PDA

View Full Version : 23 Years Later ... Reagan Was Right



emboesso
6th October 07, 08:12 PM
Back in the 1980s, President Reagan was ridiculed for backing the so-called "Star Wars" missile defense system. When a few of Saddam's SCUDS got past Patriot Missile defenses in Israel during the Gulf War, the nay sayers tried to scuttle the program for good.

At the close of his second term, President Clinton finally caught onto the value of the work being done and boosted research funding.

Quietly, last week it was announced a working land-based system is now in place.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9146


Capable of protecting parts of North America from surprise attack, the U.S. finally realizes "Star Wars"

It took nearly 25 years, but President Reagan's vision of a ballistic missile defense to safeguard the U.S. has finally come to fruition. After a final successful test last week, the system's tracking radars and interceptor rockets are now ready for use and capable of responding to an unannounced attack on North America.


General Victor Renuart Jr., senior commander for defense of United States territory, said that while the system is still being upgraded with additional radars and interceptors, it can already guard the U.S. West Coast against a limited attack from Asia.


As more components come online in California and Alaska, the system will be able to protect larger areas from more complex attacks.

When first proposed, critics originally called the system "Star Wars" and derided "Ronnie Raygun's" scheme as scientifically impossible. Despite repeated criticism, research development that began shortly after Reagan's 1983 speech continued.


Early work focused on exotic beam weapons to knock out incoming missiles. But the development of ultra-high-speed electronics soon enabled the approach used today- - the EKV, or Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. The EKV collides directly with incoming missiles, using its own kinetic energy to destroy the target, an approach described as "hitting a bullet with another bullet."

Renuart claims the system, while operational, still has not received the military's claim of "fully operational." He claims in July 2006 parts of the system were tested as North Korea staged missile testing around that time.


Raytheon reported successful test interceptions on five separate occasions since October 1999.


The most recent test was held last Friday. A target missile was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, and tracked by radar at Beale Air Force Base, outside of Sacramento. The interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, near Santa Barbara, California, and scored a direct hit.

Shortly after the testing, Lieutenant General Henry Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said, "Does the system work? The answer is yes to that."

Plans for European expansion of the system call for missile interceptors in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic to defend against the threat of Middle Eastern ballistic missiles.

Once again, the nay sayers who said it couldn't be done are proven wrong. Money they would have wasted buying 108 inch plasma screen televisions "for the chillllldrennnnn!" has instead gone towards securing the nation against nuclear armed madmen around the world.

So there.

If you can remember the vitriol heaped on Reagan during those years, especially when he walked away from the negotiating table with Gorbachev in Iceland because he refused to negotiate away "Star Wars", only then can you appreciate what a vindication this is.

WarPhalange
6th October 07, 08:16 PM
Back in the 1980s, President Reagan was ridiculed for backing the so-called "Star Wars" missile defense system. When a few of Saddam's SCUDS got past Patriot Missile defenses in Israel during the Gulf War, the nay sayers tried to scuttle the program for good.

At the close of his second term, President Clinton finally caught onto the value of the work being done and boosted research funding.

Quietly, last week it was announced a working land-based system is now in place.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9146



Once again, the nay sayers who said it couldn't be done are proven wrong. Money they would have wasted buying health care for the children has instead gone towards distracting us from the fact that we are under no threat of anybody overtly bombing us, but instead from people smuggling weapons into the country, or better yet, using materials already in the country to kill us.

So there.

Also, since it's land-based, it would be called "Land Wars", which is a very boring name.

emboesso
6th October 07, 08:25 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DD103DF93AA25750C0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


In 1996, after some tension over Taiwan, a Chinese general reminded America that China possesses the means to incinerate Los Angeles with nuclear missiles

It is also worth noting how much has changed the past 23 years, and what can change in the next 23 years. This is by no means a bad thing to have.

Arhetton
6th October 07, 08:33 PM
hooray for skynet

WarPhalange
6th October 07, 08:55 PM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DD103DF93AA25750C0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all



It is also worth noting how much has changed the past 23 years, and what can change in the next 23 years. This is by no means a bad thing to have.

The only crazies that would launch any missles are the super religious ones who think they will go to Heaven for it. Not exactly China.

Name a few crazies who are in office. Besides W. Because even the craziest leader knows that his shit now is more important than any supposed virgin shit he can get in the afterlife. That's why he became a politician and not a preacher.

Even Kim Jong Il knows that he can't fuck with anybody because he wants to hold on to Korea. Saddam wouldn't have used any WMD's against us unless it was in self-defense, precisely because he was a greedy bastard and knew that if he were dead, he'd have nothing. Is this getting through to you?

As soon as ANYBODY launches a missle at us, the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD dies. Nobody is going to say "Har har! You launched a missle that we disabled before it got here! Better luck next time LOL!"

No. If anybody launches a nuclear missle at us, even if we stop it, it's still war. If it was a nuke and they have another, then we can't even invade because they were dumb enough to use it on us, they will use it on themsevles when we are there. Then allies come in. Boom. Everybody dies. I hope you go out last so you can see how fucking stupid your idea is.

