hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2511 of 2653 FirstFirst ... 151120112411246125012508250925102511251225132514252125612611 ... LastLast
Results 50,201 to 50,220 of 53059

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #50201
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    The more likely scenario is that NASA will get militarized.
    but they only tells us what the government want us to know! space for will be exclusively run by Trump himself!

  2. #50202
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    3,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    The more likely scenario is that NASA will get militarized.
    No. The most likely scenario is that all all units of various branches that currently handle "space" would be merged into a single organization. So they get new uniforms and maybe a new office being built for them in DC.

  3. #50203
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,263
    Quote Originally Posted by dzajic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    The more likely scenario is that NASA will get militarized.
    No. The most likely scenario is that all all units of various branches that currently handle "space" would be merged into a single organization. So they get new uniforms and maybe a new office being built for them in DC.
    Only the Air Force has units dealing with space afaik. So at most you would be taking units from one branch and place them in a new branch.

    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  4. #50204
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  5. #50205
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?
    "The outer space treaty was a bad deal."

    inb4 resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests

  6. #50206
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,629
    Rods from God happening status: soon

  7. #50207
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,919
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Rods from God happening status: soon
    I literally just got to the end of Deathworlders like 5 minutes ago, need more chapters! Might actually give some money to patreon for the first time ever.

  8. #50208
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,731
    My rod from god is already happening mate
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  9. #50209
    thebomby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    7,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    My rod from god is already happening mate
    you kinky fuck
    Будь смиренным, будь кротким, не заботься о тленном
    Власти, данной Богом, сынок, будь навеки верным...
    Я люблю Росcию, я - патриот

  10. #50210
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,263
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Rods from God happening status: soon
    They are already legal.

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  11. #50211
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,296
    is the technical term not KKV (Kinetic kill vehicle) ?
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  12. #50212

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    6,084
    US should also have a failed military coup attempt like turkey, that would spice the old orange up!

  13. #50213
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,296
    Quote Originally Posted by depili View Post
    US should also have a failed military coup attempt like turkey, that would spice the old orange up!
    uhm...
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  14. #50214
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    is the technical term not KKV (Kinetic kill vehicle) ?
    RFG is better imo

  15. #50215
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?
    "The outer space treaty was a bad deal."

    inb4 resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests
    Kinetic bombardment is presumptively legal under the OST.

    No nukes in space, but conventional weapons are, at least on the face of the treaty and in the opinion of most scholars, allowed.

    This is what allows ASAT weapons. And remember that Russian space station with the rifle.

    I mean we’re about to have an heavy lift capacity, unmatched by anyone else in the world. Not even close. Putting rods up is one way to make use of that capacity, and rods meet the “Prompt global strike” requirement perfectly.

    I’d really only be comfortable with it, from a political perspective, if matched with a drawdown of our nuclear stockpiles. Rods > nukes for pretty much any legitimate military objective.

  16. #50216
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    is the technical term not KKV (Kinetic kill vehicle) ?

    That’s an ASAT weapon, not an orbital bombardment weapon.

  17. #50217

    Join Date
    April 9, 2012
    Location
    Pit of depravity
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?
    "The outer space treaty was a bad deal."

    inb4 resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests
    Kinetic bombardment is presumptively legal under the OST.

    No nukes in space, but conventional weapons are, at least on the face of the treaty and in the opinion of most scholars, allowed.

    This is what allows ASAT weapons. And remember that Russian space station with the rifle.

    I mean we’re about to have an heavy lift capacity, unmatched by anyone else in the world. Not even close. Putting rods up is one way to make use of that capacity, and rods meet the “Prompt global strike” requirement perfectly.

    I’d really only be comfortable with it, from a political perspective, if matched with a drawdown of our nuclear stockpiles. Rods > nukes for pretty much any legitimate military objective.
    What sized rod would be needed to have a similar effect on military targets as a nuke? it does seem like an incredibly obvious use of the US space capability.

  18. #50218
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?
    "The outer space treaty was a bad deal."

    inb4 resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests
    Kinetic bombardment is presumptively legal under the OST.

    No nukes in space, but conventional weapons are, at least on the face of the treaty and in the opinion of most scholars, allowed.

    This is what allows ASAT weapons. And remember that Russian space station with the rifle.

    I mean we’re about to have an heavy lift capacity, unmatched by anyone else in the world. Not even close. Putting rods up is one way to make use of that capacity, and rods meet the “Prompt global strike” requirement perfectly.

    I’d really only be comfortable with it, from a political perspective, if matched with a drawdown of our nuclear stockpiles. Rods > nukes for pretty much any legitimate military objective.
    What sized rod would be needed to have a similar effect on military targets as a nuke? it does seem like an incredibly obvious use of the US space capability.

    Nukes are still nukes. For such an effect you need a small asteroid, and it seems as bad use of resources lifting that much mass into orbit. If im ot mistaken Rods in space would be more like Cruisemissiles but with less mass needed and no payload and ofc global range.

  19. #50219
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    is the technical term not KKV (Kinetic kill vehicle) ?

    That’s an ASAT weapon, not an orbital bombardment weapon.
    we're talking about dropping multi-ton objects down the gravity well right ? because the antisattelite stuff is usually called KEI, or Kinetic Energy Interceptor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?
    "The outer space treaty was a bad deal."

    inb4 resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests
    Kinetic bombardment is presumptively legal under the OST.

    No nukes in space, but conventional weapons are, at least on the face of the treaty and in the opinion of most scholars, allowed.

    This is what allows ASAT weapons. And remember that Russian space station with the rifle.

    I mean we’re about to have an heavy lift capacity, unmatched by anyone else in the world. Not even close. Putting rods up is one way to make use of that capacity, and rods meet the “Prompt global strike” requirement perfectly.

    I’d really only be comfortable with it, from a political perspective, if matched with a drawdown of our nuclear stockpiles. Rods > nukes for pretty much any legitimate military objective.
    What sized rod would be needed to have a similar effect on military targets as a nuke? it does seem like an incredibly obvious use of the US space capability.

    Nukes are still nukes. For such an effect you need a small asteroid, and it seems as bad use of resources lifting that much mass into orbit. If im ot mistaken Rods in space would be more like Cruisemissiles but with less mass needed and no payload and ofc global range.
    half the point is to make the suckers in space and boost them on their way down the gravity well if at all possible.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  20. #50220
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    I thought the Outer Space Treaty actually banned military use of space, but it only limits placement of military bases on the moon etc and placement of weapons of mass destruction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_...ty?wprov=sfla1

    Tapapapatalk
    Yeah, sure. But why do you think Trump's America would care?
    "The outer space treaty was a bad deal."

    inb4 resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests
    Kinetic bombardment is presumptively legal under the OST.

    No nukes in space, but conventional weapons are, at least on the face of the treaty and in the opinion of most scholars, allowed.

    This is what allows ASAT weapons. And remember that Russian space station with the rifle.

    I mean we’re about to have an heavy lift capacity, unmatched by anyone else in the world. Not even close. Putting rods up is one way to make use of that capacity, and rods meet the “Prompt global strike” requirement perfectly.

    I’d really only be comfortable with it, from a political perspective, if matched with a drawdown of our nuclear stockpiles. Rods > nukes for pretty much any legitimate military objective.
    What sized rod would be needed to have a similar effect on military targets as a nuke? it does seem like an incredibly obvious use of the US space capability.

    Nukes are still nukes. For such an effect you need a small asteroid, and it seems as bad use of resources lifting that much mass into orbit. If im ot mistaken Rods in space would be more like Cruisemissiles but with less mass needed and no payload and ofc global range.
    11.5 tons of TNT for a 9 ton impactor is the Project Thor spec from the 50s. Ofc, they never tested it.
    meh

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •