Barack Obama's Real Space Omission

On 29 May, 04:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:
:On 28 May, 14:24, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :Not nuking Iran eh. Nobody is in fact contemplating th use of nuclear
: :weapons. McCain has said that he will cancel the nuclear bunker
: :buster, a weapon that has no conceivable utility. In fact the only
: ledge that is at all meaningful is McCain's.
: :
: :Why anyone ever wanted to develop such a thing to begin with defeats
: :me.
: :
:
: Many things seem to.
:
: Please answer the following question: *How do you take out a bunker
: that is under several hundred feet of rock?
:
:
:The fact of the matter is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons of
:any description increases the chances of a general thermonuclear
:exchange.
:

Unproven. *Even undemonstrated. *Not even logically reasonable.

:
:That is why you cannot simply go nuclear to take out a
:bunker.
:

That rather depends on just how you do it.

:
:Morover the best way to ensure proliferation is to threaten
:non nuclear countries with tactical (nuclear) strikes.
:

Really? *I would have thought the best way to ensure proliferation
would be to NOT threaten them with such, leaving them with the
impression that if only they can get nukes they will be immune to you.

:
:On the specific question there are a number of (conventional)
:approaches. The best solution would be an attack with 2m CEP weapons.
:These cannot go down 100m but they can be used on doors, passageways
:and lifts. Effectively you could entomb and render incommunicado
:anyone 100m down.
:

If you can get to the doors, elevators, etc. *Generally not possible.

Please name some "2m CEP weapons", with reliable cites to their
accuracy.

:
:Another approach would be the "Europa robot" something which would
:drill through 100m.
:

And the bad guys are doing what while this is going on? *You think we
have robots that can just drill through hundreds of meters of granite?
What do they do when they succeed, assuming they're left along for a
year or so to do the drilling?

:
:Yet another approach would be to land a number of
:bombs within 2m of each other and drill a tunnel that way.
:

For some value of 'number' running into the thousands or more.

How many airplanes at risk to deliver all these "2m CEP weapons"?

I think it is clear that if nuclear weapons are actually used rather
than simply threatened in a deterrence posture the word will go round
that nuclear bombs are essential to ensure national sovreignty. If I
were an Iranian/Syrian I would feel that a nuclear weapon program was
absolutely vital, nothing else would do.

What we really need to do is to ensure :-

1) That nuclear weopons are kept for deterrence alone, only to be used
in response to a nuclear attack.

2) That the number of countries possessing such weapons is as small as
possible.

As far as 2m is concerned this is the accuracy you can get with GPS.
Every bunker has to have its outlet to the world.

As far as how many planes would be put in jeopardy is concerned, not
that many as automated delivery systems would be used. Moreover the
lower the CEP, the less a bomb would weigh. This is the logic behind
precision munitions as a force multiplier.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 29 May, 04:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :On 28 May, 14:24, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Not nuking Iran eh. Nobody is in fact contemplating th use of nuclear
: : :weapons. McCain has said that he will cancel the nuclear bunker
: : :buster, a weapon that has no conceivable utility. In fact the only
: : ledge that is at all meaningful is McCain's.
: : :
: : :Why anyone ever wanted to develop such a thing to begin with defeats
: : :me.
: : :
: :
: : Many things seem to.
: :
: : Please answer the following question: *How do you take out a bunker
: : that is under several hundred feet of rock?
: :
: :
: :The fact of the matter is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons of
: :any description increases the chances of a general thermonuclear
: :exchange.
: :
:
: Unproven. *Even undemonstrated. *Not even logically reasonable.
:
: :
: :That is why you cannot simply go nuclear to take out a
: :bunker.
: :
:
: That rather depends on just how you do it.
:
: :
: :Morover the best way to ensure proliferation is to threaten
: :non nuclear countries with tactical (nuclear) strikes.
: :
:
: Really? *I would have thought the best way to ensure proliferation
: would be to NOT threaten them with such, leaving them with the
: impression that if only they can get nukes they will be immune to you.
:
: :
: :On the specific question there are a number of (conventional)
: :approaches. The best solution would be an attack with 2m CEP weapons.
: :These cannot go down 100m but they can be used on doors, passageways
: :and lifts. Effectively you could entomb and render incommunicado
: :anyone 100m down.
: :
:
: If you can get to the doors, elevators, etc. *Generally not possible.
:
: Please name some "2m CEP weapons", with reliable cites to their
: accuracy.
:
: :
: :Another approach would be the "Europa robot" something which would
: :drill through 100m.
: :
:
: And the bad guys are doing what while this is going on? *You think we
: have robots that can just drill through hundreds of meters of granite?
: What do they do when they succeed, assuming they're left along for a
: year or so to do the drilling?
:
: :
: :Yet another approach would be to land a number of
: :bombs within 2m of each other and drill a tunnel that way.
: :
:
: For some value of 'number' running into the thousands or more.
:
: How many airplanes at risk to deliver all these "2m CEP weapons"?
:
:I think it is clear that if nuclear weapons are actually used rather
:than simply threatened in a deterrence posture the word will go round
:that nuclear bombs are essential to ensure national sovreignty. If I
:were an Iranian/Syrian I would feel that a nuclear weapon program was
:absolutely vital, nothing else would do.
:

Perhaps YOU would, but you're a known loon.

