Believe it or not, I have a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics. You'd have to have a rocket on your projectile to do a de-orbit burn. It's not as simple as throwing a crowbar at the car next to you while driving down the highway.
With enough cruisers in the water, there isn't a spot on Earth you couldn't hit in an hour.
Would this work? Sure. Would it be cost effective? I bet it wouldn't.
I'd tend to agree with him about the first part, but not the second part.
If more lethal weapons mean that, in the unfortunate event of a war, more bad guys die and fewer good guys die, then (from my perspective) improving weapons technology is a Good Thing.
Now it gets a lot more murky if improving weapons technology makes it more likely that those weapons will be used. (Think Tomahawk Diplomacy.)
It is a complicated moral dilemma, that's for sure. However, pacifism is not a stable solution to the problem. That's the root of my argument.
I think the person who told you that a ribbon-like object would only have drag of half a newton or so when it's moving through the upper atmosphere at mach 3 is pretty wrong. A lot.
Is a device like you describe possible? Sure. Anything's possible. I could theoretically build myself a robot tyrannosaurus rex and ride it into town to get myself an ice cream cone.
But it's not very practical with current technology. Waiting for this thing to work before exploiting space would be like waiting for steam liners before exploiting the Americas: A bad idea that means less money for everybody.
You have a funny idea of "rather slow moving", if you think that a rendezvous with an object on a circular trajectory will be an easy problem to solve.
And we haven't even started talking about how we're going to deal with the aeroelastic forces that are making your 500 km long shoestring go WUBBEDAWUBBEDAWUBBEDA all over the place.
Hold a ribbon out the window. See what happens to the end of it. Tell me if you'd like to ride on it.
And what happens if you're pretty good at espionage, and bad at war? The people you're spying on say "Hey! Those guys over in Gobboland sure spy on us a lot. They're a bunch of wusses, though...let's go kick their asses." And many Gobbo-ites will then be dead.
Military skill is necessary, but not sufficient. Certainly societies fall for all sorts of reasons, but a society of pacifists (as if there has ever been such a thing) would be lambs to the slaughter.
Pacifism is a pretty idea, but all too often it degenerates into letting other people do your dirty work for you.
I'd much rather the Army buy a new computer than let the Federal gov't try to get healthcare working.
Did you see the enormous cock-up that was the Medicare drug benefit? Multiply that by about a zillion, and you'd see the goat rodeo that would be socialized medicine in America.
And you can say goodbye to your cheap drugs when that happens, Mr. Canadian.
Successful nation-states are good at violence, either by being powerful or allying themselves with powerful nations. Survival of the fittest. Contrary to popular sentiment, peace DOES come from the barrel of a gun.
"Violence as a solution to violence" was a rhetorical point I made, that you are thinking way too hard about.
yeah, it's a pretty hairy story. I don't remember the date exactly, but it was somewhere in the immediate post-WW2 vicinity. Before Korea, as I recall...
As to why the Army is involved in training Warthog jocks, the Army is the one that benefits most from well-trained Warthog jocks. In a sane world, that'd mean that Warthog jocks would be Army personnel, but it's not a sane world.
Are there just wars? Yes. Are all wars just? Absolutely not.
Sometimes the application of violence prevents or halts a greater violence. Humans are violent. Animals are violent. It is a fact of life. What we can do, as reasoning beings, is strive to limit the application of violence to the situations when nothing else will do. However, to say that violence is never the answer is to be a poor student of history.
That's a pretty bold assertion. Care to tell me what makes you think that?
I have an interest in military history, and a great deal of respect for people who risk their lives to preserve mine, but I don't like violence at all. It is a terrible, terrible thing...but that does not mean it is not sometimes necessary.
Less often than the current administration seems to think, absolutely...but sometimes necessary.
Your point is well taken: Violence is not the only solution. It is, however, the final solution, and sometimes the only viable one.
The Dalai Lama can disagree all he wants. He doesn't have a country anymore, because the Chinese Army decided they didn't want him to have a country anymore.
Jesus, Dr. King, and Gandhi all died by violence. Many problems can in fact be solved by non-violence. The violence of other nation-states (or some non-state actors) is not in that set.
A friend of mine who was a tank driver in Desert Storm told me a story. Apparently, one of the tanks had been disabled (thrown a track I think) and was being rapidly left behind by the advancing forces. The decision was made to scuttle the tank and move on. Its platoon mates all fired at it, but the thing wouldn't die. According to my friend, the tank wrecker took it back to base, replaced the track and the turret, and sent it back to the front lines.
Don't know if it's true, but there ya go. He also told a story about a Russian sabot round (from one of the Iraqi tanks) sticking out of the turret glacis like a lawn dart.
Chobham armor is kick ass. The Brits know a thing or two about tanks.
Thanks. I was going to say that having a great big friendly neighbor is an excellent survival strategy that has nothing whatsoever to do with pacifism, but you said it even better.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, I have a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics. You'd have to have a rocket on your projectile to do a de-orbit burn. It's not as simple as throwing a crowbar at the car next to you while driving down the highway.
With enough cruisers in the water, there isn't a spot on Earth you couldn't hit in an hour.
Would this work? Sure. Would it be cost effective? I bet it wouldn't.
I'd tend to agree with him about the first part, but not the second part.
If more lethal weapons mean that, in the unfortunate event of a war, more bad guys die and fewer good guys die, then (from my perspective) improving weapons technology is a Good Thing.
Now it gets a lot more murky if improving weapons technology makes it more likely that those weapons will be used. (Think Tomahawk Diplomacy.)
