NationStates Jolt Archive

Well since we are all talking about space based weapons as of late. I found a cool link on some new US weapons. I personally like the rods from gods weapon. I can think of a few uses for this one myself.www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm)

The phrase "Rods from Gods" makes me think of a low-budget gay porn film with the Greek gods featured.

Then again, that's probably my stunted and malformed sense of humour talking.

Heh. Very nice, very nice. Now, what makes you think that all your enemies won't a) research and build their onw, b) immediately scheme up ways to shoot them down or disable them, and c) work out that, although it claims they're accurate to within 25 feet, they're more likely to be accurate to within about 250?

Heh. Very nice, very nice. Now, what makes you think that all your enemies won't a) research and build their onw, b) immediately scheme up ways to shoot them down or disable them, and c) work out that, although it claims they're accurate to within 25 feet, they're more likely to be accurate to within about 250?

You really think Iran and North Korea have either the technology or money to shoot down space weapons, much less build their own? Please.

The phrase "Rods from Gods" makes me think of a low-budget gay porn film with the Greek gods featured.

Then again, that's probably my stunted and malformed sense of humour talking.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to go there. Only one post. Congrats

Heh. Very nice, very nice. Now, what makes you think that all your enemies won't a) research and build their onw, b) immediately scheme up ways to shoot them down or disable them, and c) work out that, although it claims they're accurate to within 25 feet, they're more likely to be accurate to within about 250?\

You couldnt shoot this particular weapon down. Only by a killer satellite system if lucky. Now if it did hit 250 ft away. You think that target would still not be destroyed?

You really think Iran and North Korea have either the technology or money to shoot down space weapons, much less build their own? Please.

You really think that an object being launched from a bomber (which can be shot down and takes a fair bit of time to get somewhere) and flying through not a few miles of atmosphere is going to be accurate to 25 feet? Please. In addition, please bear in mind that your enemies are not exclusively poor and unable to put up a fight, and that your oh-so-cocky armed forces will get the shock of their lives if and when they find themselves getting a drubbing.

\

You couldnt shoot this particular weapon down. Only by a killer satellite system if lucky. Now if it did hit 250 ft away. You think that target would still not be destroyed?

There is nothing created by man that cannot be destroyed by man. If it hit 250 feet away, it rather depends on the target doesn't it? Heck, if it hit even 10 feet away from a hardened target you'd be looking at a failed strike.

In response to a previous post:


Well the rods will actually be fired from an orbiting platform. So there is no
bomber to shoot down.

You really think that an object being launched from a bomber (which can be shot down and takes a fair bit of time to get somewhere) and flying through not a few miles of atmosphere is going to be accurate to 25 feet? Please. In addition, please bear in mind that your enemies are not exclusively poor and unable to put up a fight, and that your oh-so-cocky armed forces will get the shock of their lives if and when they find themselves getting a drubbing.

Eventually the technology would be accurate to 25 feet...it might take more time but if they think it can be done, it probably can. And if it is taking the United States this long to develop this technology, how long would it take NK or Iran? They would probably have to have at least SOME space technology, which they do not. And then the money issue..this kind of project would take billions..if NK can barely feed its people..that's not really feasible. They would be better off building nukes, which they both are having enough trouble with.

I wonder how these weapons fare against nuclear counterattacks from Iran or North Korea.

The phrase "Rods from Gods" makes me think of a low-budget gay porn film with the Greek gods featured.

Then again, that's probably my stunted and malformed sense of humour talking.

I was offered a role in a stag film entitled "Rod of a God"!

I wonder how these weapons fare against nuclear counterattacks from Iran or North Korea.


Any type of nuclear weapon use by any nation would be countered with the same. That goes for US using them first. Which I dont think we would be crazy enough to do.

You really think that an object being launched from a bomber (which can be shot down and takes a fair bit of time to get somewhere) and flying through not a few miles of atmosphere is going to be accurate to 25 feet? Please. In addition, please bear in mind that your enemies are not exclusively poor and unable to put up a fight, and that your oh-so-cocky armed forces will get the shock of their lives if and when they find themselves getting a drubbing.

I'll wait to see who gives us this drubbing you speak of!

I was offered a role in a stag film entitled "Rod of a God"!

And you didn't take it?!

You could have entered the ranks of the few; who like Senators and Presidents, have government grants supporting their peckers!

Rods from Gods eh? Its just a Gauss rifle in space.

There is nothing created by man that cannot be destroyed by man. If it hit 250 feet away, it rather depends on the target doesn't it? Heck, if it hit even 10 feet away from a hardened target you'd be looking at a failed strike.

Now that's just stupid. The final produbt is intended to be fired from an orbital platform, defended, obviously, if you add up the different weapins they described, by "hunter-killer" satellites and ASAT platforms, on both ground, in air, and in space. That is the most logical layout for all this tevhnology.

Now, the projectiles they described are made of tungsten and reach the target traveling at 12000 FEET PER SECOND. No weapon in this earth is fast enough to catch that. Not a laser, which has to be targeted by computers, of course. And there is no missile that can travel fast enough to intercept. Even if a counter-missile was launched from space, it still could not overtake the projectile. And at 12000 feet per second, anything with several hundred feet is going to be annihilated by the concussion.

And you didn't take it?!

You could have entered the ranks of the few; who like Senators and Presidents, have government grants supporting their peckers!



Dude it was a gay film. I didn't swing that way.

I wonder how these weapons fare against nuclear counterattacks from Iran or North Korea.
Iran and NK can't hit the US, well maybe NK could hit some of the alaskan islands but that is it.

Dude it was a gay film. I didn't swing that way.

Well, yeah. I kinda guessed that. It was a joke.

Iran and NK can't hit the US, well maybe NK could hit some of the alaskan islands but that is it.
Besides which, all of the weapons with the exception of the orbital platforms are going to be located over enemy airspace. What the hell are they going to hit with a nuke? Their own territory? And I doubt NK or Iran, or 95% of the nations in the world could even TARGET something in space with a nuke, much less find a way to bypass the satellite defense systems that are obviously being developed in conjuction with the "Rods" program.

There is nothing created by man that cannot be destroyed by man. If it hit 250 feet away, it rather depends on the target doesn't it? Heck, if it hit even 10 feet away from a hardened target you'd be looking at a failed strike.
Not if it's a KEW. They have the imparting energy of a tac nuke strike w/o certain radiological side effects.

"Meh", I say. There will always be other countries to make equally pointless penis weapons and ways of countering them. *yawn*

"Meh", I say. There will always be other countries to make equally pointless penis weapons and ways of countering them. *yawn*
PENIS-MOUNTED ROD CANNONS!!!!!!

Sorry, I had to. You can slap me now for my stunted and juvenile sense of humour.

PENIS-MOUNTED ROD CANNONS!!!!!!

Sorry, I had to. You can slap me now for my stunted and juvenile sense of humour.

Slap you with my penis? :eek:

Don't mind if I do

Slap you with my penis? :eek:

Don't mind if I do
Careful, she might bite.

Careful, she might bite.
:eek:
You just made me realize why people use "cock-biter" as an insult, and it doesn't mean a gay man like I previously thought!

Holy shit, this random tangent actually did something useful!

Heh. Very nice, very nice. Now, what makes you think that all your enemies won't a) research and build their onw,

Nobody else has the capability, the money, or the technological-know how.

b) immediately scheme up ways to shoot them down or disable them,

If you'd read the article, you'd know they're also developing defenses for satallites.

and c) work out that, although it claims they're accurate to within 25 feet, they're more likely to be accurate to within about 250?
On what do you base that claim?

