Random Thoughts (Political Edition)


the guy had taken some water from a jewish water well...
 
Firecat said:
I know y'all know everything about weapons and stuff. So, is this a game-changer or is it just much ado about nothing...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer
Click to expand...
If you get enough cruise missiles, I don't think any single carrier group will survive. Just get enough of them, and a carrier group just won't be able to defend itself. Carriers are tough targets, but they are only invincible against an enemy like Iraq or Iran. Against an enemy with advanced weapons, planes, and a lot of them, the story changes.

bone said:

the guy had taken some water from a jewish water well...
Click to expand...
This piss me off. First they put the settlements where there were most water, and pumped it up. Then, when they had to have more water, they started taking water anywhere it was, ie., they took the water Palestinian farmers use to grow their own crops.

Another point is that the desert's that's gone green aren't sustainable. Geologists talk about the watering as very risky. God knows when it'll happen, but sometime in the future, the watering will end up just breaking the whole eco system.

But that's the future, this is now. Perhaps the fucking soldiers could start arresting settlers who go out in the middle of the night hacking down Palestinian olive trees?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...moirs-past-midterms_n_671187.html?ir=Politics

George W. Bush pushed back publication of his memoirs, "Decision Points," out of fear that a public reminder of his presidential legacy would hurt Republicans heading into November's midterm elections, Bush's friends tell the Financial Times.

The FT reports that Bush refused to allow publication in September, which would have been a better time to unveil his book from a sales perspective. Instead, it's slated to hit stores on Nov. 9, one week after Election Day. Bush isn't scheduled to give any interviews for the book tour until Nov. 8.

For their part, Random House's Crown group said they made the call to delay "Decision Points," concluding, "From a media perspective the period leading up to the midterm elections is a very noisy and crowded space and we believe the president's book will be better served by being launched following that time."
Click to expand...
 
Firecat said:
I know y'all know everything about weapons and stuff. So, is this a game-changer or is it just much ado about nothing...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer
Click to expand...

Firecat said:
I know y'all know everything about weapons and stuff. So, is this a game-changer or is it just much ado about nothing...?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer
Click to expand...

It brings up several intersting technical and political questions.

First from what I have read this is supposed to be a Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile(ASBM) not a cruise missile but fitted with a conventional warhead. Being a ballistic missile it is very, very fast and would come at the ship from nearly straight up.

This does a few things:

1. Makes the carriers CIWIS useless becasue I don't think those guns can elevate to nearly straight up and the warhead is traveling too fast for them to track.

2. Decreases the reaction time of the Ageis ships defending the carrier group and decreases the kill bubble around the warhead. Ageis cruisers can hit inbound ballistic warheads but it is hard and takes multiple kill vehicles to do.

Think about it like this.

For an target traveling at subsonic speeds the kill bubble around it, space around the object where an exposion will damage or destroy the target, is shapped like an irregular sort of egg shaped oval. The target is positioned towards the rear of the oval with most of the kill zone in front of it. This is because an explosioni too far behind the target won't hit it because of the speed it is traveling. An explosion of the same size can be well in front of the target and still do damage.

As you reach transonic and go into supersonic the rear area of the kill bubble decreases in size. At hypersonic or ballistic velocities there is no rear portion of the kill bubble. The kill bubble becomes a narrow cone or funnel where the target is the point of the cone. At high enough speeds even an explosion just to the side of the target won't reach it before its high velocity carries it out of range as the target is traveling faster then the explosion.

This is why many of the kill vehicles currently being developed for ABM use or satellite kills don't even use explosives. They are kinetic kill vehicles because your only reach chance of killing the target is to hit it directly.


So that is some of the defensive problems that this causes the US Navy.

On the offensive side there are huge techical problems too. Currently Ballistic missiles are only guided for the short launch portion of their flight. The sub-orbital and re-entry portion are unguided and they simply follow the rules of orbital mechanics and ballistics. That makes ballistic missiles good for hitting large static targets but not so good for hitting medium sized or large moving targets like a ship.

China has to figure out a way to at least give partial active guidance to the warhead for the re-entry portion of the flight. They don't have to hit the ship directly as at the speed the warhead is traveling even a hit nearby in the water will cause damage to the ship. Modern torpedos work the same way. The torpedo dives under the hull of the ship and explodes a few meters away creating a bubble from the shockwave. The bubble lifts the ship up and stresses the hull/keel in just a small area breaking the back of the ship.

A ballistic warhead hitting close to a ship would cause a large shockwave even with a conventional warhead because of the kinetic energy. Hell even without a warhead made of a dense material like say tungsten would have enough kinetic energy to do massive damage.

Still it will be very hard for them to hit a moving target like a current Nimitz class carrier that can hit 30 plus knots. The new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier will be even faster and more manuverable plus it will have some stealth tech on board with new defensive systems.

A guy I went to engineering school with is helping design the new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System for the Ford class. The new electromagnetic system is much more efficient and much lighter then the old steam system.

