Re: OT: Guns in Space

On Mar 20, 7:03 am, Mindless Prick wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 22:06:12 -0700, "n...@xxxxxxx" <Alien8...@xxxxxxxxx>
Gave us:

On Mar 19, 9:08 am, Jim Yanik <jya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"n...@xxxxxxx" <Alien8...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1174296045.913175.160290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 18, 5:59 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"n...@xxxxxxx" <Alien8...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1174250284.064676.58570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Better minds than yours (and mine) have thought about this kind
of
thing and concluded bullets in space are A Very Bad Idea. One of
the reasons everybody got all wound up when the Chinese whacked a
satellite* recently was because of all the shrapnel that can't fall
down;

eventually,it will deorbit and reenter.("fall down")

I don't see a collision producing enough delta-v to deorbit the
whole sat; most of it should have gone into random variations of the
original satellite's orbit to make NORAD's job just that much more
difficult. I don't know of any reports of debris re-entering.

even items at 500 mile orbits eventually decay and reenter.
most low Earth orbit stuff reenters a lot sooner,due to atmospheric drag
and gravity effects.

Yes, I know that, but it's not predictable. While the Chinese like
to think in the long term they do not ignore such relatively short-
term inconveniences.

Everyone was upset because of the hazards to their boosters and
satellites.

That as well, but I don't think it'll escalate to the rest of the
world having to play the MAD game with China; they're much more level-
headed than the USSR was.

Then why are they devoting so much of their GNP to military?
Building lots of new quiet subs,LOTS of ballistic missiles,all sorts of
stuff.

Why does any nation skew the guns/butter equation that way?

Easy;they plan on confronting the US sometime in the near future.

Nonsense; they plan on being able to _if necessary_. Study the
Chinese and you'll see that they are not habittually confrontational.

They fed the entire North Vietnamese effort, you retarded ***.
They also fed Cambodia and Loas.

Figured that out all by yourself did you? That's their historical
pattern, to manipulate proxy states bordering them; it has kept the
"barbarians" off their soil since the last Japanese invasion. Current
prominent example is North Korea; they yank its leash or give it slack
as benefits China.

Get a clue. They are not confrontational, but they are gearing up
to be so. Been that way for decades.

No. The Chinese thugocracy (as Jim Yanik accurately calls the
Chinese government) make that appearance because they know we think
that way and expect it of them. They DO NOT want to get into direct
confrontation for the same reason the USSR didn't; they know we're
crazy enough to start throwing nukes at the drop of a hat, and the
thugs running China take MAD as seriously as Krushchev did even at his
red-faced table-banging-with-his-shoe worst.

The reason I say I don't think it'll get that far is that I think
they'll succeed in distracting us with proxies; we'll piss all our
strength away on the Middle East and Eastern Europe (and maybe Africa
if we have anything left after that; notice the increasing simmer of
African "atrocities" attracting talk of US intervention in the news)
and we won't be able to put up a fight when they collapse our economy
by kicking the props out from under the world stock markets at the
right time (see below). The only thing that worries them is our nukes;
no matter how bad our internal economy gets there'll be somebody
willing to turn the keys and push the buttons.

The fact that we let them into
the global economy may well be our biggest mistake.

THAT is exactly correct. As I told Jim Yanik, their true battlefield
has become stock and monetary exchanges. They don't plan on
exterminating us in the short term, they plan on foreclosing on us,
then charging us rent forever.

Even Russia is pulling bull*** behind our backs to this day.

That's nothing new; Russia shares with China a deep, historically-
justified fear of being invaded. Both of them prefer to weaken
adversaries (real, perceived, or potential) to the point that invasion
is unfeasible. Best they like to set adversaries against each other;
witness China supporting sanctions against Iran- they'd just love to
see us go in there.


Mark L. Fergerson

.

Quantcast