OT - Why no war.



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > George Carlin once did a comedy bit about how guns were like dicks, and how troops had to have
> > bigger "dicks" 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
> > cannon thing is the most outrageous piece of ******** I have ever heard. It's never been made,
> > it's never going to be made, but if it ever does
get
> > 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
> on 60 Minutes, among other shows. Don't think it got past a bunch of
pieces
> 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
> 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truth, it's obsolete technology - long since superceded by even cheaper and more flexible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
 
In rec.bicycles.racing KBH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > the problem I have with this statement is that 'American hegemony' was
>> > 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...
>>

> 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.

> 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.

> I'd rather be riding my bike.

I hope you ride it better than the anti-american rant above...
 
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, KBH wrote:
> 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
 
>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
> 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.

>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
> 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.

>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
> 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.
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> 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
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 ********, it's probably ********. 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 ******** smacks of corruption, deceit, and mass murder.

Chalo Colina
 
"KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
 
Bluto wrote:

> 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.
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html

> 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: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm STF
 
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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
 
"Robert Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Steve Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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:
>>
>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.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 http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Nuoc Mam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?
>
> 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 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.
 
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nuoc Mam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > What countries have the young men of your country freed from tyranny?
> >
> > 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 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.
> ------------------

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).
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > 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
> > 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.
> > ------------------
>
>
>
>
> 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).
>

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
 
[email protected] (Bluto) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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".
 
> 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.
 
[email protected] (Jon Isaacs) wrote in

(me)
> >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
 
"KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.