You really think that an object being launched from a bomber (which can be shot down and takes a fair bit of time to get somewhere) and flying through not a few miles of atmosphere is going to be accurate to 25 feet? Please. In addition, please bear in mind that your enemies are not exclusively poor and unable to put up a fight, and that your oh-so-cocky armed forces will get the shock of their lives if and when they find themselves getting a drubbing.
READ THE F*CKING ARTICLE!

Careful, she might bite.

It's a she? I withdraw the offer!

I wonder how these weapons fare against nuclear counterattacks from Iran or North Korea.
Neither of those countries have the ability to target satallites using nuclear weapons.

Right, you have an object moving at 12,000FPS (which is roughly 3,000m/s). That's around Mach ten. Now yes, there's no way an object will catch it from behind, obviously. What about from ahead? If you're going to lob a solid object at a target, requiring great precision to do so, even defecting it from its course by a degree or so would be sufficient to reduce its precision significantly. Clobber it with a near-miss explosion (and yes, it is possible to time a detonation that finely) or a large, solid object (harder, but just as plausible as this) and it's not much use to you.

Regarding the destructive force of such projectiles: they will indeed have the force of a tactical nuclear warhead. Allow me to remind you that a tactical warhead is generally between 1Kt and 100Kt, and a strategic warhead can be anything from 500Kt to 20 Mt. If a 500Kt warhead (delivered by ICBM, a relatively imprecise weapon) were to miss by 250 feet (not at all improbable, considering the conditions it must endure as it is deployed; bear in mind that in ICBM RV is although not re-targetable a guided weapon, which presumably cannot be said of the "Rod from God") against a soft target (say, a restaurant ;)) it wouldn't matter all that much. If it missed against a hardened target (say an ICBM silo) it would, as I recall, be essentially useless.

I'm going to stop now, because I know exactly what's going to happen and am sick to death of having this kind of argument.

And you didn't take it?!

You could have entered the ranks of the few; who like Senators and Presidents, have government grants supporting their peckers!

Rods from Gods eh? Its just a Gauss rifle in space.
No, judging from the article, it works on an entirely different principle.

Mass driver. Lovely.

The fact remains that you're flinging a thirty-five tonne stack (20x1 foot (6x0.35m) cylinder of tungsten) at something at around twelve thousand feet (thirty-seven-hundred meters) per second...

Now I hate to bust anyone's bubble, but something weighing thirty-five thousand kilos traveling at thirtyseven hundred meters per second will have about two-hundred-thirty BILLION joules of energy. And that much energy doesn't come from nowhere. I'm not saying it couldn't be readied and launched. I am saying it would be hideously expensive.

That and - think about this - giant bloody needle coming in that fast. Apparently without warning. Certainly destroying more than just the intended target, and scaring the ever-loving crap out of most other nations. I dunno, but that does sound a lot like terrorism.

Mass driver. Lovely.

The fact remains that you're flinging a thirty-five tonne stack (20x1 foot (6x0.35m) cylinder of tungsten) at something at around twelve thousand feet (thirty-seven-hundred meters) per second...

Now I hate to bust anyone's bubble, but something weighing thirty-five thousand kilos traveling at thirtyseven hundred meters per second will have about two-hundred-thirty BILLION joules of energy. And that much energy doesn't come from nowhere. I'm not saying it couldn't be readied and launched. I am saying it would be hideously expensive.

That and - think about this - giant bloody needle coming in that fast. Apparently without warning. Certainly destroying more than just the intended target, and scaring the ever-loving crap out of most other nations. I dunno, but that does sound a lot like terrorism.

Well this would be expensive to launch on a large scale. But just think of the possibilities. You could strike a nation in just a minutes notice. They sink a aircraft carrier by suprise. Guess what before it slips beneath the waves you could rain death down on them. Almost god like. Just sounds to cool to me.

Technology wont beat guile if i want something done ill just nuke New York with my Cargo ships so what if it starts Armageddon shit youve got to understand if you want to spend the bucks being all fancy ill just have to cheat and play dirty!

:eek:
You just made me realize why people use "cock-biter" as an insult, and it doesn't mean a gay man like I previously thought!

Holy shit, this random tangent actually did something useful!
Um, I've never heard the term cock-biter as an insult or otherwise so I really couldn't say.

Technology wont beat guile if i want something done ill just nuke New York with my Cargo ships so what if it starts Armageddon shit youve got to understand if you want to spend the bucks being all fancy ill just have to cheat and play dirty!
Luckily for us New Yorkers all the shipping these days comes into the ports in Jersey not NY so we New Yorkers will be picking through the radioactive charred remains of New Jerseyians in our lead suits after Al-Quaeda strikes.

Luckily for us New Yorkers all the shipping these days comes into the ports in Jersey not NY so we New Yorkers will be picking through the radioactive charred remains of New Jerseyians in our lead suits after Al-Quaeda strikes.

I thought New Jersey already was but charred remains.

I thought New Jersey already was but charred remains.

Haha, so true :)

I thought New Jersey already was but charred remains.
New Jersey is more like the pit of eternal stench from the movie from the movie "The Princess Bride". After Al-Quaeda nukes it, I'm going straight down to Atlantic City and getting all my money back.

New Jersey is more like the pit of eternal stench from the movie from the movie "The Princess Bride". After Al-Quaeda nukes it, I'm going straight down to Atlantic City and getting all my money back.

Will be right behind you...

I wonder how many schools, hospitals, roads, libraries, or years of social security budget those toys could have payed for. Talk about rogue and failed states...

I wonder how many schools, hospitals, roads, libraries, or years of social security budget those toys could have payed for. Talk about rogue and failed states...

Indeed...

And has anyone stopped to wonder what's the *point* of these fancy space toys? If a country can already destroy the world several times over, why does it need to go wasting all this money (much needed elsewhere) on something so useless?

Secondly, if it's so damn powerful, then you're talking about horrendous collateral damage. Hit the intended target and kill a few hundred thousand innocent people in the vicinity. Very nice...

Third, this upsets the M.A.D. principle. The idea of that was, if various countries have the ability to mutually anihilate one another, there will never be a nuclear war. For example, if the US had tossed a few nukes at the Soviet Union and wiped out its major cities, Soviet nuclear submarines would have still been able to retaliate, even if there was virtually nothing left of the USSR, and anihilate the US in return. With this new space thing, the whole M.A.D. idea is compromised, making the world potentially a much more dangerous place for everyone...

Reminds me about the Command & Conquer Red Alert weapon used by the GDI => The ION Cannon.

Damn ion cannon, the only weapon that could ever get thru my firewall defence system.
But seriously, could you imagine the size of the propulsion system needed to launch one satalite with 10-20 "rods". I also wonder if it is reloadable.

Oh please, some little R&D guy gets bored and decides to play around with the media and you guys fall for it hook, line and sinker?

For reasons previously mentioned, this "weapons system". (ugh, I shudder to use such beautiful words to describe such an incredibly inefficent energy delivery transport method, which is what any weapons system really is, a way of transporting large amounts of energy to the target). The cost alone of putting one tungsten rod of the size described would pay for several main battle tanks and a handful of cruise missiles.

An orbiting platform able to track and release a dumb fire projectile from Low Earth Orbit? HAHA. All it would take would be a little high wind, a solar flare or maybe a change in atmospheric density over the target and you'd get would a very expensive minature re-enactment of how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Unless you want to wipe out a town that can be traced back to the birth of human civilization full of innocent civilians.

