Correct, which is why the conventional military now uses "tactical" and "strategic" to define the value of the target, not the weapon or the weapon system.
Any weapon can be used on a strategic or tactical target (and yes, there are better "fits" for each target/weapon, but the point stands). As well, any weapon system can be used against strategic or tactical targets--it makes no sense to say an ICBM is a strategic or tactical weapon system...it is just a weapon system.
To use an ICBM on a tactical-value target is a bit much overkill, but it is certainly possible, and I'm certain there are scenarios where it would be justified (taking out a city-killing alien ship, for example, would be a tactical use for one...the strategic target being the mother ship, or if the aliens were using our satellites to communicate/time the attack you launch an ICBM into low orbit and hope the resulting EMP would disable their communications network--a strategic target). Or conversely, you could use a small craft normally used for reconnaissance fitted with an appropriate weapon to penetrate deep into an enemy's mothership and deliver a knockout blow--a strategic target.
Ummm...no. As a former member of a nuclear-capable military and one who handled a variety of nuclear weapons, we NEVER hoped nuclear war would be practical, or that certain capabilities would make nuclear war practical. We did hope that the weapons would be effective and therefore invoke the MAD theory.
The terms "tactical" and "strategic" initially evolved from the distance to the target, as in Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command. For the conventional side of the military house, tactical and strategic are still used but now (since Gulf War I) describe the value of the target, not it's distance, since weapons platforms can hit targets with either tactical or strategic value. Which is why TAC and SAC were reconfigured into Air Combat Command. (Note: Don't get me started on how badly ACC screwed up their nuclear mission responsibilities and why the "Global Strike Command" was formed to take over the nuclear mission.)
If TFA is correct and nuclear planners (on both sides) still use "tactical" and "strategic" to describe nuclear weapons then they should adopt the conventional method of ascribing tactical and strategic values to the targets, not the weapon systems.
Wow! Talk about brainwashing...
1) Illegal aliens send a large portion of their funds to their (real) homes in Central/South America. They live as cheaply as possible here to send as much cash there as they can. Go forth, spend time among them and see. They live many people to a house/room (San Antonio now has laws about how many people not of the same family can inhabit one house because 20-30 were living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes). They drive 14 to a van capable of carrying 8 to get to/from job sites. We have a large population of illegals here in central Georgia and see this all the time, where do you live that you don't see this?
2) ALL government jobs are net losses, period. They DO NOT force commercial pay raises. Businesses compete against each other, not against the government (speaking as someone who is in the business of contracting with the government) when determining pay for jobs. Especially with high levels of unemployment, there is NO incentive to increase salaries as higher costs just make you non-competitive in your industry. So, it doesn't matter what the government pays it's personnel, it has no effect on the commercial sector.
3) Ever hear of municipal bonds? Rich people and many mutual funds spend LOTS of money investing in our towns and cities for the tax-free returns. You want the rich investing more in America? Give them opportunities to grow their money and they'll come-a-running to invest. Wanna see the rich take their money and run? Declare the rich don't pay their "fair share" and then look determined into the TV camera when you say you're gonna take (tax) their money at even higher rates.
4) Way to spin the cause of WWII from the real cause in the roots of the Treaty of Versailles along with the fractioning of political parties that led to a crisis of leadership and inability to manage their economy into a dumping on capitalism. (Ours is the opposite, but functionally equal, phenomenon of stalemate between two parties leading to an inability to manage the economy, not a failure to manage capitalism).
Sheesh, did you just spout out all of your professor's liberal thoughts with no attempt at looking at the real world?
The two best things government can do for business (and the economy) is a) invest in infrastructure (the one thing I do agree with the Obama administration on); and b) get out of the way, or at least give businesses one set of rules. This changing of the guard every two years is really screwing the ability of the commercial sector to make any plans/invest/grow, and by extension, the rest of us.
They were camped outside of RAF Upper Heyford for years. We used to read their chalkboard sign that they would post the Slogan Of The Week on. Usually it was good for a laugh or two. The camp slowly dwindled down to one old guy in a ramshackle camper. The only serious incident happened when the CNDers got enough people to have a protest that would be covered by the Press (I think it was their annual march). They approached the fence surrounding the base, cut enough links to shove a baby through, and then screamed at the top of their lungs, trying to fool the MOD police into cutting the rest of the fence so the mother could reclaim her baby. The idea was to rush the fence at that point, overwhelm the MOD police, and then run about the base, causing mayhem and havoc (and getting good press). They were foiled when the MOD police picked up the baby (the screams really ratcheted up then), and took it around to the nearest gate to hand back to the mom.
I agree, the government needs to get out of the supporting-people-just-because-they're-people business. If we weren't supporting multiple generations on welfare and Medicaid, we'd have plenty of money for robotic explorations, scientific research, education, infrastructure maintenance, etc, all things which bring a return on investment.
As an owner of CFLs, they take upwards of a minute to achieve full brightness. Second, the vast majority of homes are filled with products designed to be appealing in incandescent light (color schemes, paints, fabrics, etc). My wife truly hates the CFLs and the way they make the interior of the house look. The only place she's authorized their use is above the kitchen island. If LEDs can successfully imitate incandescent light, I might be able to get those installed.
You're missing the Russians. The Russians will not allow SpaceX to undercut their pricing agreement with NASA. They also "own" the ISS and are refusing (read: until Musk pays them LOTS of $$ in bribes) to allow the Dragon capsule to dock with the ISS until they are certain (read: not until they milk SpaceX for every Ruble possible) the capsule is "safe".
And....Europol has agreed to every request, so I'm not sure where the "failing to live up to the treaty" language is coming from. If there aren't mechanisms built into the treaty on how to retrieve this information in a timely manner, blame those who signed it.
Personal knowledge of the F-15 and F-111 weapons systems (13+ years); Two quick sources on a quick search, you'll have to find the rest. 1) MIL-HDBK-516A, para 7.4.3 (for engines); 2) http://www.wrcoc-aic.org/Archive/RS/RS06/RS06_7.pdf (Note: Summary states that the B-52 is required to be hardened against EMP).
The real problem when installing this will be the LOSS of weight...specifically, the center of gravity for every single airframe will now have to be recomputed, and they will find that most of the wire is in the forward fuselage area (where most avionics are located). This means lead weights will have to be added to the forward section to balance out the loss of weight. I know, because I've already had to do it. We had a test F-111 in the early 90's configured with fiber optics. The conversion saved 650lbs of weight, but we had to add 400lbs of lead weights back in to preserve the CG.
Not sure what you're asking, but each military aircraft has several grounding points that use a standard RCA jack for the aircraft and an alligator clip (OK, a big one) on the other end of the wire that grounds the aircraft to a common ground in the concrete. As for in the air, there are electro-static dischargers on the trailing edges that help dissipate charges that build up, but in the case of a lightning strike, well, just about anything goes...
"What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”
And so you would stop using Belo, Cox, Gannett, Media General, and Post-Newsweek and burn them with fire as well?
We weren't allowed to bring in cell phones to our polling place. One of the poll workers asked if we brought one in and also made us open up coats/handbags to prove it.
The "truth" is that Hussein provoked, prodded, and pushed the U.S. into this bloody war. All Hussein had to do was abide by even MOST of the UN mandates and he'd probably still be alive and torturing Shi'ites and Kurds for profit/pleasure. No, Hussein chose to ignore every one of the mandates, fired daily upon coalition forces enforcing the ceasefire, tried to kill the former president of the U.S., and finally became such a pain in the ass for the U.S. that his removal outweighed the positive effects of keeping the Shi'ites in Iran contained. The WMD argument was one of a number of all valid reasons to invade. All Hussein had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job, then get the stuff they'd hidden in Syria back when the inspectors left. So, in 2001 you have Al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan with pretty much marginal resources, inflicting a serious blow to the U.S. and Hussein starts making overtures to them (the enemy of my enemy is my friend-with-limited-trust-because-we-still-hate-each-other kind of thing). That would give Al-Qaida a huge technological support base and resources not available in Afghanistan, and allow Hussein to seriously poke not only the U.S. but all the coalition nations in the eye and be able to claim "It wasn't me". Much as Pakistan has and is currently doing with the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. As a result, it was time for Hussein to go. He only has himself to blame.
As for warzone casualties, various organizations keep trying to paint war as an exact science, often helped by idiots in the press who know nothing of the military, pretend to be wartime correspondents, and become infatuated with the latest bomb or gizmo, falling victim to the 4-color ads/brochures and salesmen of various companies supplying weapons to the military. Fratricide is an unfortunate by-product of conducting movement warfare with long range weapons (hell, there were probably fratricides in the bow and arrow times as well), and the U.S. has led the way in reducing this aspect with a list of improvements too long to post here, in not only procedures but equipment as well. As for being "extreme", of course the U.S. in combat is extreme, it's how you WIN a war, unlike the Dutch who refused to fight and left a U.S./Brit joint patrol to die in an Afghan shootout that had already claimed a U.S. life and wounded several Brits. The U.S. un-learned being "extreme" after WWII and re-learned it after VietNam. As for "shooting up the British", the U.S. has taken it's share of blue on blue hits as well, some from U.S. forces, others from coalition forces.
