US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7272
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:30 On_Slaught wrote: There is a reason we haven't shit down any of these test missles shot into Japanese water and the like. I tend to lean towards the idea that we are afraid we will miss, which would be pretty catastrophic news. Still, against NK level missles we have a good chance of hitting. It's the Russian types that leave the atmosphere which are hardest to hit. Russian missiles are obviously quite a bit better than anything the North Koreans could come up with, but the system can be defeated with a tactic as peasant and pitiful as saturation. With a handful of missiles, not even a particularly large launch. The "perfect conditions" are... fantastic. They for example require that the exact trajectory of the missile is known. The program is a fucking disgrace. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
on korea: even wtih an alpha strike on the north, damage to south korea from artillery and such would likely be in the trillions of dollars. | ||
LightSpectra
United States1128 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote: The article is not an actual article by an actual historian, its conjecture by some random on a gaming forum that flies in the face of not only the consensus of actual historians but also basic historical evidence. As a random on a gaming forum myself I have sufficient authority (none, but nor does the author) to simply dispute it. If you want a better answer then offer a better article. I don't know what "consensus of actual historians" you're talking about since the thesis is supported by I.W.F. Beckett, Patricia Jalland, George Dangerfield and others, but ok. | ||
LightSpectra
United States1128 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:32 Plansix wrote: China is the reason no one was able to end this long ago. Their efforts to support NK in the 1950s caused the US to come to the aid of SK. The stale mate has existed ever since, with China always looming to prevent SK from dealing with NK. But now they want a unified Korea because their pet dictator got nukes and is a bat shit crazy. The PRC could destroy the North Korean regime whenever it wants (they're pretty much the sole economic partner), it just doesn't want tens of millions of refugees flooding across the border. China holds all of the cards here. If any nukes are dropped it's their fault. [EDIT: Unless Trump is really as dumb as everybody has feared and decides upon a pre-emptive strike without international support.] | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote: Russian missiles are obviously quite a bit better than anything the North Koreans could come up with, but the system can be defeated with a tactic as peasant and pitiful as saturation. With a handful of missiles, not even a particularly large launch. The "perfect conditions" are... fantastic. They for example require that the exact trajectory of the missile is known. The program is a fucking disgrace. Hence the HELLADS, Boeing X-37 programs... | ||
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
| ||
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/05/steve-bannon-national-security-council-role-trump-shakeup Donald Trump’s political strategist Steve Bannon has lost his place on the national security council in a staff shakeup, documents show. A presidential memorandum dated 4 April took Bannon, the former Breitbart News executive and chief White House link to the nationalist rightwing, off the country’s main body for foreign policy and national security decision-making. It also restores the traditional roles of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence to the NSC. While the revamp is likely to be seen as a victory for Trump’s second national security adviser, army lieutenant general HR McMaster, the substantive impact of the shakeup remains to be seen. A parallel security structure in the Eisenhower executive office building, known as the Strategic Initiatives Group, reports to Bannon, whose close relationship with Trump suggests continued influence in this administration. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On April 06 2017 03:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Either something is about to blow up/leak, or Bannon pissed off Trump. If either of these happened, why would he still be in such a high up position? | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2017 03:45 Mohdoo wrote: If either of these happened, why would he still be in such a high up position? Trump occasionally fires by sidelining. | ||
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:33 LegalLord wrote: Russian missiles are obviously quite a bit better than anything the North Koreans could come up with, but the system can be defeated with a tactic as peasant and pitiful as saturation. With a handful of missiles, not even a particularly large launch. The "perfect conditions" are... fantastic. They for example require that the exact trajectory of the missile is known. The program is a fucking disgrace. As far as missiles go, you can either kill it in boost phase(hard because proximity is required), coast (how do you intercept something 100km up going ~7km/s more or less tangent to you), or terminal(need a launcher near target, also very time critical). Most existing AA weapons are designed to blow up when close enough that fragmentation will probably kill(doesn't need a direct hit). An object going 7km/s will outrun an explosion, so you need to target your interceptor at an area where the missile will be in a twentieth of a second. That's 350m downrange. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2017 03:55 Amui wrote: As far as missiles go, you can either kill it in boost phase(hard because proximity is required), coast (how do you intercept something 100km up going ~7km/s more or less tangent to you), or terminal(need a launcher near target, also very time critical). Most existing AA weapons are designed to blow up when close enough that fragmentation will probably kill(doesn't need a direct hit). An object going 7km/s will outrun an explosion, so you need to target your interceptor at an area where the missile will be in a twentieth of a second. That's 350m downrange. Yeah, that's the basic problem as I talked about in my earlier post. Long story short, though, the US's missile defense system really doesn't have anywhere near the reliability it would need under real circumstances. The working assumption should be that an ICBM would be able to hit the US if launched. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 06 2017 03:59 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, that's the basic problem as I talked about in my earlier post. Long story short, though, the US's missile defense system really doesn't have anywhere near the reliability it would need under real circumstances. The working assumption should be that an ICBM would be able to hit the US if launched. I would be somewhat horrified if a lot of people assumed the opposite. | ||