Again, there is no reason to think that a nuclear 'bunker buster'
would lead to any such urge by third parties to have nuclear weapons,
since they would be unable to build such a 'bunker buster' out of them
even if they had them.

In other words - Unproven. *Even undemonstrated. *Not even logically
reasonable.

:
:What we really need to do is to ensure :-
:
:1) That nuclear weopons are kept for deterrence alone, only to be used
:in response to a nuclear attack.
:

Why? That's not why we keep them now.

:
:2) That the number of countries possessing such weapons is as small as
ossible.
:

Agreed, but you don't do that by foreclosing your own uses. You do
that the way we currently do it.

:
:As far as 2m is concerned this is the accuracy you can get with GPS.
:

No, it isn't. Please name some 2m CEP weapon systems, with reliable
cites as to that accuracy. Note the cited CEP for a GPS weapon in the
following:

"Air-to-surface weapon accuracy is defined by circular error probable,
or CEP. That is the radius of a circle within which 50 percent of the
weapons will strike. The smaller the CEP, the greater the weapon’s
accuracy. The JDAM CEP is 13 meters. Dietchman said that the addition
of Damask to JDAM lowers the CEP to three meters (about 10 feet)."


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...anned_JDAM.htm

Note that that's ****13**** meters on GPS guidance, not 2, Ian. Note
that adding a laser terminal seeker gets you down to ****3**** meters,
not 2, Ian.

One more time - please name some 2m CEP weapon systems, with reliable
cites as to that accuracy.

:
:Every bunker has to have its outlet to the world.
:

But nothing in the rules says it has to be located in such a way that
you can get a weapon onto it and it is quite likely that it wouldn't
be. The people building such things aren't idiots, you know.

:
:As far as how many planes would be put in jeopardy is concerned, not
:that many as automated delivery systems would be used.
:

Oh, they would? Please name said "automated delivery systems" with
reliable cites to the payload, range, and numbers in service of same.

:
:Moreover the
:lower the CEP, the less a bomb would weigh.
:

In which case you will not get through that 200 meters of granite,
EVER.

:
:This is the logic behind
recision munitions as a force multiplier.
:

Ian, I'm in the precision munitions business and let me say that you
don't have a fecking clue about it.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 29 May, 12:29, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 29 May, 04:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :On 28 May, 14:24, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Not nuking Iran eh. Nobody is in fact contemplating th use of nuclear
: : :weapons. McCain has said that he will cancel the nuclear bunker
: : :buster, a weapon that has no conceivable utility. In fact the only
: : ledge that is at all meaningful is McCain's.
: : :
: : :Why anyone ever wanted to develop such a thing to begin with defeats
: : :me.
: : :
: :
: : Many things seem to.
: :
: : Please answer the following question: *How do you take out a bunker
: : that is under several hundred feet of rock?
: :
: :
: :The fact of the matter is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons of
: :any description increases the chances of a general thermonuclear
: :exchange.
: :
:
: Unproven. *Even undemonstrated. *Not even logically reasonable.
:
: :
: :That is why you cannot simply go nuclear to take out a
: :bunker.
: :
:
: That rather depends on just how you do it.
:
: :
: :Morover the best way to ensure proliferation is to threaten
: :non nuclear countries with tactical (nuclear) strikes.
: :
:
: Really? *I would have thought the best way to ensure proliferation
: would be to NOT threaten them with such, leaving them with the
: impression that if only they can get nukes they will be immune to you.
:
: :
: :On the specific question there are a number of (conventional)
: :approaches. The best solution would be an attack with 2m CEP weapons.
: :These cannot go down 100m but they can be used on doors, passageways
: :and lifts. Effectively you could entomb and render incommunicado
: :anyone 100m down.
: :
:
: If you can get to the doors, elevators, etc. *Generally not possible.
:
: Please name some "2m CEP weapons", with reliable cites to their
: accuracy.
:
: :
: :Another approach would be the "Europa robot" something which would
: :drill through 100m.
: :
:
: And the bad guys are doing what while this is going on? *You think we
: have robots that can just drill through hundreds of meters of granite?
: What do they do when they succeed, assuming they're left along for a
: year or so to do the drilling?
:
: :
: :Yet another approach would be to land a number of
: :bombs within 2m of each other and drill a tunnel that way.
: :
:
: For some value of 'number' running into the thousands or more.
:
: How many airplanes at risk to deliver all these "2m CEP weapons"?
:
:I think it is clear that if nuclear weapons are actually used rather
:than simply threatened in a deterrence posture the word will go round
:that nuclear bombs are essential to ensure national sovreignty. If I
:were an Iranian/Syrian I would feel that a nuclear weapon program was
:absolutely vital, nothing else would do.
:

Perhaps YOU would, but you're a known loon.

