|
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. |
On April 06 2017 06:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:43 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:24 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:20 LegalLord wrote:
Schumer well on track to prove that, yes, it's possible to be a worse Democratic minority leader than Harry Reid. One theory was that Schumer was playing chicken with the GOP, thinking they wouldn't change the rule. Now, as I and many other conservatives have said before, the party contains many squishes. But this is about as close to an open and shut case as the GOP can get. Nominee untouched by scandal with a great pedigree and endorsements, a win in the previous election that was, in large part, about this seat, and finally, the precedent of Harry Reid and the almost unprecedented nature of Democratic obstruction. If they can't do this they can't do anything. On April 06 2017 06:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Love hearing conservatives use the word obstruction in relation to the Supreme Court...or anything, really. I know you do, which is why I'm using it now. It's a fun word to use after hearing about it for so long! if this is the closest they can get to an open and hsut case that's very sad; as the case is very very far from and open shut. and pretending otherwise is only the domain of extremely partisan hacks showing a degree of bias bordering on insanity. also laughable to not note the extreme Republican obstructionism. not surprising the republicans would force it through of cdourse, they're bad people not interested in good government. ok, then what good reasons do they have for preventing this confirmation? New challenge, you can't use the words "Merrick" or "Garland." To do so is to invoke the petty partisanship you are so opposed to. yes, you've proven your partisanship by asserting that a valid point is invalid with no sound basis. congratulations. you lose. you are the partisan hack. But I provided three strong reasons. Citing Merrick Garland (who was not in the same position as Gorsuch is now) is entirely based on revenge. Unless you really think Trump should reappoint Garland, which is laughable.
Garland isn't in the position, because the republicans never gave him the chance to be in this position... Which I think is way worse.
|
On April 06 2017 06:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:47 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:43 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:24 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:20 LegalLord wrote:
Schumer well on track to prove that, yes, it's possible to be a worse Democratic minority leader than Harry Reid. One theory was that Schumer was playing chicken with the GOP, thinking they wouldn't change the rule. Now, as I and many other conservatives have said before, the party contains many squishes. But this is about as close to an open and shut case as the GOP can get. Nominee untouched by scandal with a great pedigree and endorsements, a win in the previous election that was, in large part, about this seat, and finally, the precedent of Harry Reid and the almost unprecedented nature of Democratic obstruction. If they can't do this they can't do anything. On April 06 2017 06:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Love hearing conservatives use the word obstruction in relation to the Supreme Court...or anything, really. I know you do, which is why I'm using it now. It's a fun word to use after hearing about it for so long! if this is the closest they can get to an open and hsut case that's very sad; as the case is very very far from and open shut. and pretending otherwise is only the domain of extremely partisan hacks showing a degree of bias bordering on insanity. also laughable to not note the extreme Republican obstructionism. not surprising the republicans would force it through of cdourse, they're bad people not interested in good government. ok, then what good reasons do they have for preventing this confirmation? New challenge, you can't use the words "Merrick" or "Garland." To do so is to invoke the petty partisanship you are so opposed to. yes, you've proven your partisanship by asserting that a valid point is invalid with no sound basis. congratulations. you lose. you are the partisan hack. But I provided three strong reasons. Citing Merrick Garland (who was not in the same position as Gorsuch is now) is entirely based on revenge. Unless you really think Trump should reappoint Garland, which is laughable. Garland isn't in the position, because the republicans never gave him the chance to be in this position... Which I think is way worse.
But Garland's appointment was to a Republican Senate in the first place. He may or may not have been confirmed (probably not). Gorsuch is being filibustered by only one party, which is unique in Senate history. Meanwhile, a denial of a final year appointment has happened multiple times in the past, through a variety of mechanisms. Off the top of my head I know that at least one was done by the Senate simply sitting on it and refusing to act. Which is basically what McConnell did.
