106 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

"One Small Step for man One Giant Leap for ALL Mankind"
Neil Armstrong, upon claiming the Moon

We never claimed the Moon as ours. The treaties you raise also say I am correct in this. That is why I used the "legal" term "A Convention".

It comes from the common recognition that the Moon is an "Open Frontier. Also as the Vatican was the appellate level for claims upon the "New World" it is the UN which is the arbiter body with regard to Outer Space, not our Congress, and in fact we helped to establish this fact and based it on the precedents derived from the early Age of Discovery.

As any pioneer will tell you pilgrim, " Settlement is nine tenths of the Law"

[DJS]

It comes from the common recognition that the Moon is an "Open Frontier.   Also as the Vatican was the appellate level for claims upon the "New World" it is the UN which is the arbiter body with regard to Outer Space, not our Congress, and in fact we helped to establish this fact and based it on the precedents derived from the early Age of Discovery.

As any pioneer will tell you pilgrim, " Settlement is nine tenths of the Law"

No doubt, settlement is 9/10ths the law. The 67 treaty does not, however, restrict commercial development. Right now the "conventional agreements" made about space development do support your position. That is not my point. The real tests is when significant development is made. Then we will see if your idealism plays out as you hope it will. (It's real easy to feign idealism when there is nothing at stake). Once again we come back to the good and the bad of human nature.

On a similar note, commercial development would become a matter of strategic importance to space faring nations. This is especially true if Helium-3 lives up to its hype. Helium-3 would resemble a hybrid-oil (yes, I know that Helium-3 is in abundance on the moon, but the security of said supply is what is of importance). Do private companies currently develop the oil fields of the Middle East? Yes, but their activities come under the umbrella of strategic and national security decision making processes.

When I really think about this it all comes down to the competitive nature of nation-states. You can hope that competition will remain in the private sector, but is this likely?

Do you know when humanity will stop killing and competing against itself Lazarus? When (or if) we realize that we are not alone in this universe. The existence of "others" would be the ultimate unifier. [alien] [roll]

Oh, and by the way, there is one flag planted on the moon--and it is stars and stripes.

Edited by Kissinger, 08 March 2003 - 06:57 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Do you know when humanity will stop killing and competing against itself Lazarus? When (or if) we realize that we are not alone in this universe. The existence of "others" would be the ultimate unifier.  

Ironic isn't it? I happen to agree with you here. Perhaps we should be taking the Raelians more seriously

[bobdrake12]

And I like how you used the word "reportedly". Are you one of those people who believes man has not walked on the moon?

Lazarus Long,

Your question was far too open ended to be specific.

The U.S. did send men to the moon who walked upon it. It is a fact that U.S. astronauts walked upon the moon.


The question that some people had about Apollo is as follows:

The Van Allen belts concentrate radiation around the Earth. The Apollo crafts could afford to take all the weight of lead shielding with them. So they were bound to be exposed. The question is, just how serious would this exposure be?

The answer is shown below:

It's been calculated that travelling at speed through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. Once you reach 100 you're going to be ill. 500 will probably result in death.

Given the choice most people would want to avoid any exposure to radiation. But the astronauts risked it because they thought it was worth it.


My quote is as follows:

I believe the last flight to the Moon, Apollo 17, was in 1972. How come none have been reportedly made since?

This questions still remains unanswered.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 12:25 AM.

[bobdrake12]

No doubt, settlement is 9/10ths the law.

Kissinger,

The pragmatic golden rule is that those who own the gold make the rules. Also those that own the technology can dominate and those that are militarily superior decide how treaties are to be either intrepreted or whether they are of worth at all.

Reliance on treaties by themselves is for those with the mind of a Jimmy Carter who didn't seem to want to understand the realities of this world system.

http://images.google...immy_carter.jpg
Jimmy Carter


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 12:20 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

The Van Allen belts concentrate radiation around the Earth. The Apollo crafts could afford to take all the weight of lead shielding with them. So they were bound to be exposed. The question is, just how serious would this exposure be?

A study of radiation shielding for the LEM and Apollo Command/Service Modules will show they used the lighter and vastly superior radiation shielding provided by GOLD Foil.

