complete sentences and everything. Spell cheker is optional though.
...without another troll coming to his defense.
Thanks for proving the point.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Protected against bird and lightning strike
Doesn't it strike you that such a design would be rendered useless if a bird smashed dead center on the window? Isn't that the way it is with America's goal of technology superior defense? It tends to be designed to defend against very high tech attacks, but is totally useless against lower tech attacks like a flock of birds, a huge amount of flying rocks, or a fog machine?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
China's too large for this to work, their missiles can be so far in their interior that the laser would never touch them.
Please read http://www.foresight.org/EOC/ - Online version of the Book, _Engines Of Creation_.
Yes, militarily, many major countries no longer need American troop support. Which I imagine is part of the reason troops have been moved out of Germany. South Korea might still need them, however.
:(
Economically is another story entirely. All major nations economies are directly connected to America's, but others are downright dependant. American financial aid, aka "Official Development Assistance" still flows into many European countries to the tune of billions. If we're becoming so "irrelevant" then they shouldn't mind not receiving any U.S. tax dollars. Infact, if they hate the U.S. half as much as they claim, they should reject it.
If you want to see an irrelevant body, look at the United Nations. I don't think Kerry's Presidency would have magically 'unfuck' ourselves in the eyes of the world, certainly not the fundamentalist extremists who want nothing less than the destruction Israel and America, despite whatever "plans" he constantly boasted about.
Exactly who is leaving us behind and how? Is the rest of the world going somewhere? Are their economies booming ahead of America's? Or do they just like us less? Boy, that would make me sad.
How fragile is a launch vehicle? A solid fuel rocket turns into an explosion with a perforation, we saw that in 1986. A liquid fueled rocket probably isn't much better.
There are SLBMs cruising around on patrol aboard their SSBNs right now. Those SLBMs are the real danger to a country like North Korea. Their fixed ICBMs are the target of this system, and a rich target it is, if you can hit it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Pffft.... moderators, american voters...you people make me sick.
If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
The random hatred of the U.N...
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years.
Anthropomorphing an whole religion...
The US is significantly safer in many, many ways.
And many, many of the things done to make the U.S. safer actually do nothing or make it worse.
Finally recognising that terrorism is a threat and the U.S. a sitting duck: Required 9/11 to get through to the top, and the masses.
You can't take the sky from me...
Your very comments are the reason why you aren't significantly safer. I'm from an US-allied country, and I'm forced to try and not hate you after reading that arrogance. Imagine what it must be like to hear what you just stated if you came from a country whose culture supports anti-american sentiment?
Consider this: As an Australian resident, I agree, we rely on our Allies. We also provide support back in return. Aside from the similarities in our goals, we have fundemental differences. The U.S. spends far more than it can afford on its defense programs, while it pushes itself further into debt. We arent debt free, but we are working towards it. We could easily be in the same position as the U.S if we wanted, and could dig ourselves into the same hole... But we choose to maintain a balance.
Next time you feel like dishing out slander, look a little closer to home!
Remember recently that the US airforce had made plans to arm space? If we can launch a series of defense satellites with these lasers, terrorist leaders could be hit from space, they would never come out of their holes. Also the net of satellites could be used as a shield against any asteroids headed for earth. What is worrisome is the potential for the rest of the world feeling as if being held hostage by the US. Its pretty much the same thing as that last Bond movie.
Abandon all hope ye who enter here...
Phew, this will surely keep terrorists from bringing bombs on to crowded buses.
The problem is not throwing money at the school systems. You can't expect this to work. Schools can't make up for the lack of parental guidance in kids today. You throw that same money at the parents instead of the schools and you get welfare.
However, military R&D has advanced the U.S. standard of living to what it is today. It also serves the primary purpose of the government and that is to preserve itself and enable it to protect its citizens.
The development of the Polaris submarine fired missile... a ludicrous concept at the time probably deterred an nuclear exchange and provided a critical scientific stepping stone for the entire U.S. Space program and all the technology that has stemmed from it. This technology has benefited most of the industrialized world.
Just like the previous poster, you give no proof or logic whatsoever. "Umn. He's right" doesn't get us any further than the original statement. Why is he/she right? The federal government gives money to universities, public and private, around the country. Are you seeking to stop those payments? What about the numerous less-related other subsidies and incentives, such as those for Native American whalers in Alaska, importers of chinese ceiling fans, and NASCAR track owners? The federal government recently spent a billion dollars (50 OPS bailouts worth) repairing Florida. As far as I know, hurricanes are not mentioned in the Constitution. If you are for the federal government behaving as it was intended by the Constitution in all cases, then you've got a leg to stand on. But, since you exclusively mention OPS, your comments imply ulterior motivations.
Aim it at the teachers union HQ, and anyone who opposes vouchers. That's a pretty good start right there and will have a lot more impact than sinking 20 million (or 200 million) into schools as they are.
What you fail to see is the many countries across the world that do have missle capability, next to other people they do not like. The US can help reduce tensions if they can offer some degree of protection against said missiles. Otherwise the world is going to be able to do quite a number on itself quite without any US help.
You are of course just blinded by your hatred for the US, so to that extent I guess you can be forgiven for your failure of vision.
If the said separation of Church and state vanishes (as it seems is going to happen in the US), the church (or churchs) will again gain power and go back to the middle ages.
Find in the constitution where it says that the church and state must be separate. It's no where. It was written ONE time in a letter by one of the founding father's and the Supreme Court has invalidly taken it to mean that the government can't have anything to do with religion, which is patently false. There can be no official religion of the state, I'll grant you that, but that doesn't mean the state can't acknowledge religion, which is what's being wildly pushed today. Freedom of religion extends to government officials as well as the citizens.
If there is such a separation, why only remove the cross from the seal of Los Angeles? Why didn't the goddess come off as well? Anti-Christian sentiment, that's why, plain and simple.
An alien ship can land tomorrow and destroy the United States with its alien weapons of mass destruction. Now, quick, let's divert all the money there is in the economy to building an anti-alien-ship system. I bet if this was repeated on TV a hundred million times, the US populace would wholeheartedly approve gutting their own country for some paranoid's dream.
Get used to it folks, you ARE vulnerable. Some of the vulnerabilities can be fixed by careful diplomacy. Spending billions on the military will not help against ICBMs. If North Korea really decides to take out the US, they can build something more sophisticated than single-warhead ICBMs, and you won't have systems against multi-warhead ICBMs in the next 20 years at least. And by then someone will invent something else.
At the same time, we only inspect a small percentage of the 300,000+ shipping containers that enter this country every year.
Why use a missle when you could Fedex your weapon and be relatively untraceable? Aren't we missing something here?
After all, we're each much more likely to die of heart disease, be killed in a car wreck, or be murdered on the streets than be killed by terrorists or a nuclear bomb...even if we assume that 9/11/is the norm.
Well, it might not quite be able to take out a missile in boost phase yet.
But, happily, it *is* powerful enough to engrave Bono's signature on the side! The hope is that the weight of the irony having Bono's name attached to an instrument of death will weight the missile down enough to have it fall from the sky.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
ICBMs can only be developed by countries with decent technological infrastructure, and they would never be used against us because we have the military power to destroy the government of any country that attacked us.
North Korea is on the verge of having missiles with enough range to hit the US now. The North Koreans regularly threaten to attack the US now. The North Koreans publicly state they have and are working on nuclear weapons. They also have the capability to employ chemical weapons. They have bought 12 former Soviet submarines and are rebuilding them. They are a threat.
The North Koreans are starving many of their people to death now in order divert resources to such military projects as building nukes, long range missiles, and other military technology. It is unlikely that the welfare of the general public will be a significant impediment to the leadership of North Korea.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you did even the tiniest bit of research I'd give you the tiniest bit of respect, but you haven't.
"All public school students" are not getting a crappy education. There are several world-class public universities in the USA that give less than crappy educations. In the K-12 level, there are numerous school districts that consistently turn out top-notch students. Compare Bellevue, WA and Oakland, CA to see what kind of differences exist.
OPS is actually over 100M in the hole. I don't know the figures, but I'd estimate interest and principal on this could be 10M a year. For the federal government with a 1T budget this is only a few minutes worth of spending, but to take 10M per year from a local school district hampers ability to educate. 1,000 teachers in Oakland were just sent layoff notices on top of the over 300 laid off in 2002. Not all of those will go, but firing hundreds of teachers is a quick recipe to "magically" undereducate.
"The USSR is dead."
And of course, all their missiles just up and vanished, right? Lets not forget the two countries you listed are the only ones that have missiles. While we're at it, thank you for banking the security of the United States on the sanity of somebody like Kim Jong Il. Frankly you're missing the point of having defenses such as these at all. they are for the off chance that some world leader psycho does decide to play your odds and pops a missile off because they don't think we'll call their bluff. After all, that's what N. Korea is betting on. They don't think we'll do anything after telling them to halt production. It's what Saddam betted on. Frankly, I think the cost of prevention is well worth guarding against the cost of letting even one slip through.
Besides, last time I checked, we were spending money on measures besides a missile defense program. Namely the retaliation against Afganistan, premptive strike against Iraq, disarmament of Libya, and from now on, a large hammer over the heads of those who would use less conventional means against us in the middle east. money equally well spent, IMO.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Not the sound of an ICBM, the sound of the point about the system being used for short range missles in other theaters of operation zooming right over you.
And I think a few moderators might have heard a bit of that as well.
When other countries launch SCUD type missiles, might it not be better to stop them before they land somewhere? And isn't it better the US focus some military research into things that simply prevent missles from reaching targets instead of how to blow things up a little bigger?
The fewer missiles that can hit things, the safer the whole world can be (if the US shares the tech).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How am I a troll for pointing out that equipping civilian aircraft with military technology makes them a target? Or is it for pointing out that our tax dollars are going to a plan that would not have dont any good had it existed at any point in American history instead of spending it on things that have been major issues? Yay for Political /.
Most people are murdered for monetary or other reasons, and not because of religion.
-Morty
Because the need for military is a result of immaturity?
Perhaps the thought that you can do without one is a clearer sign of said condition.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Shah wasn't overthrown for being a 'cruel military regime.' There is evidence that he abused power in some ways, but he was overthrown because he was introducing western-style reforms into his country. He offended a bunch of the wrong people by allowing women to be educated, etc.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
What's worse? An American who hates America!
We should immediately ship out any Anti-US Americans to Iraq and assigned the shittiest menial jobs there. Maybe that would teach those shitbirds some good lessons.
Good point: Why plan for the future? You're right, that's a silly idea, cause we should wait to be hit first, then start the research on how to defend ourselves, then hope we can prevent further attacks. Brillant idea!
Take a look at this Map
See all those color places on the map that hold US miltary bases? Now look at all the places around them that can reach by spitting.
Not to mention that a program like this is not just for the US, but for things likr protecting NATO allies.
If you start thinking globally it makes a lot more sense.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
were called "terrorists" because they went after civilian targets. Is it just me, or is the "American" English language expanding the word to apply to all enemies of the state?
.
Kind of scary that I almost read through the parent post without giving it a second thought . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
No, what you are saying is that it's not worth 20M to prevent the over 200,000 kids that will go through OPS in the next 20 years from getting a crappy education.
