Barack Obama's Real Space Omission

On 9 Jun, 05:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 8 Jun, 17:05, Quadibloc wrote:
: On Jun 7, 9:51 am, Ian Parker wrote:
:
: Galileo. It is something, it is the European version of GPS. It seems
: rather a pity to me that there has to be a large number of GPS
: versions. Really and truely only one is needed.
:
: Well, yes. It's sad that people are using weapons against one another,
: so that GPS might be misused as a weapons targeting system. However,
: I'm not going to start holding my breath while waiting for world
: peace.
:
:
:Yes, and it is ominous that the US and Europe do not appear to be
:working in concert. Europe and America have the same interests, or do
:they? One thing is certain, no country or group of countries can plan
:traffic control systems (Air or road) based on GPS without ownership
f the system or at least a promise that the system will always be
:available to full accuracy.
:

So nobody outside of the EU better rely on Galileo, assuming they ever
get it up and running?

Oh, and the US already made such a promise. *That's not good enough
for the EU, so they're spending a boatload of money to build their
own. *It is years and billions of dollars away.

:
:The US is not going to be able to control the system in any event,
:either the US has to hand control over to an international body,
:

And we should trust an 'international body'?

:
r
:control will be siezed from it via Galileo or some other system.
:

Good luck with that. *Let me know when they come up with a business
model for the thing that makes it into anything more than another
government-controlled system.

:
:What
:does, as I have said, appear to be serious is this rift in trust with
:Europe and the fact that the US is accustomed to act unilaterally.
:

That would explain why GPS is a *NATO* spec, right?

:
:Talking about the use of nuclear weapons for bunker busting and purely
:tactical warface, quite frankly sends a shudder down the spine of the
:rest of the world. Britain would be well advised to clearly distance
:herself from this.
:

I'm still waiting for you to propose a WORKABLE alternative, Ian.

--
1) Nobody outside the EU had better rely on Galileo - not quite true -
Galileo is set up for civil use. Civil users will always be able to
get full accuracy. As far as a NATO specification is concerned, the
encryption codes are not available to civil users.

On the question of nuclear penterators. As I said I feel we are being
stampeded into nuclear war. The mililtary (US) has been consistently
untruthful, consistently incompetant. They will no doubt claim that
there will be no fallout. Most responsible people in radiological
protection say that every dose of radiation leads to an enhanced risk
of cancer. Despite what the propagandists claim your chance of getting
cancer is far higher than any risk of a terrorist attack.

The military claims that hearts and minds are important, yet they give
desensitization training rather than giving any sort of linguistic
training. Rhetoric and reality simply do not correspond.

One can combat deep bunkers by the use of a little ingenuity. In fact
PG bombs are in fact small unpowered aircraft. By adjusting L/D they
could be made to strike at any angle including vertically upwars. Yet
they stampede us to nuclear war, just as they stampeded us to a war in
Iraq.


- Ian Parker

On Jun 8, 2:21 pm, Ian Parker wrote:
Europe and America have the same interests, or do
they?

Europe has a large Arab minority now; America has a large and
influential Jewish minority.

Europe has very little oil of its own; America could be self-
sufficient even if it would pinch a bit.

So the options each would consider reasonable in the area of Middle
East policy differ considerably. Also, they are in competition as far
as international trade is concerned.

John Savard

On Jun 9, 4:32 am, Ian Parker wrote:
Yet
they stampede us to nuclear war, just as they stampeded us to a war in
Iraq.

The use of nuclear weapons is not the same as nuclear war. It is not
expected that either Russia or China - or even Pakistan, India, or
North Korea - is going to launch missiles at the United States because
it has decided a nuclear weapon is the most effective or economical
bunker-buster to use in Iran.

John Savard

On 9 Jun, 13:25, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:21 pm, Ian Parker wrote:

Europe and America have the same interests, or do
they?

Europe has a large Arab minority now; America has a large and
influential Jewish minority.

Europe has very little oil of its own; America could be self-
sufficient even if it would pinch a bit.

So the options each would consider reasonable in the area of Middle
East policy differ considerably. Also, they are in competition as far
as international trade is concerned.

Military action is NOT a cost effective way of ensuring oil supplies.
Best policy for BOTH Europe and America is :-

Nuclear power (peaceful) France leads the world in this. At the moment
Uranium supplies are reasonably plentiful. Reactors which produce
nuclear fuel (U233 from Th232 and Pu239 from U238) should be
considered. I understand that heavy water systems produce almost as
much fuel as they consume.

Britain should halve its defense expenditure and build the Severn
Barrage instead. Far, far better for ensuring energy supplies. Also
the temptation of generals to follow America would thereby be removed.
Defense expenditure is really be called intervention expenditure,
forced wars are no longer fought by the developed world.

A law should be passed (as in Germany) allowing consumers to sell back
to the grid. If they have solar panels and are producing more mower
than they can consume they should be able to sell this back. Britain
should provide 3 phase supplies for domestic premises as this will
make it easier to put power back.