And yes, they were exposed, and to this date long term follow up studies are monitoring their cancers and other potential long term effects. But few have been statistically determined to have been outside normal population concerns So apparantly they recovered nicely.

BTW, I certainly do think that we sent Astronauts to the Moon in response to you quoting Kissinger (not me up there).

Cost is the prime reason that we haven't gone back to the Moon, second is the lack of will, and third is something Kissinger overlooked in his arguments, We didn't because we didn't want anyone else to either. Fourth the military took over a big part of the NASA program and its interests were focused on ORBITAL Space exclusively.

What I find remarkable is that we haven't even followed up with a serious robotics plan, which would have allowed serious testing for equipment like the Mars Lander that failed AND provided a tremendous wealth of "on the ground" information.

In addition as to how to deal with radiation I have a number of approaches that would be damtically superior to even the Gold Shielding used that drove the expense of the operation up drastically. Gold was used precisely because of weight considerations, and It was used.

They did have some serious radiation shielding and it was still an issue when in one mission Solar Storms threatened to end the mission prematurely but the RAD count inside the ship never got critical long enough and subsequent observation showed the majority of radiation from the flare at the time went away from the Earth.

But I don't just want to go back to sightsee. I want to build viable colonies and industries. I think we can do better with force field technology and an integrated design for our ships that stores "water" in recyling chambered hulls to capture "Shield- Leaked" radiation and then extract the Isotopic Water molecules in the purification processing for fuel. But I am interested in getting my fuel up there not just dragging it all with me from here.

I have numerous approaches for more efficient designs to accomplish this.

[bobdrake12]

Cost is the prime reason that we haven't gone back to the Moon, second is the lack of will, and third is something Kissinger overlooked in his arguments, We didn't because we didn't want anyone else to either.

Lazarus Long,

When you look at cost alone, everything isn't worthwhile. On the other hand, rational people look at cost versus benefits.

Lack of will? Why would there be a lack of will? All that would needed to be done is to start talking about it and get the Dominant TV News Moguls to start pointing their cameras on the moon rather than on some of the nonsense they cover.

The third reason makes no sense if we have greater technology which we do.

Maybe there is another reason.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 12:32 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I added a fourth while you were writing this post ,and I disagree that number three makes no sense in light of what I was trying to say about why the Chinese might see a Lunar Base as a Tactical Advantage against a Ground based Star Wars program.

Do you understand the principles behind a Magnetic Rail Gun?

You can trust that the Chinese do.

Our military in fact has been suppressing its own development of this weapon and the Canadians are actually ahead of us at the moment.

A Lunar underground based rail gun could launch with great precision at the Earth and little could be done to stop the projectiles short of repeated upper atmospheric nuclear detonations in advance of the payloads, which would only minimize but not stop the ensuing damage.

The irony is that instead of using it as a weapon it is also the least expensive way of sending cargo back to Earth and out into deep space development. But it will never be built if everybody must live in constant unending fear of one another.

This is an example of "Dual Use" at its most extreme.

[Lazarus Long]

Before I return to the issue of dual use, I want to give a fifth reason we haven't gone back to the Moon.

If the Militarist Extremists that we, in this Nation must manage, have a Top Ten Wanted List, Saddam Hussein and Ossama bin Laden have only recently moved to the top of the list. The Fifty Year favorites for the esteemed Top Ten are the United Nations and NASA, in that order.

Let’s get this straight; no militarist worth his sweat would ever willingly relinquish the high ground. Castro comes in third, with Khadafy close behind, but before them all they would like to see an end to these two organizations. The issue on NASA is very simple they don't control it.

The UN should be obvious; no US Commander will ever willingly wear a Blue Bonnet, ever. It is basic and the whole reason Kissinger is blind sided as well as many others, is for the same basic premise.

But NASA is more subtle, more intimate, the Army never EVER forgave NASA since they stole their Atlases, Redstones, and the REALLY BIG BOMBS. Then the damn politicos went and invented the Air Force but that is sort of an inside joke. The Navy allowed it because it was the Army that got shafted and they got to keep their missiles. All this happened in the aftermath of the Macarthur debacle with Truman when, oh yeah, during the ground war with Korea and China, when he wanted to start a nuclear exchange that would have brought in the Russians by crossing the Yellow River and attacking Mao.

