Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

OT - Why no war.

Started by Sergio Servadio · · Last activity · 131 posts · 6,016 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
31 March 2003
Last activity
18 April 2003
Original author
Sergio Servadio
Posts
131
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
6,016
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 131
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Gary Smiley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    George Carlin once did a comedy bit about how guns were like [censored], and how troops had to have
    bigger "[censored]" than the enemy. So I'm sure you're just salivating over this cannon. But it's
    April Fool's day now, so you can tell me anything you want. You can tell me that the moon is
    made out of green cheese, or that we're in this war to protect "freedom". But


    this

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    cannon thing is the most outrageous piece of [censored] I have ever heard. It's never been made,
    it's never going to be made, but if it ever does


    get

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    made, well then you can call me stupid. Until then I'll just chalk it up as an April Fool's Day
    rant on your part.


    Its never been made, but Hussein was serious about trying to make it. It


    was

    Quoted message said:

    on 60 Minutes, among other shows. Don't think it got past a bunch of


    pieces

    Quoted message said:

    cast for the barrel.

    Don't see why it can't be done. OTOH, I wouldn't volunteer to be anywhere near the first attempt
    to fire it. Something tells me snap shots wouldn't


    be

    Quoted message said:

    the order of the day either. So what it would accomplish that rocketry couldn't do better (other
    than a lack of projectile signature and hard to intercept - except that everyone knows where the
    cannon is and blows it up instead), I can't figure out.

    The supergun was once supposed to be a cheaper alternative to a long-range missile program. In
    truth, it's obsolete technology - long since superceded by even cheaper and more flexible
    alternatives like hijacked airliners, "dirty" bombs and bio/chem. Martyrs cost a lot less than
    satellite arrays and inertial guidance systems...

    SB

  2. In rec.bicycles.racing KBH said:
    Quoted message said:

    the problem I have with this statement is that 'American hegemony' was

    Quoted message said:

    necessitated by the existence of the truly imperial USSR.

    I guess the USSR forced James Monroe's hand when he issued that Doctrine. The USSR was also
    behind Manefest Destiny...

    Quoted message said:

    The US of A is the greatest force of good the world has ever seen. Would you rather have seen the
    USSR as the only remaining superpower? Those of you complaining about American hegemony (equating
    Manifest Destiny to imperialsim?) are either far right isolationists (doubtful) or American hating
    liberals. I too believe we are involved in far too many countries. But when our national security
    is at stake, I do not apologize.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm going to end my participation in this discussion. Once in a rare while I delve into one of
    these discussions for fun and to sharpen my reasoning skills, but then I realize I'm sharpening my
    knife with peanut butter.

    Yes, based upon the above, I'd agree, you are sharpening your wits/knife with peanut butter.

    Quoted message said:

    I'd rather be riding my bike.

    I hope you ride it better than the anti-american rant above...

  3. KBH said:

    At least your Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has a clue... "We should be conscious of the
    superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread
    prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and
    religion....This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic countries."

    Despite that sounds as a veritable translation into English of what Prime Minister Berlusca once
    said, let me advise you to follow the news more closely. For your better knowledge, I mean.

    Soon after, he maintained he had been misquoted and misunderstood, his words misused by opposing
    politicians. He denied what you so happily remember, and he even apologized to the middle-eastern
    community. Whether he was truly honest is nothing we would debate, at present.

    For your own record: I hold him at very low esteem. I am fortunate enough to have been briefed about
    Prime Minister Berlusca by an uncle of mine, a civil engineer who worked for him many years ago at
    the time he was involved in very successful, and no wonder lucrative, development plans in the
    greater Milano area. My late uncle, Remo Servadio, has always been a very honest person and
    scrupulous engineer: in conflict with His own high standards He felt the urge to resign, and so he
    lost the job.

    Just to let you know.

    Sergio Pisa

  4. Quoted message said:

    You're correct in making an important connection between education and Democracy but your criticism
    is misplaced. Previous to the first Gulf War the literacy rate in Iraq was


    over

    Quoted message said:

    90% for men and women. Iran has an exceptionally high standard of


    education.