***

Oh, and you kill 'em all nuts can stomp all you want, but you wouldn't last a second in the United States military. When you join, your swearing to protect the United States from harm, to uphold the constitution and the ideals this country was founded on.

If you wipe out an entire city or two for good fun, see how long the military backs up your current adminstration.

Pre-emptive strikes blur the line, genocide clearly crosses it. The American military is not a heartless, soulless killing machine, it is a collection of extordinary responsible men and women who serve their country with a conscience. Which, unfortunetly, I don't see in the list of qualities of most of you.

Sure, worship our modern and future weapons systems, but don't listen to the PR spin of my service branch, (if we had our way we'd have everyone thinking we use lasers given to us by aliens) AND DEFFINITELY DO NOT CALL FOR THE MILITARY DEFEAT OF A NATION WHEN YOU KNOW ABOUT AS MUCH OF NORTH KOREA THEN A NORTH KOREAN KNOWS ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN.

I'm waiting for one of you to say they eat babies, seriously. Go create your own fire works show, because the USAF ain't listening to no panzy preteen civvie.

***

Go ahead, I dare someone to reply.

Sincerely, Nikoko
United States Air Force Missile and Space Operations Apprentice. (undeployed)

P.S. How about a complete sentance for a topic next time, buddy?

Call me a tree hugger hippy, but they should concentrate in doing something useful instead of wasting tax payer money on trying to find new ways to destroy. Those weapons are obviously not defense weapons and should be banned.

I declare this thread dead.


;)

Pre-emptive strikes blur the line, genocide clearly crosses it. The American military is not a heartless, soulless killing machine [. . .] AND DEFFINITELY DO NOT CALL FOR THE MILITARY DEFEAT OF A NATION WHEN YOU KNOW ABOUT AS MUCH OF NORTH KOREA THEN A NORTH KOREAN KNOWS ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN.

Well said, and that definitely needed saying. (Kind of the point I was trying to make earlier, but you've phrased it somewhat more... forcefully, I think. ;) ).

Oh please, some little R&D guy gets bored and decides to play around with the media and you guys fall for it hook, line and sinker?

For reasons previously mentioned, this "weapons system". (ugh, I shudder to use such beautiful words to describe such an incredibly inefficent energy delivery transport method, which is what any weapons system really is, a way of transporting large amounts of energy to the target). The cost alone of putting one tungsten rod of the size described would pay for several main battle tanks and a handful of cruise missiles.

An orbiting platform able to track and release a dumb fire projectile from Low Earth Orbit? HAHA. All it would take would be a little high wind, a solar flare or maybe a change in atmospheric density over the target and you'd get would a very expensive minature re-enactment of how the dinosaurs were wiped out. Unless you want to wipe out a town that can be traced back to the birth of human civilization full of innocent civilians.

***

Oh, and you kill 'em all nuts can stomp all you want, but you wouldn't last a second in the United States military. When you join, your swearing to protect the United States from harm, to uphold the constitution and the ideals this country was founded on.

If you wipe out an entire city or two for good fun, see how long the military backs up your current adminstration.

Pre-emptive strikes blur the line, genocide clearly crosses it. The American military is not a heartless, soulless killing machine, it is a collection of extordinary responsible men and women who serve their country with a conscience. Which, unfortunetly, I don't see in the list of qualities of most of you.

Sure, worship our modern and future weapons systems, but don't listen to the PR spin of my service branch, (if we had our way we'd have everyone thinking we use lasers given to us by aliens) AND DEFFINITELY DO NOT CALL FOR THE MILITARY DEFEAT OF A NATION WHEN YOU KNOW ABOUT AS MUCH OF NORTH KOREA THEN A NORTH KOREAN KNOWS ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN.

I'm waiting for one of you to say they eat babies, seriously. Go create your own fire works show, because the USAF ain't listening to no panzy preteen civvie.

***

Go ahead, I dare someone to reply.

Sincerely, Nikoko
United States Air Force Missile and Space Operations Apprentice. (undeployed)

P.S. How about a complete sentance for a topic next time, buddy?

Ok, I love people like you. Come in here and think your all authoritarian. Dream up some stupid title like "AF missle and space operations apprentice"? C'mon now, lets get a better imagination than that.

Also want to point out that Nikko said he was in a 12th grade honors class in a post from "The Crusades(The start of Islam vs Christianity) from 01/17/05. Wow so you jumped from school to the Armed forces in just a matter of a month? Very good. So now your whole post is null. Even though some parts sounded good.

Rods from Gods?

Yeah, and if Saddam slips out the back door anyway while the satellite is swinging into position, they can call it the "Tardy Lombardi."

P.S. How about a complete sentance for a topic next time, buddy?

Oh, the ironing is delicious.

Neither of those countries have the ability to target satallites using nuclear weapons.
You don't need to target a satelite if you can get a nuke to go off in space. In space much of the energy is released as EMP, It wouldn't take long for the EMP and ionizing radiation to knock out every satelite in orbit. All you need is a big enough nuclear weapon, and the rocket to put it up in low earth orbit.

Damn, got caught up in my lie. :/

It was a small one though, the Missile and Space Operations role does exist, however.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforceenlistedjobs/a/afjob1c6x1.htm

It is my guarrentied job, I ship off to basic training then technical school when I graduate in June. Technically I'm in the delayed enlistment program, which means I'm considered a Air Force Reservist Airman 2nd Grade.

So it was a white lie, to support my authoritarian view. :):):)

I'm interested though, which parts do you agree with?

You don't need to target a satelite if you can get a nuke to go off in space. In space much of the energy is released as EMP, It wouldn't take long for the EMP and ionizing radiation to knock out every satelite in orbit. All you need is a big enough nuclear weapon, and the rocket to put it up in low earth orbit.
One question. How, precisely, is it going to get near the target. Once again, hunter-killer satellites are supposedly being developed for defense. They could, presumably, take out the nuke only seconds after launch, since any launch of a nuke shows up pretty quick.

Not to mention that the nuke would be so heavy it would probably burn out, assuming the temperature of the higher atmosphere didn't screw up the firing mechanisms for the prelim. explosion thats sets off the depleted uranium reaction.

And as far as the atmospheric factors, well, I could see them affecting a small object, but meteors seem to come down in a straight line, despite their relatively small weight. Now, take an object weighing several thousand pounds, traveling at such a speed that air friction would keep it on a straight line as surely as if it was traveling inside a tube made of meter thick titanium alloy, and you tell ME what kind of force would be necessary to knock it off course. Not to mention that any nation that used a nuke on it would be using a nuke over themselves, which would be more then sufficient to accomplish our purpose.

And as for Nikoko, you don't need to lie to sound smart. But to lose my respect, all you have to do is bullshit your credentials.

Damn, got caught up in my lie. :/

It was a small one though, the Missile and Space Operations role does exist, however.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforceenlistedjobs/a/afjob1c6x1.htm

It is my guarrentied job, I ship off to basic training then technical school when I graduate in June. Technically I'm in the delayed enlistment program, which means I'm considered a Air Force Reservist Airman 2nd Grade.

So it was a white lie, to support my authoritarian view. :):):)

I'm interested though, which parts do you agree with?


Well you sound somewhat like you have studied what you talk about. I would say lay off the lying. People will figure it out eventually. If you dont want people to know you are in High School then dont say it. If you leave out information like that its not considered lying. Maybe not telling the whole truth. But still it isnt as bad as making something up. Be yourself, you seem like your good at debate at least.

One question. How, precisely, is it going to get near the target. Once again, hunter-killer satellites are supposedly being developed for defense. They could, presumably, take out the nuke only seconds after launch, since any launch of a nuke shows up pretty quick.