Truman started it, Eisenhower formalized it, and Kennedy finished it. SAC and then even the Air Force lost control of the rocket program when Kennedy created NASA. The Hard Core Cadre of Military Right Wing Hawks like even his old family friend Joe MacCarthy couldn't forgive him then. They hated him almost as much as the Cuban Exiles after the Bay of Pigs. Talk about a man who made tough enemies, is it any wonder one of them killed him?

To make matters worse after the military convinces the NASA scientists they JUST have to have pilots from the ranks, the technocrat scientificos go and steal the souls of the pilots sent and convert even them to realize that the CIVILIANS SHOULD CONTROL SPACE DEVELOPMENT and the military went ballistic (sic). Even Old John Glen defends NASA against them till today.

It has been decades of catch-up and slow castration but the last thing the military ever wanted, or can tolerate are civilians controlling the high ground, the tactical heights were it means that we are all vulnerable, even though, and in spite of, the fact we are a "supposed" Democracy.

The Shuttles diverted public's attention and our General Budgetary Resources and the military made sure the rest got diverted into their budgets for the Stealth weapons, SPySats, Echelon Project, and all the fine and semi legal toys like the HMP's they are frothing at the mouth to test on live, soon to be dead subjects.

There were occasional projects like the Patriots and ASAT's but the level of visceral fear in the military Mind is set when it comes to this and they did every and anything they could to make sure that the only way we go back to the Moon as a Troop Ship. Perhaps they read too much Heinlein.

Oh and about dual use, do you remember Jerry Brown run for President?

Talk about the Manchurian Candidate, he assassinated himself.

I was one of his Campaign aids in Madison and that was the last time I ever consider the Dem's my party. I was working with them when the word came down about the Orbital Power Platforms and after I stopped thining about what a good idea this was on paper I thought about what a bad idea it was Politically for the times.

You see it took me about a day to figure out that if they existed a guy like me could theoretically hack into the control system for power plant like that and leave nice scorch marks across the neighborhoods I didn't like. Nope it not only didn't have a chance at getting orbited, it took Jerry's Campaign down like the Columbia. The fact that the tech was ratinally viable didn't get seriously addressed as most peole just laughed him off the stage. It still is viable, in fact even more so and it still has the same difficulty.

No orbital Solar Power Stations until we can be sure that the controls that aim the beamed energy down are locked on only one target, the receiver station. But the Military would build these anyway but use them to try and waste our time doing nothing except target ICBM's that hopefully are never launched, allegedly because such a system exists.

Stupid irony.

And what of the wasted nuclear energy the Military wants to divert to run these Orbital Defense Platforms?

Have any of you got a clue what will happen when one of those orbital nuclear power plants will do if it de-orbits catastrophically?

Even the military will use solar stations since the energy is cheap and plentiful up there.

Ultra-High Energy Super-Conductive Capacitance Storage Systems can be used cheaply in well designed orbital platforms to store large amounts of energy collected from sunlight. These kinds of plasma discharge engines can propel manned vessels around or for short burst high Powered Lasers and Electron Beam weapons.

Obviously the reason the military insists it want the nukes in orbit is to have sufficient power for these Next Age Weapons as opposed to running International Space Stations, or building civilian colonies.

If civilians want to fly to the moon without a military escort then the Pentagon would rather shoot them down, starting behind the scenes in the budgetary debates and lobbies of the House and Senate.

[bobdrake12]

Lazarus Long:

Do you understand the principles behind a Magnetic Rail Gun?

You can trust that the Chinese do.

Since you are writing about this, this concept is old technology.

Reportedly (per the davew@sciforums.com discussion group) a "rail gun" is somewhat a somewhat of a "vague term that has been applied liberally to a variety of weapons accelerating projectiles". Please see the discussion link below for what they believe this is all about.

http://www.sciforums...=&threadid=2665

You might want to read the book, China Threat, when you get a chance.

I see no reason why this would stop the U.S. from making further flights to the moon.

I added a fourth while you were writing this post ,and I disagree that number three makes no sense in light of what I was trying to say about why the Chinese might see a Lunar Base as a Tactical Advantage against a Ground based Star Wars program.

So far China lacks the technology to do this.