    How can you be eductated when your government controls every bit of information that is "taught" to
    its youth? In this sense, I wasn't referring to education as literacy, but knowledge of the world
    around you as seen by someone besides your government.

    Quoted message said:

    Your judgment of the Arab "work ethic" or sense of entitlement is laughable. How is it that you are
    in a position to judge this. I'm certain, from my contacts with people from the middle east that
    the average worker there is equally if not moreso motivated than the


    average

    Quoted message said:

    American.

    Work ethic was the wrong choice of words, and this isn't about race (the Muslim world consists of
    several races last time I checked) - I'm referring to the poison that is socialism, and the
    resulting lack of understanding of how a free market operates that must prevail in these countries.
    This is hard to overcome.

    Quoted message said:

    As for speaking the language of power, tell that to the guys dropping most of the bombs. There are
    millions of people in the middle


    east

    Quoted message said:

    who hunger for Democracy. Maybe they'll get it if we (read America) stop stacking the deck against
    them by supporting dictators and corrupt


    regimes.

    OK then, I have an idea, lets start by getting rid of Sadaam Hussein?

    And just to set the record straight, it wasn't me who suggested that a "benevolent dictatorship" is
    ideal for these countries. I was just elaborating on that thought. I think democracy and capitalism
    can take hold, but it will take several years of US involvement liek it did in Japan and Germany.

  5. Curtis L. Russell said:

    Its never been made, but Hussein was serious about trying to make it. It was on 60 Minutes, among
    other shows. Don't think it got past a bunch of pieces cast for the barrel.

    Gerard Bull, the designer of the so-called "Iraqi Supergun" was shot in Belgium som years ago. The
    Belgians pinned it on Mossad and I think it forms the basis for one of several "war crimes/crimes
    against humanity" lawsuits currently before the Belgian courts.

    As I recall, the long precision barrel arrangement was to run up a sand dune and even had more
    flexible targeting options than a rail-gun type arrangement.

    Subsequent British military investigations ended up identifying several precision manufacturing
    firms who had, in some cases unwittingly, fabricated parts for this weapon.

    (This probably fits rec.bicycles.tech better than RBR) STF

  6. Can we go back to bicycles now?

    --
    Andrew Muzi yellowjersey.orgyellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

  7. Tom Kunich said:

    We also know that he was building a super cannon and perhaps what you don't know is that cannon
    could have been capable of shooting a shell entirely around the world. The expert he was using had
    a 'normal' cannon in his front yard on the border between Montreal and the USA. He was quoted as
    saying that he couldn't reveal the range of that particular cannon but that he could easily hit
    Mexico City. That's roughly 4,000 miles and a super version of such a cannon would give him the
    power of an ICBM with a far smaller chance for intercepting the weapon.

    You've been listening to fairy tales told to you by bad men, Tom. Your grasp of physics is weak, and
    your understanding of the engineering principles is weaker. Most suspicious of all is your
    willingness to believe hogwash just because it supports the reprihensible actions of your
    government.

    If a gun such as you describe were technically feasible, what makes you think that ballistic
    missiles costing tens of millions of dollars would be constructed to accomplish the same job? Guns
    are much cheaper than rockets, you know, especially on a per-shot basis. But you can't shoot
    something into orbit. (Did you know that? I guess not.) And no gun can shoot a projectile any faster
    than the combustion velocity of its propellant. Which isn't even close to the many km/sec that the
    fictional cannon you describe would require.

    I'm in the space launch research business, Tom. If it were feasible to shoot things into space from
    a gun, I'd be building guns to send materials to orbital altitudes. But my colleagues and I are not
    doing that, even though we took a long hard look at the most advanced technology available (which
    I'm not even at liberty to describe).

    Why do you so dearly want to believe that your "president's" declared motives are honest that you
    will overlook hard facts? If it smells like [censored], it's probably [censored]. If it looks like mass
    murder, it's most likely mass murder. And if the appearance of corruption and deceit is present, you
    can bet it's at least as corrupt and deceitful as it seems.