Anyway I have to step out for a while, but I do want to see where this ends up.
|
On April 06 2017 04:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Technically speaking, if you could teleport a 1kg object in front of a warhead going 7km/s, there's roughly 24.5m joules of energy that needs to be dissipated (yes I know it's different based on elastic and inelastic impacts and so on, although I suspect at this speed, it isn't going to bounce off). Roughly equivalent to the amount of energy in a 120mm APFSDS shell, so putting enough armor to survive that on a reentry vehicle isn't really feasible. Even a few hundred grams would probably be enough to kill it.
|
On April 06 2017 06:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 06 2017 06:47 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:43 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:24 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:20 LegalLord wrote:
Schumer well on track to prove that, yes, it's possible to be a worse Democratic minority leader than Harry Reid. One theory was that Schumer was playing chicken with the GOP, thinking they wouldn't change the rule. Now, as I and many other conservatives have said before, the party contains many squishes. But this is about as close to an open and shut case as the GOP can get. Nominee untouched by scandal with a great pedigree and endorsements, a win in the previous election that was, in large part, about this seat, and finally, the precedent of Harry Reid and the almost unprecedented nature of Democratic obstruction. If they can't do this they can't do anything. On April 06 2017 06:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Love hearing conservatives use the word obstruction in relation to the Supreme Court...or anything, really. I know you do, which is why I'm using it now. It's a fun word to use after hearing about it for so long! if this is the closest they can get to an open and hsut case that's very sad; as the case is very very far from and open shut. and pretending otherwise is only the domain of extremely partisan hacks showing a degree of bias bordering on insanity. also laughable to not note the extreme Republican obstructionism. not surprising the republicans would force it through of cdourse, they're bad people not interested in good government. ok, then what good reasons do they have for preventing this confirmation? New challenge, you can't use the words "Merrick" or "Garland." To do so is to invoke the petty partisanship you are so opposed to. yes, you've proven your partisanship by asserting that a valid point is invalid with no sound basis. congratulations. you lose. you are the partisan hack. But I provided three strong reasons. Citing Merrick Garland (who was not in the same position as Gorsuch is now) is entirely based on revenge. Unless you really think Trump should reappoint Garland, which is laughable. Garland isn't in the position, because the republicans never gave him the chance to be in this position... Which I think is way worse. But Garland's appointment was to a Republican Senate in the first place. He may or may not have been confirmed (probably not). Gorsuch is being filibustered by only one party, which is unique in Senate history. Meanwhile, a denial of a final year appointment has happened multiple times in the past, through a variety of mechanisms. Off the top of my head I know that at least one was done by the Senate simply sitting on it and refusing to act. Which is basically what McConnell did. Anyway I have to step out for a while, but I do want to see where this ends up.
It happened in the past, and that last time was in 1881... and that person who Congress took "No action" on accepted him on the next time he was introduced the same year. It's already been way over a century, and congress decided to not even give him a chance at least? Garbage resolution.
|
On April 06 2017 06:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:43 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:24 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:20 LegalLord wrote:
Schumer well on track to prove that, yes, it's possible to be a worse Democratic minority leader than Harry Reid. One theory was that Schumer was playing chicken with the GOP, thinking they wouldn't change the rule. Now, as I and many other conservatives have said before, the party contains many squishes. But this is about as close to an open and shut case as the GOP can get. Nominee untouched by scandal with a great pedigree and endorsements, a win in the previous election that was, in large part, about this seat, and finally, the precedent of Harry Reid and the almost unprecedented nature of Democratic obstruction. If they can't do this they can't do anything. On April 06 2017 06:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Love hearing conservatives use the word obstruction in relation to the Supreme Court...or anything, really. I know you do, which is why I'm using it now. It's a fun word to use after hearing about it for so long! if this is the closest they can get to an open and hsut case that's very sad; as the case is very very far from and open shut. and pretending otherwise is only the domain of extremely partisan hacks showing a degree of bias bordering on insanity. also laughable to not note the extreme Republican obstructionism. not surprising the republicans would force it through of cdourse, they're bad people not interested in good government. ok, then what good reasons do they have for preventing this confirmation? New challenge, you can't use the words "Merrick" or "Garland." To do so is to invoke the petty partisanship you are so opposed to. yes, you've proven your partisanship by asserting that a valid point is invalid with no sound basis. congratulations. you lose. you are the partisan hack. But I provided three strong reasons. Citing Merrick Garland (who was not in the same position as Gorsuch is now) is entirely based on revenge. Unless you really think Trump should reappoint Garland, which is laughable.
you denied ANY possibility to cite garland; and you claim the motive is revenge. which is 100% proof that you're being pure partisan hack
you can't even conceive of the notion that people would feel unconstitutional behavior by the republicans should be opposed.
do you admit that what the republicans did to garland was a horrible violation of norms?
|
On April 06 2017 04:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't agree. The problem is hitting it. Having an actual collision. A nearby explosion will not work for any rocket. And ideally for conventional warheads, you want to detonate them. Not just throw them out of it's original trajectory. The nukes, you also want to disable. The smaller it is, the harder.