And what you're saying is that more federal money will magically fix the problems, which is contradicted by several decades of evidence.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Hey, fuck the Koreans, right? Those Japanese are all funny-looking fellows, fuck them too. Thai? Singapore? Fuck 'em all. The USA should only defend itself. If they're scary-looking foreigners, they deserve whatever horrible deaths await at the hands of an insane leader with nuclear missiles.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Yes, until 9/11 there had never been a terrorist flying a plane into a new york skyscraper, so it could never have happened.
Actually, back in the late 70's, a guy tried to assassinate Nixon by crashing a plane into the whitehouse. He was subdued as he tried to take the cockpit.
So the "using hijacked planes as weapons" wasn't something unheard of.. it had been tried 25 years earlier.
I think that has more to do with the political party the people of DC vote for. Every election result I have seen is 90% for the dems and it has been that way as long as I know. Maybe its time for a change.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
No, the UN does not directly provide safety, but we would be significantly better off if we were working with more allies in Iraq. We'd be suffering less of a financial loss. The Iraqi people would be less concerned that we are there for their oil. It would be the world acting, not just one nation.The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That isn't true at all. At least not if you consider the US vs. all the countries we're pissing off. Sure, we're more powerful than France. But are we more powerful than all of Europe minus the UK? I seriously doubt it. And even if we have more military strength, we're dependent enough on them for trade that halting trade would cause us serious problems. Hell, at this point we're having trouble maintaining the peace in two very weak middle eastern countries.Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Yes, well, we've shat on them for much longer than that. We might not remember the crusades, but they do. Then we brought imperialism. Ever wonder why Iraqi politics is always so complex? Because the UK united a few warring tribes into one unstable country. Now oil money props corrupt dictatorships. Remember where the 9-11 hijackers came from? Saudi Arabia - ruled by the Saudi royal family, which commits human rights violations but we don't say shit because we need our oil.The US is significantly safer in many, many ways. However, it is clearly not secure.
Not if you consider that our military is over extended. If someone was looking to pick a fight with us now would be the time to do it. Bin Laden is still free to make his videos. The threat that Saddam was made out to be was proven false - no evidence at all of WMDs. Bush's policy of pushing things to the brink is very dangerous. An "Us vs. Them" foreign policy does not bring peace - it merely defines someone as your enemy. Further, the threat of terror has been used to justify the removal of rights from the american people. Ashcroft is stepping down, basically speaking out against the system of checks and balances - claiming that the judges that have stood for our rights are simply getting in the way of the president. He's likely to be replaced by someone who wanted to redefine "torture" so we could expand our "tools" to extract information from people who have been held an indefinite amount of time without council or trial. Perhaps you feel safer in this world, but I don't.Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Here's an interesting article about a similar "diplomatic" thought.
Gamespot
I live in one of the academically top school districts in my state. Tops in standardized tests, etc. For this, I am very grateful.
This district also has one of the highest property tax rates in the state, most of which goes to the schools. I pay my share of that tax.
The state, by court mandate, changed the school building finance system so that a major portion of the funds to build new schools comes from the state. Trying to equalize building funds between different districts. This increases my state taxes while saving the district some of their building expenditures.
I spend, out of my pocket, $3,000+ dollars a year for my children to participate in band, drama and other school programs. For example, you know how the band travels to play at football games at another school? The district provides school busses to take the band to the game. Do you know who pays the costs of those busses? Nope. In my district the parents of the band students pay for the busses!
I go to open houses to hear 8th grade social studies teachers ask for donations of copy paper. I buy tissues for my kids to take for general use in their classrooms. I buy snacks for a whole 2nd grade class every 28 days. My wife, as PTSO secretary of the elementary school, sat in a meeting where they used donated parent money to buy staples for the school administration office because they haven't gotten any from the district for nearly two months. The PTSO also pays for the faculty lounge water cooler. I go to school concerts to hear my kids play and hear the teachers and administrators ask for donations. My kids then come home wanting to become a sales force for the school by going door-to-door selling cookie dough and wrapping paper.
I pay all this tax money, almost the highest in the state, and they can't buy staples and paper for their teachers. Something is very wrong here! And I am sick of being told that I am supposed to give more of my money to the wasteful idiots who don't know how to manage what they already get and I am already picking up the slack out of my pocket!
Is a laser to shoot a missle down better spent on schools? Let's debate that AFTER the schools show they can get the job done without soaking the tax payers!
Reading over the comments I think I am the only person who saw the movie.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
dirty bombs are only as dangerous as the initial explosion, the radioactivity is pathetically weak and no threat at all. The military have researched using them themselves and come to that conclusion.
There is evidence that he abused power in some ways
LMAO thats putting it delicately. Political opression, torture, corruption. The Iranian people hated him and rightly resented the US for proping him up. Unfortunately, the only people capable of orgainizing resistance were the fundamentalists which left them in a position to dictate the form of the new government. Kind of like what is going to happen in Iraq, our new 'friend' in the middle east.
Kim Jung-Il may not be very stable, but keep in mind that North Korea is a very insular country, and most of what we hear about it gets passed through the propaganda mill. Crazy leaders with nukes sell more newspapers.
Also, the United States has a history of hyping up the threats posed by other nations. The Soviet threat was exaggerated right up until their fall. And more recently, Iraq.
North Korea might have a crazy leader, but I'd say U.S. paranoia combined with it's stated "policy of pre-emption" is the greater threat to world peace.
Nah, I believe the holocaust happened. You know, because there's evidence and stuff.
I also believe that 9/11 "happened".
I don't believe the explanation forcefed to us via the media, when the evidence that could possibly explain what happened was destroyed as quickly as it could be.
Thanks for playing "guess what's in dpk's head" though.
I can see that it will have a use against US made missiles that some clueless fool in the US military gives to terrorist groups as the expedient thing to do - like all those stinger missiles in the 1980s and whatever Ollie North sold off to that Iranian group that held the people in the US embassy hostage.
Not only that; the country also must have many ICBMs, since some will fail to launch, some will miss the target, some will be shot down.
If the attacking country has, say, 100 ICBMs that it doesn't mind using, then it's enough if 30 get to their targets. But if NK has only three warheads, why will they risk it all, launching first time on a rocket that was never tested for such a range? USSR, for example, regularly launched unarmed ICBMs (with all the proper notifications) as far as possible (South Pacific) and monitored the results. So USSR knew for a fact that it can (or can not) hit the target, and it had plenty of warheads too. But NK would have to be insane to take a gamble with its three (or however many) warheads. They have submarines, though, well tested and actively used... some food for thought...
- True Muslims believe there's only one religion that's been sent by different messengers, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, etc. and all those religion wars are man made ( 3-The Household of `Imran, No:19. Quran ).
- As for torturing, taking hostages isn't what a true Muslim would do, neither torturing them ( 8-The Spoils, No:67-70. Quran. ).
- Muslims also believe that we're in NO WAY god's children, not even figuratively speaking [can't remember the verse for the figuratively part] ( 112-Faithfulness, No: 1-4. Quran ).
Then you go on saying: That's really cool! So, God writes a book as a guide to our life, and we go on editing it and "toning it down", right?Know what you're talking about, before you talk about it...
If you can't mod them join them.
Well, yeah, actually they do! How many snaggle-toothed gun-totin' Jesus-lovin' Americans do you see punching the air and going "Yee-haw" when they hear about a few more "insurgents" being killed? Quite a few, I'll wager.
These "insurgents" are just like them. What would you do if Iraq was 24 times the size of the US and Iraqi tanks were rolling up the main street of your town? Hang up bunting and cheer your "saviours", or crack open the gun cabinet?
Yeah, disarming worked so well for Iraq...
Ok, let's assume Osama gets a bomb and blows it up in a big city. Which country USA should be annihilating? (Answers "Iran", "Syria" and "NK" don't count :-)
If it shouldn't be bailing out the school system, it should stop taking the taxes that used to go to support the schools.
Fat chance.
Personally, I agree totally. The schools should be supported locally. Unfortunately the taxes that used to be spent on the schools have been hijacked by both the Feds and the state (different tax sources) on the grounds that they could "redistribute it more fairly". (I forget who I'm quoting...sorry. Rumsfield perhaps?) HAH! They took the money, and returned only a fraction of it. The result was the schools with marginal support has less than marginal support. This has been happening increasingly since the 1950's, perhaps slightly earlier, but not before 1940. Now the schools are down to being supported by property taxes, which are essentially frozen (2/3 vote required for any increase, and many people don't have kids). Every once in awhile the govt. mandates a new program, and makes a temporary grant of enough money to run a test program, but not enough money to really run it. Currently it's testing. Everybody is focused on passing multiple choice tests. Everyone. Because that's what the school budgets depend on. And they have to do better every year, or the budget is cut, but the requirement for testing doesn't get dropped. Can anyone see where this leads?
Of course, it's not really that good. Certain programs have been dropped because of the focus on testing. Like PE. Like anything that isn't on the test. Because that's what the budget depends on. So the teachers "teach to the test" regardless of what their students need. And regardless of whether their students can speak english. (I think we have 17 languages in the average school. And many of those kids ONLY speak their native language. Good luck in getting them to pass the test. But if you don't, your budget gets cut...)
Budget gets cut. Many of the schools around here run out of toilet paper partway through the year. There wasn't enough money in the budget. Teachers sometimes bring their own roll, and have the students check it out and back in.
It's no wonder to me that every person who can afford to is sending their kids to a private school. The public schools have been turned into something much worse that what caused me to hate school when I was growing up. Not that kid gangs are under control. Most parents try to keep their kids inside all the time. The streets are too dangerous.
Yes, we have a really fine government. One that's really caring and effective.
Not.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
What if you miss the target, how far will the laser go?
Can't you just divert the laser?
How much damage would it do to a human?
Can you use it from the sky on humans?
A lot more recently than the last time an ICBM has hit North America.
Let's stop arguing over which absurd project is more absurd than the other. This is an asinine 'because we can' project.
So, you are saying that current US policies are providing me with safety now that half of the muslims in the world are feeling cornered and you can find home-made terrorists on the corner of every hyperbolic street? I beg to disagree, and many with me. As you seem to like making assertions for the rest of us, let's have a global vote about this, shall we?
It's so typical: "Well, that entire religion has hated us, many people in this world hate us, but we have more and better weapons, and kick their ass any day. Bring it on!"
Surely that attitude makes me have faith in America. With the current administration being what it is, every new weapon is bad news. Every time America should say something wise, they bring on a new weapon. Bush is a toddler with a gun. And it has been proven that invasions^H^H^Hpre-emptive strikes are no problem to this administration, and lies are good enough to serve as motivation. Just tell me, what reason do I have to I trust you and consider America as an enlightened nation and not as one of those fundamentalistic blind countries with governments that like to play with weapons bigger than their brains?
Before 9/11, we have never been attacked by ICBM or hijacked plane. Post 9/11, we have been attacked by hijacked plane. So the response is to invest in an Anti-ICBM system?
My guess is that this thing has been in development from long before 9/11/2001.
Besides, if you are capable of taking out an ICBM, it shouldn't be too hard to take out something bigger and slower - like a jumbojet.
I think Im much safer outside the US. People dont hate me just because Im american. I dont need to be secure, and I dont make people hate me more by trying to be.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/
Can one airport security guard stop a Chinese ICBM from hitting Taipei?
That depends upon the muzzle velocity and targeting capability of the security guard launch system.