    Your unelected leader's [censored] smacks of corruption, deceit, and mass murder.

    Chalo Colina

  8. KBH said:

    Name a country the the imperial US has colonized?

    Off the top of my head--

    Puerto Rico Cuba Guatemala El Salvador Panama Colombia Chile Congo (Zaire) Liberia Libya Palestine
    Indonesia Samoa Philippines Hawaii portions of Mexico and Canada

    I am sure that I have overlooked lots, since I don't have a particularly thorough knowledge of U.S.
    conquests.

    You'll note that of the nations I mentioned, not all were officially annexed to U.S. territory. But
    that does not mean that they were not subject to colonial aggression.

    Take Congo, for instance. When the Belgians granted self rule to what had been their colony, there
    were elections which resulted in Patrice Lumumba being elected president. The US executive
    administration decided that this leader, who was devoted to the idea of the resources of the Congo
    being used for the benefit of the people of the Congo, constituted-- get this-- a threat to the
    national security of the United States. They had him assassinated and a more obsequious ruler
    installed. That man's name was Joseph Mobutu, AKA Mobutu Sese Seko, and he was one of the cruelest
    and most treacherous kleptocrats of the 20th century. But he did cooperate with US business
    interests, and he kept his people from developing any regional power.

    You should bone up on your history. Your government is not among the ranks of good guys if you
    bother to examine the record.

    Chalo Colina

  9. Bluto said:

    cheaper than rockets, you know, especially on a per-shot basis. But you can't shoot something into
    orbit. (Did you know that? I guess not.) And no gun can shoot a projectile any faster than the

    What was reputed to be the first object (the United States put) into orbit? A manhole cover. Go
    search for Operation Plumbbob, Pascal-B test.
    nuketesting.enviroweb.orgPlumbob.html

    Quoted message said:

    combustion velocity of its propellant. Which isn't even close to the many km/sec that the
    fictional cannon you describe would require.

    I'm in the space launch research business, Tom. If it were feasible to shoot things into space
    from a gun, I'd be building guns to send materials to orbital altitudes. But my colleagues and I
    are not doing that, even though we took a long hard look at the most advanced technology available
    (which I'm not even at liberty to describe).

    Bull demonstrated a gun in 1967 that could put a 185 lb payload to an altitude of 180km. The range
    claimed for his Babylon "supergun" was 1000km for a 600kg projectile or a 2000kg _rocket-assisted_
    projectile into orbit. I don't think even he claimed being able to put a payload direct to orbit.
    (Even then, inert payloads like bombs or missiles can handle a bit more violent
    acceleration...sustained acceleration of 6-7G from a railgun, no thanks.)

    Matrix-Churchill was the British manufacturing firm that "unwittingly" got caught up in the
    precision manufacture of parts for this gun.

    Probably not a definitive reference, but most of the facts reported on this link jibe with what I
    remember being reported at the time: fas.orgsupergun.htm STF

  10. What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?

    To name a few:

    All of eastern Europe, oh wait, all of Europe Japan South Korea etc...

    "Bluto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    KBH said:

    Name a country the the imperial US has colonized?

    Off the top of my head--

    Puerto Rico Cuba Guatemala El Salvador Panama Colombia Chile Congo (Zaire) Liberia Libya Palestine
    Indonesia Samoa Philippines Hawaii portions of Mexico and Canada

    I am sure that I have overlooked lots, since I don't have a particularly thorough knowledge of
    U.S. conquests.

    You'll note that of the nations I mentioned, not all were officially annexed to U.S. territory.
    But that does not mean that they were not subject to colonial aggression.

    Take Congo, for instance. When the Belgians granted self rule to what had been their colony, there
    were elections which resulted in Patrice Lumumba being elected president. The US executive
    administration decided that this leader, who was devoted to the idea of the resources of the Congo
    being used for the benefit of the people of the Congo, constituted-- get this-- a threat to the
    national security of the United States. They had him assassinated and a more obsequious ruler
    installed. That man's name was Joseph Mobutu, AKA Mobutu Sese Seko, and he was one of the cruelest
    and most treacherous kleptocrats of the 20th century. But he did cooperate with US business
    interests, and he kept his people from developing any regional power.