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
I wonder how much he had to be talked into doing that, though. As for missiles intercepting missiles. I have never seen evidence that it is possible. The faster and the smaller they are, the more unlikely. I have high doubts about Patriot. Even more about the absurd claims about Iron Dome. And hitting something that goes 7 km/s or faster, extremely unlikely. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
On April 06 2017 04:13 Philoctetes wrote: I am actually shocked at Trump denouncing a chemical weapons attack. And not even a remark that he knows it is ISIS, and not Assad, because 'he is like a very smart person'. I wonder how much he had to be talked into doing that, though. As for missiles intercepting missiles. I have never seen evidence that it is possible. The faster and the smaller they are, the more unlikely. I have high doubts about Patriot. Even more about the absurd claims about Iron Dome. And hitting something that goes 7 km/s or faster, extremely unlikely. Its actually the faster and larger they are the more unlikly. You're talking about a really big launch vehicle for an ICBM and the common tactic for anti air missles is to blow up in front of the target and destroy the target through a clowd of shrapnel. This is thrown out the window with ICBM's due to its incredible speed and kinetic energy able to just plow through the shrapnel and keep going to the target. Anything large enough to knock it out and you get a problem of it picking up enough speed to reach the target and anything smaller isn't going to take the thing out. The star wars project was never going to get off the ground due to a lack of technology but it still remains the best idea we have so far for taking out these space fairing craft so far. God forbid what will happen with SCRAMJET aided craft in a decade or three. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42022 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
A pointy-beaked F-35B Lightning II idles noisily on a runway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in southern Maryland. Suddenly the plane roars to life and sprints a mere 300 feet before abruptly lifting off and soaring into a cloudless, late-winter sky over Chesapeake Bay. A while later it zooms back into view, slows to a hover over the runway like a helicopter, then drops straight down to the concrete, where it lands with a gentle bounce. A U.S. Marine Corps test pilot is manning the controls. If he were Air Force or Navy, his version of the military’s highly anticipated new fighter jet wouldn’t have this capacity to take off and land on a dime—though it would come with other custom features. This is why Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, who’s in charge of overseeing the acquisition of the F-35, brought three plastic models of the fighter jet to a December 2016 meeting with Donald Trump at his Florida residence. Bogdan, a tall former test pilot who speaks in a raspy, authoritative voice, has been working with Lockheed Martin Corp., the plane’s manufacturer and the country’s largest defense contractor, since 2012. Nine days before their meeting, Trump had called Bogdan’s program “out of control” in a tweet, so the three-star general knew that at Mar-a-Lago, the president-elect would put him on the spot. But what he didn’t anticipate was Trump’s eagerness to demonstrate his own knowledge of aviation. Trump talked with pride about his personal Boeing 757, Bogdan says. “Anything about airplanes, he’s excited about, and he told me that the first time we met.” Amid the gold-inlaid, high-ceilinged splendor of the Jazz Age château in Palm Beach, Bogdan explained the F-35’s advanced sensor system and stealth capability. Trump listened respectfully, but the next day he was back on Twitter, complaining about the plane’s “tremendous cost and cost overruns.” To Bogdan’s continued surprise, in the days before the inauguration, Trump twice telephoned the general at his office in an austere Pentagon annex in Arlington, Va. He wanted to discuss the allegations he’d heard that the F-35’s performance fell short of existing fighters. Bogdan hastened to reassure Trump that those claims were “myths,” “misinformation,” or “old information”—none of them worth believing. On Jan. 30, his 10th day as president, Trump markedly changed his tone. He took credit for knocking $600 million off the price of the latest batch of 90 fighters and told reporters the F-35 was “a great plane.” Since then, he’s made the F-35 an emblem of his dealmaking prowess. During his Feb. 28 address to a joint session of Congress, the president boasted he’d “saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter.” In truth, thanks to Bogdan’s negotiations with Lockheed, prices were going to fall with or without Trump’s intervention. And the plane, discounts notwithstanding, is still on its way to becoming the priciest military procurement in U.S. history. Trump’s self-congratulation serves as a distraction from the larger issue troubling the fighter jet: its performance. While the Pentagon’s official line is that, after years of difficulties, the F-35 is meeting high expectations, skeptics both outside and within the military say it’s turning out to be a two-decades-in-the-making, trillion-dollar mistake. Source A nice, somewhat long article, on the massive trillion-dollar boondoggle that has won over every skeptic with sufficient jobs in their home state. At least everyone who stands to benefit from a trillion being sunk into the program says that it's worth it. | ||
| ||