VisorCentral.com - America's leaders are hypocrites.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- America's leaders are hypocrites. (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=17643)

Posted by Toby on 08-23-2001 02:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Because there is a big difference between voting along party lines and having your children slaughtered in their sleep.

But by implication, you're accusing the American people of going along with leaders that are bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war because of NMD.

quote:
A bit melodramatic, but do you think Americans would bend over if the atrocities China is accused of were done by our gov't? Why do we expect Chinese citizens would do so?

Apples and oranges. There are very significant cultural and political differences between the two peoples. China has had an imperialist/dictatorial system of government for as long as we know of. Americans bend over for (or rise up against) totally different forms of atrocities than would inspire the same reactions in China.

Posted by Burns on 08-23-2001 02:58 PM:

quote:
"Classified" doesn't mean as much as you appear to think it does.

On the contrary, I know exactly what it means. I did not assign a level of classification since I believe that would not be wise. We have more than just Americans reading these posts.

The other problem with "identify the tracking satellite(s) and destroy or disable them" is that there are fail safe systems. Believe me these people know what they're doing and have thought of contingencies. The shooting nation or terrorist would have to take out an entire NETWORK of satellites and their backups and THEIR backups and so on. When that happens, the element of surprise is lost, which is usually key to these type of things.

quote:
How hard would it be to make them capable of such? Burns? I'd like links, if possible.

I can't give you articles because I'm not sure there are any (being a government project that has different levels of classifications) but I'll check. The problem with trying to make them capable is that they aren't even DESIGNED to do what you're proposing. Imagine that a 747 is the incoming missile. It has capacity for the amount fuel needed to get it around the world. Now imagine firing a Cessna at it. Get the picture. You couldn't retro fit a Cessna to go the distance a 747 does. And the Cessna can't carry the type of equipment (warheads) the 747 can. They are two different planes (missiles) DESIGNED for their separate purposes.

I'll give you another extremely simple example. It's like trying to play Gran Tarismo 3 on an atari system. It doesn't have the CD capabilities, graphic capabilities, or memory capabilities. It just wasn't designed to handle that kind of functionality.

Hope I've cleared things up but I could have just made it plain as mud.

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by Yorick on 08-23-2001 05:11 PM:

Originally posted by Burns
Believe me these people know what they're doing and have thought of contingencies.
Any system or network can be disabled or destroyed - even backups - by any individual or group determined enough.
Surprise isn't the issue. There are enough early warning systems that any missile attack can be identified well before it strikes (until someone bothers to put radar stealth on a missile, anyway, but even those systems have been defeated). If defensive capability is damaged enough it would be ineffective.
I'm with Secretary Coyle on this. Putting all our eggs in the SDI basket is short-sighted and impractical. ICBM's - necessary for a non-American foreign power to attack the United States - are rather large targets, and it's possible for another, smaller missle to destroy one, but I'd really rather we work towards making such a defense unneccessary.

The shooting nation or terrorist would have to take out an entire NETWORK of satellites and their backups and THEIR backups and so on.
or they could take out the command system which would need to be planetside.

I can't give you articles because I'm not sure there are any (being a government project that has different levels of classifications) but I'll check. The problem with trying to make them capable is that they aren't even DESIGNED to do what you're proposing.
this train is confusing me. You're saying that SDI is a good thing, but that the missiles being used for it are inappropriate?
The missile sent to destroy an incoming attacking missile doesn't need to be as capable as that which it's destroying.

Imagine that a 747 is the incoming missile. It has capacity for the amount fuel needed to get it around the world. Now imagine firing a Cessna at it. Get the picture. You couldn't retro fit a Cessna to go the distance a 747 does. And the Cessna can't carry the type of equipment (warheads) the 747 can. They are two different planes (missiles) DESIGNED for their separate purposes.
Also, a Cessna, lacking a jet engine, can't achieve the speed of a 747.

Hope I've cleared things up but I could have just made it plain as mud.
well, mud's pretty plain ...

[aside]
how many separate conversations are going on in this thread now? four?
[/aside]

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by Burns on 08-23-2001 05:40 PM:

quote:
this train is confusing me. You're saying that SDI is a good thing, but that the missiles being used for it are inappropriate?
The missile sent to destroy an incoming attacking missile doesn't need to be as capable as that which it's destroying.

O.K. You obviously missed my point. That point was a clarification as to why the intercept missile could not be used as an ICBM as proposed by a few people on this thread. The intercept missile is definitely capable (as shown in the test).

quote:
or they could take out the command system which would need to be planetside.