    You should bone up on your history. Your government is not among the ranks of good guys if you
    bother to examine the record.

    Chalo Colina

  11. Second this one.

    "A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Can we go back to bicycles now?

    --
    Andrew Muzi yellowjersey.orgyellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

  12. Robert Strickland said:

    "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Without getting into the rest of your assumptions, there's been plenty of press on the supergun
    program; you really might pay more attention to the world you live in. In the US, PBS even did a
    Frontline show on them and their Canadian inventor, Gerald Bull. He died, let's say, a less than
    natural death. Have a peek at:

    fas.orgsupergun.htm


    According to the article you linked to:

    "The superguns were potentially capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to a
    range of up to 1,000 km."

    Potentially capable of up to 1,000 km is hardly even close to hitting Mexico City from Montreal or,
    as Tom claimed, shooting a shell around the world. Current ballistic missile technology is clearly,
    vastly superior to the dreaded Supergun.

    I have no idea about any plans for an Iraqi "supergun" but do know that they've been considered for
    putting material in space. And let's not forget the classic 'From the Earth to the Moon' by O. Wells
    (always wondered about that acceleration force though...). ;-)

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

  13. "KBH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?

    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

  14. "Nuoc Mam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?

    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

    Quoted message said:


    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

    You mean like this?

    Vietnam, 25 years later: Vietnamese immigrants underscore hardship of adjustment Monday, April 24,
    2000 By Bob Batz Jr., Post-Gazette Staff Writer On and around the 25th anniversary of the fall of
    Saigon this Sunday, Thu Xuan Vo and his friends ask that their fellow Americans remember a few
    things. One is that before the Vietnam War ended in 1975, there were hardly any Vietnamese
    immigrants living in the United States. After the communists won the war and took over the country,
    hundreds of thousands came to this country, but not as most other immigrants have. Almost every one
    of them came as a refugee.
    ------------------
    Vietnamese in America gather for Marian Days celebration By OSCAR AVILA - The Kansas City Star Date:
    08/11/00 22:15 CARTHAGE, Mo. -- Dien Nguyen could not find peace in Vietnam, even after the war
    ended, even after his family's meals were no longer interrupted by explosions and dashes for
    shelter. The victorious Communists made it impossible for Nguyen to profess his Catholic faith
    without fear of punishment. From 1980 to 1997, the Vietnamese population in America quadrupled to
    more than 1 million. The numbers also are growing in Missouri -- the 1990 census estimated 3,870
    Vietnamese statewide, 25th highest in the nation.

  15. "Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Nuoc Mam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?

    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

    Quoted message said:


    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

    You mean like this?

    Vietnam, 25 years later: Vietnamese immigrants underscore hardship of adjustment Monday, April 24,
    2000 By Bob Batz Jr., Post-Gazette Staff Writer On and around the 25th anniversary of the fall of
    Saigon this Sunday, Thu Xuan Vo and his friends ask that their fellow Americans remember a few
    things. One is that before the Vietnam War ended in 1975, there were hardly any Vietnamese
    immigrants living in the United States. After the communists


    won

    Quoted message said:

    the war and took over the country, hundreds of thousands came to this country, but not as most
    other immigrants have. Almost every one of them came as a refugee.
    ------------------

    That illustrates the stark difference between the way the 2 nations see that conflict.

    To us, it was about a worldwide political struggle (communism), to them it was about eliminating
    foreign influence in their internal affairs (nationalism).

  16. "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

    >
    In 1975 we freed our country from yours.

    Tho Nguyen

    You mean like this?