Again, there is no reason to think that a nuclear 'bunker buster'
would lead to any such urge by third parties to have nuclear weapons,
since they would be unable to build such a 'bunker buster' out of them
even if they had them.

In other words - Unproven. *Even undemonstrated. *Not even logically
reasonable.

:
:What we really need to do is to ensure :-
:
:1) That nuclear weopons are kept for deterrence alone, only to be used
:in response to a nuclear attack.
:

Why? *That's not why we keep them now.

:
:2) That the number of countries possessing such weapons is as small as
ossible.
:

Agreed, but you don't do that by foreclosing your own uses. *You do
that the way we currently do it.

:
:As far as 2m is concerned this is the accuracy you can get with GPS.
:

No, it isn't. *Please name some 2m CEP weapon systems, with reliable
cites as to that accuracy. *Note the cited CEP for a GPS weapon in the
following:

"Air-to-surface weapon accuracy is defined by circular error probable,
or CEP. That is the radius of a circle within which 50 percent of the
weapons will strike. The smaller the CEP, the greater the weapon’s
accuracy. The JDAM CEP is 13 meters. Dietchman said that the addition
of Damask to JDAM lowers the CEP to three meters (about 10 feet)."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...anned_JDAM.htm

Note that that's ****13**** meters on GPS guidance, not 2, Ian. *Note
that adding a laser terminal seeker gets you down to ****3**** meters,
not 2, Ian.

One more time - please name some 2m CEP weapon systems, with reliable
cites as to that accuracy.

:
:Every bunker has to have its outlet to the world.
:

But nothing in the rules says it has to be located in such a way that
you can get a weapon onto it and it is quite likely that it wouldn't
be. *The people building such things aren't idiots, you know.

:
:As far as how many planes would be put in jeopardy is concerned, not
:that many as automated delivery systems would be used.
:

Oh, they would? *Please name said "automated delivery systems" with
reliable cites to the payload, range, and numbers in service of same.

:
:Moreover the
:lower the CEP, the less a bomb would weigh.
:

In which case you will not get through that 200 meters of granite,
EVER.

:
:This is the logic behind
recision munitions as a force multiplier.
:

Ian, I'm in the precision munitions business and let me say that you
don't have a fecking clue about it.

You don't have a ****ing clue either about diplomatic and political
consequences. Let me tell you - Nuclear warfighting, as opposed to
deterrence is regarded by most people as an incredibly dangerous
concept. You are the loon.Most people would prefer me, or someone with
my views to be in charage of nuclear weapons. If the nuclear threshold
is breached Pandora's box is open. There are a number of dangers to
obvious to mention. Suppose Russia or China then decides to take out a
carrier - what happens then? India and Pakistan BTW can take out
carriers. OK you might say obliterate them. I want to ensure it never
gets to that.


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker

On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:26:56 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


:This is the logic behind
recision munitions as a force multiplier.
:

Ian, I'm in the precision munitions business and let me say that you
don't have a fecking clue about it.

You don't have a ****ing clue either about diplomatic and political
consequences. Let me tell you - Nuclear warfighting, as opposed to
deterrence is regarded by most people as an incredibly dangerous
concept. You are the loon.Most people would prefer me, or someone with
my views to be in charage of nuclear weapons.

Most people, if they were familiar with you and your nutty rantings,
would be afraid to put you in charge of rubber-band guns.

On May 29, 5:29*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:What we really need to do is to ensure :-
:
:1) That nuclear weopons are kept for deterrence alone, only to be used
:in response to a nuclear attack.

Why? *That's not why we keep them now.

:2) That the number of countries possessing such weapons is as small as
ossible.

Agreed, but you don't do that by foreclosing your own uses. *You do
that the way we currently do it.