For ICBM's, having a decoy is a huge problem. Apparently, just adding some odd balloon decoy system will throw off any possible missile intercept design.
|
On April 06 2017 06:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:31 Plansix wrote:
The filibuster is a powerful tool that is supposed to be used with rarely. Much like the rule that Presidents only served 2 terms, we had a long standing tradition of not abusing these tools to obstruct government. That tradition is pretty much dead and the government cannot function if even one of the parties is willing to use the filibuster to grind government to a halt.
If the Republicans keep the Senate majority in 2018, I expect that to be the last term of the legislative filibuster.
I don't think you appreciate the unique situation we are in right now. The legislative filibuster will almost certainly remain intact with no changes, though all things are possible. Edit: if I were a betting man I'd bet that the party to kill it would be the Democrats the next time they take back the Senate.
Someone will kill it. I fully appreciate what is happening right now. During the last administration the Republican senate held up more nominations with the filibuster than have ever been held up before. It was 50 judges they just refused to vote on and then they did it to Garland.
I posted an article about this yesterday. The abuse of the filibuster has been ramping up for the last 15 years. During Reagan it was used less than 200 times through all 8 years. It was well more than double that under Obama, over 100 between each midterm. 2012 was the peek, with over 200 filibusters in a 2 years. This has been a long time coming. It is just to powerful a tool if one side is willing to use it to block everything. It has to go or they need to start working with each other.
|
In terms of being qualified for the position, neither Gorsuch nor Garland left much to be desired. The difference between them is only an ideological one; both are fully qualified to be in that seat. What this is about, as we all know, is just that: partisanship. The Republicans started with an ugly and unreasonable, yet ultimately successful, stroke of partisanship in denying Garland a hearing and a vote. It was shitty but it worked, so where we are now is Gorsuch. Who is also qualified, but it is not unreasonable to think that, you know, maybe it's worth returning the favor out of spite.
The problem is here: there's no follow-up to this plan. The Democrats hold neither the Senate nor the presidency; they will not get their nominee of choice through. The Republicans have indicated that they are willing to go nuclear on this and it's pretty obvious that they aren't bluffing. There's no moral objection to Gorsuch in and of himself; the Republicans are the problem. So what's happening is, without any follow-up plan, the Democrats under their brilliant leader Schumer are pursuing a policy whose only visible outcome is spite. They may or may not have enough defectors to embarrass themselves and show that even Schumer can't make things work out; in any case they're not stopping the confirmation. What exactly is the point in putting a bottleneck in the way of the confirmation of a perfectly qualified SCOTUS nominee if there's no chance of this working in their favor?
|
On April 06 2017 06:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 06 2017 06:47 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:43 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:24 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:20 LegalLord wrote:
Schumer well on track to prove that, yes, it's possible to be a worse Democratic minority leader than Harry Reid. One theory was that Schumer was playing chicken with the GOP, thinking they wouldn't change the rule. Now, as I and many other conservatives have said before, the party contains many squishes. But this is about as close to an open and shut case as the GOP can get. Nominee untouched by scandal with a great pedigree and endorsements, a win in the previous election that was, in large part, about this seat, and finally, the precedent of Harry Reid and the almost unprecedented nature of Democratic obstruction. If they can't do this they can't do anything. On April 06 2017 06:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Love hearing conservatives use the word obstruction in relation to the Supreme Court...or anything, really. I know you do, which is why I'm using it now. It's a fun word to use after hearing about it for so long! if this is the closest they can get to an open and hsut case that's very sad; as the case is very very far from and open shut. and pretending otherwise is only the domain of extremely partisan hacks showing a degree of bias bordering on insanity. also laughable to not note the extreme Republican obstructionism. not surprising the republicans would force it through of cdourse, they're bad people not interested in good government. ok, then what good reasons do they have for preventing this confirmation? New challenge, you can't use the words "Merrick" or "Garland." To do so is to invoke the petty partisanship you are so opposed to. yes, you've proven your partisanship by asserting that a valid point is invalid with no sound basis. congratulations. you lose. you are the partisan hack. But I provided three strong reasons. Citing Merrick Garland (who was not in the same position as Gorsuch is now) is entirely based on revenge. Unless you really think Trump should reappoint Garland, which is laughable. Garland isn't in the position, because the republicans never gave him the chance to be in this position... Which I think is way worse. But Garland's appointment was to a Republican Senate in the first place. He may or may not have been confirmed (probably not). Gorsuch is being filibustered by only one party, which is unique in Senate history. Meanwhile, a denial of a final year appointment has happened multiple times in the past, through a variety of mechanisms. Off the top of my head I know that at least one was done by the Senate simply sitting on it and refusing to act. Which is basically what McConnell did. Anyway I have to step out for a while, but I do want to see where this ends up.