NoMan
6th October 07, 09:58 PM
Raytheon reported successful test interceptions on five separate occasions since October 1999.

What horseshit. I was a Patriot Missile Technician (27X, reclassified to 35S), and this is typical government bull. Raytheon was developing the system called THAADS, (Theater High Altitude Area Defense System) with a contract clause that it would be able to shoot down at least 3 out of 13 missiles in the air. When we tested it, it had only hit two on indirect impact, (the promise was direct impact, an indirect impact on a nuke would still mean annihilation, it just wouldn't hit the center of the city, it would hit the periphery), out of 12 shots. What they mean by "successful test interceptions" is a highly ambiguous term, since they don't mean a 1-to-1 correlation, (one shot, one kill in military terms).

The military shut down the test to avoid filing a breach of contract against Raytheon. Whenever N. Korea developed the Taepodong-3 missile, the military listed the THAADS system as fully operational, even though all of them were sitting on Ft. Bliss. (The Radar freaking rocks though!)

The new system is nothing more than a revision of the HAWK/Nike/Hercules/Patriot/Thaads system. It's a ground-based system that shoots a missile up into the air to hit another missile. The "Star Wars" program of Reagan was a gigantic laser beam in the air that could shoot from outer space. The "Star Wars" program was scrapped after wasting much tax payer dollars after the military said that a ground-based system would be much more efficient than a space-based system.

Lo and behold, they invented another ground based system. There's only two notable differences here, the ability to go to such high altitudes and the ability to travel as fast as it does, (the other missiles go Mach VI, this one is supposed to go five times faster).

In brief, outside from the fact that they call it the "Star Wars" program, it has nothing in common with the system that Reagan wanted to develop, which was nothing more than a waste of money. The ground-based systems were made in response to the failure of the "Death Star" approach.

Second, it's the exact same damn thing we already have had for missile defense systems, made by the exact same damn company that's made all the other missile defense systems. The only difference between this and THAADS is the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, which seperates from the main weapon. The tracking system on the anti-missile systems is great, but the missiles never do a "hit-to-kill", they always detonate somewhere near the missile and just steer it off course. If the EKV actually does a "hit to kill" it would be a vast improvement over anything else we've ever had.

The reason the military overhypes these systems is to make our nuclear enemies think "If we shoot them with a nuke, they can intercept it and counter-strike us, and we can't intercept their missile!" Nonetheless, there's no general in the military dumb enough to actually test this out in for real, it's a cross your fingers and pray sort of deal if it actually came to this.

The nuke is a deterrent, a very evil deterrent.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
6th October 07, 10:05 PM
Here's the first problem with your thread:

The Star Wars defense system referred to Reagan's brilliant idea of putting lasers in space to fry nukes. That's it. And that is retarded. Anti-missile missiles aren't the same thing at all.

And THEN everything Poop Loops said.

Stick
7th October 07, 01:42 AM
Reagan's only vindication- and it's a good one- is that the Soviet Union no longer exists. Even then, his fans are apt to say Reagan "won" the Cold War; he did his part and happened to be the last man at bat (Bush Sr. did a victory lap for the team).

This isn't Star Wars, emboesso.

The Air Force's air-borne laser is a step in that direction though.

WarPhalange
7th October 07, 01:56 AM
It's not like Reagan single-handedly deUSSR'ed the USSR, either. A lot of it was due to it crumbling on itself.

Dagon Akujin
7th October 07, 02:50 AM
Why "Star Wars" is null and void. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1580595,00.html)




P.S. You have all of your facts wrong, yet again, emb. Back in the 80's, it wasn't that people thought Reagan was wrong. It's that they thought the program would be too expensive. Not that national deficits are important to the fiscally conservative, mind you.

Mas
7th October 07, 06:56 AM
Damn, came to this thread late and everything that needed to be said was said.

ICBMs as far as I am concerned are little more than relics of a bygone age.

They'll eventually just end up as some stuff that'll lie around for a few thousand years until future beleagured humans will use them one day.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9749/phoenix.gif

See?

Lu Tze
7th October 07, 08:20 AM
P.S. You have all of your facts wrong, yet again, emb. Back in the 80's, it wasn't that people thought Reagan was wrong. It's that they thought the program would be too expensive.That's not the whole story, although I'm sure U.S. citizens were concerned about the expense too. People weren't telling Reagan it was wrong because they thought it wouldn't work, they were telling him it was wrong because it would lead to an escalating arms race. Now America can pretty much nuke (or threaten to) with impunity, as a nation's nuclear shield is no longer an effective deterrent against this.

Honestly, I think this was developed with good intentions, and it's a great idea in terms of defence and strategy, but it's a really fucking bad idea geopolitically.

Cullion
7th October 07, 08:50 AM
You guys do understand that Star Wars was simply Reagan's strategy to bankrupt the USSR by engaging them in a massively expensive competition their economy couldn't sustain, right?

SFGOON
7th October 07, 08:59 AM
Between my degree and my service as a WMD officer I know a little bit about nukes.