    Vietnam, 25 years later: Vietnamese immigrants underscore hardship of adjustment Monday, April
    24, 2000 By Bob Batz Jr., Post-Gazette Staff Writer On and around the 25th anniversary of the
    fall of Saigon this Sunday,


    Thu

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Xuan Vo and his friends ask that their fellow Americans remember a few things. One is that
    before the Vietnam War ended in 1975, there were hardly any Vietnamese immigrants living in the
    United States. After the communists


    won

    Quoted message said:

    the war and took over the country, hundreds of thousands came to this country, but not as most
    other immigrants have. Almost every one of them came as a refugee.
    ------------------

    That illustrates the stark difference between the way the 2 nations see


    that

    Quoted message said:

    conflict.

    To us, it was about a worldwide political struggle (communism), to them it was about eliminating
    foreign influence in their internal affairs (nationalism).

    Agreed, and your analysis is appreciated, but the US departure from Vietnam was but only one foreign
    influence, and not the only one.

    Carl Who is not exactly clear on when the influence of the French in Vietnam became negligible

  17. [email hidden] (Bluto) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    KBH said:

    Name a country the the imperial US has colonized?

    Off the top of my head--

    Puerto Rico Cuba Guatemala El Salvador Panama Colombia Chile Congo (Zaire) Liberia Libya Palestine
    Indonesia Samoa Philippines Hawaii portions of Mexico and Canada

    Well, at least you got Hawaii correct. Otherwise you'd have been a total failure. I suspect you have
    never bothered to look up the word "colonize".

  18. Quoted message said:

    Who is not exactly clear on when the influence of the French in Vietnam became negligible

    Found it.

    www.askasia.org

    The French in Vietnam

    Background Information Perhaps the most important fact about Vietnamese history has been the
    consistency of organized resistance to foreign domination. When the French, in the mid-19th century,
    established tentative control over the southernmost provinces of Vietnam (which they called Cochin
    China), Vietnamese government officials ("mandarins"😉 withdrew and refused to serve them. When the
    French expanded to central and northern Vietnam (Annam and Tonkin), they were met by a forceful
    resistance movement led by the educated elite of the country, who mobilized peasants to fight the
    French in pitched battles and guerrilla raids. Even after Emperor Ham Nghi -- in whose name the
    Vietnamese struggled -- was captured and exiled to Algeria in 1888, the movement continued.
    Ultimately, sheer military force enabled the French to subdue the land, if not the people.

    By the turn of the century, Vietnam was "secure" enough for the French to begin to exploit its
    resources. Politically, the country was administered by French nationals, with the assistance of
    Vietnamese at low-level, low-paying jobs. State monopolies on the production and sale of alcohol and
    salt were imposed, raising the price of both beyond what many Vietnamese could afford. A state
    monopoly on opium was also established, ensuring large profits for foreign distributors.

    Huge tracts of land in southern Vietnam were turned over to French settlers and Vietnamese
    collaborators. The resulting plantation system of agriculture transformed southern Vietnam into a
    rice exporting area, while per capita rice consumption in Vietnam itself declined. Taxes of every
    kind multiplied.

    Mines and rubber plantations were opened with the help of contract workers who could be fined and
    jailed if they tried to leave their jobs. Educational opportunities for the population actually
    declined during the period of French rule (except briefly during World War II), and legal political
    participation by Vietnamese was limited and strictly controlled. Protest movements were re- pressed
    by force, driving many Vietnamese -- including the future president of the Democratic Republic of
    Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh -- into hiding and exile.

    Known for a long time as Nguyen Ai Quoc (Nguyen the Patriot), Ho organized nationalistic young women
    and men into a League for Vietnamese Independence (abbreviated in Vietnamese as Viet Minh) in 1941.
    Although Ho was himself a Communist, indeed a founding member of the French Communist Party, he
    insisted that independence could only be achieved through the united efforts of Vietnamese of all
    classes and political persuasions.

    During World War II, Vietnam was governed by not one but two foreign powers -- Japan, which
    exercised overall control, and the Vichy French government, which had surrendered to Germany in
    1940. The Viet Minh worked behind Japanese lines, supplying information on Japanese troop movements
    to America's O.S.S. (Office of Strategic Services), helping downed American flyers escape to China,
    and -- having received some arms and supplies from the 0. S. S. -- building a small guerrilla force.