Why don't you tell us about that awesome 1888 precedent that justifies the Garland situation.
|
|
|
On April 06 2017 06:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 06:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 06 2017 06:47 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:43 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:On April 06 2017 06:24 Introvert wrote:On April 06 2017 06:20 LegalLord wrote:
Schumer well on track to prove that, yes, it's possible to be a worse Democratic minority leader than Harry Reid. One theory was that Schumer was playing chicken with the GOP, thinking they wouldn't change the rule. Now, as I and many other conservatives have said before, the party contains many squishes. But this is about as close to an open and shut case as the GOP can get. Nominee untouched by scandal with a great pedigree and endorsements, a win in the previous election that was, in large part, about this seat, and finally, the precedent of Harry Reid and the almost unprecedented nature of Democratic obstruction. If they can't do this they can't do anything. On April 06 2017 06:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Love hearing conservatives use the word obstruction in relation to the Supreme Court...or anything, really. I know you do, which is why I'm using it now. It's a fun word to use after hearing about it for so long! if this is the closest they can get to an open and hsut case that's very sad; as the case is very very far from and open shut. and pretending otherwise is only the domain of extremely partisan hacks showing a degree of bias bordering on insanity. also laughable to not note the extreme Republican obstructionism. not surprising the republicans would force it through of cdourse, they're bad people not interested in good government. ok, then what good reasons do they have for preventing this confirmation? New challenge, you can't use the words "Merrick" or "Garland." To do so is to invoke the petty partisanship you are so opposed to. yes, you've proven your partisanship by asserting that a valid point is invalid with no sound basis. congratulations. you lose. you are the partisan hack. But I provided three strong reasons. Citing Merrick Garland (who was not in the same position as Gorsuch is now) is entirely based on revenge. Unless you really think Trump should reappoint Garland, which is laughable. Garland isn't in the position, because the republicans never gave him the chance to be in this position... Which I think is way worse. But Garland's appointment was to a Republican Senate in the first place. He may or may not have been confirmed (probably not). Gorsuch is being filibustered by only one party, which is unique in Senate history. Meanwhile, a denial of a final year appointment has happened multiple times in the past, through a variety of mechanisms. Off the top of my head I know that at least one was done by the Senate simply sitting on it and refusing to act. Which is basically what McConnell did. Anyway I have to step out for a while, but I do want to see where this ends up.
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522598965/going-nuclear-how-we-got-here
Taking this event on its own does not account for the slow build we have had to this point. Garland was the final straw in an unsustainable stand off. Both parties are to blame for the endless escalation. But claiming this is sustainable or the fault of the Democrats for taking it to far just means you are not appreciating how long this has been a problem.
|
It's like punching someone and claiming the kick you received in return is an unprecedented breach of conduct. One person started the fight and the other upped the ante. Who gets a larger share of the blame?
Of course denying Gorsuch is political hackery and revenge based. Of course denying Garland was political hackery. You can't expect one side to not respond with the few actions they have available to them after taking a cheap shot.
"It's an election year" was terrible justification because once retaliation rolls around, that time frame will just get longer. I'm really curious how things would have played out with a split presidency/senate. How long would it have taken to fill the seat? Should we just leave spots empty until we get a unified presidency/senate? "Election year" is completely arbitrary.