Not to mention that the nuke would be so heavy it would probably burn out, assuming the temperature of the higher atmosphere didn't screw up the firing mechanisms for the prelim. explosion thats sets off the depleted uranium reaction.


It doesn't need to get close. The EMP and ionizing radiation would hit every satelite in orbit. Launch several dozen and one is bound to get through. One gets through, all satelites are destroyed. Check out this PDF document that explains why www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/haleos.pdf

There is something about this which makes me laugh. Now, lets look at what tactics are being used to fight for and against America.

America: Has BIG bombs and guns, drives around in high tech tanks with extra blowing stuffiness. Can destroy cities in seconds, eliminate other big tanks and planes with big bombs.

Enemies of USA: A few poor souls driving around in pickups firing guns in the air and blowing things up with home made fireworks.

America points big space gun at pickup truck and *BOOM* OOOPS! We've hit a school! Lets try again. Points gun at pickup truck *BOOM* OOOPS! That wasn't a terrorist, that was a wedding party. Lets try again. OOOPS! We've been pointing at the wrong Islamic country! Ah well, they were next anyway.

Terrorists attack American troops with homemade fireworks. *boom* AHHH! Run, they will kill us all with their fireworks, into the shelters! They're going to kill us all! AHH!

Seems strange that America with a BIG space gun can't even control Iraq because a few young people are running around with out of date guns and a few homemade bombs. America is trying to build bigger guns and bombs to blow up bigger cities and non existent underground bunkers in Afghanistan, when they should have a simple method to get rid of the people in pickup trucks. So much for American military superiority.

There is something about this which makes me laugh. Now, lets look at what tactics are being used to fight for and against America.

America: Has BIG bombs and guns, drives around in high tech tanks with extra blowing stuffiness. Can destroy cities in seconds, eliminate other big tanks and planes with big bombs.

Enemies of USA: A few poor souls driving around in pickups firing guns in the air and blowing things up with home made fireworks.

America points big space gun at pickup truck and *BOOM* OOOPS! We've hit a school! Lets try again. Points gun at pickup truck *BOOM* OOOPS! That wasn't a terrorist, that was a wedding party. Lets try again. OOOPS! We've been pointing at the wrong Islamic country! Ah well, they were next anyway.

Terrorists attack American troops with homemade fireworks. *boom* AHHH! Run, they will kill us all with their fireworks, into the shelters! They're going to kill us all! AHH!

Seems strange that America with a BIG space gun can't even control Iraq because a few young people are running around with out of date guns and a few homemade bombs. America is trying to build bigger guns and bombs to blow up bigger cities and non existent underground bunkers in Afghanistan, when they should have a simple method to get rid of the people in pickup trucks. So much for American military superiority.
Actually US infantry troops kick the crap out of Iraqi insurgents in every stand up fight they get into. That's why the insurgents target Iraqi civilians, military and police. They can't win against us. When the Iraqi military and police are trained up, armed properly, and have increased in numbers it'll be open season on insurgents.

Not to mention that the nuke would be so heavy it would probably burn out, assuming the temperature of the higher atmosphere didn't screw up the firing mechanisms for the prelim. explosion thats sets off the depleted uranium reaction.

Yeah, this is why we've never been able to send fragile materials such as, I dunno, the human body, into orbit.

There is something about this which makes me laugh. Now, lets look at what tactics are being used to fight for and against America.

America: Has BIG bombs and guns, drives around in high tech tanks with extra blowing stuffiness. Can destroy cities in seconds, eliminate other big tanks and planes with big bombs.

Enemies of USA: A few poor souls driving around in pickups firing guns in the air and blowing things up with home made fireworks.

America points big space gun at pickup truck and *BOOM* OOOPS! We've hit a school! Lets try again. Points gun at pickup truck *BOOM* OOOPS! That wasn't a terrorist, that was a wedding party. Lets try again. OOOPS! We've been pointing at the wrong Islamic country! Ah well, they were next anyway.

Terrorists attack American troops with homemade fireworks. *boom* AHHH! Run, they will kill us all with their fireworks, into the shelters! They're going to kill us all! AHH!

Seems strange that America with a BIG space gun can't even control Iraq because a few young people are running around with out of date guns and a few homemade bombs. America is trying to build bigger guns and bombs to blow up bigger cities and non existent underground bunkers in Afghanistan, when they should have a simple method to get rid of the people in pickup trucks. So much for American military superiority.
Your telling me we dont have Iraq under control? Think we do. As far as the space weapons. Those are not for Terrorist. They are for conventional forces such as China, Russia, N Korea and Iran. You always build your capacities to fight all types of enemies. Terrorist need more intelligence gathering capabilities. The US has recently overhauled the intelligence capabilities to counter this threat. Now you dont hear about that much because its not so sensational.

...They would be better off building nukes...I agree.

Yeah, this is why we've never been able to send fragile materials such as, I dunno, the human body, into orbit.

Nuclear weapons are made to travel through low earth orbit. ICBMs go into outer space and then drop their warheads back through the atmosphere.

One question. How, precisely, is it going to get near the target. Once again, hunter-killer satellites are supposedly being developed for defense. They could, presumably, take out the nuke only seconds after launch, since any launch of a nuke shows up pretty quick.

I stopped reading there...I hate wasting my time.

Your telling me we dont have Iraq under control? Think we do. As far as the space weapons. Those are not for Terrorist. They are for conventional forces such as China, Russia, N Korea and Iran. You always build your capacities to fight all types of enemies. Terrorist need more intelligence gathering capabilities. The US has recently overhauled the intelligence capabilities to counter this threat. Now you dont hear about that much because its not so sensational.

I would definatly say you do not. Every day, every single day it is 'Another car bomb' or 'Another attacked killed so many in Iraq' and if it's not Iraq its Afghanistan. There are some parts of the country that America doesn't even have direct control of! You may have tanks on every street corner, but the fact you do shows America completely lacks what most of us would consider control. You can't control a country of 20 million? A few people are defeating a country of 300 million?

OH NO! Not Russia! Such a teribble threat! I won't be able to sleep tonight! The Economy is in chaos, the army is out of date, oh no! CHINA! Not a country which is more interested in trading with the West than destroying it?! Iran and North Korea, phew, I do worry about those.

Why do you think they have the weapons? Its to protect themselves from rampaging America! You just expect them to let you walk into their country and force them to be free? Well maybe they wanted to be Communist? Did you ever think of that? Did America ever think of what anyone else wanted apart from itself? Maybe there are terrorists against America is because America can't keep her fingers to herself. Always has to have a bigger slice of influence here, a little sip more of oil over there. Do you think America would have gone into Kuwait if it was just sand? Not sand and oil? The reason is America wants somewhere to bomb, take over or get something out of, and now its all because of 9/11. You think terrorism started then? Well wake up call! Its been going on for years, its just America doesn't care until it comes home. Maybe America would think differently if every city was destroyed, every 5th person killed, no town or now person left untouched. Europe learnt the hard way, I think America should take the oppertunity and learn the easy way.

...
If you wipe out an entire city or two for good fun, see how long the military backs up your current adminstration.

The way the military is built...With a "Chain of command"...thats why its efficient at killing...
and thats why consience objectors are hard pressured to "shut-up and do jour Job"

I would definatly say you do not. Every day, every single day it is 'Another car bomb' or 'Another attacked killed so many in Iraq' and if it's not Iraq its Afghanistan. There are some parts of the country that America doesn't even have direct control of! You may have tanks on every street corner, but the fact you do shows America completely lacks what most of us would consider control. You can't control a country of 20 million? A few people are defeating a country of 300 million?