Countries like Greece could produce solar power on a large scale. They
could electrolyse water and produce hydrogen.

N. America is in a differentbposition in that the South West could
produce large amounts of energy. Europe will have to seek the
participations of countries like Morocco.


- Ian Parker

On 9 Jun, 13:28, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 9, 4:32 am, Ian Parker wrote:

Yet
they stampede us to nuclear war, just as they stampeded us to a war in
Iraq.

The use of nuclear weapons is not the same as nuclear war. It is not
expected that either Russia or China - or even Pakistan, India, or
North Korea - is going to launch missiles at the United States because
it has decided a nuclear weapon is the most effective or economical
bunker-buster to use in Iran.

John Savard

There will still be fallout, point number 1. The message that no
country is soveriegn without nuclear weapons will go roung the grape
vine. Full scale nuclear war will be a distinct possibility.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 9 Jun, 05:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 8 Jun, 17:05, Quadibloc wrote:
: : On Jun 7, 9:51 am, Ian Parker wrote:
: :
: : Galileo. It is something, it is the European version of GPS. It seems
: : rather a pity to me that there has to be a large number of GPS
: : versions. Really and truely only one is needed.
: :
: : Well, yes. It's sad that people are using weapons against one another,
: : so that GPS might be misused as a weapons targeting system. However,
: : I'm not going to start holding my breath while waiting for world
: : peace.
: :
: :
: :Yes, and it is ominous that the US and Europe do not appear to be
: :working in concert. Europe and America have the same interests, or do
: :they? One thing is certain, no country or group of countries can plan
: :traffic control systems (Air or road) based on GPS without ownership
: f the system or at least a promise that the system will always be
: :available to full accuracy.
: :
:
: So nobody outside of the EU better rely on Galileo, assuming they ever
: get it up and running?
:
: Oh, and the US already made such a promise. *That's not good enough
: for the EU, so they're spending a boatload of money to build their
: own. *It is years and billions of dollars away.
:
: :
: :The US is not going to be able to control the system in any event,
: :either the US has to hand control over to an international body,
: :
:
: And we should trust an 'international body'?
:
: :
: r
: :control will be siezed from it via Galileo or some other system.
: :
:
: Good luck with that. *Let me know when they come up with a business
: model for the thing that makes it into anything more than another
: government-controlled system.
:
: :
: :What
: :does, as I have said, appear to be serious is this rift in trust with
: :Europe and the fact that the US is accustomed to act unilaterally.
: :
:
: That would explain why GPS is a *NATO* spec, right?
:
: :
: :Talking about the use of nuclear weapons for bunker busting and purely
: :tactical warface, quite frankly sends a shudder down the spine of the
: :rest of the world. Britain would be well advised to clearly distance
: :herself from this.
: :
:
: I'm still waiting for you to propose a WORKABLE alternative, Ian.
:
:

You know, it would be nice if you actually interposed your responses
rather than just top-posting at the wrong end.

:
:1) Nobody outside the EU had better rely on Galileo - not quite true -
:Galileo is set up for civil use. Civil users will always be able to
:get full accuracy. As far as a NATO specification is concerned, the
:encryption codes are not available to civil users.
:

Civil users will always be able to get 'full accuracy' until they
can't. The last Galileo plan was to CHARGE for that, which means
there's a way to turn it off for everyone else.

:
:On the question of nuclear penterators. As I said I feel we are being
:stampeded into nuclear war.
:

You hadn't said that before, but who cares what you 'feel'. You'd do
better if you could learn to 'think' rather than 'feel'.

:
:The mililtary (US) has been consistently
:untruthful, consistently incompetant.
:

Hogwash.

:
:They will no doubt claim that there will be no fallout.
:

Why don't you wait until someone other than you lies before you try to
point out their lies?

:
:Most responsible people in radiological
rotection say that every dose of radiation leads to an enhanced risk
f cancer.
:

Life is hazardous to your health.

:
espite what the propagandists claim your chance of getting
:cancer is far higher than any risk of a terrorist attack.
:

Please cite where ANYONE has ever said otherwise? Again, please wait
for someone other than you to lie before you start pointing to their
lies.

:
:The military claims that hearts and minds are important, yet they give
:desensitization training rather than giving any sort of linguistic
:training. Rhetoric and reality simply do not correspond.
:

You've gibbered about this before. It is, of course, absolute
bull****. Please provide a reliable cite to such 'desensitization
training'.

:
:One can combat deep bunkers by the use of a little ingenuity. In fact
:PG bombs are in fact small unpowered aircraft. By adjusting L/D they
:could be made to strike at any angle including vertically upwars.
:

You really don't know jack **** about this, do you? The laws of
physics continue to apply.

:
:Yet
:they stampede us to nuclear war, just as they stampeded us to a war in
:Iraq.
:

Dear dumbass: The military didn't have a thing to do with any
'stampede to war' in Iraq. Using a nuclear penetrator against a
super-hard bunker does not 'stampede' anyone but you to 'nuclear war'.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Military action is NOT a cost effective way of ensuring oil supplies.
:Best policy for BOTH Europe and America is :-
:

Silly Ian. Let's see where this ends up.