I may not agree with Ian Parker's views, but I am aware that it is
generally believed by the public that:

- The use of a nuclear weapon would be the crossing of an unthinkable
threshhold, making it possible for other countries to use their
nuclear weapons on us, and

- The most important measure to reduce nuclear proliferation is to
exclude nuclear weapons from disputes with non-nuclear states.

i.e., no threat leave the Falkland Islands at _once_, or we nuke
Buenos Aires

because as soon as you do _that_ then *everyone* will realize they
*need* nuclear weapons to not exist simply at the sufferance of the
nuclear powers.


Basically, this puts diplomacy ahead of force. Most rational people
_also_ realize that diplomacy can fail: otherwise, we wouldn't need
policemen, let alone soldiers. But the assumption is that while Iran
obtaining nuclear weapons might have to be dealt with by force, this
option would not exist if, say...

Finland and Denmark and Belgium and Australia and Canada and Austria
all of a sudden decided to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty.
And this is _presumed_ to be a bad thing for world peace.

What about Poland or the Czech Republic... or even Greece?

And then what abut Sa'udi Arabia, or Thailand, or South Africa, or
Botswana?

All of these are sovereign states. So all of them - and even a bunch
of other nations which we are less friendly with - have every right to
adopt nuclear weapons if they choose to do so.

It would be aggression to dictate to other sovereign nations, which
have the same rights as the United States of America, what weapons
systems they might have on the basis of standards that don't apply
equally to the United States of America, wouldn't it?

It's only because Iran has openly made injudicious statements that
give rise to legitimate concerns it may be intending aggression
against Israel that pre-emptive action against it acquiring a nuclear
capability can even be... _discussed_ in polite society!

In order to turn from this viewpoint to another guidng principle, one
has to at least identify one's principle.

Acting on the basis of pure self-interest doesn't arouse sympathy.
When, though, one is simply acting to ensure one's own survival, not
an unfair advantage, that doesn't need a complicated justification.

A different principle might be to divide the world into democracies
and non-democracies, and state openly that non-democracies have no
sovereign rights any democracy is morally bound to respect; the UN
Charter was not an expression of morality, but a measure of expediency
in a divided world where nuclear peace had to be maintained despite a
tyranny having nuclear weapons.

The electoral shenanigans in Russia, and the existence of the Chinese
mainland, may perhaps indicate we're not in the post-Cold War world
where the U.S. can lead the other democracies in re-establishing the
Victorian Era, much as I would be happy to see that happen.

In fact, China seems to have gotten a second-strike capability - all
the publicity about its "military buildup" focussed on its
conventional forces, and the last time its second-strike capability
was mentioned until very recently was in a TIME article that said it
didn't have one.

I think that a second-strike capability in the hands of the Red
Chinese is nearly as big a threat as Iran...

John Savard

On May 23, 10:14*pm, wrote:
If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. *What's your point?

That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
Hitler, right?

What's YOUR point?

C'mon Rand, you can do better than that.

Can he? I think you're new around here. This Rand comment was a
typical Rand comment.

On May 23, 11:15*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:14:36 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. *What's your point?

That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment.

shrug

So Obama is like Hitler, right?

Apparently, insofar as he "inspires people."

What's YOUR point?

My point is that simply "inspiring" people is hardly a basis for
wanting them to be president. *What they're inspired to do is
important, too.

I like Obama better than before knowing you don't like him. Thanks for
the inspiration.

On May 24, 12:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:
: If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: waiting for for a long time.
:
: Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. *What's your point?
:
:That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
:Hitler, right?
:
:What's YOUR point?
:

His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
actually thinking.

His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.

Right, you like Bush are both evil and terrible orators so, Hitler at
LEAST had oratory skills.


It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. *In
fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

I'd rather listen to a good orator than a lousy one. Sorry, you're
just wrong again, McClod.

Eric

On May 26, 6:34*pm, wrote:
On May 23, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:





wrote:

:
:
: If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: waiting for for a long time.
:
: Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. *What's your point?
:
:That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
:Hitler, right?
:
:What's YOUR point?
:

His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
actually thinking.

His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.

It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. *In
fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

Those are good points, but the comparision with Hitler is unnecessary.
And Rand knows it.

The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.

He shrugged remember...

On May 26, 8:31*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:On May 23, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: wrote:

: :
: :
: : If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: : waiting for for a long time.
: :
: : Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. *What's your point?
: :
: :That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
: :Hitler, right?
: :
: :What's YOUR point?
: :
:
: His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
: actually thinking.
:
: His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
: for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.
:
: It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. *In
: fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.
:
:
:
:Those are good points, but the comparision with Hitler is unnecessary.
:And Rand knows it.
:
:The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.
:

Asked and answered. *Counterexample showing why 'inspiring oratory' is
not necessarily a great thing.


It's better than being a lousy speaker. Even you'll admit that a good
person that is a good orator is better than a good person that is a
lousy orator. Well, being evil, maybe you won't.

Eric