OH NO! Not Russia! Such a teribble threat! I won't be able to sleep tonight! The Economy is in chaos, the army is out of date, oh no! CHINA! Not a country which is more interested in trading with the West than destroying it?! Iran and North Korea, phew, I do worry about those.

Why do you think they have the weapons? Its to protect themselves from rampaging America! You just expect them to let you walk into their country and force them to be free? Well maybe they wanted to be Communist? Did you ever think of that? Did America ever think of what anyone else wanted apart from itself? Maybe there are terrorists against America is because America can't keep her fingers to herself. Always has to have a bigger slice of influence here, a little sip more of oil over there. Do you think America would have gone into Kuwait if it was just sand? Not sand and oil? The reason is America wants somewhere to bomb, take over or get something out of, and now its all because of 9/11. You think terrorism started then? Well wake up call! Its been going on for years, its just America doesn't care until it comes home. Maybe America would think differently if every city was destroyed, every 5th person killed, no town or now person left untouched. Europe learnt the hard way, I think America should take the oppertunity and learn the easy way.
So what should we have done after 9/11? Act like Spain and surrender to our enemies? Nope, you hit us we hit back harder and repeatedly. That's why most nations and organizations have the good sense not to mess with us.

Yeah scares the shit out of me. Why the rest of the world hasn't signed a mutual defense contract to develop equivalent weapons is beyond me. I hate our leaders more than I hate the US government&multinationals.

Well I do suppose America can't let it's matcho gun-ho reputation slip. A sensible country, would not blow things out of proportion. Al'Quieda was invented by America? Did you know that? There was no such organisation, the terrorists thought 'Sure OK, whatever you say, we are Al'Quieda'. And thats where it started. Now I ask, where were these terrorists hiding in their deep complex bunkers in Afghanistan? Where are the weapons of mass destrution in Iraq. Oh! I get it, you knew there were none, you used it as an excuse to get oil, nice move! How can you fight terrorism? Is blowing up countries the answer? A sensible country may have thought 'Wait a sec, why do they hate us so much? Let us try and get rid of the source so they don't have any reason to attack us, they are obviously deeply unhappy and distressed people, lets and try and see what they want, its all about freedom, and if we are restricting their freedom we should stop.' The American attitude was 'How could a few people do so much damage? This is humilitaing! We must invent a secret organisation and blow stuff up! Thats gotta work!' Now today, we have the same question 'Why do they hate us so much?' Hmmm, maybe its because you invaded them perhaps?

Well I commend Spain for their actions. To be honest, that was the bravest thing to do, they could have stayed, but they did what was right and risked facing abuse from gun-ho Americans.

And tell me you can't seriously be afraid of any of the countries listed? Russia can't, China doesn't want to, and North Korea and Iran are scared you may attack them. I wonder how many wars and how many dead it will take before America realises this isn't the way to go. Again I state, America has never experienced a modern war at home, they have not lost millions, seen their cities destroyed and continent utterly wrecked. Maybe the whole world should gang up on America, destroy the whole country and see if they like war? Hmm? Would you like that? How come you are allowed to defend yourself and your ideals, but others are not? Tell me that.

Nuclear weapons are made to travel through low earth orbit. ICBMs go into outer space and then drop their warheads back through the atmosphere.

I know, I was just poking the most obvious hole in that "no nukes in space" argument.

So what should we have done after 9/11? Act like Spain and surrender to our enemies? Nope, you hit us we hit back harder and repeatedly. That's why most nations and organizations have the good sense not to mess with us.

Spain surrendered to the enemies? Do you see all Spanish women wearing Burkas? Well, you woudln't know because the TV channels you watch, don't show you anything that's going on outside your planet America (I bet you didn't notice what I did there, because you really do think America is its own planet, if not universe)

Spain only ceased to be America's servant in the war of aggression against the Iraqi people.

Well I do suppose America can't let it's matcho gun-ho reputation slip. A sensible country, would not blow things out of proportion. Al'Quieda was invented by America? Did you know that? There was no such organisation, the terrorists thought 'Sure OK, whatever you say, we are Al'Quieda'. And thats where it started. Now I ask, where were these terrorists hiding in their deep complex bunkers in Afghanistan? Where are the weapons of mass destrution in Iraq. Oh! I get it, you knew there were none, you used it as an excuse to get oil, nice move! How can you fight terrorism? Is blowing up countries the answer? A sensible country may have thought 'Wait a sec, why do they hate us so much? Let us try and get rid of the source so they don't have any reason to attack us, they are obviously deeply unhappy and distressed people, lets and try and see what they want, its all about freedom, and if we are restricting their freedom we should stop.' The American attitude was 'How could a few people do so much damage? This is humilitaing! We must invent a secret organisation and blow stuff up! Thats gotta work!' Now today, we have the same question 'Why do they hate us so much?' Hmmm, maybe its because you invaded them perhaps?

Well I commend Spain for their actions. To be honest, that was the bravest thing to do, they could have stayed, but they did what was right and risked facing abuse from gun-ho Americans.

And tell me you can't seriously be afraid of any of the countries listed? Russia can't, China doesn't want to, and North Korea and Iran are scared you may attack them. I wonder how many wars and how many dead it will take before America realises this isn't the way to go. Again I state, America has never experienced a modern war at home, they have not lost millions, seen their cities destroyed and continent utterly wrecked. Maybe the whole world should gang up on America, destroy the whole country and see if they like war? Hmm? Would you like that? How come you are allowed to defend yourself and your ideals, but others are not? Tell me that.
Gee, you're so bright. But you did make a few mistakes.
1 Nobody said there were secret bunkers in afghanistan. There were, however, terrorists hiding in caves. BTW, we did find terrorists in the caves along with weapons caches.

2 Iraq wasn't invaded for oil. It was invaded for ideology. Bush wanted to democratize the middle east. It was a stupid move, but once we start such a thing we can't leave it unfinished. The ammount of money spent on Iraq, and the ammount we will have to spend in the future would make invading for oil a truly poor investment.

3 Al Quaeda are religious fanatics. They don't want to end oppression anywhere. They wanted to weaken and frighten the USA in order to remove support for the governments of Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia so that they could topple those governments and create a "pure" sunni muslim nation that could spread Islam to the rest of the world at the point of a gun, and use oil wealth to blackmail the world's economies. The US is doing the absolute right thing in rooting them out and killing them.

4 N. Korea will sell nuclear technology and weapons for hard currency. They already sell drugs and weapons to anyone who will buy them. Yes, most nations with a weapons industry sell them, including the USA, but we don't sell nuclear weapons. That's the difference. If we want to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism or nuclear war we must slow down proliferation. If it takes an attack on N. Korea, so be it. It will save more lives in the long run. They are building nukes for money, not out of fear.

5 Iran is an enemy of the USA. They have recruited terrorists to attack us before, and they are a sworn enemy of our ally, Israel. I don't want a state sponsor of terrorism to get nuclear weapons. I see preventing that by any means necessary as a reasonable way to avoid nuclear terrorism or nuclear war. They are building nukes to become a regional power, not out of fear.

Spain surrendered to the enemies? Do you see all Spanish women wearing Burkas? Well, you woudln't know because the TV channels you watch, don't show you anything that's going on outside your planet America (I bet you didn't notice what I did there, because you really do think America is its own planet, if not universe)

Spain only ceased to be America's servant in the war of aggression against the Iraqi people.
If Spain had a moral opposition to the war, they should never have joined up. They left out of fear. They left at a critical time when soldiers were needed to protect the Iraqi people from insurgents. Al Quaeda won that one because the Spanish showed their cowerdice.

I would definatly say you do not. Every day, every single day it is 'Another car bomb' or 'Another attacked killed so many in Iraq' and if it's not Iraq its Afghanistan. There are some parts of the country that America doesn't even have direct control of! You may have tanks on every street corner, but the fact you do shows America completely lacks what most of us would consider control. You can't control a country of 20 million? A few people are defeating a country of 300 million?

OH NO! Not Russia! Such a teribble threat! I won't be able to sleep tonight! The Economy is in chaos, the army is out of date, oh no! CHINA! Not a country which is more interested in trading with the West than destroying it?! Iran and North Korea, phew, I do worry about those.

Why do you think they have the weapons? Its to protect themselves from rampaging America! You just expect them to let you walk into their country and force them to be free? Well maybe they wanted to be Communist? Did you ever think of that? Did America ever think of what anyone else wanted apart from itself? Maybe there are terrorists against America is because America can't keep her fingers to herself. Always has to have a bigger slice of influence here, a little sip more of oil over there. Do you think America would have gone into Kuwait if it was just sand? Not sand and oil? The reason is America wants somewhere to bomb, take over or get something out of, and now its all because of 9/11. You think terrorism started then? Well wake up call! Its been going on for years, its just America doesn't care until it comes home. Maybe America would think differently if every city was destroyed, every 5th person killed, no town or now person left untouched. Europe learnt the hard way, I think America should take the oppertunity and learn the easy way.

Your post is so bullet ridden with Anti-American holes. Its hard to take seriously what you say. So I will take the option B. Dismiss everything. Really we already know about Europe. Remember we had to finish those two European wars. Have you studied military strategy or the reasons behind war over the centuries? If you in fact would you would answer some of your own arguements. Enough said..

Call me a tree hugger hippy.
OK Psylos, you are a "tree hugger hippy". :)

I also agree with you.

If Spain had a moral opposition to the war, they should never have joined up.
Spain did not want to join the War...It the treason of the Previous Gov that got them involved

Spain did not want to join the War...It the treason of the Previous Gov that got them involved
Is it even possible for a government to commit treason? I thought it was when one betrayed his country.

You shouldn't confuse the liberals Drunk Commie, things like this leads to usual name calling and ranting of the highest form. Instead you should nod your head, pick up the phone and call the nearest assylum for a free bed. It is after all the humane thing to do even if they are less than human.

*yes this flame bait :D

You shouldn't confuse the liberals Drunk Commie, things like this leads to usual name calling and ranting of the highest form. Instead you should nod your head, pick up the phone and call the nearest assylum for a free bed. It is after all the humane thing to do even if they are less than human.

*yes this flame bait :D
I'm a liberal.

Well why are you going to confuse your own idealogy partners? I mean come on asking what is true treason is like asking should you save a tree or the frog.

Well why are you going to confuse your own idealogy partners? I mean come on asking what is true treason is like asking should you save a tree or the frog.
split the difference and save a treefrog. See, liberals know how to compromise.

Excuse me, but who said the N. Koreans would sell nuclear weapons?

Now, take that answer, and tell me if they've been wrong in the past.

N. Korea is a legitment country with soverignty, we can't go around invading everybody who looks at us funny!

It would be like beating up every person you see looking tough in school because you thought they were going to key your car!

Well since we are all talking about space based weapons as of late. I found a cool link on some new US weapons. I personally like the rods from gods weapon. I can think of a few uses for this one myself.www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm)
Everyone has been trying to suggest ways to kill this space weapon system and it appears no one has come forward with the cheapest and perhaps best solution......

Since these weapons will be controlled remotely, they are relying on signals from earth?

Either jam the signals or hijack/hack the equipment? What say you tech wizards?

Hmmm, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the US were to pour billions/trillions of dollars into this weapons system, only to lose control of it to some kid hacking through their C&C network. A lot of red faces that day.

Hmmm, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the US were to pour billions/trillions of dollars into this weapons system, only to lose control of it to some kid hacking through their C&C network. A lot of red faces that day.
It would be worse if the weapons were turned back on their makers? That would be more than red faces?

I doubt that whoever is designing it would not fail to put in failsafes and arming code requirements. At a realistic level, I would suppose the best is that someone would manage to block the satelite from being operated as it was meant to.

hahaha, what if they used an MS operating system for the satelite?

I doubt that whoever is designing it would not fail to put in failsafes and arming code requirements. At a realistic level, I would suppose the best is that someone would manage to block the satelite from being operated as it was meant to.

hahaha, what if they used an MS operating system for the satelite?
Yes I can see it clearly now:

http://www.j-walk.com/ss/excel/odd/odd18.1.gif

:eek:

If you really wanted to make such devices efficient, build a moon base. Mine the lunar soil, extract the hydrogen for fuel, and use the other elements for construction.

These things come full circle, don't they? Anyone remember the days of fearing that the Soviets or the Americans would build nuclear missiles on the moon? Of course, once the Americans realized that no one else would be getting there anytime soon, they kind of lost interest. It is really only when they have competition that Americans run the weapons in space race. The more things change...

If you really wanted to make such devices efficient, build a moon base. Mine the lunar soil, extract the hydrogen for fuel, and use the other elements for construction.


It's illegal. The moon cannot be used for military purposes, as per international agreements which the US is a signatory to.

It's illegal. The moon cannot be used for military purposes, as per international agreements which the US is a signatory to.
Whahahaa. One born every minute.
It's obvious they can't do it then... if it's illegal and all... :)

Oh, I know the US has a record of sweeping aside international law whenever it doesn't suit them. I was just making a point. If ever they do it, be aware it's illegal.

Excuse me, but who said the N. Koreans would sell nuclear weapons?

Now, take that answer, and tell me if they've been wrong in the past.

N. Korea is a legitment country with soverignty, we can't go around invading everybody who looks at us funny!

It would be like beating up every person you see looking tough in school because you thought they were going to key your car!

N Koreans have a track record of selling nukes. Kim Jong Ill said it hismself if he wanted to sell them he would. If I find a apropriate link I will show you.

Also, everyone knows that USA is the schoolyard hero.

Here is a link of N Korea selling nuclear material. Although not the Dear Leaders quote I wanted.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1334121/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1334121/posts)

Third, this upsets the M.A.D. principle. The idea of that was, if various countries have the ability to mutually anihilate one another, there will never be a nuclear war. For example, if the US had tossed a few nukes at the Soviet Union and wiped out its major cities, Soviet nuclear submarines would have still been able to retaliate, even if there was virtually nothing left of the USSR, and anihilate the US in return. With this new space thing, the whole M.A.D. idea is compromised, making the world potentially a much more dangerous place for everyone...



That'd only work if this platform gave you capability to destroy all of the enemy's weapons systems, this being ballistic missiles in the case of the (former) U.S.S.R.; if you failed to hit (and destroy) them all, they would still be able to launch against you.

This would mean hitting all missile silos, land based mobile launchers and subs at sea, and to be honest I don't see how this supposed space based rod launcher would differ from existing conventional and nuclear means.

Also, I always understood the principle of mutually assured destruction went out the window in the mid 60's with the advent of MIRV's, which gave both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. the theoretical means to carry out a succesful first strike; fortunately for us all, nobody was ever crazy enough to try it.

This would mean hitting all missile silos, land based mobile launchers and subs at sea, and to be honest I don't see how this supposed space based rod launcher would differ from existing conventional and nuclear means.