Wrong;
The military has NEVER painted this, or any war, as "an exact, precise business." Show me the citation where someone IN the military said "War is an exact, precise business." You won't find it.
They studied 6 drivers "with spotless records" behind the wheel. I would argue that they could gain valuable information by also studying poor drivers and teaching the program to a) avoid such behavior in it's own driving; and b) learn how to react to poor drivers out there on the road (e.g. passing on blind corners, turning without signaling, aggressive/NASCAR type diving into limited spaces, etc)
...the first problem of the game is to reach Jupiter with the lowest amount of propellant.
I hate to be pedantic, but is the objective to arrive at Jupiter WITH the lowest amount of propellant, or is the objective to arrive at Jupiter USING the lowest amount of propellant? I suggest there is a big difference between the two.
1) Heck, you can BUY your own submarine, if you want.
2) Remember balloons and other lighter than air vehicles? They were not dependent on oil, and yes some were practical and would still be, if oil hadn't been discovered.
3) I care, in fact, lots of people care. Going to space is much harder than flying or sailing, yet it took us thousands of years to develop proper ships, thousands more to develop lighter and then heavier than air vehicles, but because we didn't conquer space in 50 years we have to give it up? No, I don't think so. There's still plenty of time to conquer space.
4) They said the same thing about oceans...too big to cross, only insane people think they can sail across one, too many monsters awaiting fragile ships, yadda, yadda. Been there, done that, next argument? Millions have died on the oceans (and people continue to die on them every year), yet here we are, still cruising about with boatloads of tourists, shipping tens of thousands of containers on cargo ships, moving oil and natural gas about the world, on those big ol' empty oceans...
5) Not sure what your worries about death and life extension have to do with commercial space travel, but if you're that afraid of dying, a) I have bad news: so far, despite numerous attempts and lots of money/power/influence, no one has escaped death, not even Christ; b)I have good news: You can have everlasting life, if you're willing to accept Christ as your lord and savior.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, which is why the conventional military now uses "tactical" and "strategic" to define the value of the target, not the weapon or the weapon system. Any weapon can be used on a strategic or tactical target (and yes, there are better "fits" for each target/weapon, but the point stands). As well, any weapon system can be used against strategic or tactical targets--it makes no sense to say an ICBM is a strategic or tactical weapon system...it is just a weapon system. To use an ICBM on a tactical-value target is a bit much overkill, but it is certainly possible, and I'm certain there are scenarios where it would be justified (taking out a city-killing alien ship, for example, would be a tactical use for one...the strategic target being the mother ship, or if the aliens were using our satellites to communicate/time the attack you launch an ICBM into low orbit and hope the resulting EMP would disable their communications network--a strategic target). Or conversely, you could use a small craft normally used for reconnaissance fitted with an appropriate weapon to penetrate deep into an enemy's mothership and deliver a knockout blow--a strategic target.
Ummm...no. As a former member of a nuclear-capable military and one who handled a variety of nuclear weapons, we NEVER hoped nuclear war would be practical, or that certain capabilities would make nuclear war practical. We did hope that the weapons would be effective and therefore invoke the MAD theory. The terms "tactical" and "strategic" initially evolved from the distance to the target, as in Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command. For the conventional side of the military house, tactical and strategic are still used but now (since Gulf War I) describe the value of the target, not it's distance, since weapons platforms can hit targets with either tactical or strategic value. Which is why TAC and SAC were reconfigured into Air Combat Command. (Note: Don't get me started on how badly ACC screwed up their nuclear mission responsibilities and why the "Global Strike Command" was formed to take over the nuclear mission.) If TFA is correct and nuclear planners (on both sides) still use "tactical" and "strategic" to describe nuclear weapons then they should adopt the conventional method of ascribing tactical and strategic values to the targets, not the weapon systems.
Wow! Talk about brainwashing... 1) Illegal aliens send a large portion of their funds to their (real) homes in Central/South America. They live as cheaply as possible here to send as much cash there as they can. Go forth, spend time among them and see. They live many people to a house/room (San Antonio now has laws about how many people not of the same family can inhabit one house because 20-30 were living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes). They drive 14 to a van capable of carrying 8 to get to/from job sites. We have a large population of illegals here in central Georgia and see this all the time, where do you live that you don't see this?
2) ALL government jobs are net losses, period. They DO NOT force commercial pay raises. Businesses compete against each other, not against the government (speaking as someone who is in the business of contracting with the government) when determining pay for jobs. Especially with high levels of unemployment, there is NO incentive to increase salaries as higher costs just make you non-competitive in your industry. So, it doesn't matter what the government pays it's personnel, it has no effect on the commercial sector.
3) Ever hear of municipal bonds? Rich people and many mutual funds spend LOTS of money investing in our towns and cities for the tax-free returns. You want the rich investing more in America? Give them opportunities to grow their money and they'll come-a-running to invest. Wanna see the rich take their money and run? Declare the rich don't pay their "fair share" and then look determined into the TV camera when you say you're gonna take (tax) their money at even higher rates.
4) Way to spin the cause of WWII from the real cause in the roots of the Treaty of Versailles along with the fractioning of political parties that led to a crisis of leadership and inability to manage their economy into a dumping on capitalism. (Ours is the opposite, but functionally equal, phenomenon of stalemate between two parties leading to an inability to manage the economy, not a failure to manage capitalism).
Sheesh, did you just spout out all of your professor's liberal thoughts with no attempt at looking at the real world?
The two best things government can do for business (and the economy) is a) invest in infrastructure (the one thing I do agree with the Obama administration on); and b) get out of the way, or at least give businesses one set of rules. This changing of the guard every two years is really screwing the ability of the commercial sector to make any plans/invest/grow, and by extension, the rest of us.
Personally, I'd go with a cruise ship as the number of potential sex partners is significantly higher than in a B-2.... :-)
They were camped outside of RAF Upper Heyford for years. We used to read their chalkboard sign that they would post the Slogan Of The Week on. Usually it was good for a laugh or two. The camp slowly dwindled down to one old guy in a ramshackle camper. The only serious incident happened when the CNDers got enough people to have a protest that would be covered by the Press (I think it was their annual march). They approached the fence surrounding the base, cut enough links to shove a baby through, and then screamed at the top of their lungs, trying to fool the MOD police into cutting the rest of the fence so the mother could reclaim her baby. The idea was to rush the fence at that point, overwhelm the MOD police, and then run about the base, causing mayhem and havoc (and getting good press). They were foiled when the MOD police picked up the baby (the screams really ratcheted up then), and took it around to the nearest gate to hand back to the mom.
Would this work in the heat islands created by cities?
I agree, the government needs to get out of the supporting-people-just-because-they're-people business. If we weren't supporting multiple generations on welfare and Medicaid, we'd have plenty of money for robotic explorations, scientific research, education, infrastructure maintenance, etc, all things which bring a return on investment.
As an owner of CFLs, they take upwards of a minute to achieve full brightness. Second, the vast majority of homes are filled with products designed to be appealing in incandescent light (color schemes, paints, fabrics, etc). My wife truly hates the CFLs and the way they make the interior of the house look. The only place she's authorized their use is above the kitchen island. If LEDs can successfully imitate incandescent light, I might be able to get those installed.
Lee Marvin would disagree about "splitting is as simple as 'goodbye'".
Fail. The LC-130H is commonly seen over both the Arctic and Antarctic, and it has 4 props and skis.
Last words: "Oh shit..." (or equivalent in French)
You're missing the Russians. The Russians will not allow SpaceX to undercut their pricing agreement with NASA. They also "own" the ISS and are refusing (read: until Musk pays them LOTS of $$ in bribes) to allow the Dragon capsule to dock with the ISS until they are certain (read: not until they milk SpaceX for every Ruble possible) the capsule is "safe".
And....Europol has agreed to every request, so I'm not sure where the "failing to live up to the treaty" language is coming from. If there aren't mechanisms built into the treaty on how to retrieve this information in a timely manner, blame those who signed it.
AMEN
Personal knowledge of the F-15 and F-111 weapons systems (13+ years); Two quick sources on a quick search, you'll have to find the rest. 1) MIL-HDBK-516A, para 7.4.3 (for engines); 2) http://www.wrcoc-aic.org/Archive/RS/RS06/RS06_7.pdf (Note: Summary states that the B-52 is required to be hardened against EMP).
The real problem when installing this will be the LOSS of weight...specifically, the center of gravity for every single airframe will now have to be recomputed, and they will find that most of the wire is in the forward fuselage area (where most avionics are located). This means lead weights will have to be added to the forward section to balance out the loss of weight. I know, because I've already had to do it. We had a test F-111 in the early 90's configured with fiber optics. The conversion saved 650lbs of weight, but we had to add 400lbs of lead weights back in to preserve the CG.
Not sure what you're asking, but each military aircraft has several grounding points that use a standard RCA jack for the aircraft and an alligator clip (OK, a big one) on the other end of the wire that grounds the aircraft to a common ground in the concrete. As for in the air, there are electro-static dischargers on the trailing edges that help dissipate charges that build up, but in the case of a lightning strike, well, just about anything goes...
Military aircraft certified for nuclear ops are EMP certified, for instance, all the bombers, the F-15E, etc.
"What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”
And so you would stop using Belo, Cox, Gannett, Media General, and Post-Newsweek and burn them with fire as well?
We weren't allowed to bring in cell phones to our polling place. One of the poll workers asked if we brought one in and also made us open up coats/handbags to prove it.
The "truth" is that Hussein provoked, prodded, and pushed the U.S. into this bloody war. All Hussein had to do was abide by even MOST of the UN mandates and he'd probably still be alive and torturing Shi'ites and Kurds for profit/pleasure. No, Hussein chose to ignore every one of the mandates, fired daily upon coalition forces enforcing the ceasefire, tried to kill the former president of the U.S., and finally became such a pain in the ass for the U.S. that his removal outweighed the positive effects of keeping the Shi'ites in Iran contained. The WMD argument was one of a number of all valid reasons to invade. All Hussein had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job, then get the stuff they'd hidden in Syria back when the inspectors left.
So, in 2001 you have Al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan with pretty much marginal resources, inflicting a serious blow to the U.S. and Hussein starts making overtures to them (the enemy of my enemy is my friend-with-limited-trust-because-we-still-hate-each-other kind of thing). That would give Al-Qaida a huge technological support base and resources not available in Afghanistan, and allow Hussein to seriously poke not only the U.S. but all the coalition nations in the eye and be able to claim "It wasn't me". Much as Pakistan has and is currently doing with the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. As a result, it was time for Hussein to go. He only has himself to blame.
As for warzone casualties, various organizations keep trying to paint war as an exact science, often helped by idiots in the press who know nothing of the military, pretend to be wartime correspondents, and become infatuated with the latest bomb or gizmo, falling victim to the 4-color ads/brochures and salesmen of various companies supplying weapons to the military. Fratricide is an unfortunate by-product of conducting movement warfare with long range weapons (hell, there were probably fratricides in the bow and arrow times as well), and the U.S. has led the way in reducing this aspect with a list of improvements too long to post here, in not only procedures but equipment as well.
As for being "extreme", of course the U.S. in combat is extreme, it's how you WIN a war, unlike the Dutch who refused to fight and left a U.S./Brit joint patrol to die in an Afghan shootout that had already claimed a U.S. life and wounded several Brits. The U.S. un-learned being "extreme" after WWII and re-learned it after VietNam. As for "shooting up the British", the U.S. has taken it's share of blue on blue hits as well, some from U.S. forces, others from coalition forces.
Wrong; The military has NEVER painted this, or any war, as "an exact, precise business." Show me the citation where someone IN the military said "War is an exact, precise business." You won't find it.
They studied 6 drivers "with spotless records" behind the wheel. I would argue that they could gain valuable information by also studying poor drivers and teaching the program to a) avoid such behavior in it's own driving; and b) learn how to react to poor drivers out there on the road (e.g. passing on blind corners, turning without signaling, aggressive/NASCAR type diving into limited spaces, etc)
...the first problem of the game is to reach Jupiter with the lowest amount of propellant.
I hate to be pedantic, but is the objective to arrive at Jupiter WITH the lowest amount of propellant, or is the objective to arrive at Jupiter USING the lowest amount of propellant? I suggest there is a big difference between the two.
1) Heck, you can BUY your own submarine, if you want.
2) Remember balloons and other lighter than air vehicles? They were not dependent on oil, and yes some were practical and would still be, if oil hadn't been discovered.
3) I care, in fact, lots of people care. Going to space is much harder than flying or sailing, yet it took us thousands of years to develop proper ships, thousands more to develop lighter and then heavier than air vehicles, but because we didn't conquer space in 50 years we have to give it up? No, I don't think so. There's still plenty of time to conquer space.
4) They said the same thing about oceans...too big to cross, only insane people think they can sail across one, too many monsters awaiting fragile ships, yadda, yadda. Been there, done that, next argument? Millions have died on the oceans (and people continue to die on them every year), yet here we are, still cruising about with boatloads of tourists, shipping tens of thousands of containers on cargo ships, moving oil and natural gas about the world, on those big ol' empty oceans...
5) Not sure what your worries about death and life extension have to do with commercial space travel, but if you're that afraid of dying, a) I have bad news: so far, despite numerous attempts and lots of money/power/influence, no one has escaped death, not even Christ; b)I have good news: You can have everlasting life, if you're willing to accept Christ as your lord and savior.