That defense project is put in place because both China and Russia are sponsoring the nuclear development of rouge states, and with modern computing power it is easier than ever to make an ICBM that is MIRV capable. Both nuclear technology and delivery systems have been proliferated to the extent that some form of shield is required if the US is to remain a military hegemon. Without it, we could face a rapid defeat at the hands of Iran, Venezuela, or Lesotho. There is a small concern about non-state actors as well, should such technology fall into the wrong hands.

Oh, and if you're concerned about the accuracy of the missile, I suspect it will be equipped with a sub miniature nuke, maybe a 2-5 ton yield. If that's the case, missing by several hundred feet less of a concern.

Poop Loops should look into two classes at the UW taught by Professor Chris Jones, International Law and Arms Control and Technology of WMD. If you take the latter you get treated to a lecture from myself on 4th Generation Chemical Weapons.

NoMan
7th October 07, 10:21 AM
That defense project is put in place because both China and Russia are sponsoring the nuclear development of rouge states, and with modern computing power it is easier than ever to make an ICBM that is MIRV capable. Both nuclear technology and delivery systems have been proliferated to the extent that some form of shield is required if the US is to remain a military hegemon. Without it, we could face a rapid defeat at the hands of Iran, Venezuela, or Lesotho. There is a small concern about non-state actors as well, should such technology fall into the wrong hands.

I can't imagine any country actually wanting to risk nuclear war. Any country with a nuke turns into a Cold War actor with us, it's why we wouldn't provoke Russia into open conflict. From all security briefings I've been to or seen, the U.S. is more worried about dirty bombs because it only takes one nut job rather than a State agency.

Shawarma
7th October 07, 10:37 AM
Wonderful, now you've secured yourself against a weapon that went out of style nearly 20 years ago. Kudos.

Now, what are you gonna do against attacks that might actually OCCUR, such as a nuke being smuggled across the Mexican/Canadian border or placed in the hold of a small boat and sailed into a major port?

Poor Emboesso. He's so hell-bent on proving his great hero right that he can't see the antinuke system for what it is: An atrocious waste of his tax money that could be spent on USEFUL security measures.

WarPhalange
7th October 07, 11:03 AM
Poop Loops should look into two classes at the UW taught by Professor Chris Jones, International Law and Arms Control and Technology of WMD. If you take the latter you get treated to a lecture from myself on 4th Generation Chemical Weapons.

Do you lecture every quarter that the class is taught? That would be cool. I'll take it if it fits my schedule, and actually counts towards credits that I still need.

Cullion
7th October 07, 11:17 AM
BWithout it, we could face a rapid defeat at the hands of Iran, Venezuela, or Lesotho. There is a small concern about non-state actors as well, should such technology fall into the wrong hands.

Wouldn't the concern with 'non-state actors' be more about them just crossing your unguarded southern border whilst infected with some multi-day incubation biological weapon, or just assembling a nuclear device in some apartment in NYC rather than going to the trouble of developing a missile?

I can't really see the need for a sophisticated guided missile when anybody can just bypass US port and airport security and bring in the parts/infected suicide agents they need via an extremely porous land border.

Cullion
7th October 07, 11:28 AM
Come to think of it, that would do it for a lot of states too. Just need to find a few suicide agents willing to infect themselves with something highly contagious, high mortality rate and about a week's incubation time, then have each of them arrive in a different major city and spend as much time as possible on public transport, hanging around busy travel hubs etc..

I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

Shawarma
7th October 07, 11:48 AM
Because the only people who seriously want to destroy the US are understaffed and underfunded political groups who also happen to be utter retards. If anyone who mattered seriously wanted to destroy the US, it would be a pile of rubble. As would the nation where the offending party happened to live.

SFGOON
7th October 07, 11:52 AM
We have a robust defense against the smuggling of fissile materials that I cannot discuss. Suffice to say that it causes me little concern, and the same goes for "dirty bombs," the paranoid pundit's weapon of mass disruption.

The delivery system itself is not "out of style." North Korea recently developed the Taepo-Dong 3, which is capable of hitting the western US seaboard. They did Japan the courtesy of launching one on a trajectory over their island. China is modernizing it's delivery systems as well, who knows what they've pilfered from US labs and reverse engineered. Russia is also rebuilding it's stockpiles of ICBM with MIRV warheads. Russia is also a seedbed for despotism and fascism, and I dread the departure of Vladimir Putin.

I lecture when Professor Jones invites me, which is about every other year and is generally at the end of the quarter. I'm not as "studly" as some of the Battelle scientists and/or diplomats who guest lecture.

SFGOON
7th October 07, 11:54 AM
Also, Cullion, the scenario you discussed may have already occurred. SARS is widely suspected of being a Chinese biological weapon that underwent a test release. It was more robust than they had suspected - perhaps someone in Taipei misplaced a decimal point.

Cullion
7th October 07, 12:08 PM
SARS had a pretty low lethality rate (about 20% IIRC). AIUI There are smallpox variants that are 60-80% fatal and take a week or so during which they are contagious but symptoms have not yet presented.