What the Quran says and what their people believe are clearly separate issues.
The current and past administrations have marginalized KKK and similar christian groups domestically. Have been for decades. I can't recall one nation where christians are the majority who had demonstrations of people en masse dancing in the streets when Baghdad fell.
The KKK, even at its height, had considerable popular and political influence, with inward ideas of control and power. In line with that, I don't see christian extremists going off independent of their government taking out Islamic targets. And be careful if you think the US government itself serves in lieu of this; one can easily demonstrate several middle east countries which will serve as the Islamic example AND who welcome Islamic extremists.
While I do not agree with the memo, the example you use pales in comparison to what the Islamic extremists do (e.g. beheading of civilians) and certain governments have demonstrated (e.g. fun raisers for suicide bomber families).
Who are we supposed to be rooting for? Easy. Any people to have a government that feel that they have a voice in and are happy to live in or can contribute to their own growth as people. In this case, I root for a stable Iraqi government that serves the ongoing future prosperity for their people. To that end, Hussain had to go, and the US's methodologies, easily and many times deserving of criticism, is still the best available means to that end and would have been for quite some time.
I have a pair of questions for you--when you think about these issues, how many countries do you consider? And over what time period? You sound like someone who looks at this as "bad us, good them". Your references are so limited in historical context and complexity that I wonder if you've put more than a reactionary's thoughts into this. Try thinking or learning about the events in the last 60-70 years (and that just to start to pretend to understand) OUTSIDE the US and you'll see the US does a hell of a lot more good compared to even when it strays badly from that path.
It won't be safe, no matter how much money you spend.
t m
Check this out: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-36m.h
First of all, in the event of a massive nuclear conflict, you won't be able to shoot down all launching missiles. Second of all, once this thing separates into 10 warheads, you're lucky if you shoot down two out of 10. And guess what, you need to shut down all 10. When Russians rolled out this thing, Reagan administration pooped their pants.
So let's consider this (very possible) situation. The US starts massive development of anti-ICBM system thereby threatening the balance of power. Russians will only need about three hundred million dollars (in rouble equivalent) to re-start production of Satan rockets. Right now, Russian government doesn't give a flying fuck about the opinion of the US, they could easily do so (heck, maybe the effort is already underway).
So what do we end up with. The US is testing its anti-missile system. Russians _already_have_ missiles that fly right through it unscathed. They only need to dust off their old nuclear attack plans, and here you go, they can boil fish right in Missisipi river.
And that's something they had _back_then_. They haven't exactly spent all this time twiddling their thumbs. So if shit hits the global fan, you can expect a swift and merciless response.
5-10 years from now the Chinese, Indians, Pakis and Koreans (and possibly Iran) will have the same shit.
My point is, the only true safety measure in an environment where nuclear weapons become commodity is _diplomacy_ and _diplomacy_only_.
Okay Mr. Moral Equivalancy...
I'm telling you that even if Iraqis were driving tanks through main street that we would NEVER resort to car bombing OUR OWN FREAKING POLICE STATIONS set up by the Iraqis during reconstruction, or cutting OUR OWN FREAKING OIL PIPELINES.
The analogy just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
The "insurgents" (your quotes) are doing a heck of a lot more than just fighting a guerilla war against the US. They are also killing plenty of Iraqi civilians and others just trying to rebuild the country to the point where the US can actually leave, which is only serving to PROLONG the occupation.
The point wasn't really about specific safety technologies so much as it was about taking a more formal statistical approach to evaluating the relative cost/value propositions of projects designed to "defend" people.
"While the US may not fear missiles being launched at us, we do have allies, chiefly Israel, that do..."
Ah, yes. Israel: the fifty-first State.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
All of them (middle-east countries). It's probably sets a bad precedent, but it feels right.
And not just bomb a few cities: carpet-bomb nuke them. We have enough nukes, and it doesn't matter if Osama is hiding in a cave: the radiation will be more than enough to kill him, if the bombs don't (assuming he isn't hiding a few miles under the surface, with enough rations to wait for the radiation to dissipate).
Having said as much, I'd like to say that his recent video (from the snippets I've read) proves he has more intelligence than Kerry and Bush combined. It doesn't matter who occupies the whitehouse, only their policies.
On a side note, can someone bring me up to speed on why we support Isreal? As far I'm concerned, the US (and the europeans) should just let them slug it out. If the jews and muslims wants to wage war upon each other (among their respective countries), let them. They'll kill each other or work things out.
I am John Hurt.
>>
Let me clue you into something - the muslim extremists are about as Islamic as the KKK are Christian. Taking what they say as representative of the religion is a great way to delude yourself, and justify all kinds of terrible things.
Say what you want about the Pope, but he does spend all his time preaching peace across the globe, not putting a religious stamp of approval on wars.
Where is the Muslim analogue to the Pope???
The only peacemaking I've seen so far has been Sistani and he only has influence on Shiites.
Who is going to clean up the dirty laundry in Islam? Personally I think the majority of believers like it just the way it is, and feel they are being consistent with the truth of Islam, whether you want to admit it or not.
Then let NK develop them. NK is just rattling their saber. It's all political, but means nothing.
I mean, NK can take out a few cities, but in doing so, NK as a country will cease to exist (US retaliates). And president Ping Pong (or whatever his name is) likes being president of a country, would like to keep in that way, because no one wants to be president of a parking lot.
The NK military gets a few new toys that they can gloat over, but know they can never use. Frankly, I think it's the big dick syndrome: they just want to be able to come to the table and say they have nukes.
I am John Hurt.
The point of the post wasn't to evangelize specific topics so much as it was to consider a more rigorous semi-standardized statistical analysis of the cost/value proposition of projects that are all effectively designed to protect people.
That said, there are definitely things we could be doing and have been doing to help with the aids epedemic, in the us and abroad.
One example you miss is the potential for a mother to pass hiv to her unborn child. Perhaps there is a way to help prevent this transmission. How do we determine if we should fund research into this topic. Let's say we've got a semi-proven technique. We're 50% sure we can get it to work. If it works, it will prevent the spread of HIV to children in 60% of all cases. Let's pretend we are only concerned about US cases and it turns out there's 1000 infants a year that could be affected. Maybe the expected price tag for the research is $50 million.
Essentially, figure out how much money it will cost and how many people will be saved (and any other benefits). Well you could run those numbers up against whatever you get for the expected benefit/cost of something like a missile defense system, an automobile safety initiative, or anything else.
I wouldn't suggest that anyone use this kind of analysis as a sole metric in allocating funding. I just think it might be a good tool for evaluating the relative utility of projects. I get the feeling that all too often, money is handed out without a strong justification for why one thing deserves funding over another.
if the pharmaceutical companies were to tell the canadian and european governments to face an ultimatum of paying market price their system would collapse.
No. If the drug companies were stupid enough to give Canada and Europe an ultimatum on drug prices, Canada and Europe would (correctly) toss out the patent agreement treaties and start manufacturing the stuff on their own. It's simply what would happen.
Also, maybe some of those European countries or Canada would set up government research labs for medicine (they'd be government operated, of course) and start researching some on their own. The result might be more drugs for more illnesses. Even a free market of corruption spawns creativity.
Like you're an asshole? Lesson learned and ya didn't even have to pop for airfair.
Isn't it great to be a little tyrant.
Canada gets a hell of a free ride while largely keeping its hands clean of dirt and blood.
Canadian soldiers have died defending the world from tyranny, just like other countries. That they can't claim as many dead bodies doesn't rob them of the honor of the sacrifices that they've made in the past.
Some Canadians' (ie, the ones that run the media) inability to do anything but deride the USA is a separate matter.
With regard to carpet-bombing, aside from moral aspects of it, it won't be effective because it will hurt mostly noncombatants, and will push the survivors toward Osama. The only way to "win" that war would be to exterminate at least 1 billion people. I don't think this can be done without anyone noticing, and I don't think those people will just curl up and die. Chances of asymmetric counter-strike - biological for example - would be 100%, and USA would be destroyed. Many countries are in posession of deadly viruses, and it is pretty much guaranteed that some will be stolen, if not passed "under the table" like Khan did with nukes in Pakistan. Oh, I forgot that Pakistan has nukes, rockets, and is 100% moslem...
> So which is more likely, a terrorist/rouge nation
> launching a missle at us, or a terrorist/rouge
> nation driving a nuke by truck into a city?
Probably the latter. That doesn't mean we should only bother defending against that one threat that is most likely. Both scenarios are possible, and there is certainly work to defeat the possibility of either happening/causing damage.
Just because efforts are being made to defeat the possibility of missiles landing in the US doesn't mean nobody's looking out for those who'd bring a suitcase (or other kind of) nuke into the country.
The UN is not a country with an army. The role of the UN is not to wage war, but rather to use diplomacy to solve conflicts.
Yes, sometimes, using force is the best solution. But not always. The UN is not the only solution, but saying the UN is a waste of time is stupid.
"Defence" is not grammatically incorrect but rather a British variant of "Defense." I'm not a grammar expert, but I'd try to be sure before throwing in [sic] for effect.
And no, this isn't another "Real Genius" reference (Though I was highly tempted), but this COULD be a progression towards the militaristic aspect of the set of philosophies set down by the great scientist Nikola Tesla. To have a defensive network capable of destroying a hostile target from a great distance is a fine deterrent for war, and only offensive countries would try to have anything else.
Really, think about it: If all countries had a defensive network of these, America wouldn't be so quick to bomb civilian targets...
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
>> think you're any safer, having pissed off the UN
>If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
Given that their track record includes saving South Korea, keeping the peace in Sinai and a zillion other hotspots, and eradicating smallpox, I'd give them more credit. There's a reason we set up the UN after World War II.
The problem with missile defense is a bogus threat analysis. Try to imagine, if you are not one already, that you are a psychotic dictator with nuclear weapons who wants to strike the US. Do you
(A) Fire a missile (which will be detected at launch by satellite) and within thirty minutes become the glorious leader of glowing glass, or
(B) Smuggle the bomb hidden inside a bale of marijuana?
Well said. I'm glad that I find people like you on Slashdot, from time to time.
Sigged!
PS - There was a good article in this past months Discover Magazine regarding the Missile Defense Initiative, and how low-tech solutions can beat most if not all of the US's tactics at this point.
Uh, huh. That would be why the same book refers to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys
Man, I sure wish I could be a dittohead. Then I could go around being all confident in my RIGHTeousness and wouldn't need any supporting proof at all. What the Quran REALLY said is that in a particular story where one group of jews ignored the sabbath, the other group of jews called the first group sons of apes, among other things for disobeying God's will. God eventually came along and punished the first group, eventually wiping them out after warning them a few times first. Big whoop-de-freaking-do! Old testament is full of stuff 100x worse than that.
Also says its cheif prophet married a 7-year-old when he was in his 50s, but he was nice about it and waited 'til she was 9 before he "took her as his bride".
More dittohead nonsense. First, the Quran is NOT ABOUT Mohammed's life. If you knew jackshit about Islam, you would know that. The whole big deal is that it is suppossed to be literally God's word to Mohammed, not some sort of autobiography.
Second, there are a couple of references to Aisha, Mohammed's last wife as being 7/9 in some of the stories about Mohammed, but there are plenty of other references to her being significantly older anywhere from 12 to 20 or more. Here's a good debunker on that whole silliness.
