What is your position on the USA's use of "surrogate militaries" to conduct our wars ?
Does your position differ whether such militaries are either private (so called "security consultant" mercenaries), or themselves sovereign in nature (as in Israeli operatives conducting actions at US direction) ?
Does your position differ whether such surrogate projects are established to either address domestically unpopular conflicts (protecting US oil company assets from piracy), or to simply supplement US forces already engaged themselves ?
What future role (if any) do you see for the US's use of such surrogate military arrangements ? Can you describe any particular opporunities and/or challenges that face us in choosing this route to addressing America's future military manpower needs for our continuing international adventurisms ?
We can't let this guy (whether he's really Saddam or just one of those several look-alikes) actually live... Comm'on!! For Christ sakes, we still haven't found any god damn Weapons of Mass Destruction... If this gut is REALLY Saddam... shit... he stands a good chance of suing the US in front of the Euro-centric "world" court... and aren't we (the USA over here) paying enough for our mistakes over there already !?! Damn!! We need to orchestrate an "incident" where a brave/heroic New Iraqie Democratic Patriot makes his way through the crushing crowds of world reporters (preferably, broadcast live during prime time East Coast US TV viewing hours) then confronts Saddam directly... and shoots him dead.
Hmmm... do you think the Europeans will buy it ? That they'll accept the inevitable "lone gunman" conclusions of their own "world court" Warren Commission ?
1.)The F-117 cannot totally eliminate it's significant IR signature while in flight... though it can attempt to dissipate it where it can least be seen by terrestrial radar... above the aircraft... exactly where (of course) the satellites are looking;
2.)The IR signature of this craft in flight will be significantly distinguisable from the cool backgrand image of the Kosovo evening ground;
3.)A real time feed from the satellite can easily be translated into GPS style speed & bearing data to be supplied to ground based artillery weapons;
4.)"It has been confirmed that a radar guided missle shot it down"... Yes, and this same source of information informed us that the US strike on the Chinese embassy was "an honest mistake, a true tradegy"...
5.)Delta Wings vs.trapezoidal/lambda wings... you're likely correct on at least this one point...
We learned of the general uselessness of "stealthy" technology in the Serbian conflict a few years ago. The Serbs, using relatively current real-time satelite recon (probably infra red) provided by the Chinese, shot down our best "stealthy" delta wing, (which the Chinese apparently charged them the actual remains of the plane, which was packed up and sent back to China). The US afterwards "mistakenly" bombed the Chinese Saravejo Recon office (located in their local diplomatic offices of course), etc, etc. The easy to reach conclusion here is that in future conflicts, stealthy aircraft are only useful against adversaries without access to good current satellite recon... unfortunately for us, apparently available very readily via the Chinese and a host of other government and private resources. If we understand this reality, a few other logical elucidations quickly fall into place... particularly about the tenacity that the US defense establishment keeps up with the PR charade surrounding the seemingly continuously failing "space sheild" missle defense tests... the true use of this system will not be to shoot down ICBMs (as is the public assertion, and source of frequently embarrassing test results), but is instead the shooting down (or mere disabling of) adversaries' intelligence satellites (such as the Chinese one used against us in the Serb conflict). This usage is way less technically demanding than the publically stated ICBM capability... and it's likely that we're either really close, or have already acheived success with realizing the truly intended space-to-space capability of this system. So... in the future, we can discreetly disable the adversary's recon sattelites (no need to even "shoot it down"), thus assuring the safety of our "stealthy" aircraft.
Comm'on! These devices aren't for real! Don't you think we'd have already seen or heard of ANY of these things ? My speculation is that these gadgets are good-quality mock-ups from a college student hi-tech industrial design competition... a contest/exhibit specifically on the topic of "future tech hand held devices". All of this stuff is likely just empty-shell mock-ups... the true purpose here is the form, not the function. So if you're a REAL tech company, you can pick & choose among these talented student designers with a touch for the greatest eye-candy appeal. Right ?
Slashdot Mirror
Hi Candidate Badnarik :
What is your position on the USA's use of "surrogate militaries" to conduct our wars ?
