Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

*sigh*You can regurgitate all you want, you haven't shown you understand as evident by a one of the questions you again have ignored:Why have all of the tests been planned and have no resemblance to an actual flight path from a potential enemy?You don't understand why this is so central to why Missile Defense is complete bull****.There's no point in arguing with a dictionary that does not undergo critical thinking.And despite your claims of "answering" questions, it's obvious you haven't even begun, largely because you don't understand the subject.For instance, you never answered what was your real plan, you never answered how hair trigger was safer then not-hair trigger, and you never argued how missile defense could easily be confused by cheap measures.I realize this futile, but whatever. Say North Korea launched a ICBM (not likely, there are easier, more practical ways of nuking us). In that ICBM is one warhead. That warhead is encased in a mylar balloon. The ICBM also carries at least several dozen mylar balloons. These balloons are relatively cheap. Our systems cannot tell which of the balloons has a weapon as opposed to which does not. Our 100 interceptors, spread across the world are instantly overwhelmed. Game over.Explain to me how TBMs are threats to the homeland. Hahahaha. And what exactly are we going to be shooting down with a Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser? In case you don't know, MRVs and single warheads aren't exactly going to land where you think they are going to land. And have you even bothered to check the Arrow's maximum range?This is almost comical. And I thought that Republicans were one of the few people who had absolutely no military knowledge....

If I answer the questions in your latest post and those in Message 174, will you agree to stop with the "you never answer questions" silliness?And, in the future, if you feel I have left a question unanswered, will you do me the courtesy of mentioning it immediately?

My intention in this topic is to discuss the future strategy for survival for humanity and the competing philosophical and ideological world views espoused by various categories of people. Actually no...no we don't. What if the Lord tarries for another 200 years or so? After all, He never came back in the seven years after the year 2000! (Many many false prophets (profits) wrote many a book that has been shown to be WRONG.) From what I have read, critics of these belief systems point out that an individual or a group obsessed with the afterlife is going to behave in a manner much less likely to provide for future generations, since they don't plan that far ahead. But again....even assuming Jesus is coming back, what if He tarries for 200 more years? We gotta have a plan! The issue of keeping someone from being in a position of authority by virtue of their beliefs is a bit scary, however, and definitely not something a free country should do. Many folks would use the same "logic" to keep an avowed atheist from being president. Again, there is no reason to keep anyone from being in a position of authority apart from the voting process. Facts speak for themselves. The key is to find accurate facts. I read Dr. Paul Ehrlich's book thirty years ago and chalk him up in the same category as the Biblical doom sayers out to make a buck on a book. Certainly, Nemesis...but would you really want to be crammed into Texas with 100 million other people or would you rather take over Canada first...perhaps have a couple of acres to yourself? Perhaps, but does that mean that we should stop trying to find other solutions? I agree. It does not take a Rocket Scientist to see that we can't live the dream in the manner to which we have become accustomed. I mean...I'm all for optimism, but if global conditions make my lifestyle miserable, I don't know if my spirituality is strong enough for me to suck it up and live in Hi Rise buildings simply to make room for more poor disenfranchised masses. I would vote to take Canada instead. (Sorry, sidelined)

quote:

---

If I answer the questions in your latest post and those in Message 174, will you agree to stop with the "you never answer questions" silliness?

---

That's just the tip if the iceberg. And after your last asinine filled post, I'm not even sure I want you to answer. I'm long past the stage of anger, this is just comedy. Do you know just how many MTHELs we would need to defend the major population centers of the US? It's at least a couple thousand. And they are worthless if the weapon is air bursted.

quote:

---

And, in the future, if you feel I have left a question unanswered, will you do me the courtesy of mentioning it immediately?

---

I did. But I don't care anymore. Don't answer whatever you don't want to. It's your life.

Did I call it or did I call it? See?That's why I have asked 3 times for a complete list. No. You threw down the gauntlet. Message 166. You don't mention what I've ignored. You just write a big fat check you can't cash.So. Given that you have done exactly what I predicted you would do ("That's just the tip if the iceberg."), in order to take this potential weapon out of your hands:Please provide me with a complete list of unanswered questions.ABE:Just in case you try the same dodge again: From Rat, Message 82.Sound familiar? Message 194.You need to come up with a better excuse! You're in creo territory.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Easy, Molbio. I gave obvious child a timeout for his unprofessional response to you. I don't want to have to punish both of you. Lets get back to the topic. I noticed that this exchange between you two started here. Edited by Phat, : changed post author from phat to Adminphat

Defensive and offensive military systems are a strategy for survival. Do you consider this OT?From your OP: "Other aspects."

There isn't going to be a nuclear exchange with Russia or any other nuclear power in the foreseeable future. Period!Putin is having too much fun making money.
China is having WAY too much fun making money.
Pakistan is reserving its nukes for India.
India is reserving its nukes for Pakistan and busy answering "800" informercial calls.
Israel will continue to maintain it's "virtual" nuclear arsenal.
The English will continue to sip their tea at 4:00PM
The French will continue to drink their wine.
The US will continue to look for boogey men to pick a fight with....and the REAL issue for millions on people around the globe will be..."How do I continue to pay for fuel without going broke?"**********Besides. As I've said before. No one is going to drop a bomb on Tierra del Fuego. (They don't care about us. We don't care about them)(:raig

I agree, Mespo. Obvious has different ideas, tho.I've asked that he provide cites to back up his assertion that Russia is some sort of immediate threat, but he has yet to do so. Indeed.

Russia has huge oil and gas reserves. That's where real global power comes in. Putin isn't going to mess with the Russian version of Capitalism (99 kopecs for me. 1 kopec for you)But the End of Worlders REALLY have to come up with a new boogey man. The Russian military is still very anemic compared to the glory days of the Red Army. Besides, has anyone asked the Russians if they really give a damn about Israel?...and the Chinese are going to march all the way across Asia to kick some ass in the Middle East? Don't think so.What's a DoomsDayer to do? Tiz a puzzlement.**********************
Meanwhile, back on the home front...The jump of farmers onto the ethanol bandwagon here in the U.S. has sent grain prices up. What really hasn't sunk in yet with the whole biofuels debate, is the fact that there is only a fixed amount of arable land. If you take X amount of acreage out for biofuels, that leaves Y amount for everything else, with the consequent supply and demand effects.And least we forget...
"Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink". Bad drinking water will kill people much faster than any pandemic imaginable.(:raig

Are you saying that terrorism is insignificant in regards to a nuclear threat? I'm sure that some group somewhere with nothing to lose will get a nuclear weapon or two at some point. If they would run a plane into a building, they would not hesitate to use whatever they can get their hands on...(probably a dirty bomb, more likely)I don't ever foresee a nuclear holocaust, but the detonation of one bomb in one major population center within the next 25 years is a distinct possibility.Besides...once fuel costs get out of hand and the economy tanks, Joe American may approve of greater retaliation against whatever boogie man can be conjured up.

Nuclear terrorism is a distinct possibility.Better security re: facilities and a higher level of accountability would go a long way toward reducing that threat.Of course, none of that will help with the North Korea problem. That's a pickle.

Read it again, Phat. Mespo is explaining not why terrorism is insignificant in regards a nuclear thread, but why a nuclear threat is insignificant in regards terrorism. (Not insignificant, mind you, in the sense that it is harmless, but in the sense that it is unlikely.) Jon

---

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

Please stop distorting my posts.I never claimed that Russia was an immediate threat. What I argued with pre-delegation is that based on the history of the US military and US leadership in not taking chances with the nuclear arsenal. Then I gave a senario which would eliminate the US's capacity to respond. I did not say that was likely, only possible.Frankly speaking, the US doesn't change rapidly in some departments and there are plenty of generals who still believe Russia is an threat.And you did not answer the questions as I noted in my earlier posts. Please see the post as to my future requirements for your answering.Here's what I'm arguing so you can stop distorting it.1) Get off Hair trigger nuclear alert
2) Go to virtual arsenals, where the weapons are implosion type and all of the shaped charges are destroyed, leaving only the machines to make them
3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge
4) Missile shield is a waste of money as it is cheap to bypass.On #4, we can barely afford an financial attrition war with Bin Laden. Trying to do so with Iran and North Korea at the same time is not acceptable.Those alone will make the future of mankind safer. I have yet to see a good argument as for why hair trigger is a good idea in today's world and have been constantly ignored when asked for such a reason. Furthermore, I'd like some answers as to how having fewer nukes is less safe.Now, I agree with preventing religious crazies from getting into office, but can someone explain how we are to figure out who is, who is not and who is hiding it? Jar never took a shot at that. I'd like to see someone else try.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There isn't going to be a nuclear exchange with Russia or any other nuclear power in the foreseeable future. Period!

---

Deliberate? No. Accidental? Possibly. There have been at least 20 incidents where an glitch, human error, or just lack of being informed almost lead to an nuclear exchange. Having weapons on hair trigger is the primary cause of this. Getting off of hair trigger, as I noted very early on will make the planet much safer. The threat of deliberate exchange is not a problem here. The threat of accidental exchange is. That is the discussion here.