I don't worry much about doomsday military scenarios, but the thought of some 80% fatal highly contagious disease sweeping the country with no way of preventing it entering the country or detecting it in time for quarantine to work has got to rank up there.

Shawarma
7th October 07, 12:08 PM
Come one. Any nation-state launching any kind of large-scale attack on the US would be obliterated in seconds. None of them would risk this. MAD works.

Cullion
7th October 07, 12:10 PM
Come one. Any nation-state launching any kind of large-scale attack on the US would be obliterated in seconds. None of them would risk this. MAD works.

If you use biological weapons delivered by infected carriers there's every chance they won't find out who did it if you don't announce it.

Shawarma
7th October 07, 12:11 PM
I'm talking about ICBMs.

Cullion
7th October 07, 12:13 PM
I know. I'm just pointing out that mass destruction of a country's economy and population doesn't need ICBMs.

Stick
7th October 07, 12:49 PM
God I hate WMDs.

jvjim
7th October 07, 01:15 PM
"Star Wars" served its purpose exactly as it was mentioned earlier, to proved that the US's "here's what we'll buy" economic model trumps the USSR's "here's what you'll build" model when you make the two face off on a large enough scale. I don't know anything about long range ballistics, or any ballistics for that matter, so like most laymen I leave all the missile defense whachamawhozit to physicists, technicians, and 65 year-old Congressmen who don't know how to check their email..... Maybe the Soviets were on to something. (Notice: This post does not reflect the actual sentiments of the author. jvjim fully and wholeheartedly supports his government and its human President.)

Olorin
7th October 07, 02:11 PM
You guys do understand that Star Wars was simply Reagan's strategy to bankrupt the USSR by engaging them in a massively expensive competition their economy couldn't sustain, right?

The entire Cold War military buildup since Eisenhower's New Look program was designed to force the Soviet Union to focus their economy on military expenditures at the expense of consumer goods. Also Reagan never intended to build Star Wars, it was a threat. The intention was to show the technical sophistication of the United States military in relation to the Soviet Union. The Soviets were scared to death that we might build it. Much like the space race, Star Wars was propaganda aimed at the allies of the two superpowers and the Third World.

Then as today the system does not have to actually work well, or at all. It still has a deterrent effect as no one in their right mind would try to test it. It also serves well as old school power politics.

.

WarPhalange
7th October 07, 03:33 PM
Then as today the system does not have to actually work well, or at all. It still has a deterrent effect as no one in their right mind would try to test it. It also serves well as old school power politics.


I love this part. You are somehow assuming that people in their right mind would launch nukes at us if we didn't have a cardboard anti-nuke box to protect us.

People who would launch nukes at us without any protection will still do so if we do have it.

Shawarma
7th October 07, 04:46 PM
Nice point - counterpoint between Olorin and Loops. Loops has the better argument, though.

Sun Wukong
7th October 07, 05:16 PM
Also, Cullion, the scenario you discussed may have already occurred. SARS is widely suspected of being a Chinese biological weapon that underwent a test release. It was more robust than they had suspected - perhaps someone in Taipei misplaced a decimal point.
You can't be serious? Have you any idea how many people live in China that have absolutely no access, understanding of, or extremely limited access to western medicine? SARS was the natural by-product of a huge amount of people living together in tightly packed spaces with an enormous amount of misunderstanding about the nature of illnesses.

The last time I was in Beijing I got sick for a few weeks; when I asked them to go down to pick up some cold medicine they went down to a "pharmacy" and brought back this giant bag of herbal cures and 'holistic' medicine that of course didn't do me a damn bit of good. When I told them I wanted western medicine they just assumed it was because I was ignorant of chinese medicine, but they humored me anyway. They had to take a taxi all the way down to the central market street in the largest tourist district just to buy fucking nyquil.

Chinese medicine is one part common sense, stay warm, avoid cold weather when you're sick, drink alot of water, stay at home, stay in bed, etc and one part total bullshit taken from the I-Ching. It's like a giant industry built around placebo effects that most of the population has more faith in than taking a fucking tylenol (which even my well educated wife refuses to take); basically most of china solely relies on their own immune system to fight of all illnesses while putting out germs like a maniac all over everything.

Basically what I'm getting at, is communicable illnesses like SARS aren't a specifically designed biological weapon, but the natural consequence of so many people, living with so little medical care, living in tightly packed heavily polluted cities.

Cullion
7th October 07, 05:22 PM
Yeah, SARS was pretty ineffectual for a bio-weapon. Also LOL at SFGOON for thinking that satellite and border-based radiation detectors are a robust defence against fissile materials entering the US. Two words 'lead casing' ;)

Kein Haar
7th October 07, 05:31 PM
Makes me wonder about a nuclear suicide bomber who:

#1. Simply detonates something right at the lawful border gates of México
#2. During the cluster, drive another one into all the first responders
#3. Send a thrid to drive by all the dead first responders and detonate one in San Diego

Being secret is such a pain.