It is a complicated moral dilemma, that's for sure. However, pacifism is not a stable solution to the problem. That's the root of my argument.
I think the person who told you that a ribbon-like object would only have drag of half a newton or so when it's moving through the upper atmosphere at mach 3 is pretty wrong. A lot.
Is a device like you describe possible? Sure. Anything's possible. I could theoretically build myself a robot tyrannosaurus rex and ride it into town to get myself an ice cream cone.
But it's not very practical with current technology. Waiting for this thing to work before exploiting space would be like waiting for steam liners before exploiting the Americas: A bad idea that means less money for everybody.
You have a funny idea of "rather slow moving", if you think that a rendezvous with an object on a circular trajectory will be an easy problem to solve.
And we haven't even started talking about how we're going to deal with the aeroelastic forces that are making your 500 km long shoestring go WUBBEDAWUBBEDAWUBBEDA all over the place.
Hold a ribbon out the window. See what happens to the end of it. Tell me if you'd like to ride on it.
And what happens if you're pretty good at espionage, and bad at war? The people you're spying on say "Hey! Those guys over in Gobboland sure spy on us a lot. They're a bunch of wusses, though...let's go kick their asses." And many Gobbo-ites will then be dead.
Military skill is necessary, but not sufficient. Certainly societies fall for all sorts of reasons, but a society of pacifists (as if there has ever been such a thing) would be lambs to the slaughter.
Pacifism is a pretty idea, but all too often it degenerates into letting other people do your dirty work for you.
Oh, I see! You were trying to get from my statement, to an endorsement of the current American foreign policy. How cute!
Yeah. The war in Iraq is an unforgivable debacle.
Higher taxes==less freedom.
And thank God for that. Björk kicks ass. Especially if you're a paparazzi, and then she kicks YOUR ass.
Can you imagine an Icelandic Army of Björks? Whoo nelly!
We are in total agreement.
Uh, since they put it on their web site, I'm pretty sure I'm OK.
h tm
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/112102.
But hey! Thanks for your concern. I guess.
Successful as in "existing". As in "are still around". As in "Not like the Tibetans or the American Indians or the Ottoman Empire etc etc etc..."
What "validity" does a civilization have if it gets annihilated or absorbed?
I'm not making a moral argument here, only a practical one. If your society can not defend itself, it will not exist for long.
I'd much rather the Army buy a new computer than let the Federal gov't try to get healthcare working.
Did you see the enormous cock-up that was the Medicare drug benefit? Multiply that by about a zillion, and you'd see the goat rodeo that would be socialized medicine in America.
And you can say goodbye to your cheap drugs when that happens, Mr. Canadian.
So it's Apple's fault that Mozilla doesn't support mousewheel.
Seems to work fine in Safari, but what the hell do I know?
Successful nation-states are good at violence, either by being powerful or allying themselves with powerful nations. Survival of the fittest. Contrary to popular sentiment, peace DOES come from the barrel of a gun.
"Violence as a solution to violence" was a rhetorical point I made, that you are thinking way too hard about.
yeah, it's a pretty hairy story. I don't remember the date exactly, but it was somewhere in the immediate post-WW2 vicinity. Before Korea, as I recall...
As to why the Army is involved in training Warthog jocks, the Army is the one that benefits most from well-trained Warthog jocks. In a sane world, that'd mean that Warthog jocks would be Army personnel, but it's not a sane world.
Or keep using it for ten years without having to think about it...that's the way Apple's always been.
In my experience, anyhow.
So what's your point? Anybody who says that violence is sometimes necessary must be Hitler?
Way to invoke Godwin's Law.
Are there just wars? Yes. Are all wars just? Absolutely not.
Sometimes the application of violence prevents or halts a greater violence. Humans are violent. Animals are violent. It is a fact of life. What we can do, as reasoning beings, is strive to limit the application of violence to the situations when nothing else will do. However, to say that violence is never the answer is to be a poor student of history.
That's a pretty bold assertion. Care to tell me what makes you think that?
I have an interest in military history, and a great deal of respect for people who risk their lives to preserve mine, but I don't like violence at all. It is a terrible, terrible thing...but that does not mean it is not sometimes necessary.
Less often than the current administration seems to think, absolutely...but sometimes necessary.
Your point is well taken: Violence is not the only solution. It is, however, the final solution, and sometimes the only viable one.
The Dalai Lama can disagree all he wants. He doesn't have a country anymore, because the Chinese Army decided they didn't want him to have a country anymore.
Jesus, Dr. King, and Gandhi all died by violence. Many problems can in fact be solved by non-violence. The violence of other nation-states (or some non-state actors) is not in that set.
Iceland has no neighbors.
See my other post in this thread re: Switzerland.
Next?
Are they using SIGs? I had it in my head it was the H&K G3.
Either way...the Swiss have been supreme badasses for 700 years.
Underestimating your foe is a Bad Idea.
Good thing the M1A1 has good armor. : )
A friend of mine who was a tank driver in Desert Storm told me a story. Apparently, one of the tanks had been disabled (thrown a track I think) and was being rapidly left behind by the advancing forces. The decision was made to scuttle the tank and move on. Its platoon mates all fired at it, but the thing wouldn't die. According to my friend, the tank wrecker took it back to base, replaced the track and the turret, and sent it back to the front lines.
Don't know if it's true, but there ya go. He also told a story about a Russian sabot round (from one of the Iraqi tanks) sticking out of the turret glacis like a lawn dart.
Chobham armor is kick ass. The Brits know a thing or two about tanks.
Thanks. I was going to say that having a great big friendly neighbor is an excellent survival strategy that has nothing whatsoever to do with pacifism, but you said it even better.