Perhaps, we agree to disagree, but so far I have found no compelling reason that you have listed as to why the U.S. should not contine further flight to the moon. In fact, in a way, you have made the case for this.


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 04:49 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I see no reason why this would stop the U.S. from making further flights to the moon.

I agree the tech is old and I agree with the above statement but you asked "Why" we didn't go back and I also added a fifth reason that ties it together above.

I never said we couldn't go back, or shouldn't go back, moreover I want us to go back, just not as an Armada.

If we allow the Moon to be first and Foremost a Battlefort then civilians won't ever be able to go outbound for centuries. This is the kiss of death for real development of Outer Space.

[Lazarus Long]

Oh, and China Does probably have the tech even if they just got it from us. What they haven't yet finished doing is tooling up the production facilities and establishing the necessary capital reserves in in their buget but their rapid economic growth is filling in that hole quickly.

Launched from the Moon an Object would go outward from a source that is one fifth Earth's gravity and in a vacuum. The MagRail gun can hurl a massive object weighing many tons, in fact the somewhat larger the better, and accelerate it to many thousands of miles per hour quickly.

Once the object fell into the Earth's gravity well it would accelerate allthe way into the atmsophere were it wouldn't just strike the Earth like an Asteroid impact becauseof teh extreme velocity even though the object is smaller actually.

The resulting explosions would rip atmosphere and Earth's Crust from the shock and heat and the level of radiation would be small. Hence, more survivors then from conventional Nuclear weapons and even though the probabilities of Nuclear winter are the same the possibility for not ony survival but going on to inhabit the region struck, in only a generation or two is significantly greater.

Anyone who attempts a military domnation of the Moon will likely trigger a global war here on Earth to preempt this total domination. This is why I say Antarctica is the model, we can explore together and develop while trading openly with one another and this way reduce the Demand for such weapons and increase the ability to police against them.

This is only an example of het kinds of weapons escalation threats we are facing sooner and not later unless we diplomatically demonstrate some discretion. Treaties are only agreements, not guarantees. They must be enfrced and to do that you need a strong military, granted but without Intelligence that cyclopian might is blind.

The Chinese will only take this avenue if we force them to now by destroying the treaties we in fact demanded in the first place. We can negotiate an alternative that is vastly more productive for them AND us. They aren't compulsively feeding the Infrustructure of this Weapons system yet but as we go forward if they divert vast portions of their GNP into a New Age Arms Race then we will most certainly reap the whirlwind by having forced this gambit down. I gave this idea only because it is old and well understood and its peaceful uses mean that it might get built anyway.

I generally make it a policy never to discuss weapons of mass destruction in detail othewise for it is too easy to contemplate the building of too many different methods once we understand the principles involved.

[bobdrake12]

If we allow the Moon to be first and Foremost a Battlefort then civilians won't ever be able to go outbound for centuries. This is the kiss of death for real development of Outer Space.

Lazarus Long,

A war is a war. People die no matter what methods are used. Currently, there is a "system" in place called MAD.

Perhaps the kiss of death is due to the vast majority of the humans on this planet thinking inside of the box rather than in a collaberative way.

Nothing is inevitable unless it is deemed to be inevitable.

We have a "catch-22" in place where scientists do not want to release their theories, research and inventions because of potential military use while a domino effect of wars possibly could occur because of fighting over scarce resources (With the scarcity condition existing that might have been mitigated had the scientists released their theories, research and inventions in the first place.).

There is a basic problem on this planet, and it goes way beyond WMD.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 05:17 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Oh an China Does probably have the tech even if they just got it from us, what they haven't yet finished doing is tooling up the production facilities and establishing teh necessary capital reserves in in their buget but their rapid economic groth is filing in that hole quickly.

Lazarus Long,

Unless the US is severely crippled, China is 10-20 years away if not (considerably) longer if they actually plan to win a war with the U.S.

Even so, all of this can be avoided if collaberative and out of the box solutions are worked out where both parties gain.

Allow me to place a big hint here. You don't go around winning friends and influencing people with just arrows or just olive branches. You use both methods as our Founding Fathers fully understood.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 05:24 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Even so, all of this can be avoided if collaberative and out of the box solutions are worked out where both parties gain.

I just got done coincidentally rewriting my post and basically saying the same thing. Serendipity?

I think sychronicity myself.