Could happen but which one and how many do they take out and where are they???? These companies are NOT stupid. If you and I can come up with these questions, believe me, the U.S. government and military can too and they'll definitely ask the companies working on these projects.

quote:
(until someone bothers to put radar stealth on a missile, anyway, but even those systems have been defeated)

There are other methods of detection besides radar which work as well or better.

Have you ever heard of an attack on satellites? I haven't. I believe that it would be possible but it would have to occur BEFORE the ICBM is launched. And it would require a simultaneous destruction of the ENTIRE network and it's backups or else the other satellites would show what's happening. I'm not listing numbers but let's just say it would take an incredible amount of firepower to do that. If an attack was made on the satellites before the launch, the U.S. would be alerted and possible have a ground/air/sea force taking out the launch before it happens, seeing as a war/tactical situation would be declared for the destruction of American property.

nuff said for now. Bring it.

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-24-2001 03:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
But by implication, you're accusing the American people of going along with leaders that are bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war because of NMD.

Yes, but I'm not implying that the American people are aware of what their leaders are doing.

quote:
Apples and oranges. There are very significant cultural and political differences between the two peoples. China has had an imperialist/dictatorial system of government for as long as we know of. Americans bend over for (or rise up against) totally different forms of atrocities than would inspire the same reactions in China.

To a limited extent, yes. Some things are going to illicit a poor response, regardless of the flag that person lives under.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-24-2001 03:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
...Hope I've cleared things up but I could have just made it plain as mud.

- Burns

Thanks, Burns. Another question: how destructive could we make one of our defensive missles?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Burns on 08-24-2001 04:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
how destructive could we make one of our defensive missles?

Now there is a question that I can't answer. I'm fairly certain they could not be Nuclear-capable. The thing is they are designed as surface-to-air missiles. This design is usually quite different than surface-to-surface or air-to-surface. So this further limits their functionality as anything other than that for which they are made.

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-24-2001 06:46 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
Now there is a question that I can't answer. I'm fairly certain they could not be Nuclear-capable. The thing is they are designed as surface-to-air missiles. This design is usually quite different than surface-to-surface or air-to-surface. So this further limits their functionality as anything other than that for which they are made.

- Burns

Thanks again.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 08-24-2001 07:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Yes, but I'm not implying that the American people are aware of what their leaders are doing.

*sigh* Then why would you assume that the Chinese people are any more aware of what their leaders are doing especially since they don't have freedom of the press?

quote:
To a limited extent, yes. Some things are going to illicit a poor response, regardless of the flag that person lives under.

Like what? I think you're being a bit naive here.

Posted by VTL on 08-25-2001 12:40 AM:

The current system being tested uses a kinetic kill vehicle, so it can't be made destructive at all. It's basically a big bullet moving really, really fast.

Now, other concepts have been bandied about for SDI over the years, including nuclear-tipped interceptors, or interceptors with nuke-powered "pump" x-ray lasers, but to my knowledge none of these concepts are currently on the drawing board.

To answer a point made previously about evading the system by either taking out the early-warning satellites or taking out the ground command station, neither of those is a serious threat.

1. As to the first, only a very sophisticated foe could mount a real anti-sat attack. The NMD program is not designed to stop an attack from such an aggressor, because their offensive systems will be too sophisticated for the limited defense contemplated by the Bush administration. Any country with the military and technical skills to mount a comprehensive anti-satellite effort are also able to overwhelm the defense. The Soviets (allegedly) had that capability, but I'm not sure they do now.

The Iraqis, by most accounts, were close to having a viable nuclear weapons program and ballistic missle program at the time of the gulf war. They aren't anywhere close to having the ability to shoot down a satellite in orbit.

2. As to the second, I don't know where the command center is projected to be, but you can bet it will have pretty decent security. You go try and take out NORAD or SAC headquarters tomorrow. See how far you get.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-25-2001 01:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
*sigh* Then why would you assume that the Chinese people are any more aware of what their leaders are doing especially since they don't have freedom of the press?

We sure seem to know what's going on over there with enough certainty to warrant criticism.

note: this doesn't answer your question. My answer to your question is that their populace probably has less idea what their gov't is doing than the average American. IOW, I agree. My response is merely a criticism of the apparent omniscience Americans seem to believe they possess.

quote:
Like what?

Pick any two accusations that our gov't has made against them.

quote:
I think you're being a bit naive here.