:
:Nuclear power (peaceful) France leads the world in this. At the moment
:Uranium supplies are reasonably plentiful. Reactors which produce
:nuclear fuel (U233 from Th232 and Pu239 from U238) should be
:considered. I understand that heavy water systems produce almost as
:much fuel as they consume.
:

French reactors are generally an older graphite-moderated design.

Yes, there are reactors that can produce more fuel than they consume.
The down side is that such reactors are not nearly as efficient when
it comes to power production and the 'fuel' you get is bomb-grade
material (hence such reactors are generally only used by weapon
programs or very small ones used for research purposes). The
proliferation risks from widespread usage of heavy water reactors are
pretty much too horrifying to think about.

:
:A law should be passed (as in Germany) allowing consumers to sell back
:to the grid. If they have solar panels and are producing more mower
:than they can consume they should be able to sell this back. Britain
:should provide 3 phase supplies for domestic premises as this will
:make it easier to put power back.
:

We already have such a law.

:
:Countries like Greece could produce solar power on a large scale. They
:could electrolyse water and produce hydrogen.
:

Solar is typically not concentrated enough for this. You generally
want nuclear for hydrogen production.

:
:N. America is in a different position in that the South West could
roduce large amounts of energy. Europe will have to seek the
articipations of countries like Morocco.
:

I've seen your 'plans' for use of the US Southwest. Sod off. Some of
us live here.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 9 Jun, 13:28, Quadibloc wrote:
: On Jun 9, 4:32 am, Ian Parker wrote:
:
: Yet
: they stampede us to nuclear war, just as they stampeded us to a war in
: Iraq.
:
: The use of nuclear weapons is not the same as nuclear war. It is not
: expected that either Russia or China - or even Pakistan, India, or
: North Korea - is going to launch missiles at the United States because
: it has decided a nuclear weapon is the most effective or economical
: bunker-buster to use in Iran.
:
: John Savard
:
:There will still be fallout, point number 1.
:

Practically none. Where do you think the fallout comes from, given
that the blast is contained behind hundreds of feet of rock?

:
:The message that no
:country is soveriegn without nuclear weapons will go roung the grape
:vine.
:

Only among loony grapes.

:
:Full scale nuclear war will be a distinct possibility.
:

Horse manure.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Jun 9, 7:44*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 9 Jun, 13:25, Quadibloc wrote: On Jun 8, 2:21 pm, Ian Parker wrote:

Europe and America have the same interests, or do
they?

Europe has a large Arab minority now; America has a large and
influential Jewish minority.

Europe has very little oil of its own; America could be self-
sufficient even if it would pinch a bit.

So the options each would consider reasonable in the area of Middle
East policy differ considerably. Also, they are in competition as far
as international trade is concerned.

Military action is NOT a cost effective way of ensuring oil supplies.
Best policy for BOTH Europe and America is :-

Nuclear power (peaceful) France leads the world in this.

No disagreement there; but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Rather, Europe assigns a high importance to staying on good terms with
the Arab world, and the United States assigns a high importance to the
security of Israel; that is the difference between them. So military
force would be used to protect Israel, not secure oil supplies.

John Savard

On 9 Jun, 20:12, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:44*am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 9 Jun, 13:25, Quadibloc wrote: On Jun 8, 2:21 pm, Ian Parker wrote:

Europe and America have the same interests, or do
they?

Europe has a large Arab minority now; America has a large and
influential Jewish minority.

Europe has very little oil of its own; America could be self-
sufficient even if it would pinch a bit.

So the options each would consider reasonable in the area of Middle
East policy differ considerably. Also, they are in competition as far
as international trade is concerned.

Military action is NOT a cost effective way of ensuring oil supplies.
Best policy for BOTH Europe and America is :-

Nuclear power (peaceful) France leads the world in this.

No disagreement there; but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Rather, Europe assigns a high importance to staying on good terms with
the Arab world, and the United States assigns a high importance to the
security of Israel; that is the difference between them. So military
force would be used to protect Israel, not secure oil supplies.

Israel is

1) Perfectly capable of defending herself and is after all a nuclear
power.

2) Is actively promoting settlements in the West bank. OK the amount
of actual land may be small but each setlement has its checkpoints and
its security zone. It is impossible for palestinians to move about
their own country. Surely if one gives a commitment to Israel it
should be under certain conditions. OK I will accept that in the
absence of an agreement places like the Golan have to remain under
Israeli control but West Bank settlements have nothing to do with
security. The orthodox parties BTW are taking about "manifest destiny"
in a similar way to way to President Polk before the war with Mexico.

3) The US has talked about an increased arms supply to Saudi Arabia to
counteract Iranian influence in Iraq in particular. Israel needs more
arms too. Surely anyone can see that arming the region is going to
have a detrimental effect.


- Ian Parker