I agree about China's timetable but if we make a mistake and become a major occupying force in the Middle East we may hamstring ourselves.

Don't you think the Chinese must play a very careful hand in this?

They are watching closely and Korea is in part their gambit (with a very classic example of plausible deniability). They are not too unhappy about how we are uniting much of the world against ourselves and in their favor at the moment.

BTW, we aren't so close to the Moon either. We have no ability to launch a mission and at best under the most determined total effort are no less than five years away and more realistically 10 to 15 ourselves. The only Saturn V Boosters and Landing capable craft we have are in Museums. A new generatin of Landers isn't even really off the drawing boards. Snce we lightened the patload weight of hte MIRV's we don't even have any convertable military rockets taht are capable of the payloads required and the Nuclear Engined Rockets that are being talked about will generate a tremendous backlash and franlkly are unnecessary.

[bobdrake12]

Don't you think the Chinese must play a very careful hand in this?

Lazarus Long,

Russia is playing a careful hand as well.

bob

[bobdrake12]

I think sychronicity myself.

Lazarus Long,

Probably more than just sychronicity by itself.

We keep on coming back to the same issue about whether this civilization is in danger. Most want to avoid this issue, yet the reality is that the next 40 years (with a heavy emphasis on the next 20) will most probably determine whether this civilization can successfully transition from a Type 0 to a Type 1. The major reason for this concern is not the risk situation itself but the avoidance of wanting to deal with this reality by the vast majority of those on this planet.

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Russia is playing a careful hand as well.

Yes they are, aren't they?

Afterall it is their neighborhood to begin with isn't it?

And as to scarcity yes it is an issue but it is more effectively addressed by doing something about the obsessive/compulsive psychology of greed and power then it is by thinking science is the Conceptual Second Coming of Jesus that is going to always save the day by just inventing new wealth. Science is not the cavalry and they are no good in this crisis either.

Oh sure we can invent many solutions to yesterdays' problems but everything comes with a price and each generation is now robbing the wealth of future generations by destroying the very planet that we share. As we fix the problems that have haunted us we are generting an all together new class of problems much worse han many of the old ones.

I created a paradox for philosophy about this. I call it the God Paradox, " the better one become's the worse the fewer faults they possess".

So in order to become God and purge oneself of all imperfection one must first overcome the devil within; hence Gods create Devils from within by always logically overcoming the easier faults first, one is left by default with harder and more difficult character flaws to overcome, until they are faced with themself as the worst possible enemy.

The creation of wealth and resource is limited not infinite, for any closed system. We can only open the system up by creating a new frontier and there are two viable candidates for ours and the next few generations, the Sea and Outer Space.

[Lazarus Long]

Well if they can't see we facing a global crisis now then they have their heads stuck somewhere so far in that everything they see is just brown. Cranial Rectal Insertion, an extreme example of the Ostrich Syndrome, which is what happens when large fowl hang out in Stockholm too long, the turkeys just line up for the slaughter. [ph34r]

For example I disagree with many of the things Kissinger is saying but at least he is looking and I am litterally grateful for that. The level of collective denial is the first great obstacle to creative solutions, greed, territorialty, blind ambition, and all other vices may be secondary to the seemingly simple problem of denial, both collectively and of the self.

[DJS]

I added a fourth while you were writing this post ,and I disagree that number three makes no sense in light of what I was trying to say about why the Chinese might see a Lunar Base as a Tactical Advantage against a Ground based Star Wars program.

Do you understand the principles behind a Magnetic Rail Gun?

You can trust that the Chinese do.

Our military in fact has been suppressing its own development of this weapon and the Canadians are actually ahead of us at the moment.

A Lunar underground based rail gun could launch with great precision at the Earth and little could be done to stop the projectiles short of repeated upper atmospheric nuclear detonations in advance of the payloads, which would only minimize but not stop the ensuing damage.

The irony is that instead of using it as a weapon it is also the least expensive way of sending cargo back to Earth and out into deep space development.  But it will never be built if everybody must live in constant unending fear of one another.

This is an example of "Dual Use" at its most extreme

I am going to explain to you the concepts behind SDI in all of its forms and strategies. I would like to lay out my side and explain the tactics and logic behind the program. Just give it a read and see what you disagree/agree with.