That's funny. I was thinking that you weren't giving the Chinese populace any intellectual credit and blindly believing our media's hype. If their culture is so much different and everyone over there is entirely pleased with how their country is being run, why do we need to evangelize?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-25-2001 01:24 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by VTL
The current system being tested uses a kinetic kill vehicle, so it can't be made destructive at all. It's basically a big bullet moving really, really fast.

My problem has never been the capabilities that we will put into NMD. It's been one of potential. What could those capabilities be?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by VTL on 08-26-2001 05:34 AM:

I'm no expert in the field (dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a rocket scientist), but I did study this sort of thing a bit in college - I was an international relations major - and I've tried to keep up with it since. It would be very difficult to redesign the current interceptor rocket to carry a destructive payload that would be used against a ground target. Different guidance system, completely different warhead/payload.

Besides, what's the point? We already have perfectly good offensive ICBMs in abundance, not to mention nuke-capable cruise missles and manned bombers. There would be no need to go to the trouble and expense to redesign on a missle interceptor to turn it into an offensive weapon.

I favor NMD, but I agree there are good objections to deploying it. The possibility that the current system could be redesigned for an offensive purpose is not one of them.

Posted by Yorick on 08-26-2001 03:21 PM:

Originally posted by Burns
O.K. You obviously missed my point. That point was a clarification as to why the intercept missile could not be used as an ICBM as proposed by a few people on this thread. The intercept missile is definitely capable (as shown in the test).

I don't believe I missed anybody's point, I just didn't put six and three together and see where that part of the discussion started. Thanks for the clarification.

Could happen but which one and how many do they take out and where are they???? These companies are NOT stupid. If you and I can come up with these questions, believe me, the U.S. government and military can too and they'll definitely ask the companies working on these projects.

Well, I hope so ... but the military has a tendency to screw things up (the Bradley comes to mind).

Have you ever heard of an attack on satellites? I haven't.
I've seen too many movies.

And it would require a simultaneous destruction of the ENTIRE network and it's backups or else the other satellites would show what's happening. I'm not listing numbers but let's just say it would take an incredible amount of firepower to do that.
Well, the Pentagon had a bit o trouble with the Code Red virus (or the other one, I forget) so it's not that difficult ...

nuff said for now. Bring it.
Bring what? my lunch?

I'm not trying to bait you or anything, Burns. I've never thought SDI was a good idea - I even had to do a paper on it once, back in the Reagan administration - and I still can't find a compelling reason to think it would be an effective deterrant. If anything, it may be seen as provocation. And what happens if/when one of these missiles sees an airplane from, say, France coming into O'Hare and decides it's actually a nuclear warhead sent to destroy our way of life?

VTL brings up some valid points about the likelihood of satelite or command destruction. Though I still feel there's a possibility, perhaps it's not as possible as what I've written paints it as.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-26-2001 03:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by VTL
The possibility that the current system could be redesigned for an offensive purpose is not one of them.

You're a day late and a dollar short. Burns covered that already.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Burns on 08-27-2001 01:09 AM:

quote:
Bring it

Been watching too much of Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by Toby on 08-27-2001 03:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
We sure seem to know what's going on over there with enough certainty to warrant criticism.

If a non-Chinese citizen witnesses something, why would you think the Chinese government would instigate an international incident by trying to do something serious to them?

quote:
note: this doesn't answer your question. My answer to your question is that their populace probably has less idea what their gov't is doing than the average American. IOW, I agree. My response is merely a criticism of the apparent omniscience Americans seem to believe they possess.

I couldn't care less about what some hypothetical Americans think they possess. None of these Americans seem to have ever crossed my path. Most of the ones I know are pretty sure that their government and the media aren't telling them the whole truth all the time.

quote:
Pick any two accusations that our gov't has made against them.

That's a cop-out, but how about forced abortions and reproductive limitations?

quote:
That's funny. I was thinking that you weren't giving the Chinese populace any intellectual credit and blindly believing our media's hype.

Intellect has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that on the whole, the Chinese are just as intelligent as anyone else. What does that have to do with culture, though? Intelligence doesn't necessarily change one's view of an individual's place in their society.

quote:
If their culture is so much different and everyone over there is entirely pleased with how their country is being run, why do we need to evangelize?

I never said everyone there was entirely pleased with how their country was being run. Don't put words into my mouth. I'm sure that there is a significant bit of unhappiness about it (just look at Tiananmen Square). However, generally, their culture has a much longer viewpoint than ours, and they don't always consider immediate change worthy of 'rocking the boat'.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-27-2001 11:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
If a non-Chinese citizen witnesses something, why would you think the Chinese government would instigate an international incident by trying to do something serious to them?