Sun Wukong
7th October 07, 05:35 PM
Olorin is completely right here, basically the cold war consisted of the US smacking the USSR in the face repeatedly with our technologically far superior military penile extensions. By the time it was all over, our submarines were so superior to their russian counterpoints we were able to and did simultaneously stalk almost every active patrolling USSR nuclear sub and pinged ALL of them in the same day.

We were so far ahead of them in the arms race it the only way they had of winning any kind of war was if it involved our infantry against "General Winter" or nuclear weaponry. The movie "Red Dawn" was SOOOO far off the mark it transcends ludicrousy; the thought that they could amass any kind of invasion in the 80's without us immediately identifying it and tearing it apart isn't even a possibility.

WarPhalange
7th October 07, 05:36 PM
The first responders will be the military. I doubt you could drive into them before they could notice you. You should give it a go anyway, though.

I think you could skip straight to #3, though.

Yiktin Voxbane
8th October 07, 01:36 AM
Graham Masterton wrote in 1983 about an almost bloodless takeover of Amerikaztan (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Graham-Masterton---Plague-Book-rare-1983_W0QQitemZ130159947732QQcmdZViewItem)

Olorin
8th October 07, 01:42 AM
You are somehow assuming that people in their right mind would launch nukes at us if we didn't have a cardboard anti-nuke box to protect us.

It not about actual nuclear warfare it is about power politics. A shield, working or otherwise, gives us added political leverage to act diplomatically. The point of nuclear weapons is not to use them, it is to have them, and make people think you might use them. An actual nuclear exchange would not allow a nation to use war as an extension of politics, but the position of nuclear weapons does allow a nation to use the threat and fear of such weapons as a tool of power politics. Bluff or otherwise, a shield takes it one step further by negating a nations ability to use their limited nuclear weapons to do the same. The mistake I think you are making is in thinking this is about actual nuclear war...it is not.


By the time it was all over, our submarines were so superior to their Russian counterpoints we were able to and did simultaneously stalk almost every active patrolling USSR nuclear sub and pinged ALL of them in the same day.

True, the Soviet subs were so loud that we could hear them running hundreds of miles away.


The movie "Red Dawn" was SOOOO far off the mark it transcends ludicrousy; the thought that they could amass any kind of invasion in the 80's without us immediately identifying it and tearing it apart isn't even a possibility.

To say nothing of the logistics of supplying an army across the ocean and launching an invasion of the continental United States.

Oh and one more thing...

Wolverines!!!

http://meekmok.com/muaddib/images/blog/wolverines.jpg

Olorin
8th October 07, 03:11 AM
I like Reagan.

He like you too.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/05/2007-05Reagan.png

If he could have just gotten him to mate with Margret Thatcher he would have had a conservative leader to rule the world, much like how Cobra made Serpentor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentor)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a170/mrskoz/w-thatcher.jpg

DAYoung
8th October 07, 03:34 AM
Their love-child.

http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Bakunin/bakunin5.jpg

Olorin
8th October 07, 03:47 AM
Booo...Their spawn would not be an anarchist.

.

DAYoung
8th October 07, 04:03 AM
It's the logical consequence.

Sun Wukong
8th October 07, 04:19 AM
Come to think of it, that would do it for a lot of states too. Just need to find a few suicide agents willing to infect themselves with something highly contagious, high mortality rate and about a week's incubation time, then have each of them arrive in a different major city and spend as much time as possible on public transport, hanging around busy travel hubs etc..

I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

Ok, this I know a little about. There are huge logistical problems with this plan. The 1st and foremost is... which illness exactly would be the one to do the job? The kind of diseases that would actually cause wide spread disease, suffering, and is highly contagious to infect most everyone it comes into contact with just by being in near proximity to someone afflicted are mostly fictional.

The ones that are that contagious, aren't really deadly on a significant scale. The ones that are highly deadly, are usually spread only when there is a large amount of the virus or bacteria in whatever delivery media it uses and thus aren't easily passed without very intimate contact with the illness. You pretty much have to make direct contact with it for it be dangerous... ie, there isn't enough available media to incubate enough to be dangerous to more than a few people in a modern country.

Cullion
8th October 07, 05:21 AM
Ok, this I know a little about. There are huge logistical problems with this plan. The 1st and foremost is... which illness exactly would be the one to do the job? The kind of diseases that would actually cause wide spread disease, suffering, and is highly contagious to infect most everyone it comes into contact with just by being in near proximity to someone afflicted are mostly fictional.

The ones that are that contagious, aren't really deadly on a significant scale. The ones that are highly deadly, are usually spread only when there is a large amount of the virus or bacteria in whatever delivery media it uses and thus aren't easily passed without very intimate contact with the illness. You pretty much have to make direct contact with it for it be dangerous... ie, there isn't enough available media to incubate enough to be dangerous to more than a few people in a modern country.

There's always a danger with mutated or genetically engineered flu. The global flu pandemic of the early 20th century killed more people than WWII IIRC. There's a single-gene modification of smallpox that makes it 80% fatal.

Wounded Ronin
9th October 07, 10:53 PM
It really frustrates me how some people seem to irrationally like Reagan to the point of needing to "vindicate" him over, of all things, Star Wars. Why can't people just accept the Vietnam War and not need Reagan to make them feel personally empowered again?

Tom Kagan
10th October 07, 12:20 PM
This is by no means a bad thing to have.


If it's a waste of money which could otherwise be better spent bolstering defenses more effectively via other means, then by every means this is a bad thing to have.

Cullion
10th October 07, 12:31 PM
It's the logical consequence.

No, not really. Reagan and Thatcher weren't free market fundamentalists any more than your average moderate democratic socialist is a hardline commie.

Their views on Monetary theory weren't particularly pro-free market at all, for one.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 02:53 PM
No, not really. Reagan and Thatcher weren't free market fundamentalists any more than your average moderate democratic socialist is a hardline commie.

Their views on Monetary theory weren't particularly pro-free market at all, for one.

*tries to slap the LULZ into Cullion*

Cullion
10th October 07, 03:23 PM
*tries to slap the LULZ into Cullion*

Pairing my Margaret up with other men, particularly taller, wealthier american men on the Internet is no joking matter Iago.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 04:19 PM
Pairing my Margaret up with other men, particularly taller, wealthier american men on the Internet is no joking matter Iago.

Too late, Herzog.

Cullion
10th October 07, 04:39 PM
You always try and change the subject when economics comes up. It's your blindspot. I can help you.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 04:46 PM
You always try and change the subject when economics comes up. It's your blindspot. I can help you.

Heh.

I'm fine with political economy...

*cough*

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 04:50 PM
You always try and change the subject when economics comes up. It's your blindspot. I can help you.

It's not a blind spot, it's a virtue. He's a philosopher. He has transcended beyond your earthly materialistic views.

Cullion
10th October 07, 04:52 PM
No he hasn't, he just doesn't understand numbers and stuff and is embarrassed about it.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 05:00 PM
No he hasn't, he just doesn't understand numbers and stuff and is embarrassed about it.

You're right - I haven't studied economics. Political economy is another thing entirely, but economic mathematics is something I've little grasp of.

But I'm not embarrassed about it (it takes a great deal to embarrass me).

It's just that, beyond the basics, I've little to contribute besides lulz.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:03 PM
If you want to understand societies, you have to understand how they organise their day to day activities, feed themselves and pay for their grand projects and wars.

You're perfectly capable of this. You probably just had a dull teacher at some critical juncture.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 05:08 PM
If you want to understand societies, you have to understand how they organise their day to day activities, feed themselves and pay for their grand projects and wars.

You're perfectly capable of this. You probably just had a dull teacher at some critical juncture.

Er. I agree. But I'm not sure the specifics of contemporary economic theory (e.g. "numbers and stuff") is necessary for this.

For example, an understanding of 'how [societies] organise their day to day activities, feed themselves and pay for their grand projects and wars' could be gleaned from something like Samir Amin's work.

I'm not saying I shouldn't understand economics - I should. I'm suggesting you haven't given a particularly compelling argument here.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:45 PM
When you say it's not compelling, did I fail by not making it sound interesting enough, or not useful enough ? (probably both I guess).

One thing I will point out is that without textbook, reasonably neutral, study of the meaning of various economic terms is that you will have no framework by which to appraise or critique the truth of the writing of somebody like Amin.

I've changed my mind several times about my views on economics, but I'm surer and simultaneously more refined in my views since I got a textbook definition of what a central bank interest rate really was and the mechanics of how it was enforced in the UK, for example.

On a practical note, this knowledge has benefited my family and I in real life.

Wounded Ronin
10th October 07, 05:56 PM
Reagan: (to his wife, Nancy, after being shot during an assassination attempt) Honey, I forgot to duck.

He is a real man. Kennedy didn't say anything witty to his wife after he was shot.

HIS HEAD IS OFF! -- Sensible Erection RPG

NoMan
10th October 07, 09:36 PM
The last time I was in Beijing I got sick for a few weeks; when I asked them to go down to pick up some cold medicine they went down to a "pharmacy" and brought back this giant bag of herbal cures and 'holistic' medicine that of course didn't do me a damn bit of good. When I told them I wanted western medicine they just assumed it was because I was ignorant of chinese medicine, but they humored me anyway. They had to take a taxi all the way down to the central market street in the largest tourist district just to buy fucking nyquil.

Chinese medicine is one part common sense, stay warm, avoid cold weather when you're sick, drink alot of water, stay at home, stay in bed, etc and one part total bullshit taken from the I-Ching. It's like a giant industry built around placebo effects that most of the population has more faith in than taking a fucking tylenol (which even my well educated wife refuses to take); basically most of china solely relies on their own immune system to fight of all illnesses while putting out germs like a maniac all over everything.

I have a teacher from Taiwan who teaches theater. She was explaining how Chinese medicine works. More aptly, she couldn't explain it, but she had great faith in it. There's a funny episode of B.S. where they let a guy explain the energy spheres and he just rambles out this explanation that meant nothing, but it was a worthy attempt at throwing a lot of words together.

DAYoung
11th October 07, 12:49 AM
When you say it's not compelling, did I fail by not making it sound interesting enough, or not useful enough ? (probably both I guess).

To my mind, your description was a little broad - it didn't specify the particular contribution of 'economic science' (as opposed to other frameworks for studying the organisation and exchange of societies).

I think you're right, but not for the reasons you gave.


One thing I will point out is that without textbook, reasonably neutral, study of the meaning of various economic terms is that you will have no framework by which to appraise or critique the truth of the writing of somebody like Amin.

I've changed my mind several times about my views on economics, but I'm surer and simultaneously more refined in my views since I got a textbook definition of what a central bank interest rate really was and the mechanics of how it was enforced in the UK, for example.

On a practical note, this knowledge has benefited my family and I in real life.

Sure.

I'm familiar with significant theories of the historical and contemporary organisation of society, in terms of polity and economy. I taught an Honours-level course in globalisation theory, which entailed some illuminating discussions of economic trends and forces.

But I've no doubt that I could benefit from a closer study of 'pure' economics.

Quikfeet509
11th October 07, 01:27 AM
I have a teacher from Taiwan who teaches theater. She was explaining how Chinese medicine works. More aptly, she couldn't explain it, but she had great faith in it. There's a funny episode of B.S. where they let a guy explain the energy spheres and he just rambles out this explanation that meant nothing, but it was a worthy attempt at throwing a lot of words together.


Energy spheres have nothing to do with how acupuncture and/or Chinese herbal medicine work.



Everyone seems to throw out a "some Chinese person said" argument. Perhaps it is a new logical fallacy. Just because some Chinese person with a beard says, "blah blah blah" does not make it accurate, and conversely, just because some Chinese person cannot explain how Chinese medicine works does not invalidate the multitude of modalities that comprise it. Hell, when I was in China I had a respected Chinese doctor tell me to not stand in front of the air conditioner because I might get a "wind cold".

I simply smiled and moved away from the AC since it was hardly the time or the place to explain that the entire system of TCM utilizes diagnoses such as "wind cold" that were named in that manner because the symptoms resembled [to the ancient Chinese] the elements of wind [pain that moves around, abrupt onset] and cold [pain better with warmth, lack of diaphoresis], rather than illness is actually caused by WIND AND COLD.

socratic
15th October 07, 03:46 AM
Reagan: (to his wife, Nancy, after being shot during an assassination attempt) Honey, I forgot to duck.

He is a real man. Kennedy didn't say anything witty to his wife after he was shot.

I heard he said "Is somebody hurt?" before losing conciousness, but I could have sworn all he did was gush a torrent of blood from his head.

Sun Wukong
15th October 07, 06:11 AM
yeah, he was shot in the head. that'll fuck with your ability to assess the situation. Reagan was shot in the ass. It takes a real man to get shot in the head.

Shawarma
15th October 07, 07:08 AM
HIS HEAD IS OFF! -- Sensible Erection RPG
Hey, thought I was the only one dorky enough to have played that. I thought it ruled!

ironlurker
16th October 07, 03:18 PM
Just because some Chinese person with a beard says, "blah blah blah" does not make it accurate

oh shit! (hurriedly re-edits papers) that'll teach me not to use jstor

DAYoung
16th October 07, 04:19 PM
oh shit! (hurriedly re-edits papers) that'll teach me not to use jstor

It's OK. He hasn't transliterated 'blah' properly.

patfromlogan
16th October 07, 11:48 PM
Reagan was an asshole and murderer, read this and I'll read this thread.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13213&highlight=reagan

Dagon Akujin
17th October 07, 01:42 AM
Reagan was an asshole and murderer, read this and I'll read this thread.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13213&highlight=reagan

You want us to read a 226 post thread so that you'll read a 72 post thread?

Why don't you give us the main points or a succinct rundown.

Dagon

P.S. You win for including XTC lyrics though.

Teh El Macho
17th October 07, 10:53 AM
It's not a blind spot, it's a virtue. He's a philosopher. He has transcended beyond your earthly materialistic views.Is he Buddha???

Teh El Macho
17th October 07, 10:57 AM
You want us to read a 226 post thread so that you'll read a 72 post thread?

Why don't you give us the main points or a succinct rundown.

Dagon

P.S. You win for including XTC lyrics though.I'm glad those type of threads no longer occur in bs.net

ICY
17th October 07, 03:54 PM
Reagan's policies are bearing fruit, he has accomplished what Hitler never could, a fascist state in Russia.

Sun Wukong
17th October 07, 04:01 PM
Reagan's policies are bearing fruit, he has accomplished what Hitler never could, a fascist state in Russia.
And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids and that pesky dog!



http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/192262942_564d810191.jpg

WarPhalange
17th October 07, 06:27 PM
Take that down before the 4channers see it!

TM
18th October 07, 12:48 PM
Reagon was probably the biggest traiter this nation has ever seen.

WarPhalange
18th October 07, 04:56 PM
You mean until now?

Teh El Macho
19th October 07, 07:10 AM
Reagon was probably the biggest traiter this nation has ever seen.Timoty McVeigh, move over.

Commodore Pipes
19th October 07, 11:36 AM
http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/reagansmash5on2dp.jpg

Riddeck
19th October 07, 12:58 PM
Timoty McVeigh, move over.

Except Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag terrorist attack.

Sun Wukong
19th October 07, 06:00 PM
At least you're dependable. Seriously, you ought to consider changing your avatar to dale gribble.

Cullion
19th October 07, 06:05 PM
Riddeck, you'd get to fuck a nicer class of woman if you'd just drop this UFO talk. I promise

Sun Wukong
19th October 07, 06:08 PM
No, the UFO thing will get him chicks as long as he is willing to convert to $cientology.

Shawarma
19th October 07, 06:37 PM
I dunno, crazy conspiracy chicks might be fantastic lays.

EuropIan
19th October 07, 07:13 PM
*cough*
So...
How does this fit into the Current Administration's WE OWN SPACE policy?

Defending vs. nukes is fine. When will we get to the good stuff?

I want orbital ion-cannons. Nukes are boring.

Skynet ftw.

Cullion
20th October 07, 06:44 AM
There's still work going on regarding various beam weapons in the US. Blinding each other's spy satellite cameras with intense laser is likely to be the first use. China already has such a weapon based on the ground.

Sun Wukong
20th October 07, 06:54 AM
I doubt it works very well. I'm just saying, it's really hard to believe boasts from the Chinese gov't. Most of them are statements of propaganda, and if they had a working weapon, they probably wouldn't talk about it at all.

Cullion
20th October 07, 07:04 AM
I doubt it works very well. I'm just saying, it's really hard to believe boasts from the Chinese gov't. Most of them are statements of propaganda, and if they had a working weapon, they probably wouldn't talk about it at all.

The first I heard about it came via the US govt in a british paper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/26/wchina226.xml

From the article.


According to senior American officials: "China not only has the capability, but has exercised it." American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack "several times" in recent years.

Cullion
20th October 07, 07:08 AM
Being a combat astronaut would be awesome.

Sun Wukong
20th October 07, 07:19 AM
Well, they say, "came under attack" but what they really mean to say is, were blinded by a bright light while spying on them. I don't really believe much of what the US says either, especially in regard to 'hostility' from china. honestly, china's not about to get hostile with the us, they want their trade status.

Cullion
20th October 07, 07:21 AM
Well, they say, "came under attack" but what they really mean to say is, were blinded by a bright light while spying on them.

That's what the weapon is supposed to do. They just want the capability to stop the US watching what they're up to when your satellites fly overhead.

Cullion
20th October 07, 07:31 AM
I agree that China has no ambitions to invade america. They might not want you watching what they're up to if you're crazy enough to invade Iran and they decide they're going to supply the Iranians with weaponry.

TM
20th October 07, 11:27 AM
You mean until now?

I stand corrected.

Sun Wukong
20th October 07, 03:47 PM
well, i'm fairly sure the US is protective of it's military installations. I don't see why china shouldn't be as well. Just because you don't like being spied on, doesn't mean you have anything to hide.

Cullion
21st October 07, 12:47 PM
Today it's a bright light that makes your satellites wince and squint. Tomorrow it'll be a communist mind control ray that makes your children smoke marijuana and burn the flag.

Sun Wukong
21st October 07, 04:51 PM
my in-laws are red chinese and were educated by mao's revolutionary army at qing hua university.... Dear god... the ray is already working!

Cullion
21st October 07, 04:56 PM
my in-laws are red chinese and were educated by mao's revolutionary army at qing hua university.... Dear god... the ray is already working!

I knew that the moment I read your posts in the various other political/environmental threads.

I can help you, but you have to relax and let me do my job.

patfromlogan
21st October 07, 11:02 PM
I'm glad those type of threads no longer occur in bs.net

Hey man, I got to be friends with great people like Vargas in those threads.

Being a 12 year old child who's daddy (Chief Navy MAAG in Saigon) was fired for telling the truth about Vietnam (like Shinseki, White and dozens of other Generals screwed by Bushco) wised me up young.

As John Fogerty put it:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, theyre red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,


And that IS great news about the fucking Chinese... Fellow asswipes. The CP leadership should clone with Cheney and Wolfowitz and create a race of pure shit.

Dagon Akujin
22nd October 07, 12:42 AM
Timoty McVeigh, move over.Except Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag terrorist attack.
I remember that day and news orginazations saying Muslims were the ones who were responsible. Now, I don't know if it was a false flag, but I definitely remember wondering what happened to all the "terrorist Arabs" that were a part of the news and then never talked about again.

P.S. Anthrax?

TM
22nd October 07, 11:20 AM
Oh yeah, the good stuff from the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

ICY
22nd October 07, 03:30 PM
God Bless You, patfromlogan.