The rod concept originated during the Reagan years as "Thor's Hammer". It then sat on a shelf collecting dust.

The main advantage it would have is response time. It takes hours for a
Stealth bomber to go to the other side of the world, and it takes a cruise missile hours to fly somewhere. However, recent advances in the SBIRS-Low program allow discrete all-weather imaging of ground targets and other satellites operating with it give a capability nearly as great as the JSTARS aircraft.

This means that from some room in the Pentagon, some analyst can see and possibly identify targets from space, and then, with a response time of less than 20 minutes, deliver a precision strike to a target as small as a vehicle. Or lots of vehicles - you could theoretically destroy an entire army or navy during one cup of coffee.

You might also be interested in the Space Based Laser program, which is murmuring along. Although it would probably work against missiles (its original design target), it has been suggested that it be used to hit individual people. The mirror used to focus the beam is larger than the mirror on the Hubble and is made for near infrared spectra - it shouldn't be difficult to see people on the ground, and depending on the slant angle, positively identify them.

It might suddenly become very dangerous for a person to, say, speak at a rally of his insurgents in some remote camp in West Bumrumpistan. He might get vaporized in front of his followers, while absolutely no one else is hurt.

You realize that all this will mean is that the rest of the world will simply start putting weapons in orbit? I imagine a high orbit satelite with multiple launch ports would be able to fire on a great many targets. Yes, you could shoot it down, but earth currently has a lot of junk in high earth orbit. How will you tell junk from the real deal? And even then, why not disguise it as junk? Lets see, shrouds, various stages of rocket systems, dead satelites. Its the needle in the haystack problem.

Except this needle is a bit more dangerous.

Well since we are all talking about space based weapons as of late. I found a cool link on some new US weapons. I personally like the rods from gods weapon. I can think of a few uses for this one myself.www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm)


That resturaunt bombing killed civilians, injured others, and did damage to all the houses around it and you're jumping with joy over it! You really need a reality check, especially since we don't really need a 2000 lbs bomb to kill ONE guy, they're called assassins :mp5: , or snipers :sniper: . Those work better, and don't ruin innocent lives in the process.

If Spain had a moral opposition to the war, they should never have joined up. They left out of fear. They left at a critical time when soldiers were needed to protect the Iraqi people from insurgents. Al Quaeda won that one because the Spanish showed their cowerdice.

You're still not getting it are you? The population of Spain was against the war when it started. Unfortunately, since they don't have elections every day, they could only kick that Aznar guy out of office in 2004, allowing the new government to pull its troops out of Iraq. Of course I cannot PROVE to you, that the people of Spain would have voted for Aznar without the bombings, but can you prove to me that it's not insurgents who are needed to protect the Iraqi people from the Americans?

I'm not going into your retarded comment of calling the Spanish cowards.

Mass driver. Lovely.

The fact remains that you're flinging a thirty-five tonne stack (20x1 foot (6x0.35m) cylinder of tungsten) at something at around twelve thousand feet (thirty-seven-hundred meters) per second...

Now I hate to bust anyone's bubble, but something weighing thirty-five thousand kilos traveling at thirtyseven hundred meters per second will have about two-hundred-thirty BILLION joules of energy. And that much energy doesn't come from nowhere. I'm not saying it couldn't be readied and launched. I am saying it would be hideously expensive.



The Earth's mass is probably doing the bulk of the heavy lifting(with regards to the final velocity of the tungten rod), so it wont be as expensive as you are thinking

Indeed...

And has anyone stopped to wonder what's the *point* of these fancy space toys? If a country can already destroy the world several times over, why does it need to go wasting all this money (much needed elsewhere) on something so useless?

Secondly, if it's so damn powerful, then you're talking about horrendous collateral damage. Hit the intended target and kill a few hundred thousand innocent people in the vicinity. Very nice...

Third, this upsets the M.A.D. principle. The idea of that was, if various countries have the ability to mutually anihilate one another, there will never be a nuclear war. For example, if the US had tossed a few nukes at the Soviet Union and wiped out its major cities, Soviet nuclear submarines would have still been able to retaliate, even if there was virtually nothing left of the USSR, and anihilate the US in return. With this new space thing, the whole M.A.D. idea is compromised, making the world potentially a much more dangerous place for everyone...

It strikes me as very funny that so many people complain about weapon systems that might defeat M.A.D. these days. I remember growing up and people always talking about how crazy M.A.D. was. I wonder if they are the same/same type of people. You know, the ones that constantly whine and are fearfull.

during Reagan: Liberals..M.A.D., what a stupid concept. Whats the use of blowing up the world a 1000 times over

Post cold war: Liberals...get rid of ABM? Space based weapons?? are you crazy, that will defeat the whole purpose of M.A.D.

I am not making any claim as to what political stripe you are or are not Ariddia.

Space, the final place we haven't quite fucked up enough. These are the voyages of the United States of America, whose 250 year and counting mission - to explore strange new areas of militarism, to seek out new and better ways to indulge our paranoia and gung-ho-ness at the expense of people around the world, to boldly go where no reasonable nation has ever gone before, then promptly go further.

Starring
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Condoleeza Rice
and
51% of American citizens

I pray to God, or whatever is up there to protect the rest of the world in this new and disturbing century. Maybe when the radioactive dust clears the 1% remaining alive will understand how wrong they were.

Everyone has been trying to suggest ways to kill this space weapon system and it appears no one has come forward with the cheapest and perhaps best solution......

Since these weapons will be controlled remotely, they are relying on signals from earth?

Either jam the signals or hijack/hack the equipment? What say you tech wizards?

I would say you dont understand the concept between LOS military communication

Yes, launch these weapons at a nuclear capable nation, and dont expect to be nuked first. Don't expect people to sympathise with those who were hit with the rods, assuming it was before any WMD were used.

You realize that all this will mean is that the rest of the world will simply start putting weapons in orbit? I imagine a high orbit satelite with multiple launch ports would be able to fire on a great many targets. Yes, you could shoot it down, but earth currently has a lot of junk in high earth orbit. How will you tell junk from the real deal? And even then, why not disguise it as junk? Lets see, shrouds, various stages of rocket systems, dead satelites. Its the needle in the haystack problem.

Except this needle is a bit more dangerous.

Nobody is really so worried about those countries that can put stuff into orbit. The fear comes from countries/people who havent figured out deodorant yet have somehow managed to amass chem/nuclear arms.

There is no reason developing space weapons, ICBMs and bombers do fine. The US as we know has always relied mainly on bombers(because of a large air force) while USSR(now Russia) made excellent ICBMs. I assume everyone here know of the Topol M, the most advanced ICBMs at this time. There are a couple to be deployed every year in Russia. It is supposed to be able to go through the US nuclear defences. I do not doubt that, the ABMs have always been overestimated. When will body armour be able to resist weapons? Defensive systems will always be breached by offensive.

Nuking or bombing North Korea would be devastating for US relations with Beijing. A nuke would most likely lead to immediate retaliation, if it harmed Chinese territory. The case of Iran would anger China and Russia, but mainly the Arab world. Space weapons are made up by the US military to make them sound like techmeisters.

Russia actually had space forces. I have not been able to find any real info, but I doubt they will be like in Moonraker. I suppose it is a fancy name for the Cosmonaut club.

The only space weapon that would be practical would be a laser system for knocking out enemy ICBMs. I doubt that is feasible in the near future.