They wouldn't, but I don't understand how that relates to my point.

quote:
I couldn't care less about what some hypothetical Americans think they possess. None of these Americans seem to have ever crossed my path. Most of the ones I know are pretty sure that their government and the media aren't telling them the whole truth all the time.

Hmmmm. While most of the ones I know don't believe their being told the whole truth, they do believe they aren't being flat-out lied to, and they seem to have no problem to believe whatever they are fed by the media when it comes to other countries, China and Russia in particular.

quote:
That's a cop-out, but how about forced abortions and reproductive limitations?

Wasn't meant as a cop-out. I'm not sure about the average Chinese feelings about the issues you mention. You can't be, either. I'm sure the billion or so Chinese have the ability to change things for themselves without America securing for them what they really want and just don't know. America wants to kill criminals and babies while expanding the military, that all great and good. If America wants to criticize China for killing babies and criminals while expanding their military, that wonderful, too. My problem comes in when America wants to do both at the same time.

quote:
Intellect has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that on the whole, the Chinese are just as intelligent as anyone else. What does that have to do with culture, though? Intelligence doesn't necessarily change one's view of an individual's place in their society.

Right.

quote:
I never said everyone there was entirely pleased with how their country was being run. Don't put words into my mouth. I'm sure that there is a significant bit of unhappiness about it (just look at Tiananmen Square). However, generally, their culture has a much longer viewpoint than ours, and they don't always consider immediate change worthy of 'rocking the boat'.

Not putting words in your mouth. This is an exercise in clarification. What makes you think they have a longer viewpoint than ours? And why would that longer viewpoint necessitate evangelization?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 08-28-2001 03:22 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
They wouldn't, but I don't understand how that relates to my point.

It would be how we might know something that happens there that the average Chinese citizen might not find out about. If one of their citizens witnesses something they shouldn't, they might be able to ensure it doesn't go any farther. The same can't be said about a CNN reporter.

quote:
Hmmmm. While most of the ones I know don't believe their being told the whole truth, they do believe they aren't being flat-out lied to, and they seem to have no problem to believe whatever they are fed by the media when it comes to other countries, China and Russia in particular.

According to numbers from Pew Internet that I saw yesterday, only about 31% of the people they surveyed believed that their government was telling them the truth either most or all of the time. That means that 69% don't believe that. Besides, I doubt if we're ever flat-out lied to by them anyway. The most effective lies always contain at least some truths. A bald-faced lie can usually be proven as such pretty easily.

quote:
Wasn't meant as a cop-out. I'm not sure about the average Chinese feelings about the issues you mention.

I doubt they like it much, but I can pretty much guarantee that it would cause some serious problems here if it were tried. Reproduction being a basic natural instinct would seem to be one of those 'regardless of flags' issues that you mentioned, but I don't see the Chinese overthrowing their government (or even putting up much in the way of protest) for it. Further considering that there are quite a few motivated parties who would love to expose such protests being put down, I can't see how they could escape notice.

quote:
You can't be, either.

Therein lies the rub. I never claimed to be sure about anything about them (nor about Americans in general either).

quote:
I'm sure the billion or so Chinese have the ability to change things for themselves without America securing for them what they really want and just don't know.

How are you so sure? How exactly are they going to overthrow their military (if they were so inclined) when they have no weapons?

quote:
America wants to kill criminals and babies while expanding the military, that all great and good. If America wants to criticize China for killing babies and criminals while expanding their military, that wonderful, too. My problem comes in when America wants to do both at the same time.

So, Americans allowing women the choice to kill their own unborn babies, and killing criminals who are convicted by a jury of their peers and allowed a generous appeals process is no different from the Chinese government forcing women to have abortions and killing criminals under a much more streamlined 'process'?

quote:
Not putting words in your mouth.

Your question was phrased in a way which attributed a viewpoint to me which I don't hold.

quote:
This is an exercise in clarification.

It's seeming like an exercise in futility to me at this point.

quote:
What makes you think they have a longer viewpoint than ours?

Stuff I've read combined with anecdotal experiences.

quote:
And why would that longer viewpoint necessitate evangelization?

Non sequitur.

Posted by dick-richardson on 09-05-2001 05:35 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
It's seeming like an exercise in futility to me at this point.

Agreed.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 PM.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page