Let's just say for the sake of argument the reality in which Dem's confirm Gorsuch, and win the presidency and small senate majority in 2020 occurs and a SC seat needs to be filled. The question is: would Republicans confirm someone in this situation? If the answer to this question is no, strategically, Dem's should absolutely block Gorsuch for as long as possible to trigger the nuclear option because they have nothing to gain by playing ball.
|
What benefit do the Democrats get from forcing the Republicans to go nuclear? It won't gain them much sympathy beyond their most dedicated base. And it won't get them the result they want. It just doesn't have much benefit for their cause.
|
On April 06 2017 07:34 Azuzu wrote:
Let's just say for the sake of argument the reality in which Dem's confirm Gorsuch, and win the presidency and small senate majority in 2020 occurs and a SC seat needs to be filled. The question is: would Republicans confirm someone in this situation? If the answer to this question is no, strategically, Dem's should absolutely block Gorsuch for as long as possible to trigger the nuclear option.
This is the reason why the filibuster is going to be removed. There is no reason to believe the Republicans would not block a nominee if they felt they could get away with it. There is zero good faith left in the chamber.
On April 06 2017 07:36 LegalLord wrote:
What benefit do the Democrats get from forcing the Republicans to go nuclear? It won't gain them much sympathy beyond their most dedicated base. And it won't get them the result they want. It just doesn't have much benefit for their cause.
It ends the facade that the parties can work together. As I said back in January, bipartisanship has failed and will continue to fail until both sides touch the stove. There is no good faith left between the parties and have to stop pretending it exists.
McCain said he thinks this is terrible, bad for the Senate and for the court. And in the next sentence he said he would vote to remove the filibuster. It is all talk. Party before your seat in the Senate.
|
On April 06 2017 07:36 LegalLord wrote:
What benefit do the Democrats get from forcing the Republicans to go nuclear? It won't gain them much sympathy beyond their most dedicated base. And it won't get them the result they want. It just doesn't have much benefit for their cause.
It would guarantee that if the situation were reversed, which given the recent electoral patterns very well may happen, they would get the nominee they choose without the bad optics of triggering the nuclear option themselves. They are already powerless to stop Gorsuch so the only thing they can do is set themselves up for the next battle.
Ideally, a split presidency/senate would work together to find a middle ground candidate. That clearly didn't happen. "An eye for eye leaves everyone blind" is where we're headed because both sides have too many strategic benefits in not working together.
|
On April 06 2017 07:36 LegalLord wrote:
What benefit do the Democrats get from forcing the Republicans to go nuclear? It won't gain them much sympathy beyond their most dedicated base. And it won't get them the result they want. It just doesn't have much benefit for their cause.
I think that the republicans have every incentive to go nuclear. They are going to have a structural advantage in holding the senate for the foreseeable future. Whether they properly leverage that advantage into holding the senate is a separate matter, but the advantage is there.
|
On April 06 2017 07:36 LegalLord wrote:
What benefit do the Democrats get from forcing the Republicans to go nuclear? It won't gain them much sympathy beyond their most dedicated base. And it won't get them the result they want. It just doesn't have much benefit for their cause.
most likely to avoid getting primaried by other Dems saying they should've fought; a very typical result of increasing tribalism/partisanship.
Also somewhat it makes the Republicans look bad, the overall effects on independents may be worse for the Republicans than the Dems, and therefore it would be a gain. It wouldn't be hard to believe that it'd hurt the Republicans worse than the Dems, and I could easily imagine the Dems believing such.
|
There's also the point that getting rid of it makes it harder for the GOP to be as obstructionist as the minority party as they were during the Obama years in future congresses. Like, the democrats were going to have to get rid of the filibuster if they wanted to ever get a SC justice again without a super majority. Same thing with laws, but we'll cross that when we get to it. It effectively is getting the GOP to disarm themselves for when they become a minority party.
|
|
|
On April 06 2017 07:14 Philoctetes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 04:32 Sermokala wrote: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. I don't agree. The problem is hitting it. Having an actual collision. A nearby explosion will not work for any rocket. And ideally for conventional warheads, you want to detonate them. Not just throw them out of it's original trajectory. The nukes, you also want to disable. The smaller it is, the harder. For ICBM's, having a decoy is a huge problem. Apparently, just adding some odd balloon decoy system will throw off any possible missile intercept design.
Hitting it probably doesn't require as much computer power as one might think but the actual intercept vehicle being nimble enough and large enough to do anything is a silly hard engineering problem I gotta think.
Lazers are probably a simpler and more reliable system once you can actual make a lazer that powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