Let me clue you into something - it may be full of guys who fuck their cousins and their sheep (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference), but the KKK isn't within two years of completing a nuclear weapons development programme.
And exactly how does a government program to create nukes have ANYTHING to do with a fringe interpretation of a religion? Really? Could you at least stay on topic instead of resorting to dittohead logic?
Unless you're a moslem, I'd suggest you root for the side that's not trying to kill or force into submission the 4.5 billion of us who haven't drunk its particular brand of theological Kool-Aid.
Hey, big suprise, dittoheads are innumerate too.
1) People who consider themselves Christian number only about 2 billion (33% of the world population) and that is decreasing.
2) People who consider themselves Muslim number about 1.2 billion (20% of the world population) that is increasing.
citation
The Christans figured it out 500 years ago during the Reformation. You're welcome to join us, but you're long overdue, and we're getting really fucking sick of waiting.
Bull-fucking-shit. Heard of the British Empire? European colonialism? Just because they didn't call it the HRE doesn't mean they didn't blame God for their actions. That stuff was going on well into the 20th century and we are still living with the remnants even today.
PS - "moslem" is considered a low-grade insult, equivalent to "xian." But it's clear you have no respect for other people's religion which is probably why you use the term in the first place. Ironic that would be the case in a discussion in which you erroneously make the same essential accusation of about a billion or so muslims.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The Jews just want to live. It's why we support them and not the Arab countries. It would be like kicking a kid out of your car in a bad part of town at night.
If Israel was trying to conquer the Arabs, I'd be able to see your point of view.
'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.'
Make sure it is lawful. So produce a legal briefing suggesting that it is legal to torture. Argue that the treaties and laws don't apply in certain situations. That's not twisting, that's what your reading. Rationalizing. Torture.
The enemies of Democracy are
Where is the Muslim analogue to the Pope???
So now Islam has to be defined in terms of Christianity? What about all the protestants? Are they so bad since they don't have a central figurehead to preach being nice? There are plenty of islamic scholars and clerics who preach peace, go to your nearest mosque and you will hear from one yourself. Just because the rabble-rousers get all the press doesn't mean that what they say applies to anything more than a group of mostly teenage and twenty-something boys.
Sistani is just playing politics and maneuvering for his long-term benefit. He is as much a politician as he is a cleric.
Who is going to clean up the dirty laundry in Islam? Personally I think the majority of believers like it just the way it is, and feel they are being consistent with the truth of Islam, whether you want to admit it or not.
How many muslims do you know personally? Sure, there is plenty of shit that people accept rather than question, but that is true of any society and America is no exception. All of the muslims I know are just as "good" and as "bad" as everybody else in my community - well, I do know a few nutjobs in favor of nuking the mid-east and "turning it into a parking lot" whom I consider to be a lot worse than any muslim that I have ever met.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If you're going to blame European colonialism on Christianity than you have to blame "a government program to create nukes" on Islam.
Hypocrite.
As for moslem being an insult - I've never heard of this. In fact, looking on google I can find many organizations with this in their names. So maybe you can just settle down and stop looking for insults where there are none to be found.
PS - to be clear, I am not the poster you replied to.
They've done a few good things.
So how abour Darfur?
Face it, they're all but impotent.
PS - this system can be used for other things than defence against ICBMs. I'm sure Israel could use something like this to blow up incoming rockets.
You, sir, are a moron.
Oh you'll have lots to learn, grasshopper. If you're unemployed, getting a job would help moving out of the house and make yourself useful rather than being Mom's little White Elephant. Heck, getting a contract in Iraq might even make you a little more mature.
But they were poorly used. The Germans were a generation out of synch - French tanks were heavier, better armed and armored...and distributed evenly among infantry units, rather than concentraited.
Oddly enough, Charles DeGaul was a pioneer in armored warfare, and the Germans learned a lot from him. The French army did not.
In the air, the Germans had quality and quantity on their side, and better doctrine.
So it wasn't really tech that separated them. Remember, much of the German army was horse-drawn throughout the war. It was mostly the application of tech. There were also issues of competence and morale and poor cooperation among allies.
I'm telling you that even if Iraqis were driving tanks through main street that we would NEVER resort to car bombing OUR OWN FREAKING POLICE STATIONS set up by the Iraqis during reconstruction, or cutting OUR OWN FREAKING OIL PIPELINES.
You don't think so do you? Maybe you missed out on all the bad, bad shit that went down in Northern Ireland and those are two ethnic groups a whole lot more similar than most Americans and Iraqis. But if the Irish aren't a close enough example to home, you might want to look at how British sympathizers were treated during the American revolution.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Any ally of the US is an automatic 51st state. It's getting old, asshole.
I really don't think any of this, on the side of Islam or Christianity, has too much to depend on religion. Religion was just a way to justify the wars in pretty much all counts. Take the 30 years war - Religion may have been the spark, but it was still all about land and power.
"but when was there ever a missile attack on any north american target?"
There's always a first time.
"This money seems like a complete waste, that could have been spent on a much more useful project - like, say, an asteriod defence system."
Though I sort of agree, I think the odds of being attacked are a.) more significant b.) easier to defend against. To put it another way, how can we shoot down asteroids if we can't shoot down missiles?
"Derp de derp."
While we are at it lets also blame the US stock of nukes on Islam.
Personally, I would rather piss on it. *grin*
Life is not for the lazy.
But that's exactly the line of thinking that bring this world to the brink of nuclear conflict sooner or later. And once this shit hits the fan there will be no survivors, whether or not you have the anti-missile system (which you won't have, because it's 100 times easier to build a rocket defeating such a system than a system capable of shooting it down).
So my recomendation to the US would be to quit stepping onto other countries' toes and engage into a massive diplomacy effort which would either delay the proliferation of nuclear weapons (there's no stopping it), or reverse the buildup of nuclear arsenal in countries that already have NW, and at the same time put checks in place to reduce chances of extremist people becoming presidents in other countries, at least those potentially capable of producing nuclear weapons.
Need an example of when such an effort would be beneficial? Kim Jong Il is your man. Tiny, piss-poor nation which has nothing to lose. Push more nations into this state, and you'll have tens of millions of angry people wanting revenge. Continue your policy directed at disintegration of Russia, and you'll have no less than _eight_ piss poor nations on its territory and all of them will have nuclear weapons of such immense power and reach, you may never build a system to neutralize them.
When I said in five years they'll have "the shit", I meant multiple-warhead ICBMs, which can't be shot down. And they'll make them at 1/100th of the cost of the US anti-missile system.
Now, you can prevent them from making these ICBMs in the first place. But who's gonna do this in this nation of overconfident paranoids?
Yeah, the Islamic books say some stupid shit.
And the Christian Books say about the same amount of stupid shit.
I'd say that about the same ratio of people of each religion belive the corresponding bullshit, that is to say, not many. But, as many (most? At least that's the argument that I get when I confront some dumbshit about some jacked up christian-orientated, and totally off the wall, thing he says) Xians take the Old Testament in stride, there's a small few dumbfuckers who take all of it for fact. And I thought Planet of the Apes was frustrating---a few weeks ago I was at a Village Inn, while about six or so bible thumpers a table or two away talked about The Bible.
The Alpha Fundie made the idiotic statement somewhere along the lines of "the Old Testament is clearly all true." I wanted to get up and bitch slap 'em, I swear. And if Jesus were at the table, he'd have wanted to do the same. Smug, "all knowing" Pricks like these were the reason that I left (more like pushed away from) The Church. The really fucking sad thing is that these idiots are seemingly breeding in record numbers, while sane people are probably using protection. And I half belive that's the case with the Muslims also.
Kill or force into submission the 4.5 billion of us... *cough* FUD *cough* bullshit *cough*
Sure. That makes lots of sense. Historically, it would seem to me that Chrisitans have been far more often willing to force others to partake in their Kool-Aid, afterall, a good amount of christians are doing their god-sent duty to do just that.
Historically, it would seem to me that the Islamics have a tendancy to be far more isolationist, in that leave me the fuck alone sort of way, and unwilling to push their faith upon others, and that the Christians of the world have their fingers in everyone's pie--and they're writing the name "Jesus" on the pie pan, in thick blueberry pie sauce-stuff. Indeed, there are some christians out there right now plotting armageddon, and the cloning-resurrection of Jesus.
Let me say this: how many state sponsored occupations of foreign countries are currently in progress? Oh yeah, none. Even if you were to say that the palestinians were state sponsored (which they never publically were), their action isn't for nothing. Israel has done some seriously fucked up shit there. Both sides have done some seriously fucked up shit.
500 years my hairy ass. Even 200-100 years is a helluva fucking stretch. By God, quite a fucking lot haven't got it figured out ***TO THIS DAY***.
You guys don't have no spacecraft anymore. :0)
WWII was the worst thing to happen to the rich, powerful bastards that run things since the Black Plague. When you kill off half your workforce you've got to treat what's left pretty well. Plus there were all sorts of revolutions and power changing hands. Even if your average dumbass doesn't learn from histroy, the Dick Cheney's and Kim's of the world do. These people don't want revolutions and glorious wars, they want status quo and the power they have now.
Moreover, why the hell would you bother invading a country with troops when you can do it economically. A large part of America is owned by foreign gov'ts (especially the Saudi's I hear). When you own that much of a country, all you need to do is threaten to pull out your investments (and wreak the economy) and *bam*, you get whatever you want. Real power is telling someone what to do. How you get this power is irrelevant. Why bother with a messy, expensive war when a nice profitable economic war is so much easier?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Greetings and salutations.
Hum...from what I have been hearing, the European Union (EU) is rapidly becoming quite an economic superpower in the world, perhaps even surpassing the US.
After all, there are a lot of companies out there that seem to ask "how high" on the way up when the EU says Jump. As an example...what about the woodworking tool manufacturers who are making table saw arbors too short to hold a dado blade? If the EU did not have economic power, would it be so hard to find a "normal" length arbor these days?
Regards
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
From the drudge report. (cut/paste)
FORMER HEAD OF CIA'S OSAMA BIN LADEN UNIT SAYS THE QAEDA LEADER HAS SECURED RELIGIOUS APPROVAL TO USE A NUCLEAR BOMB AGAINST AMERICANS
Fri Nov 12 2004 12:02:34 ET
Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist. The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Scheuer was until recently known as the "anonymous" author of two books critical of the West's response to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the most recent of which is titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. No one in the West knows more about the Qaeda leader than Scheuer, who has tracked him since the mid-1980s. The CIA allowed him to write the books provided he remain anonymous, but now is allowing him to reveal himself for the first time on Sunday's broadcast; he formally leaves the Agency today (12).
Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. "[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer tells Kroft.
Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. "They're intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region....If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon," says Scheuer.
As the head of the CIA unit charged with tracking bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, Scheuer says he never had enough people to do the job right. He blames former CIA Director George Tenet. "One of the questions that should have been asked of Mr. Tenet was why were there always enough people for the public relations office, for the academic outreach office, for the diversity and multi-cultural office? All those things are admirable and necessary but none of them are protecting the American people from a foreign threat," says Scheuer.
And the threat posed by bin Laden is also underestimated, says Scheuer. "I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice...continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug, as a gangster," he says. "Until we respect him, sir, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary, yes. He's a very, very talented man and a very worthy opponent," he tells Kroft.