Does your position differ whether such militaries are either private (so called "security consultant" mercenaries), or themselves sovereign in nature (as in Israeli operatives conducting actions at US direction) ?
Does your position differ whether such surrogate projects are established to either address domestically unpopular conflicts (protecting US oil company assets from piracy), or to simply supplement US forces already engaged themselves ?
What future role (if any) do you see for the US's use of such surrogate military arrangements ? Can you describe any particular opporunities and/or challenges that face us in choosing this route to addressing America's future military manpower needs for our continuing international adventurisms ?
Thanks for your thoughts !!
Billy Goodbot
Teaneck, NJ, USA
We can't let this guy (whether he's really Saddam or just one of those several look-alikes) actually live... Comm'on!! For Christ sakes, we still haven't found any god damn Weapons of Mass Destruction... If this gut is REALLY Saddam... shit... he stands a good chance of suing the US in front of the Euro-centric "world" court... and aren't we (the USA over here) paying enough for our mistakes over there already !?! Damn!! We need to orchestrate an "incident" where a brave/heroic New Iraqie Democratic Patriot makes his way through the crushing crowds of world reporters (preferably, broadcast live during prime time East Coast US TV viewing hours) then confronts Saddam directly... and shoots him dead.
Hmmm... do you think the Europeans will buy it ? That they'll accept the inevitable "lone gunman" conclusions of their own "world court" Warren Commission ?
Hmmmm...
1.)The F-117 cannot totally eliminate it's significant IR signature while in flight... though it can attempt to dissipate it where it can least be seen by terrestrial radar... above the aircraft... exactly where (of course) the satellites are looking;
2.)The IR signature of this craft in flight will be significantly distinguisable from the cool backgrand image of the Kosovo evening ground;
3.)A real time feed from the satellite can easily be translated into GPS style speed & bearing data to be supplied to ground based artillery weapons;
4.)"It has been confirmed that a radar guided missle shot it down"... Yes, and this same source of information informed us that the US strike on the Chinese embassy was "an honest mistake, a true tradegy"...
5.)Delta Wings vs.trapezoidal/lambda wings... you're likely correct on at least this one point...
We learned of the general uselessness of "stealthy" technology in the Serbian conflict a few years ago. The Serbs, using relatively current real-time satelite recon (probably infra red) provided by the Chinese, shot down our best "stealthy" delta wing, (which the Chinese apparently charged them the actual remains of the plane, which was packed up and sent back to China). The US afterwards "mistakenly" bombed the Chinese Saravejo Recon office (located in their local diplomatic offices of course), etc, etc. The easy to reach conclusion here is that in future conflicts, stealthy aircraft are only useful against adversaries without access to good current satellite recon... unfortunately for us, apparently available very readily via the Chinese and a host of other government and private resources. If we understand this reality, a few other logical elucidations quickly fall into place... particularly about the tenacity that the US defense establishment keeps up with the PR charade surrounding the seemingly continuously failing "space sheild" missle defense tests... the true use of this system will not be to shoot down ICBMs (as is the public assertion, and source of frequently embarrassing test results), but is instead the shooting down (or mere disabling of) adversaries' intelligence satellites (such as the Chinese one used against us in the Serb conflict). This usage is way less technically demanding than the publically stated ICBM capability... and it's likely that we're either really close, or have already acheived success with realizing the truly intended space-to-space capability of this system. So... in the future, we can discreetly disable the adversary's recon sattelites (no need to even "shoot it down"), thus assuring the safety of our "stealthy" aircraft.
Comm'on! These devices aren't for real! Don't you think we'd have already seen or heard of ANY of these things ? My speculation is that these gadgets are good-quality mock-ups from a college student hi-tech industrial design competition... a contest/exhibit specifically on the topic of "future tech hand held devices". All of this stuff is likely just empty-shell mock-ups... the true purpose here is the form, not the function. So if you're a REAL tech company, you can pick & choose among these talented student designers with a touch for the greatest eye-candy appeal. Right ?