Now, seeing as how your callsigns are issued by the FCC (and are FCC property as such), who does QVC and their slimy bottom feeding ambulance chasing litigators intend to take to court?
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system?
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
Listen fuckface. The point is that the ABL is designed to kill missiles during the boost phase. The re-entry vehicles (warheads) don't arm until they reach a certain point, which is well after they separate from the launch platform. During the first 90% of their flight time, they are not armed, and this system is designed to shoot them down in the first few percent of flight time.
Hmm, "fuckface". While I'm willing to suffer the slings and arrows of insults bested by five year olds on a playground, I'm not willing to ignore your ignorance. Do you have a clue about warhead arming? I'm willing to say I know a tad more about it that you do, since I know that a number of warhead designs use the inertia of launch to remove mechanical safety interlocks from the firing mechanism of many types of warheads. While this is not true of many newer designs of both the US and Soviet Block, you don't have to worry about those warheads being dropped on us from little wannabe dictators in small countries that you have to have map to find.
Morover, the POINT my dear flaming troll, is that you want to destroy the damn things over the country that launched them, not the friendly neighbors, and not over your own soil. Why you have to engage in tangent discussion for any reason other than you own pathetic need to be heard is a mystery.
Once I read something about the US, using native americans in special tasks, they could just speak their natural language without any encryption, because, anyway no one in the world could understand what they said!
Yep. Someone aluded to that earlier. The Navajo Indian tribe spoke a language which was so far removed from any other dialect then in use by any other group in the world, including neighboring Indian Tribes, that it would be impossible to decipher without some kind of visual reference. Couple that with the fact that the language was isolated and nearly dead, and it made the perfect language for encryption. Navajo Code Talkers were assigned to nearly every unit in the Pacific Theater, and were in the first wave of nearly every assault. Just as the Nissei or Buffalo Soldier, the Navajo code talkers were a crucial part of our military operations worldwide, while their people back in the states face brutal oppression on many fronts. That says a lot about someone who so loves their homeland that they'd die to defend the neighbors that hate them.
Wake up! You've never truly had deregulation. There have been no new power plants constructed in California in the last ten years because of the draconian environmental laws which make it prohibitively expensive to build and then operate a power plant of ANY kind. Then you go and double the population of your state (more than double, actually), and nearly triple the power consumption. Golly Sarge, I don't get it! We should have gobs of cheap power right?
Supply and Demand baby. You've got plenty of demand, and they can't supply it. At least by charging the customers more, you'd think they'd learn to shut off a few lights.
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system?
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, getting nuked sucks for those in the effective blast area, who die within a few days. It also sucks for the people downwind who will die in weeks to years. But I'd be more worried about Biological weapons. You crack open a canister of ebola, and in about 6 months everything from birds to travelling salesman will have vectored the stuff to everyone in the country, and we'll all be bleeding from our nipples.
At least with a nuke, you can duck and cover : )
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system?
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 2
A falling warhead will not detonate? They are DESIGNED to detonate while falling. An airburst increases the effective radius of a nuclear blast, and a number (if not most) designs use altimeters to trigger detonation.
But as you indicated, it doesn't have to explode to kill. And you assume that all warheads are nukes. I would'nt be as worried about a nuke, which only affects a geographic area, as I would about BioChem weapons.
The point being, you don't want the wreckage falling on your country.
Heck, I like the idea. In times of peace, we can use these things for cutting fire lines, clearing runways of ice and snow, or cooking really really really really large hamburgers.
My lord, the uninformed level of panic on this issue is more amusing than watching glow in the dark monkeys play football.
It's kind of easy to tell the difference between a big white or silver plane that says TWA, and a big green/grey plane with a really ugly nose job. The military plane, for starters, is the one NOT crashing.
It's also highly unlikely these things will ever leave the North American Air Defense Perimeter (better known as Alaska and Canada). The beauty of a laser is that you can blow stuff up instantly from very long distances. At 35K feet you can tag a missile lifting off in Korea from over Alaska.
And finally, There already are, and have always been military variants of civilian aircraft. The notion that hostile countries would suddenly mistake every 747 for an airforce laser plane is laughable. 737's, 727's, and 707's have been serving both military and civilian roles for nearly 50 years now. The 707 started out as a project developed independantly by Boeing to develop a plane attractive to the military and the airlines. Prior to that, most civilian aircraft were merely converted bombers (the extra British Lancasters served well into the 60's as civillian aircraft). In the last 50 years, only 3 commercial airliners have been shot down because they were mistaken for military aircraft.
Good god, it's not like we're arming dolphins with expl....nevermind.
Re:this idea has been around for a while....
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
They're not arming a "standard passenger jets". The 747's airframe is being selected because of its long loiter time, high service altitude, proven history of flight cycles (I think it's over a billion cycles, which means how many times the plane flies), and most of all, it's big enough to hold the hardware.
You make it sound like Continental will be passing out Anti-Laser goggles on your next transcontinental flight : )
As for the breakaway capsules, Boeing and Lockheed both looked into that back in the late 50's early 60's. At that time, it would have nearly doubled the planes weight, and wind tunnel test gave the capsules themselves a 22% chance of surviving the ejection process fromt he plane. If you look at the type of air accidents that have occured with the 747, there wasn't any time to pull an eject handle anyway.
Re:So why do we need a Missle defense system?
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 2
Well, it's like this. Would you rather
a Shoot an enemy missile down over your own
towns and cities
b Shoot that sucker down over the towns and
cities of the idgits shooting at us?
This ain't a Romulan disrupter (we're still working towards that), when you hit the missile, it's going to fall down. A falling warhead is still going to do it's job.
And on the space-environmental front, if we blow this stuff up before it gets up in the air, well that's less orbital debris : )
Eh? Newsflash guy, but most large military E type aircraft are military variants of civilian versions. 737-300ER's are used by the military for everything from AWACS missions to mid-air refueling. And Air Farce One happenst to be both a military aircraft (although without offensive capability, other than it's passengers) and a 747. The problem of shooting down civilian aircraft by mistake has already been happening for 20 years now. The Ruskies shot down a KAL 747 back in the 80's, and we shot an Iraqi airliner down over the Gulf a few years later.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, seeing as how your callsigns are issued by the FCC (and are FCC property as such), who does QVC and their slimy bottom feeding ambulance chasing litigators intend to take to court?
Morover, the POINT my dear flaming troll, is that you want to destroy the damn things over the country that launched them, not the friendly neighbors, and not over your own soil. Why you have to engage in tangent discussion for any reason other than you own pathetic need to be heard is a mystery.
Can we all get along now?
Wake up! You've never truly had deregulation. There have been no new power plants constructed in California in the last ten years because of the draconian environmental laws which make it prohibitively expensive to build and then operate a power plant of ANY kind. Then you go and double the population of your state (more than double, actually), and nearly triple the power consumption. Golly Sarge, I don't get it! We should have gobs of cheap power right?
Supply and Demand baby. You've got plenty of demand, and they can't supply it. At least by charging the customers more, you'd think they'd learn to shut off a few lights.
Yeah, getting nuked sucks for those in the effective blast area, who die within a few days. It also sucks for the people downwind who will die in weeks to years. But I'd be more worried about Biological weapons. You crack open a canister of ebola, and in about 6 months everything from birds to travelling salesman will have vectored the stuff to everyone in the country, and we'll all be bleeding from our nipples.
At least with a nuke, you can duck and cover : )
A falling warhead will not detonate? They are DESIGNED to detonate while falling. An airburst increases the effective radius of a nuclear blast, and a number (if not most) designs use altimeters to trigger detonation.
But as you indicated, it doesn't have to explode to kill. And you assume that all warheads are nukes. I would'nt be as worried about a nuke, which only affects a geographic area, as I would about BioChem weapons.
The point being, you don't want the wreckage falling on your country.
You're not thinking cheesy enough.
GORATH!
It's just you.
Heck, I like the idea. In times of peace, we can use these things for cutting fire lines, clearing runways of ice and snow, or cooking really really really really large hamburgers.
My lord, the uninformed level of panic on this issue is more amusing than watching glow in the dark monkeys play football.
It's kind of easy to tell the difference between a big white or silver plane that says TWA, and a big green/grey plane with a really ugly nose job. The military plane, for starters, is the one NOT crashing.
It's also highly unlikely these things will ever leave the North American Air Defense Perimeter (better known as Alaska and Canada). The beauty of a laser is that you can blow stuff up instantly from very long distances. At 35K feet you can tag a missile lifting off in Korea from over Alaska.
And finally, There already are, and have always been military variants of civilian aircraft. The notion that hostile countries would suddenly mistake every 747 for an airforce laser plane is laughable. 737's, 727's, and 707's have been serving both military and civilian roles for nearly 50 years now. The 707 started out as a project developed independantly by Boeing to develop a plane attractive to the military and the airlines. Prior to that, most civilian aircraft were merely converted bombers (the extra British Lancasters served well into the 60's as civillian aircraft). In the last 50 years, only 3 commercial airliners have been shot down because they were mistaken for military aircraft.
Good god, it's not like we're arming dolphins with expl....nevermind.
They're not arming a "standard passenger jets". The 747's airframe is being selected because of its long loiter time, high service altitude, proven history of flight cycles (I think it's over a billion cycles, which means how many times the plane flies), and most of all, it's big enough to hold the hardware.
You make it sound like Continental will be passing out Anti-Laser goggles on your next transcontinental flight : )
As for the breakaway capsules, Boeing and Lockheed both looked into that back in the late 50's early 60's. At that time, it would have nearly doubled the planes weight, and wind tunnel test gave the capsules themselves a 22% chance of surviving the ejection process fromt he plane. If you look at the type of air accidents that have occured with the 747, there wasn't any time to pull an eject handle anyway.
a Shoot an enemy missile down over your own towns and cities
b Shoot that sucker down over the towns and cities of the idgits shooting at us?
This ain't a Romulan disrupter (we're still working towards that), when you hit the missile, it's going to fall down. A falling warhead is still going to do it's job.
And on the space-environmental front, if we blow this stuff up before it gets up in the air, well that's less orbital debris : )
Eh? Newsflash guy, but most large military E type aircraft are military variants of civilian versions. 737-300ER's are used by the military for everything from AWACS missions to mid-air refueling. And Air Farce One happenst to be both a military aircraft (although without offensive capability, other than it's passengers) and a 747. The problem of shooting down civilian aircraft by mistake has already been happening for 20 years now. The Ruskies shot down a KAL 747 back in the 80's, and we shot an Iraqi airliner down over the Gulf a few years later.