Until today (12), Scheuer was a senior official in the CIA's counter terrorism unit and a special advisor to the head of the agency's bin Laden unit.
Developing...
Life is not for the lazy.
So the terrorists use planes to destroy buildings, so whos clever idea is it to equip these planes with lasers how are we going to shoot these planes down if they are hijacked by terrorists.
Umm... what radar screen did Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh show up on before they blew up the Federal Building in OKC?
So "The New American" has some articles alleging a bunch of shit.
Up until OKC, it was trivial to get a truckload full of Ammonium Nitrate, or to steal a few thousand pounds from some farmer in various places, or steal it from a mine. Dynamite gets stolen from mines, and is not always successfully recovered all the time in the US.
Now, all it takes is a dishonest fertilizer salesman to get it for you or a phantom farm operation that "misplaces a few bags" of it. So they have all this documentation and requirements for it. Pshah.
The actual sentence should read "a sufficently motivated and capable person who wishes to damage a sufficently unprotected entity will try until stopped or success is achieved".
It's always been this way, and no matter what laws or super secret cops or subpoenas are put into play, will always be this way.
Car door locks exist not to deter theives, but to keep honest people honest.
Not supporting Israel would have caused at least two problems in the US:
a) pissed off the Jewish community
b) woken people up in the US and Europe that the area is also the "home" area of Christianity, and that letting people "own" the area with no thought of sharing it with others is probably a bad thing, from a cultural perspective.
As bad as the propaganda and bullshit storm that the US press is in the US, it pales in comparison to the operations of the disinformation ministers in Islamic countries that sow unrest and discontent with others outside their border to keep their ire from focusing on problems within THEIR countries...
That most of the Islamic countries are big on rhetoric but lacking in any actions these days should be telling as well. There was a time, of course, when they felt more comfortable with acting just as unilaterally as the US has been doing recently.
So, boo-hoo to the Islamic countries as well. If they really wanted to start something, they would just shut off the oil wells. But no...
Boeing can now sell laser proved missiles.
If you're going to blame European colonialism on Christianity than you have to blame "a government program to create nukes" on Islam.
Apparently you are just as simpled minded as the other poster, let me walk you through it SAT style:
first guy: al-queda == islam
me: terrorists:islam as kkk:christianity
dittohead: kkk < government with nukes
me: so what? government != al-queda
you: christianity:colonialism as islam:nukes
me: WTF?
As for moslem being an insult - I've never heard of this. In fact, looking on google
Oh, you, a non-muslim have never head of it and can't figure out how to work google so it must be ok? Do you really think I just made it up? If I were the dittohead who obviously doesn't know shit about islam, then yeah but after refuting him with facts and you still think I don't know what the hell I'm talking about? Come on.
hypocrite
dumbshit
Why don't you look in google for the terms moslem and derogatory, of the 4000+ hits it shouldn't take you too long to find a couple that explain it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US
You mean weaker because you have bigger guns, right ?
Actually, the biggest bully on the block is usually the weakest...
dependent on the US
Please elaborate how anyone except Israel is dependent on the US.
or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That's what you guys think, most people in liberated countries seem to disagree with you.
it's a shame you get modded +5 insightful with your US-centric mindset.
Oh well, I'm only from old Europe, so i guess i don't matter...
European Linux user, living in Antwerp
Yes, the "Lazer" was invented by alan parsons, so Lets call this "the allan parsons project".
Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
Actually, defence is a valid spelling. "Asteriod", though, is not. :P
They hate us because we have been trying to control them and bombing them, and other fucked up shit for the better part of a century. It is really that simple. ....... Of course it is easier for people to unburdon themselves and just place the blame on bullshit like "they hate us for our freedom".
Apparently you've never read Bin Laden's letter to America. I suggest that you do. He states his demands that we must meet before he will stop trying to kill us pretty clearly starting at Q2. I'll give you the quick summary:
1. Become Muslim
2. Abolish the Constitution, separation of Church and State, and institute Sharia law. No more oppression, lies, immorality, adultry, debauchery, immoral acts of fornication, pornography, homosexuality, intoxicants (alcohol, drugs), gambling's, and trading with interest under pain of the appropriate punishment (adulty:death, homosexuality:death, etc.).
Now, I could go on, but just those two points should be enough to convince you that this war isn't going to end until we are Muslim, or they are captured, killed, or otherwise discouraged.
If we would have left the middle east alone and not tried to force them to recognize israel and wouldnt have supported israel then we wouldnt have been in this mess to begin with.
You seem to think that they have a problem with the recognition of Israel. That isn't so. Their problem is with its existence. Many Muslims and Arabs do not accept its existence. Killing all of the Jews to undo Israel isn't really an acceptable solution to make those Muslims and Arabs happy, is it? You are also mistaken if you believe that if the US wasn't involved in the area that there would be no conflict. Wahabism and extremism is spreading. It has a presence in America. It was only a question of time before we had to face the problem of Muslim extremists. It is better that we do it on our own terms to the greatest extent that we can.
Add to that the fact that we have supported dictators like the taliban and hussien and you can see why they have legit problems with us.
We've removed the Taliban and Saddam and are helping those countries more to democracy. The people who are most upset are the extremists that want to recreate the Muslim superstate combining church and state. They are the same bunch that demand of us: Islam or death!
Yes, it really is *THAT* simple. Leave them alone.
You're wrong. If you don't believe me, read Bin Laden's letter and consider the choice he offers you: Islam or death!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
North Korea just waits till this project passes the beta test phase, then you'll see it in live.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Interesting view. Unfortunately consequences are pretty steep. The US loses a couple of cities, they lose a country. South Korea is ruined, and Japan gets a coating of fallout.
Dictators often turn into gamblers. Saddam, for example, invaded Iran and fought an 8 year war to a stalemate. He then invaded Kuwait, captured it, and was eventually kicked out by a UN coalition.
If North Korea turns gambler, it could be enormous loss of life. It is also worth remembering, the loss of 1 building and 4 planes resulted in about $100 billion of damage to the US economy that we are only shaking off now. What kind of damage do you think a couple of nuked cities would do?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Bunch of fallacies there a) Most jews didnt support Israel, a vocal minority , wanted it to be where it is. The support they currently enjoy came about after the war of 67 :)
b) Current day Israel was conquered by Muslims in the mid 600's....until the early-mid 1900's the area consisted of people of all three faiths living largely in harmony (except for a few very brief periods of nutty rulers).....
Yes most muslim countries ARE fucked up, how many of those were NOT colonized? how many of those havent had US/CIA backed dictators? I'm not blaming the US for their problems but credit where credits due, we did fuck them up just as much as they themselves did/are doing
If you're referring to the period from 600-1700 or so 'unilateral action', dont remember there being the UN Or international law or any country that 'consulted' others before invading, kinda what progress is all about, most countries 'agreed' NOT to do that anymore within the past 50-60 years
About shutting off oil, remember the 73 oil crisis? remember the guy behind it? (Shah Faisal)... Guess how long he 'lived' after that.... tad bit over a year... his assassination is largely attributed to the CIA
(read up on all of the above.. sorry if I came across as rude or anything, that wasnt my intention)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
-- US Constitution, Amendment I.
The rest of the story: SCOTUS routinely looks at what other things our founders said when trying to understand what they meant in the Constitution. This is just another common example. When people claim its "nowhere in the Constitution" they mean the word "separation" in reference to religion and the state isn't there. But the above statement which is explicitly in the Constitution clearly implies a separation as some founders have confirmed elsewhere, that is why SCOTUS has always interpreted that section as meaning a seperation, to the extreme disgust of those who desperately want to establish a new theocracy here.
"a) pissed off the Jewish community"
If they are so in favor of israel then they can move their ass to israel. I dont give a shit about what 2% of this country thinks when its going to HARM the other 98% more than it helps.
"b) woken people up in the US and Europe that the area is also the "home" area of Christianity, and that letting people "own" the area with no thought of sharing it with others is probably a bad thing, from a cultural perspective."
They already are aware of it, why do you think they backed israel to begin with ? In this country (not sure of europe) being Jewish is closer to being white than being Arabic/Islamic. Hell to most people jews are no different than whites and arabs no different than blacks. Most people are ignorant.
Just for the record I never said that I supported the Islamic countries, but despite popular opinion I dont "have" to be on either side, I think they are both fucking wrong. Just plain fucked IMHO. We have no more bussiness liberating Iraq than Canada has Liberating us from the republicans.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
>North Korea is on the verge of having missiles with enough range to hit the US now. And interestingly enough, the US now says the invation of Iraq was a good thing because they _could_ have developped WMD. Funny.
You underestimate the effect of losing a few cities, you got millions dead and the economy goes downhill. There is the cost of medical treatment, rebuilding, testing for people for radiation/chemicals/germs, etc. and then the cost of creating all these systems (since after an attack they would get funding). And of course there would be panic.
Then there is the cost of invading NK, and potential cost of helping our allies.
Step 1: sell nuclear holocost insurance
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit
No one will be around to collect.
Fallacy #2: The average Muslim 'agrees' with his world view
Fallacy #3: We're helping the countries become democratic.. Ayyad Allawai (current Iraqi president) = ex-CIA
Fallacy #4: Israel = all jews (zionism vs judaism)
Fallacy #5: If the 'state' Israel somehow magically ceased to exist, all jews therein would be axe murdered
Nobody hates america, a lot of people admire(d) it... Nobody wants foreign troops in their country (including america :)) long term, all about nationalism n sovereignty, american troops in Saudia = pissed a lot of people off.
:) (any other country would do)
/Dictators supporting the US good
/Dictators opposing the US bad
so on and so forth
America attacked Afghanistan, direct reaction , extremists won a series of elections in Pakistan for the first time since its creation...
The more badly america pisses people off, the more they'll try to hurt america, the only avenue for hurting america at the moment appears to be Bin Laden hence the support he has, stop the hypocrisy and 'slowly' but surely people will stop hating america...
The reason people are anti american is the hypcrisy evident to most people that follow media that is not american
Israel nukes good
Everybody else nukes bad
Israel flouting UN conventions goood
everyone else bad
Monarchies
Monarchies
Factor in all the communism induced paranoia and how the US made sure to quell any tendency of muslim countries to align with the USSR (assassinations / coup's etc) , see a lot of reason people to distrust america
As someone else mentioned, you are forgetting the "impact" side of the equation, and no, thats not a pun. The consequences of an asteroid impact is worse than every other use of a nuclear weapon or moderate nuclear war, short of a mass suicidal/genocidal use of *all* current nuclear weapons at once. The argument is we need to worry about the next Big One From Outer Space, even if it is more unlikely (and some will argue about the probabilities issue) because the odds of surviving are about as bad as bad odds can get. :)
'Majority' is grotesquely wrong.
Weaker, as in having less weapons, certainly. Dependent on the US: Not anymore. In fact, the US depends far more on the rest of the planet than it is the case vice versa.
Desperately in need of US 'protection' are a couple of areas with minor geostrategic relevance. A great part of the world would be perfectly fine without US 'protection', aka hegemony.
Intresting since his video said the exact opposite. Could it be that he is an asshole who lies through his teeth ? Perhaps even that he alone cannot accomplish shit and that he doesnt represent the majority of the islamic community ?
... but its a little late to put the lid on that jar (either one for that matter). We made a mistake, a mistake that we KEEP making over and over again.
Osama is an asshole, I would beat the fucker with his dialisys machine and shove it up his ass and out the other end like a spit if I ever saw him. But if you think terrorism begins or ends with him you are smoking some serious shit. WE (you read that right) created this problem through our actions. Ever see a nutjob preaching on the corner in a city ? Everybody ignores him because his speech doesnt have any emotion or subject that effects the passer-bys, Osama has that emotion and that subject, Because we gave it to him. We put the taliban in power and then left afgahnistan, which we left again to fight a needless war against another asshole we put in power, yet we expect these people to love us ? We bomb them and expect a welcoming parade ? We force them out of there homes in favor of a more "american" acceptable culture (israel) and we expect smiles ? ARE YOU ON DRUGS ??? Imagine if somebody had been doing this shit to your culture, friends and family for centuries (this goes back to the crusades). Would you trust them ? We "liberated" both of these countries before, recently, neither time did it turn out beneficial to the citizens of those countries. What makes you think this is going to end any differently ?
"You seem to think that they have a problem with the recognition of Israel. That isn't so. Their problem is with its existence. Many Muslims and Arabs do not accept its existence. Killing all of the Jews to undo Israel isn't really an acceptable solution to make those Muslims and Arabs happy, is it?"
Well I could go on about us trying to kill all the arabs to solve the problem
"You are also mistaken if you believe that if the US wasn't involved in the area that there would be no conflict. Wahabism and extremism is spreading. It has a presence in America. It was only a question of time before we had to face the problem of Muslim extremists. It is better that we do it on our own terms to the greatest extent that we can."
We gave the problem roots through our actions. Terrorism will never stop, its a human rection to want to harm someone you perceived has harming you. You think this is going to end ? It's not. It's going to keep going and going and going. Hell it will even outlast america in all likelyhood.
I'll leave you with this - Bin laden by himself is no more dangerous than any other nutjob, people like Bush give him a cause. They are the ones that recruit for Bin laden. Kill one innocent person and their family, friends and neighbors are now potential enemies/terrorists. Bush doesnt understand this war, to date I have not seen a single person from ANY political party that has a grasp on this situation. This goes farther than a countries borders, farther than any army can reach. Everyone wants to be free, having a forgein government apoint your leaders is not freedom. Being bombed is not freedom. Holding fixed elections is not freedom.
I bet you we leave Iraq in worse shape than it was in when we got there.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Any ally of the US is an automatic 51st state.
Especially France...
The problem is that many of my fellow Americans will make a statement like this without realizing the flip-side of the coin: America is increasingly dependent economically on our allies. Its "co-dependency", not one-sided dependency.
If we continue to ignore the rest of the world, despite the fact that we are increasingly needing them almost as much as they need us, one day we are going to wake up with a nasty surprise. It would be really interesting to see your reaction if Europe, the Mid-East, China and Asia, Canada and Mexico, all decided to stop trading with us for about 4 months, just to show us how "independent" we really are.
Money diverted from war and war research and spent on nanotech/biotech can and will bring the cures for all the diseases of aging and make it possible to slow, stop, then reverse aging...it's just that we need to convince all the warmonger types that it can be done, funny thing, when we do get close to demonstraiting age revesal in mice (in what, 6 to 8 years from now), you can be sure that the top policy warmongers world-wide will make sure that they get the benefits of this research while the average joe (who pays for all the war research), will be fed all the usual propoganda that patriotism is good for us all (this applies across the entire pollitical spectrum, just look at how many wars have been successfuly fought that way these last 100 years!!). Besides, the usefull career lifespan of engineers is what, 45 years, programmers, even less? With all the new millions of new generations of geeks (engineers, programmers, scientists) that are going to be educated in china, india, russia etc. why would you want to get old and unemployed and zapped in some future war, it would be much better to use our tallents and to not get old, that way you could have a better opportunity to get some work and not be unemployed due to your age (remeber, if you are young AND very experienced, you have a better chance of getting that job), whereas if it's like today, and your OLD and experienced, you just get fired...after all, remember, science and technology gave us the radio and TV and computer, before that, life was very different (especially for geeks, very boring), average people did not expect these breakthroughs to happen, but they did...Xerox and IBM could not see the future racing towwards them, but Apple and Bill gates did!!! We now have the specter of massivelly destructive war technologies (nano/bio/AI) headed in our direction....we can embrace them and have really cool, messy wars, or we can embrace them and have really cool nanotech anti-aging solutions with also massivelly boosted brain capcities so we can understand and do really cool nerdy things, with cheap nanotech (who need intel, grow your own nano-computer) so what's it to be?
He's a product of that system. What do you expect?
Quite a bit of the money that the Feds give universities has to do with research grants. The FL expenditure includes repairing Federal facilities and loans to inviduals/businesses affected by the disaster, a natural one that could not be avoided. Oakland's school woes are the result of their own incompetance and corruption. The current school administration should be taken out and hung from lamp posts. Apparently the local population is too stupid, lazy, drugged-up, or whatever to stand up and clean house. You want the Feds to come in and fork over a bunch of cash because the school situation? That would only encourage other districts to do that same damn thing. Let Boeing get this thing working, and then just have it circle Oakland zapping idiots in the local govt.
Because too damn many of them are brainwashed college kids that have had mommy & daddy pay for everything and have never had to work for a damn thing. Since they haven't had to work for a living and have never experience self-sufficency, it's just natural to want big Uncle Sam step up and pay for everything.
As a member of the radical french anti-globalization forces, I have only this to say:
We will be changing our plans!
The present USA administration has pissed
away billions of dollars on military hard-
ware and warfare in response to a non-event.
Iraq did not attack the USA, and certainly
not with ballistic missles.
I fully expect that the next major terrorist
attack against the USA will occur in spite of
the Bush administration's half-assed efforts
to "protect the homeland". It will be either
a "dirty bomb" or a nuclear weapon transported
across the USA's borders, or though our under-
protected seaports, and not a ballistic missle.
Terrorists and the countries that support them
will not want to "advertise" their point of
origin with a ballistic missle launch, due to
the expected USA response.
The continued failure of the Bush administration
to perform "due diligence" in regard to both
border and seaport security will be considered
weaknesses that can be exploited. The Bush
administration has left the borders open for the
cheap and exploitable labor their business allies
want, and the seaports have been left largely
unguarded because the last thing this government
wants to do is hinder big business's cheap imports
(read Walmart, etcetera) with inspections.
Neither North Korea nor Red China will launch
a ballistic missle against the USA, but will
find other means to infiltrate such WMD into the
country. The new ABM initiatives, including
Boeing's mobile laser system, will not stop the
next big attack on the USA's territory. An
equivalent expenditure on border and seaport
security would, but the Border Patrol is not
part of the military-industrial complex.
Some of the problems are of local origin and can't be fixed anywhere else:
For a couple of very informative yet entertaining rants on these subjects, I suggest that you read this regarding the former, and this regarding the latter. Then read the rest of the first site, especially some of the links.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You can only avoid a problem via MAD if mutual destruction is unacceptable to the enemy. This is emphatically not true for some of the apocalyptic visionary nuts we're facing; Al Qaeda not only doesn't mind death for the sake of striking blows, it seems to seek it out. We certainly could incinerate Pakistan if Al Qaeda got hold of its arsenal and destroyed New York and Los Angeles, but that would be cold comfort to those New Yorkers and Angelinos fortunate enough to survive.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I'm feeling a Real Genius flashback...
Anyone know anyone at Boeing who has braces?
"Boeing, this is God. Stop your foolishness at once."
Where's Lazlo when you need him!!!
And what you're saying is that more federal money will magically fix the problems, which is contradicted by several decades of evidence.
No - what he's saying is that LESS federal money will make the problems worse. Which is completely different, and also self-apparent.
Of course, if you WANT India and China to overtake the US, by all means cut school funding and make it so only rich kids can get a decent education. Just don't be surprised when the underclass you create completely fails to become as productive as the well-educated and well-motivated working classes of the rapidly-developing world.
--ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
No mater where you go, there you are...about a block from Taco Bell.
Quran: [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
"Hell to most people jews are no different than whites and arabs no different than blacks. Most people are ignorant. "
As displayed by that statement.
The aims of the military setting off a dirty bomb would be very different to the aims of a terrorist. Using weak radiation against an enemy force equipped with NCB gear may not be very effective. Using such a device against a civilian population would be a different matter entirely.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I'll just throw in the Aztecs then...
o _f 00.html
I can just see the Conquistadores at their 'mission briefing' at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: "Now, if you happen to run into any natives over there, don't go trying to convert any of them, there's a few theological issues need to be ironed out first."
Note who Pizzaro sent to speak with Atahuallpa (and what happened):
http://www.pbs.org/conquistadors/pizarro/pizarr
It's interesting to compare these two 'versions of the story':
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12140a.htm
"At a given signal the Spaniards rushed upon the unsuspecting Indians, massacred them in the most horrible manner, and took possession of their chief."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02032a.htm
"The stories of a terrible slaughter of the Indians are inordinate exaggerations."
Cthulhu loves you.
First of all, you should have defensive capabilities in line with your planned offensive agressions. This just says the uS plans to piss off somebody that has missile capability. Or at least that the US wants it to appear as if they have a defense against missiles...
Secondly, I can only Imagine that the US saw Israel as a strategic opportunity to dominate the middle east. Currently though Israel is just bringing us lots of bad will for our stupid ass policies. Israel I understand, they were abused throughout Europe for centuries, and they are growing up to be abusers. But the US position is bizarre.
Probably since the US gave Israel Nukes, it does not want to see them used, and it can't get them back. I wonder if this makes the US the first country to give away nuclear technology?
No, moron, actually they don't. A rhetorical question does not automatically become truth just because you wrote it.
If my government was killing about 3,000 citizens per month, I'd hang up the bunting. Just like Iraqi's did.
The "insurgents" (read Iranians, Syrians, etc) in Iraq bear no Moore resemblance to the Minutemen than you remarks do to rational thought.
The military and its associated industries have a proven track record of falsifying test results of anti-missle systems. The original Patriot in Iraq I, the tests last year, and now I suspect here.
Let's look at the "evidence": An artist's conception of a plane-based laser system shooting down a missle. This is similar to the "evidence" Powell offered to the UN for Iraqi mobile bio-weapons labs. It's coming up on two years later and we still haven't seen actual pics of those.
We live in the present, not 500 years ago. Find an example within your lifetime.
Switzerland's defense budget in 2002 was $3.3 billion, they have 3,500 troops, and have even bought US made F/A-18 Hornets.
What is this American obsession with red nations? The communist "threat" disappeared when the Soviet Union did. Oh, did you mean rogue nations? (whatever they are).
Bullshit, asshole. We had people on the fucking planes call their families and report such during the incident.
You do realize than there isn't a weaker or stronger between the US and the world, right ? This is more of a symbiotic relationship. if the US start destroying the weorld, their economy and own population way's of life would go the down crapper since they CANNOT sustain it without the rest of the world. The rest of the world OTOH could very well live without the US. Imagine *JUST* a second that the rest of the world would say "from now on, we , the world, boycoitt fully the US". No more oil from orient. no more primary ressource. no more China manufactured product. no more european product. Nothing. How quick do you think the US would fall ? OTOH if the US close completly its frontier to the rest of the world, sure things would go bad a few month until economical curent stabilize themselves.
And that's it. most of the world need *manufactureed* product, which the US produce less and less, whereas US main product, "services" is a luxury for the rest of the world.
"The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability." so much for the rebuttal of this.
As for this : "The US is significantly safer in many, many ways. However, it is clearly not secure." I will let civil libertarian judge themselves the veracity of that. I will certainly prefer be at the mercy of a few terrorist attack once a while rather than see the slow rise of a police state in my own country, but hey, it is your own country after all. If you wish we can put collar with tracking device , as well as microphone linked to a carnivore like big network system on everybody in the country, thus completly defeating forever terrorist and making US a looooot more secure.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Defensive weapons in nuclear war, however, seem to start giving politicians ideas that they can 'win' a nuclear exchange. Frankly, I'd prefer them shitting their pants every time Putin raises his voice.
"Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
I never realized white, arab, and black were religions.
Liquid fueled rockets have to be topped up with volatile liquids, like liquid oxygen, shortly before launch. This is not really practical for missiles -- nuclear missiles, or bazooka shells. The very first ICBMs were liquid fueled. And the change to solid fuel was seen as a big improvement.
all that comes out of china is sars and the flu.
This is insightful? Give your head a shake.
Umm, can't this be foiled simply by coating the missile with a reflective surface?
They could use this for assassination.
Even if the final system can't track a Mach 6 object, I'm sure it can be manually aimed at a stationary target making a speech 300km away.
Better if you can fire the laser in a nonvisible light wavelength, AND fire it so it passes close to a big thundercloud - ionizing the air and inducing a big visible lightning zap from the cloud to the target. Go look up laser induced lightning.
Then it'll look like an "Act of God" - the target apparently being killed by lightning.
Why shoot down missiles if you can shoot the person that orders them to be launched and make it look like it was a freak incident?
Potential apps? Sure, I can see plenty. In fact I wonder if assassination could actually be one of the main apps (secret of course - rather politically incorrect).
Have they even been able to display a high level of accuracy from MTHEL?
So now we can fire missles at airplanes for fun and watch the missles explode in mid-air by the laser!
Hallvar Helleseth (hallvar)
..now if Boeing can come up with an anti-inconspicuous-guy-carrying-a-bomb-laden-suitc ase-laser, I'll start feeling safe.
Oh wait, CAPPS-II and removing our shoes before boarding an airplane has already completely removed that threat.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
This is a defense system that keeps quite a few people in the IT sector employed.
"Little things hitting each other. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE!" - Time Bandits
If you're worried about nukes, then focusing on the delivery mechanism doesn't seem that effective.
A "dirty bomb" just blows radioactive material in an area. This is completely different from a nuke. Just because the missle isn't 100% effective anymore does not mean that the nuke becomes ineffective.
And who exactly are you calling brainless?
Sorry, thought that was clear from the context: the leaders of the countries who hurredly developing nukes.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
A "dirty bomb" is not a nuke.
A "dirty bomb" is a bunch of conventional explosives and some form of radioactive material. The bomb goes off and spreads radiation in a small area.
A suitcase nuke is a small nuke. It can level a city.
A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the immediate blast area. Then it relies upon wind to blow it further. The further it goes, the less risk there is from it. Eventually, it is only slightly higher than regular background radiation.
Also, the radioactive material after the blast is just the dust. This will be cleaned after the first rain. The rain will concentrate the dust in areas the rain normally concentrates in. The sewers or the rivers or the oceans.
Also, the radiation damage usually does not show up in people for years. Then they get cancer earlier and at a higher percentage than the rest of the population.
Dirty bombs are not really any threat to anyone. They require additional material that can be detected and they don't give much more destructive capabilities.
The best way to avoid war with the U.S. (or just about anyone else) is to have nukes.
If that were true, no one would've started wars with any nuclear powers, ever. However, this is not the case. Without looking up recent history, I can think of several wars in the last sixty years involving nuclear armed powers, including the Falklands War and the Chechnian-Russia civil war that's still running.
Being in the process of developing nukes (or bluffing like Saddam) may be risky, but if you pull it off, like Pakistan, there's a payoff called MAD.
Since Pakistan doesn't have an effective delivery vehicle that can hit the US, MAD doesn't apply between those two countries. And since they probably don't have enough warheads to destroy India or China, it doesn't apply there, either.
Besides, MAD is a Mexican stand-off, and only works when both countries care about self-survival. It doesn't work in the case of, say, North Korea, who's leader is as loopy as the rides at Six Flags. Or Iran, who's leaders believe they'll go to heaven if they die in battle.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It doesn't cure cancer or tuck me into bed at night either... what exactly is your point? Fixing the Oakland school system won't shoot down a missle. What's the price of tea in China?
Look at North Korea. Look at Iran. Look at Pakistan's market in nuke technology.
Countries are focusing on getting nukes.
When do they stop being "exceptions" to you and become the rule?
"In fact, one of the BBs sunk at Pearl Harbor was also named USS South Dakota, a sister ship of the USS Arizona."
d r. htm#sd-cl
w wi i.htm#sd-cl
r /h istory/pearlharbor_facts.html
r ea tyi m.ht ml
Sorry, that is incorrect.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_
South Dakota
B-49 - BB 49
Laid down by New York Navy Yard 15 March 1920 . Designation BB 49 assigned 17 July 1920. Suspended 8 February 1922 when 30.5% complete; cancelled under the Washington Treaty 17 August 1922; stricken 25 October 1923, and scrapped by 15 November 1923.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_
Built by New York SB, Camden, NJ. Laid down 5 July 1939, launched 7 June 1941, commissioned 20 March 1942.
Operated in the Pacific through most of WWII, mainly in support of the fast carrier forces, and some shore bombardment duty. Sustained moderate damage in a night gun action with the Japanese battlecruiser Kirishima and escorting cruisers off Guadalcanal, 15 November 1942; overhaul and repairs at New York Navy Yard completed February 1942. Operated in the Atlantic, with the Royal Navy, February-August 1943, then returned to the Pacific. Received minor bomb damage 19 June 1944. Final light armament was 17 quad 40mm AA and 73 single 20mm AA.
Decommissioned to reserve 31 January 1947. Stricken for disposal 1 June 1962, sold 25 October 1962, and subsequently scrapped.
http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbo
"Don't forget that the US (and most of the armed world) was still under the Washington Treaty at that time,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_T
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_l
The treaty was voided in 1936 by Japan
Treaty Between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, Signed at Washington, February 6, 1922
The feds run the DC school system? Interesting. I didn't know that.
Presenting a list of US military operations in various countries does not seem to fit the definition of "anecdote".Data is not information. You are presenting the data of military spending as if it were information about global beliefs. They are not the same.
The fact is, more countries are pursuing nuclear programs now. That is "data". Now, you can interpret that "data" in any way you want to. Personally, I believe it reflects an increased awareness of what needs to be done so the US will not attack your country. So, in that case, your data does not support your assumption, but the data I have does support mine.
Oakland has the power of taxation and self-governance so if Oakland A) really thinks schools are in need of improvement, B) is prepared to actually do so, and C) think that money is required, then D) it can raise the money itself and do it. Why does money have to pass through the Washington DC filter and be doled back out to fix what amounts to a local problem? (I'll give the real answer that no one in local government will utter: the feds can run deficits whereas state and local governments have to balance their books. That's why they look to Uncle Sugar for funds. That, and it's always easier to put the arm on some taxpayer in, say, Biloxi, who doesn't vote for you.)
I've heard some nonsense in my time but the fallacies broadcast here are almost amusing in
a singularly provocative aspect.
All paraphrased for effect->
"The UN cannot protect you.."
Analysis:
-Probably not since no one really wants an organization of acceptable nations to dictate
domestic and international conduct for a member nation when in total they are weaker than
that member or can be construed as morally questionable.
"The majority of ther planet is weak.."
Analysis:
-By design and active interference.
"Certain non-christian regions professing certain religion beliefs are antithetical to progress."
Analysis:
-Well, that is certainly a popular concept amongst historically oppressive states and fascist regimes.
"More buildings could have been blown up than actually are destroyed therefore the contextual reality of the situation is that an idiom of
conservancy will prevail until the next manifestation of an opposing principle."
Analysis:
No comment.
"The US is not yet totally safe.."
Safe from whom? Us, them or you?
And in fact the core technology was developed in conjunction with Israel, so rest assured they already have it. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00g.html
Right. So there's no possible chance that a sociopath could possibly rise to a position of power in any country with even a single ICBM?
I'm sure glad to hear that. Now just list a few sources that incontrovertably prove that point, and you get the $1B prize money.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I liked www.imdb.com/title/tt0090056/
Quran: [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Jesus H Christ! Another dittohead with quotes but no research of their own.
Here: Some Misappropriations of Quranic Verses. In short, the original Arabic "Auliya" has been mistranslated into "friend" without regard for context. With context, it is easy to see that it should translate as "military protector." Even if it really did mean "friend," that is lightyears away from meaning "sons of monkeys and pigs" as the first dittohead stated.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Did you actually read that letter? It states the motives of the author quite clearly:
While I agree that plenty of his complaints about Western morality are those of a religious fanatic, he's got valid points;
It's true, the author does goes off about converting to Islam and how we're all moral degenerates and how eeeevil the Jews are, but I at least am of the opinion that we should deal with their legitimate complaints before we throw up our hands and say "I guess they just hate us for our freedoms! We'll have to kill them all."
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Hey everybody, it's the guy with one quote and no brain!
Maybe if you post it three or four more times that will make it true.
I've already refuted it once, that should be plenty.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If terrorists highjack this plane, will it shoot itself?
America deserved the Sept. 11th attacks. It deserves worse, and now that Bush has been voted back in, it will get it.
terrorism -- The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combatting terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. (JP 3-07.2)
Bard E. O'Neil (Insurgency & Terrorism) - "Terrorism is a form of warfare in which violence is direct primarily against noncombatants (usually unarmed civilians), rather than operational military and police forces or economic assets (public or private).
[On forms of terrorism] [...] Because these acts are carried out by autonomous, nonstate actors, they have been referred to as transnational terrorism to distinguish them from similar behavior on the part of individuals or groups controlled by sovereign states (international terrorism)."
"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
Ballistics, while scary, are not our biggest problem.
Neither are Oakland's schools. Hey, you were the one implying we should only fix the biggest problem.
Would scare the living shit out of most of you. Lets just say, that they are not pissing the money away, but are hoping to reduce, not eliminate the results what is believed to be a most likely turn of events in the next few years. If you are getting your information about world events and the political situation from the big mainstream media, your a fscking mushroom. (hint). The idea is to get people to be just aware enough of the "possible" problem so that they support the defense spending, while at the same time preventing widespread panic and the ensuing economic collapse just from the fear factor. If it makes any difference, I dont live in a major city anymore, and am prepared for things to heat up at some time in the future. Yes, there is some serious waste and profiteering in defense contracting. But, there is also a serious get it done aspect as well. The "cold war is over" propoganda has effetively put us in a serious "pants down" situation.
It's true, the author does goes off about converting to Islam and how we're all moral degenerates and how eeeevil the Jews are, but I at least am of the opinion that we should deal with their legitimate complaints before we throw up our hands and say "I guess they just hate us for our freedoms! We'll have to kill them all."
There are a couple of problems with your line of reasoning.
First, in their minds, all of their complaints are legitimate. If we only address the ones we think are legitimate, they still won't be satisfied. And who is it we should be trying to satisfy? The governments? Specific religous factions? Bin Laden himself?
Take for example, US troops in Saudi Arabia. That was a major problem for Bin Laden. Unfortunately it was the Saudi government that invited in the US troops to help protect Saudi Arabia against Iraq adn the threat of invasion. So, who should we have tried to please, the Saudi government being threatened by invasion, or the religous fanatic multimillionaire gone terrorist? Do you see how quickly that escalates? And, exactly which factions do we have to please? Now, that particular controversy has gone away since the US has largely withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, but there are others like it.
The current problem that we have is with the Islamists, the Muslim extremists that want to reform the Islamic superstate that once ruled the Muslim world without separation of church and state in any sense. They want to spread Islam to rule the entire earth. Just pulling back before them gives them victory. Their problem with us is ultimately that we are not Muslims ruled under Sharia Islamic law as part of an Islamic superstate. I don't really see how you can compromise with that, or what "legitimate concerns" they have that you could deal with.
Even the points of his that you grant are dubious at best. For example, "you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history". The US is not even close. Nazi Germany, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China far far excede the number of people that the US has killed by pretty much any measure I can think of. The world wide body count for Communism is in the 100 million range.
Many of his other points are also problematic, either on a factual basis, or when considered in terms of what he actually wants.
Nobody is suggesting killing all Muslims. None the less, the Islamist extremist terrorists have to be suppressed before it becomes a huge problem.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If that statement was ignorant use something to back it up. The way the people of each of those races is treated in this country and regarded by the media and popular opinion proves my point. What do you have to dispute it ?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
It's been more that 150 years. America's first military action after the revolution was against the Barbary pirates in 1801.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Because we all know that if Oakland suffered a catastrophic earthquake tomorrow that they would not receive Federal disaster relief. Uh huh. . . Because it's not in the Constitution. Feeding and clothing millions of displaced families who may have lost everything they own is a little different than funding public schools.
worst sig ever. . .
Lasers like this are intended to stop a small number of missiles from a rogue state like Iran or North Korea. As far as the public knows, we would still never be able to do anything against a large number of missiles like what we would have had if we had been in an all-out war with the Soviet Union. That was the whole Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept of the Cold War.
Terrorists aren't going to be developing nuclear weapons. To do that, they would need fissile material. For fissile material, they would need a large scale infrastructure of mining and refining. There is more of a danger of a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea giving nuclear weapons to terrorists. Of course, the reason that they don't is because they know that if they did, we would totally destroy them. Now, if Iran were to use a nuclear weapon against Israel or if North Korea were to use a nuclear weapon against Japan or South Korea, it would cause worldwide chaos.
We do keep good relations with large sane countries, by the way.
Anyway, this is a small-scale solution. We do not have a large scale solution at all (as far as we know).
My other first post is car post.
Besides, MAD is a Mexican stand-off, and only works when both countries care about self-survival. It doesn't work in the case of, say, North Korea, who's leader is as loopy as the rides at Six Flags. Or Iran, who's leaders believe they'll go to heaven if they die in battle.
I think you are misunderstanding the struggle for control going on in places like Iran and North Korea. These people aren't dumb, and for the most part they are not loopy. What they are is extremely self-interested in remaining secure within their seats of power.
The reason you aren't able to understand the decisions these leaders make as rational in the classic sense is because you don't understand enough about the context in which those decisions are being made.
It most definitely would work for North Korea if they had a nuclear device. We already know they have a two-stage ICBM platform that works (they tested if _over_ Japan twice this year). The Kim Jung Il's of the world want nuclear weapons because it puts them in a more powerful bargaining position. Much like the grandparent's post stated.
And to come full circle you can hopefully understand why the US wants a theatre based energy weapon capable of neutralizing such a new found bargaining position. This type of missile defense system makes state sponsered ICBM technology less attractive because it will not provide its owner the capacity it thought it was buying/building.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Houses are built in unsuitable places (e.g. in Florida). Nature points out this error using hurricanes. In many cases, the people who lost everything were living in places which were known to be unsafe and yet they built/bought/rebuilt homes there. In light of this, I find this comment of yours difficult to support.
Feeding and clothing millions of displaced families who may have lost everything they own is a little different than funding public schools.
The kids in Florida whose families lost their homes are not responsible for living in an unsuitable location. The kids anywhere in the U.S. whose families live in (educationally) poor school districts are not responsible for living in an unsuitable location. In each case, however, their parents are responsible. How do you justify supporting families in one situation but not another?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sure they can get this beam to work, but it won't be long for countries to coat their missiles with a coating that reflects the wavelength that this laser uses. That would increase the amount of time it takes to heat up the missile. Also rotating the missile will do a good job of spreading out the heating. Whereas a green missile might be destroyed in 5 seconds, a gold or silver missile might take 50 seconds, and a rotating gold or silver missile might take 3 minutes. By then the opportunity to kill the missile has passed. I think the real app for this would be an assassination beam to kill high profile targets on the ground. If you suspect that your enemy is in a car on the ground, zap him. He can't hide from a laser from above. It would also work extremely well against enemy aircraft.
Laser-triggered lightning discharge and it's done by *GASP* non-Americans! Guess we have to vaporize Malaysia as soon as their chip fabs get too old to be useful...
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
You're right to a point; however, "Islamism" isn't a monolith and there are plenty who will reject the more extreme points who currently support the rational ones. Addressing these points would certainly make me and others like me feel a lot better about US involvement in the rest of the world and less likely to oppose them. By ignoring their legitimate complaints about human rights abuses and rampant hypocrisy you're playing right into their hands; why give them any comfort at all?
Yep, that quote was a huge piece of hyperbole. What do you expect from a demagogue? It has a kernel of truth though; the next line was right on the money in its bitter sarcasm - "How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?"
Obviously you don't spend much time reading conservative American blogs.
My point is this; absolutely, most of the claims and demands made by Islamic fundamentalists are ludicrous. Some of them aren't.
I should also point out that as I mentioned before, that letter stated quite clearly that the West was being attacked in retaliation for the perceived assault on the Muslim world, not because "we are not Muslims ruled under Sharia Islamic law as part of an Islamic superstate".
You can dispute their true motives, but why should I take your word for what they believe over theirs?
Re:Any problems? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 03:34 AM November 14th, 2004 (#10811816)
Any ally of the US is an automatic 51st state. It's getting old, asshole.
------
Anyone who has to cry 'asshole' from behind the cover of Anonymous Coward is both: an Anonymous Coward and an Asshole.
I'll bet you're a damned Freeper, too.
Pfft!
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Saying the Maginot line was a failure in 1940 is a vast oversimplification. Most of the French mistakes were social and tactical, not technological or even industrial. France going into World War II had more tanks, more planes, and certainly a better navy than the Germans. French equipment, on paper, was at least as advanced as their German counterparts, although Germans had radios in their tanks.
But where the Germans shined was in tactics. They concentrated their firepower at weak spots and sought to encircle armies. They attacked throught the low countries with one arm, and then, with another, smashed through with a bold drive straight to the sea, which did a few things - they captured channel ports, they cut off the British from the French, and they surrounded the French Army outside of France. So in one fell swoop they forced the British to leave France and killed the French Army. There was some final fighting by the French but they were overcome. Really, once the Panzers reached the channel ports, the war was over for the French.
German morale was high going into the battle of France. They had conquered Poland the previous year, and badly mauled the Allies in Norway not long before. On the other hand, France was filled with defeatists and morale was abyssmal.
Later in the war the allies would come to cope with German tactics. The Russians would learn to withdraw to avoid encirclement, or, use their salients as a base to attack German weak spots of their own. Americans greatly improved communications, the idea of dialing in fire missions - so the whole air and artillery could be placed at the behest of the ground units. And the Germans could never quite counter the allied round the clock strategic boming campaign.
This is my sig.
You mean this section?
That is a pretty borad net they cast: Chechnya, Kashmir, Lebanon. Support for the governments where thy live? Actions by the British alomst 100 years ago? "Erase" Israel?
But, hey, they do refer to us in the west as "Crusaders" then, don't they? Do you feel up to bearing the burder of 1,000 years of "guilt"?
You can dispute their true motives, but why should I take your word for what they believe over theirs?
You don't have to take my word for it. Read Bin Laden's letter to America. His demands start at Q2, about half way down. Read demands 1 and 2.
Demand 1 = Convert to Islam
Demand 2 = Drop your Constitution, adopt Sharia, etc.
Bin Laden ends the demands with this statement:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I knew they'd find a good use (generator) for my steam-enhanced nitrogen symbiotic engine. http://www.newpath4.com/icyhot7.htm . Sure would be nice if they'd shoot me some research bucks this time... Reckon I'll have to settle for being infamous. hehehehe
Looks like he'll have his five megawatts by mid-May.
Still doesn't tell you who was responsible.
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Thank you!
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Not a country.
Mecca.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
What happens if you miss? Does the laser fry some unfortunate location on the ground, ocean, moon, someplace light years away?
Does it ozonize the atmoshpere?
But... you can do it only once.
Follow the news more, buddy - the rest of "us" don't need a link to big stories like this. But all the links you could want are here. Of course the White House (though not Bush personally, AFAIK) has since denied the statement was ever made. It all boils down to who you think is more of a liar - the White House Press Secretary (an ardent Bush defender) or Pat Robertson (an ardent Bush supporter).
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
A recent article in Aviation Week reported a study by a think tank that shows that this tremendously expensive project will actually be practically useless in combat, thanks to its limited range and the extreme vulnerability of a lumbering 747, which is just about the biggest target you can strap wings onto. Oh boy.
The point is not to have survivors. And biological weapons mutate after 7 generations. They would have to hit everyone all at once, but they don't have the logistics.
The Black Jets could get the job done in 7 hours. Less if you load up every possible bomber.
I am John Hurt.
If I were in charge in Pentagon I wouldn't dismiss them just like that. There are many large cities in USA, and people there -are- vulnerable. The attackers won't need much of logistics to inflict an "unacceptable damage" (the term comes from MAD) to the USA. You just can't write off a city like NYC or Chicago. What logistics are sufficient? I am not going to spell that out, but the attackers don't seem to be in any need of hints anyway. The retaliation is, of course, expected - but that is not likely to stop the attackers.
Neither would I. But think about it. They do not have nuclear weapons. But they may have chemical or biological weapons. Chemical weapons are nasty, but require deploying everywhere, which would draw some attention. You could poison the water supplies, little things like that, but they aren't very effective, and throwing some scrubbers on the system would clean it up. The populace would just have to drink bottled water for a few days (for those without wells).
As for biological weapons, they are easier, but not very. Bacteria can be treated with some hardcore anti-biotics, and do not spread very easily (but they do). Viral agents, on the other hand, spread very easily (especially airborne), but mutate quickly. Hell, the US government has tried for years to convert Ebola and several other strains into weapons, but no matter how they try, after several generations, the agents lose their touch (mutate into something benign). The shephard's crook keeps winding differently.
Deployment would have to have many vectors. Perhaps most of the airports out there. On the same day.
I am John Hurt.