[DJS]

By the way, a rail gun of the magnitude you are eluding to is only theoretical! If there is progress being made in this field I can assure you that our Dod is at the forefront.

[DJS]

You guys have really been at work while I was away.

All that has been written here comes down to "on whose terms" and at what cost.

[bobdrake12]

Well if they can't see we facing a global crisis...

Lazarus Long,

WWII was a global crisis.

This is a potential crisis to the earth's civilization due to the WMD that were not readily available 60 years ago.

Kissinger is to be complimented for participating in the discussion.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the general population is unaware of what a critical situation this is for the United States as well as the civilization itself.

Hopefully, someone challenges this post because there is plenty of data to back up it up.

http://images.google...atomic-bomb.jpg http://images.google...y/am/biowar.jpg http://images.google..._in_Balkans.jpg

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 11:54 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

By the way, a rail gun of the magnitude you are eluding to is only theoretical! If there is progress being made in this field I can assure you that our Dod is at the forefront.

Please don't patronize me Mr. Kissinger. I am not saying that we are ignorant of the tech, we have however placed it way back in favor of more versatile highly portable technologies that are more relevant in the immediate future.

My point is that it is LESS theoretical then the promise of the Star Wars Program. It is more likely to be an option played out by competing interests for Lunar development, if we go forward and REMILITARIZE Space Development by creating this technological avenue, instead of open commercial development that would allow a broad level of pragmatic oversight of Lunar development, as oposed to the creation of secret underground bases after we ALL get back there.

The Moon is the ultimate high ground and offers hardened bunkers as well. If we allow the military to dominant this process I am confident it will be to our collective doom.

[bobdrake12]

It is more likely to be an option played out by competing interests for Lunar development, if we go forward and REMILITARIZE Space Development by creating this technological avenue, instead of open commercial development that would allow a broad level of pragmatic oversight of Lunar development, as oposed to the creation of secret underground bases after we ALL get back there.

The Moon is the ultimate high ground and offers hardened bunkers as well. If we allow the military to dominant this process I am confident it will be to our collective doom.

Lazarus Long,

Your rationale about military involvement with the Moon being "our collective doom" would be appreciated since the proliferation of WMD appears to be the tangible current threat.

Terrorist and rogue nations don't need the moon to utilize NBC.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 06:38 PM.

[bobdrake12]

I am going to explain to you the concepts behind SDI in all of its forms and strategies. I would like to lay out my side and explain the tactics and logic behind the program.

Kissinger,

Currently, US cities could be at risk considering what is happening in North Korea. Presuming the North Korean situation gets favorably resolved, it is only a matter of time that some other country could threaten US cities again. We cannot guarantee that all of these situations are going to work out like they have since the cold war started. The concern that I have is that there will eventually be a nuclear launch.

Some have argued that the end of the cold war makes SDI unnecessary, and that some of the tests were flawed in certain respects while at the same time being against research and development of a space-based system to defend the nation's cities from being attack by missiles.

I am all for a defense and would be very happy to see SDI successfully in place. The "D" in SDI stands for "Defense". What is so wrong with having the defense capability to defend cities against a nuclear launch?

I have included a current article on North Korea below.

bob

http://story.news.ya...oreas_nuclear_3

North Korea accuses Washington of planning "nuclear attack" (excerpts)

Sun Mar 9, 9:36 AM ET

By JAE-SUK YOO, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea (news - web sites) on Sunday accused the United States of plotting a "nuclear attack" as U.S. and South Korean soldiers staged a military exercise near the border with the communist country.

North Korea claims that Washington is planning pre-emptive strikes on its military bases and nuclear facilities, which U.S. officials believe are being used to make atomic bombs.

The North's state KCNA news agency said the U.S. Department of Defense (news - web sites) mapped out a strike plan including "not only cruise missile strikes and massive air raids, etc., but the use of tactical nuclear weapons."

North Korea's "army and people will take every possible self-defensive measure to cope with the U.S. bellicose forces' new war moves," it said.

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 07:13 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

SDI is not now, nor planned for the defense of cities. It is planned for the defense of the Strategic Forces so as to insure a retaliatory posture.

The cities will forever be exposed with this technological approach.

[bobdrake12]

SDI is not now, nor planned for the defense of cities. It is planned for the defense of the Strategic Forces so as to insure a retaliatory posture.

The cities will forever be exposed with this technological approach.

Lazarus Long,

And your evidence that "cities will forever be exposed with this technological approach" is?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 07:17 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.bartleby....st/StratDI.html

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Strategic Defense Initiative

SDI), U.S. government program responsible for research and development of a space-based system to defend the nation from attack by strategic ballistic missiles (see guided missile). The program is administered by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (until 1993 the Strategic Defense Initiative Office), a separate agency in the U.S. Dept. of Defense. SDI, popularly referred to as “Star Wars,” was announced by President Ronald Reagan in a speech in Mar., 1983, and was derided by his critics as unrealistic. Space programs from other agencies and services were brought together in the organization. It has investigated many new technologies, including ground-based lasers, space-based lasers, and automated space vehicles. Critics argued that the original SDI program would encourage the militarization of space and destabilize the nuclear balance of power, and was technologically infeasible, based on untested technologies, and unable to defend against cruise missiles, airplanes, or several other possible delivery systems. In addition, some countermeasures to SDI technologies, such as decoy missiles and shielding of armed missiles, would be simple to implement. In 1987 the Soviet Union revealed it had a similar program. 1

The end of the cold war led to criticism that SDI was unnecessary, and in 1991 President G. H. W. Bush called for a more limited version using rocket-launched interceptors based on the ground at a single site. In 1993, SDI was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Deployment of the more limited system, called the National Missile Defense (NMD) and planned to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack, would contravene the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Russia has opposed NMD but, under President Putin, has also proposed a mobile, pan-European missile defense system with a similar purpose that would not violate the ABM treaty. In 2001, President George W. Bush called for accelerated development of the NMD system, and subsequently withdrew from he ABM treaty to permit the system’s development and deployment. Apparently successful early tests of the U.S. system were later revealed to have occurred after the odds of success had been enhanced (1984, 1991); later tests (1999, 2001) were generally successful, although flawed in certain respects. In addition to NMD, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is also working to develop missile defenses for the battlefield as part of the Theater Missile Defense program. 2

See studies by S. Lakoff and H. York (1989) and F. FitzGerald (2000).

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 07:26 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

The number of cities and complexities for developing this system demonstrate that to try and protect ALL American cities would cost in excess of our entire GNP. The most that can be accomplished realistically within 50 years is to protect a top dozen cities marginally, like DC NY, LA etc.

BUT from the very beginning of this it is clear that the first mission for SDI is to protect Strategic Forces against a First Strike. Also it is the redundancy required to match the threat of decoys and distance. SDI would have to be deployed 360 degrees around the Continent and still leave bases like Hawaii out so they would need their own as well as Alaska, and still leaving the many bases we are now developing around the world exposed. This is why they tried to create a consensus with the Russians and Chinese before they started so as to create a systematic defense posture whereby our various systems would in fact compliment one another against rogue states.

But as Kissinger has alluded to the Neo Hawks see this as a deterrent against China and China sees it this way too. They have been saying as much for a decade now that they would prefer NOT to enter into a New Age Arms Race with us but if we continue to unilaterally develop these systems they feel compelled to, and will.

That is why I have included the specter of them starting a Lunar Project NOW as they have recently announced. They are going directly to the prize and aren't going to wait for us to decide what our course will be.

They have already begun the dvelopment of TransLunar vessels. We are sitting on our laurels and not paying attention. We have no fleet, we have no boosters, we have no tooled up production facilities. And the cost to do these is in DIRECT competition with SDI for not just capital, but actual manpower.

SDI is all about promises not scientific facts.

It is like when we were told the Lottery would eliminate school taxes. It is promise us anything now to get what they want and later maybe some of the promise will actually get fulfilled, little by little over a very long period when we could have made these technologies obsolete through other more advanced methods AND diplomacy.

SDI is a Modern Magineau Line in Blitzkrieg World. It is about diverting huge portions of budgetary resources to specific industries, the way Carter was boondoggled into the Oil Windfall Profits. SDI is pandering to fear not a rational response to the threat.

Have you seen the number of physicists and scientists that are lining up against this tech as irrational? Far more than are workling for its development.