    In March 1945, Japan ousted the Vichy French and assumed direct rule over Vietnam; the Viet Minh
    stepped up their anti-Japanese activities. By the time Japan surrendered to the United States, in
    August 1945, it represented the strongest political force in Vietnam. On September 2, 1945, using
    the words of the American Declaration of Independence, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed Vietnam a free and
    independent country. His hope was that his wartime allies would restrain the French from attempting
    to dominate Vietnam ever again. Instead, the British, in the south, and the Nationalist Chinese, in
    the north, enabled the French to return. Within a year, the Viet Minh was once more fighting for the
    independence of Vietnam against the French.

    Although the United States disapproved of French tactics, the desire to support its European ally,
    combined with a growing concern over Communist power in Asia, led first President Truman and then
    President Eisenhower into close cooperation with the French war effort. By 1954, when the Geneva
    Conference brought a temporary end to fighting in Vietnam, the United States was paying over 75
    percent of the French war costs.

    Despite the Viet Minh's massive victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu, the United States tried to
    persuade the French to keep fighting. The Eisenhower administration even considered the direct use
    of U.S. military force, including combat troops and nuclear weapons. Neither the British nor the
    U.S. Congress was enthusiastic, however. Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles ultimately
    acknowledged the Geneva Agreements, which divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, a temporary
    demarcation line meant to separate French and Viet Minh forces until elections scheduled for 1956.
    Ho Chi Minh firmly controlled the area north of the line, while the area south of the 17th parallel
    was put in the hands of the conservative nationalist Ngo Dinh Diem. It was hoped that the nationwide
    elections scheduled for 1956 would lead to national reunification.

  19. [email hidden] (Jon Isaacs) wrote in

    (me)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    And no gun can shoot a projectile any faster than the combustion velocity of its propellant.
    Which isn't even close to the many km/sec that the fictional cannon you describe would require.

    Actually my guess is that the gun is question is a two stage gas gun.

    The gun consists of a first stage which is powder, a piston, and the second stage which is a
    tube/barrel filled with hydrogen.

    The projectile then sits in the barrel on the other side of a burst diaphram.

    That's a basic description of the concept which my company looked at and rejected. Theoretically it
    delivers performance that nobody has been able to deliver in practice, even with the multi-stage
    systems we considered.

    I have been present on several occasions at discussions of this matter with the man who is at least
    this country's foremost authority on these devices, and he was unable to convince my organization
    that our research efforts would be well-spent in trying to refine the technology for the purposes of
    delivery to low earth orbit-- assuming from the outset, or course, that a circularizing rocket burn
    would be part of the system.

    If a gun were capable of delivering the level of performance required to work as Tom K. described,
    or even the level of performance you seem to indicate, then such a device would render obsolete many
    rockets used up to the present day in applications where only a rocket will
    mf. At millions of bucks a shot, it's not hard to beat rockets on cost. The turnaround time for
    rockets is none too quick either. It's the performance of rocket-driven vehicles that can't be
    reached by guns or anything else to date.

    Otherwise we'd be sending compressed gases, water, etc. to the ISS via cannon-fired projectile,
    using rocket-only vehicles just for fragile payloads. And countries that did not have the resources
    to support ballistic-missile systems would still be able to maintain strategic weaponry. Neither of
    these are the case.

    When somebody in an experimental facility actually fires an actual projectile the sort of distance
    that scares bozos like Mr. Kunich, then there may be some cause to discuss means of controlling the
    spread of that technology. Until that time, such discussion will remain exclusively limited to a
    context of public disinformation and social engineering.

    Chalo Colina

  20. KBH said:

    What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?

    To name a few:

    All of eastern Europe, oh wait, all of Europe Japan South Korea etc...

    If the people of the USA can be trusted to do their own resistance to tyranny, then so can the
    people of other countries in the world.

    If other nations need outside help to be rid of their despotic rulers, then I think we could use a
    "friendly invasion force" to rid us of our own illegally installed dictator right now.

    Chalo Colina

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.