I would guess the way China would use this missile is something like this.

First you would need multiple waves to hit even a single ship or group of ships. Lots of the warheads are simply going to miss or cause minimal damage that doesn't slow the target down. The Ageis ships will be able to shoot some of them down.

Newer classes of US warships may have railgun defenses to replace the older CIWS system. and the new Evolved Sea Sparrow missile is already online with the US navy. Not sure if it can hit ballistic targets but if it can hit supersonic cruis missiles it can probably at least have a chance to hit a ballistic target given enough early warning.


The goal of the first wave is to damage the target ship to reduce its speed and maneuverability. Once the target is stationary or mostly stationary there is a better chance of hitting it with a second wave. The second wave would probably be the kill wave for most ships but a carrier might take a third wave.

The thing is would we give the Chinese a chance to even mount a second wave let alone a third? We would know within seconds of a Ballistic launch from China. There are satelites watching for that very event. What we wouldn't know would be the target or if the missile was carrying a conventinal or nuclear warhead. The target would be known within a few mintues as the missile was tracked but the warhead wouldn't be known at all.



That gets to the political challenges. Would China risk a multiple ballistic launch when the US wouldn't know if they were equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads? Depenging on the tension level the US might not wait to find out. We could strike with nuclear ballistic missiles destroying all of the China's launchers before a second wave is even launched.


It looks like we are going to leave some of the new SSGN Ohio Class subs in the area around China on a permenant basis. A SSGN fully loaded can carry 154 Tomahawks equal to what an entire surface battle group would carry. They change the force projection that the navy can offer away from just carriers too. That gives us a covert and conventioinal strike capablity for outside the range of the proposed Chinese ASBM. The navy is working on supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles too.

Lets say the Chinese launch a wave of ASBMs and we see it happeing. There is a carrier group within in the target area so they are ordered into evasive manuvers and to spread out some. Most of the warheads are intercepted or miss but a few do minor damage but not enough to prevent carrier opperations. Even if they did do enough damage to prevent carrier opperations a SSGN in the area, probably attached to the carrier group but by itself miles away, could strike at the chinese launchers stopping a third wave from being launched. The second wave would be launched before cruise missiles could get there but I bet a third wouldn't make it out in time.


Gonna have to leave it at there for now. This computer is threatining to crash and I need to get some other work done.
 
For a change I'm bringing you american politics because this one is funny

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed," Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor's efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes "that's exactly the attitude they want you to have."

"This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms," Maes said.
Click to expand...
http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/kn/knarkas/2010/08/07/jon-stewart-climate-skeptic.jpg
 
argatoga said:
Leave the EU. Hell they are siphoning your money away to God knows where anyway.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd find it rather funny to see a EU without Germany. We could charge tolls for everything being transported through here, which is pretty convenient because there's basically no convenient way around Germany. Basic question: Who would suffer more from Germany leaving the EU: the EU or Germany...? There is no easy answer...
 
DanRoM said:
Actually, I'd find it rather funny to see a EU without Germany. We could charge tolls for everything being transported through here, which is pretty convenient because there's basically no convenient way around Germany. Basic question: Who would suffer more from Germany leaving the EU: the EU or Germany...? There is no easy answer...
Click to expand...

LOLWUT? The electronic toll for lorries has has been in place for quite few years now in Germany.
 
Firecat said:
Vanunu released....again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_nuclear_whistleblower
Click to expand...

Good stuff. I get why he's seen as a traitor. From the Israeli POV, he is. But the world actually having a confirmation that Israel has nukes is, let's call it useful. Vanunu's revelations in the papers didn't harm Israel's security, it was just embarassing.

I've got bigger problems with someone being banned from talking to foreigners. That's just good old fashioned fascism, pointless and intrusive.
 
Last edited:
DanRoM said:
In addition to that, obviously. Road tolls are common in many European countries anyway.
Click to expand...

Then you would probably have to leave the WTO too. Transit duties are not really in place in any modern country. In fact the import duties are not all that high either, these days. The main difference the EU makes is that it removes the customs clearance process altogether within its borders.
 
German Millionaires Criticize Gates' 'Giving Pledge'
08/10/2010

Germany's super-rich have rejected an invitation by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to join their 'Giving Pledge' to give away most of their fortune. The pledge has been criticized in Germany, with millionaires saying donations shouldn't replace duties that would be better carried out by the state.

Last week, Microsoft founder Bill Gates attempted to convince billionaires around the world to agree to give away half their money to charity. But in Germany, the "Giving Pledge," backed by 40 of the world's wealthiest people, including Gates and Warren Buffet, has met with skepticism, SPIEGEL has learned.

"For most people that is too ostentatious," said the asset manager of one of the billionaires contacted by Gates, adding that many of the of the people contacted had already transferred larger proportions of their assets than the Americans to charitable foundations.

Dietmar Hopp, the co-founder of the SAP business software company, has transferred some ?2.9 billion to a foundation. Klaus Tschira, another founder of SAP, has handed more than half his wealth to a foundation.

Peter Kr?mer, a Hamburg-based shipping magnate and multimillionaire, has emerged as one of the strongest critics of the "Giving Pledge." Kr?mer, who donated millions of euros in 2005 to "Schools for Africa," a program operated by UNICEF, explained his opposition to the Gates initiative in a SPIEGEL interview.

SPIEGEL: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what were your first thoughts?

Kr?mer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable.

SPIEGEL: But doesn't the money that is donated serve the common good?

Kr?mer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.

Kr?mer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.

SPIEGEL: Do the donations also have to do with the fact that the idea of state and society is such different one in the United States?

Kr?mer: Yes, one cannot forget that the US has a desolate social system and that alone is reason enough that donations are already a part of everyday life there. But it would have been a greater deed on the part of Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet if they had given the money to small communities in the US so that they can fulfil public duties.

SPIEGEL: Should wealthy Germans also give up some of their money?

Kr?mer: No, not in this form. It would make more sense, for example, to work with and donate to established organizations.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710972,00.html
Click to expand...

It is hard to believe that some people actually think like Peter Kr?mer. The "state" can shove it.
 
Funny thing is, Jet, you're being just as arrogant as he is.
 
Perhaps, or perhaps not. My end game is more personal freedom, not less. Perhaps I am arguing for the right to be arrogant if one wants.
 
Last edited:
jetsetter said:
It is hard to believe that some people actually think like Peter Kr?mer. [...]
Click to expand...
I actually think he talks a lot of sense there and I?m impressed he would take such a position that reflects our "social market economy" so well ... I would have guessed, he?d take more of a "more power and influence to us rich people - screw the state" position ...

Of course it?s not "bad" that people like Gates etc have a social concience ... but like the interviewer phrases it: "the idea of state and society is such different one in the United States". In a society like ours where one of the core values is that you have the right to have certain securities ... like health, housing, food, education ... and that if an individal can?t afford any of these, the whole society has to step in to pay for that.
It might be a bit too generalized, but in the american society, you don?t really belive that everyone has these rights. So you don?t help or provide as a society. From our point of view, you rely too much on donations and the good will of few thus making the weaker parts of your society dependend on these few people?s good will, rather giving them the general right to what they need.
Over here, it?s not up to people like Kr?mer to decide in what way or how much the weak recieve help (thankfully). The whole society decides. So he can be an asshole as much as he wants ... cling to his money as much as he likes ... the society will take care of the basic needs of it?s members.
 
Last edited:
jetsetter said:
Perhaps, or perhaps not. My end game is more personal freedom, not less. Perhaps I am arguing for the right to be arrogant if one wants.
Click to expand...

Freedom is nice. It doesn't always work out that well. So you need regulation. As for being arrogant, no one is denying you that right. I was meerly stating it.
 
Let's not forget that in Germany, things like being rich and also donating are handled a lot quieter than in the US. Germans don't brag about it.
And actually, I find Mr. Kr?mer's position commendable, especially for a rich guy, but I don't agree 100% with him. Society as a whole has a responsability. Donations, also large ones, are fine, but the direction they're aimed at are always biased by the person donating. Which is not always a good thing.
The danger is indirect: Not the donations are a bad thing, but society depending on them would be.
 
I agree with John Locke in that to be a part of a society means giving up some freedoms for the greater good of that society. And in turn this gives you things like property ownership laws, rather than the more anarchistic "might is right". So if you wish to be a part of a society and benefit from the societies infrastructure, legal system etc. etc. you should also accept to pay part of your wealth and/or earnings to that society to promote the wealth of this society. I think the us of a's way of tax levies for donating to charitable causes is a bad way of dealing with things as you can still give money even if you have to pay just as much taxes, as people of say European countries has shown which also have better social safety nets than does the us of a, so in a way we're more charitable...

Not that I actually think the Gates Foundation is doing anything bad, on the contrary I think it does more good globally than that money would in the hands of "Washington". But this is not good for the us of a, it's actually quite bad, as the money from both internally sold and exported goods (MS products, classifications, IT infrastructure and what not) is not going into the state coffins, as it otherwise would, but going out of the country (again). Money that could be used to pay for schools, scholarships, roads, infrastructure, better social security to take care of that x% who the economy needs to be unemployed to not spiral into inflation, change the penal system to make sure the prisoners who do come out are ready to be a part of the society rather than spend most of their lives behind bars.

(I do think philanthropy is one of the greatest things about Bill... he's like a modern day robin hood of kinds... ruthless against the rich (or as a business man against other businesses, this I don't really respect him for) but then giving loads of that money to those who are the most disenfranchised - in the world - trying to cure malaria, tb and give people access to clean drinking water. So taking from the rich of the world and giving it to the poor.)
 
Last edited:
The US way is not everyones way of giving, traditionally donations are secret in this country, and it may not necessarily be the best way either.

Our way is changing sadly - actually in many, many ways the country is going to the dogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top