When the next Bush enters the White House we might get to see a Death Star. After deciding to fire upon Osama's secret lair the President forgot that the gigant laser was made for planetkilling. Needless to say he lost all opposition. Together with his voters...

Nobody is really so worried about those countries that can put stuff into orbit. The fear comes from countries/people who havent figured out deodorant yet have somehow managed to amass chem/nuclear arms.

I should hope you dont mean france ^_^

glad to see this thread still alive :p

I guess space isn't neutral territory anymore.

Personally never thought it was.

You really think that an object being launched from a bomber (which can be shot down and takes a fair bit of time to get somewhere) and flying through not a few miles of atmosphere is going to be accurate to 25 feet? Please. In addition, please bear in mind that your enemies are not exclusively poor and unable to put up a fight, and that your oh-so-cocky armed forces will get the shock of their lives if and when they find themselves getting a drubbing.


I cant recall the last time a US Bomber had been shot down. And they can reach anywhere on the panet within a day-sooner if we decide to use a "friends" base.
Its not likely they'll be getting a "drubbing" anytime soon. You have the nerve to label someone else as "cocky", huh?

I've heard of this before....the question is, where?
And on the subject of 'spaced-based weaponry,' how many years do you think until we have an orbital fleet? :D

Nobody is really so worried about those countries that can put stuff into orbit. The fear comes from countries/people who havent figured out deodorant yet have somehow managed to amass chem/nuclear arms.

Funny, last I checked on this board, quite a few hawks seemed to be quite sure there would be a war between China and the US, or at least they seemed to be hoping for one. Complete with the usual "We'll trounce them all because we're the best" speak.

And while China's space program is rather a fledgling thing, they can put people and eventually satelites in space. Imagine the scaremongering the hawks will do with that later.

They couldn't come up with a better name than "rods from gods" ?

They couldn't come up with a better name than "rods from gods" ?

Could you? :p

Could you? :p

I'd have called it the "hypermegadoomsdaydeathdevice" or something. They make it sound like the title of a porn film

The phrase "Rods from Gods" makes me think of a low-budget gay porn film with the Greek gods featured.

Then again, that's probably my stunted and malformed sense of humour talking.
I like the way you think! :D

Oh, and you kill 'em all nuts can stomp all you want, but you wouldn't last a second in the United States military. When you join, your swearing to protect the United States from harm, to uphold the constitution and the ideals this country was founded on.

If you wipe out an entire city or two for good fun, see how long the military backs up your current adminstration.

Pre-emptive strikes blur the line, genocide clearly crosses it. The American military is not a heartless, soulless killing machine, it is a collection of extordinary responsible men and women who serve their country with a conscience. Which, unfortunetly, I don't see in the list of qualities of most of you.

Sincerely, Nikoko
United States Air Force Missile and Space Operations Apprentice. (undeployed)

P.S. How about a complete sentance for a topic next time, buddy?

Couple of quick items...

You mean to tell me that your in the Air Force and you've never heard of General Curtis Lemay or Cromedome? The USAF created the concept of first strike. It wasn't the military that had to reign in the administration in that case. It took Robert MacNamera explaining to Kennedy exactly what those wacky bastards in SAC had in mind for the WWIII playbook to bring Lemay and SAC's strategic doctrine in line with sanity.

Also, what the hell is a "Missile and Space Operations Apprentice"? What's the MOS code for that?

The American military is not a heartless, soulless killing machine, it is a collection of extordinary responsible men and women who serve their country with a conscience.
Very true, but I seriously doubt many of those on here will believe you.

I wonder how many schools, hospitals, roads, libraries, or years of social security budget those toys could have payed for. Talk about rogue and failed states...
Exactly! Don't forget to take 5% and spent it on foreign aid...

Space weapons are cool! Why would we need library books or new roads when we got a "LASER" in space.

Very true, but I seriously doubt many of those on here will believe you.

I don't. I've met quite a few american soldiers...All of them were wankers.

FEAR THIS Iran and N Korea and any other enemy of the US

I wondering if the Iranian and North Korean governments are reading this? If so, and we can assume they have spies everywhere, I bet they're crapping themselves right now. ;)

I should hope you dont mean france ^_^


Well, France is slightly different. They have figured oout deodorant, they just choose to not indulge.

Reminds me about the Command & Conquer Red Alert weapon used by the GDI => The ION Cannon.
That was Tiberian Dawn, not Red Alert.

There was no GDI in Red Alert.

Blah... Now we have space weapons too? Wow, honestly I thought Bill Gates was gonna end the world in a mad scheme for power... Guess America will be taken that place

Yeeay looks like The big USA is spending more taxpayers money for more ways to blow us all to pieces.

I cant believe how stupid the USA government really is.

I don't. I've met quite a few american soldiers...All of them were wankers.


I'm hardly surprised, considering they gave you the time of day.

Exactly! Don't forget to take 5% and spent it on foreign aid...


Yeah-the US should be hiring all these unemployed whining europeans.

This smacks of dishonor. Killing should be done by the soldier's hand. Either the rifle, or the cannon or the jet, where skill counts. Not from the cold of space. Makes me sick

Well since we are all talking about space based weapons as of late. I found a cool link on some new US weapons. I personally like the rods from gods weapon. I can think of a few uses for this one myself.www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm)
Rods from God has been aroiund since the 1960s. It's a good thought, but it is impractical. At least twenty of these sattelites would have to be placed in order to cover the world, and tlhey have an estimated cost of $2 billion each. ICBMs do the same job, only cheaper.

It would 'only' weigh in at 8 tons/18510.8 pounds/8414 kilograms. This would be a stupid weapon to build. It would take... a shuttle launch or something to get the rod up there. If my knowledge of physics is correct, that would mean another launch for the launcher. Thats two shuttle launches, which is kinda pricy. Plus if you use something of equal weight as a launcher, you need to have two shuttles for each shot. Kinda pricy.

Rods from God has been aroiund since the 1960s. It's a good thought, but it is impractical. At least twenty of these sattelites would have to be placed in order to cover the world, and tlhey have an estimated cost of $2 billion each. ICBMs do the same job, only cheaper.

ICBM's spread lots of radiation. Only thing spread by these things is our enemies guts everywhere.

Well, France is slightly different. They have figured oout deodorant, they just choose to not indulge.

never mind the fact that a lot of deodorant is actually designed&manufactured in France by Frnech people

Any type of nuclear weapon use by any nation would be countered with the same. That goes for US using them first. Which I dont think we would be crazy enough to do.

Which is why all this "hear us roar crap" directed at countries with nuclear weapons and/or on the verge of them is damned stupid.

Do you really want to play nuclear chicken with every country we manage to piss off?

You think Kim Il Jong is going to be particularly rational if you threaten him?

Which is why all this "hear us roar crap" directed at countries with nuclear weapons and/or on the verge of them is damned stupid.

Do you really want to play nuclear chicken with every country we manage to piss off?

You think Kim Il Jong is going to be particularly rational if you threaten him?

But the problem is. Do you let them build weapons and threaten you? So then what do you do? Its a catch 22. Very difficult situation to get out of without major bloodshed. I dont envy any president that has to deal with that type of situation.

I cant recall the last time a US Bomber had been shot down. And they can reach anywhere on the panet within a day-sooner if we decide to use a "friends" base.
Its not likely they'll be getting a "drubbing" anytime soon. You have the nerve to label someone else as "cocky", huh?


Those friends seem to be getting awful scarce lately. I wonder why. A hunch maybe.

Q: why are the rats leaving the ship? Surely it is not sinking - or are those big guns making it top-heavy?

What a beautiful metaphor....damn, I'm good :cool: