|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Woah! I re-read the linked article a bit more closely and this time the following finally sank in:
| Quote: |
| The main strength of military space planes is the ability to reach any spot on the globe within 45 minutes. This is a short period of time that could provide U.S. forces with a formidable quick reaction capability, as opposed to the enemy's subsequent inability to organize any effective defense. Such a weapon's primary target would be the enemy's strategic forces and -- according to U.S. Air Force sources widely quoted in the press -- the Pentagon is inclined to give priority to this project. One of the main reasons, these sources say, is that the Pentagon itself -- after spending over US$100 billion -- has finally admitted its failure to create an infallible earth-based anti-missile system to protect the American soil from ballistic strikes. |
Are they going to officially announce it any time soon?
Have they stopped funding it?
Does this mean they'll lay off ragging on Canada for not wholeheartedly and blindly supporting it?
Rods of God:
How much does a tungsten rod 20' long and a foot in diameter weigh? How much would it cost? How many minimum would be needed for the ROG? How much would they cost to get into ordit? HOW are you going to get them into orbit? Space Shuttle? I don't think Russia would be keen on lending payload space on their heavy-lifters for such a project....
| Quote: |
However, serious problems would arise if the Pentagon begins the operational phase -- especially from a financial perspective. Some studies maintain that Rods from God could be fully operational in ten years. The targets of the rods would be much more restricted than those of Global Strike. Their main targets remains ballistic missiles stockpiled in hardened sites, or orbital devices and satellite systems deployed by other powers -- according to the counter-space operation doctrine. Rods from God can, however, be employed to strike targets in desert areas -- be they hardened sites or concentrated hostile forces.
Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage is to be avoided. |
Say, if you made a targetting or intel error and fired one of those rods into shallow seas or a continental shelf, how big a tsunami do you think you could create?
| Quote: |
...the orbital deployment of offensive weapons -- even though unequivocally non-nuclear -- can be perilous for various reasons. First of all, the U.S. is currently obligated not to deploy atomic or W.M.D. space weapons, as it signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Even if Rods of God is not a nuclear weapon, its impact power is near the magnitude of a nuke. Hence, it is not certain that the international community will consider it a conventional weapon, and a violation of the treaty could, therefore, be claimed. As a consequence, an indiscriminate race to space weaponization could begin -- involving the orbital deployment of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons. This latter scenario could result in a problem for the United States, a problem that its decision-makers in the 1960s strived to avoid at any cost.
Second, political consequences of a quasi-nuclear weapon should not be overlooked. If Rods of God will be used and other powers will perceive it as the equivalent of a nuclear strike, many states could change their perception of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons standards. A stark decrease in the traditional refrain from using nuclear bombs could then occur, thus changing the current strategy behind nuclear weapons: that of deterrence tools. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The main strength of military space planes is the ability to reach any spot on the globe within 45 minutes. This is a short period of time that could provide U.S. forces with a formidable quick reaction capability, as opposed to the enemy's subsequent inability to organize any effective defense. Such a weapon's primary target would be the enemy's strategic forces and -- according to U.S. Air Force sources widely quoted in the press -- the Pentagon is inclined to give priority to this project. One of the main reasons, these sources say, is that the Pentagon itself -- after spending over US$100 billion -- has finally admitted its failure to create an infallible earth-based anti-missile system to protect the American soil from ballistic strikes. |
| Quote: |
Are they going to officially announce it any time soon?
Have they stopped funding it? |
Probably not and that is a good thing. There is such a great possible pay out.
Besides while Bulsajo usually has very good things to say he is not "infallible" however he is usualy up to the task of being able to easily win the debates on this board. Especaily against a poster of limited ability.
The fact Bulsajo while not " infallible" is very tough and that is something to take into account.
| Quote: |
| Does this mean they'll lay off ragging on Canada for not wholeheartedly and blindly supporting it? |
That would depend on the reasons. But how would supporting it be a problem for Canada? Other than it would piss off a Iran and North Korea because it would effect them, Old Europe cause it would allow the the US to ignore their opinons, and Russia and China cause it would make it harder for them to use 3rd world nations to bother the US.
Maybe I don't know but I don't see any good reason for Canada not to support it , except that it would make several nations angry at Canada cause it would make it harder to for them to restrain or effect the US.
| Quote: |
| How much does a tungsten rod 20' long and a foot in diameter weigh? How much would it cost? How many minimum would be needed for the ROG? How much would they cost to get into ordit? HOW are you going to get them into orbit? Space Shuttle? I don't think Russia would be keen on lending payload space on their heavy-lifters for such a project.... |
couldn't the US bring back the old Saturn V launch vehicles? I think that would be the least of the worries of the US.
| Quote: |
| Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage is to be avoided. |
[/quote]
what about if the US wanted to target the North Korea army?
It has been said that a nuclear explosion would cause even highly trained soldiers to run away. That may be the case here.
| Quote: |
| Say, if you made a targetting or intel error and fired one of those rods into shallow seas or a continental shelf, how big a tsunami do you think you could create? |
Interesting point.
[quote]
| Quote: |
| ...the orbital deployment of offensive weapons -- even though unequivocally non-nuclear -- can be perilous for various reasons. First of all, the U.S. is currently obligated not to deploy atomic or W.M.D. space weapons, as it signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Even if Rods of God is not a nuclear weapon, its impact power is near the magnitude of a nuke. Hence, it is not certain that the international community will consider it a conventional weapon, and a violation of the treaty could, therefore, be claimed. As a consequence, an indiscriminate race to space weaponization could begin -- involving the orbital deployment of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons. This latter scenario could result in a problem for the United States, a problem that its decision-makers in the 1960s strived to avoid at any cost. |
that could happen though Russia and probably China already have enough nukes to burn down the US.
| Quote: |
| Second, political consequences of a quasi-nuclear weapon should not be overlooked. If Rods of God will be used and other powers will perceive it as the equivalent of a nuclear strike, many states could change their perception of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons standards. A stark decrease in the traditional refrain from using nuclear bombs could then occur, thus changing the current strategy behind nuclear weapons: that of deterrence tools. |
In that cause I would just tell that they should have made a treaty banning such weapons. But the US ought to demand a very high price from other nations who oppose the system. Russia and China have been less than helpful on countires like Iran and North Korea. They can start showing their good intentions right away.
This is a issue that can go either way. WMDs have been used to refer to Nuclear chemical or bio weapons and these are not of that sort. other nations can say one thing and the US can claim that they are not nuclear weapons. - and the bar for the use of such weapons would be lower than that of nuclear weapons..
I would say go for it. Listen to offers but don't give it up unless other nations meet the US price and that price should be very , very high.
The US shoudl not give it up for nothing, nor should it give away small nukes for nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We could realistically give up our nukes if we had something like that. |
Could you please explain how that would work, because I don't see it. |
If the technology was reliable, and could destroy a heavily-fortified strategic target the same way a nuke could, why would we need to keep our nuclear arsenal? The only reason I can think of is fear that our RFG space platform(s) would be vulnerable to surprise attack, so we might want to keep a few underground nuke silos. But if it was secure, these RFG would be able to replace nukes. Sounds like it anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| couldn't the US bring back the old Saturn V launch vehicles? |
As a matter of fact, no. It's hard to believe, but NASA misplaced and lost the plans for the Saturn V. They would have to go back to the drawing board and build a new rocket. I learned this a while back while pondering the question "Could the Apollo missions be re-created?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
The targets of the rods would be much more restricted than those of Global Strike. Their main targets remains ballistic missiles stockpiled in hardened sites, or orbital devices and satellite systems deployed by other powers -- according to the counter-space operation doctrine. Rods from God can, however, be employed to strike targets in desert areas -- be they hardened sites or concentrated hostile forces.
Its devastating striking power does not allow such a weapon to be used for other missions, if unsustainable collateral damage is to be avoided. |
Couldn't they fill up an orbital launching platform with rods of lots of different sizes, to meet different kinds of threats? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While Hank insists on organizing things to fight the last century's wars, it's really interesting to hear what the planners of the future are up to. What are the odds the Chinese are going to loan us the money to build this stuff? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For both Joe and Joo, good points but I'm thinking that a weapon that's pretty much a WMD has to be not only a good weapon but an effective deterrent. The whole idea of creating such an expensive and complex system is not to start using them as soon as they're up there, but to not have to use them at all. It's not an effective deterrent if it creates a destabilizing effect among nuclear powers.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems to me this thread is full of what I warned against in my first post here- the 'gee whiz' effect of new technology somehow makes people forget all the hard lessons that have been learned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| While Hank insists on organizing things to fight the last century's wars, it's really interesting to hear what the planners of the future are up to. What are the odds the Chinese are going to loan us the money to build this stuff? |
The US economy isn't in that kind of bad shape. Even if the China stops buying US bonds the US would easily have enough money to build that kind of stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I am sure that RFG is very expensive however I would bet you that it is a lot cheeper than an invasion. |
I.e. Our technology will save us from having to put boots on the ground. Maybe you're right but I don't buy it.
| Quote: |
| We could realistically give up our nukes if we had something like that. |
Could you please explain how that would work, because I don't see it. |
Bulsajo is making good points all over this thread.
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Say, if you made a targetting or intel error and fired one of those rods into shallow seas or a continental shelf, how big a tsunami do you think you could create? |
Good question. I always despair when I read these kinds of articles because I wonder what the US is doing to improve its intelligence capabilities. Mith is right to condescend because of the US' lack of ability to speak many other languages. Meanwhile, here we are stepping up the game with Star Wars mega-weapons.
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| While Hank insists on organizing things to fight the last century's wars, it's really interesting to hear what the planners of the future are up to. What are the odds the Chinese are going to loan us the money to build this stuff? |
I agree with Hank, there's no substitute for boots on the ground. Wasn't that one of the biggest problems in Iraq? Disbanding a conventional army sounds dumb to me. And as for the odds the Chinese will continue to fund America? They are as good as betting that Americans will continue to build China by consuming their goods. In other words, the odds are almost guarenteed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
