New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#776 2017-09-28 05:22:00

elderflower
Member
Registered: 2016-06-19
Posts: 1,087

Re: Politics

On the whole, I find, it's better to avoid getting personal when putting one's arguments down.

Offline

#777 2017-09-28 06:47:32

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,049
Website

Re: Politics

Just think, if the previous administrations had taken a harder stance on the issue of North Korea, we wouldn't be facing a nuclear state. Oh well, no use crying over incompetent Presidents.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#778 2017-09-28 09:46:38

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,701
Website

Re: Politics

Terraformer wrote:

Just think, if the previous administrations had taken a harder stance on the issue of North Korea, we wouldn't be facing a nuclear state. Oh well, no use crying over incompetent Presidents.

What? And what exactly would you have them do? The United States is a country, not government of the world. The United States is not qualified to dictate what other countries do inside their borders. And North Korea is afraid the US will invade. NK is doing this because they're afraid the US will do the same thing to them that the US did to Iraq. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union and China supported NK. They ensured conquering NK and putting South Korea in charge of the peninsula was not possible. Bill Clinton ensured NK didn't have nuckear weapons, using everything available to a president at that time.

What we're seeing is due in great extent to incompetence by previous administrations. In 1991, George H. W. Bush told general Norman Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before going into Iraq. To go in, kick ass, and get out. President Bush Sr. was afraid Iraq would become a modern Vietnam, that the US would never get out. General Schwarzkopf just that. However, unfortunately some yahoo in Washington just had to screw it up. Someone decided to establish "no fly zones". That started the "forever war". The US still has never left. Osama bin Laden said he wanted all foreigners out of the Middle East. He had Al Qaeda engage in ever escalating conflict with the US culminating in 9/11. Would 9/11 ever have happened if the US had stayed out after General Schwarzkopf ordered troops out? ISIS was the result of George W. Bush's second war in Iraq. The mess in Syria started with the Arab Spring, president Bashar al-Assad refused to leave when voters in Syria insisted he leave. But ISIS was created out of Iraq, so Syria would have been different.

All this mess got North Korea scared. In 1991 when the US invaded Iraq the first time, Iraq had the 4th largest land army in the world. But the US rolled over them. North Korea is worried the US will do that to them. The only thing the US respects is nuclear weapons. So North Korea must have nuclear weapons as a deterrent. They don't intend to attack first, this is to ensure the US doesn't do to them what the US did to Iraq. So the current mess with North Korea is the result of US military conflicts. And you think previous presidents should have done something "harder"?

::Edit:: Libya had tried to achieve nuclear weapons. When the US demanded Libya give up nuclear weapons, they did so. The result was invasion of Libya, and death of Muammar Gaddafi.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-09-28 10:03:41)

Offline

#779 2017-09-28 10:53:14

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,524
Website

Re: Politics

The C-5 was originally designed to land on dirt fields.  I don't know how many are still flying.  It's an antique from the late 1960's.  Kbd512 doesn't know as much as he masquerades as knowing,  since he doesn't seem to know paved runways are unnecessary for it,  just to be preferred.  The island is forested,  so you do need to land bulldozers from a ship.  Rather than clear the forest,  just clear the runway with them at the airport.  Use debris to pack any holes full,  and the C-5 can land there.  You can patch those holes later.

I know less about the C-141,  but I think it has somewhat similar capabilities for rough field operations,  and I know the C-130 does. 

As for the ships,  they can make fresh water and store it up while underway,  maybe not at maximum rate,  but they can still do it,  because that's how the crew is supplied anyway.  They can also carry enormous supplies of bottled water from the US.  These are really big ships.  To say they cannot help adequately is ludicrous.  We've seen them help with disaster relief before. 

Edit/update:  what happened in Texas and Florida is different from what happened in the Caribbean in two important ways.  (1) Most of Texas was not destroyed.  Help came quick from the rest of the state,  and continues.  Florida was mostly destroyed,  but had help available from immediate neighbors.  I wondered why the Navy was not right there down in Keys,  but help got there fairly quickly anyway. (2) Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands were also 100% destroyed,  but are isolated from any neighbors that could help by the ocean.  Help can only come by sea and by air.  Timing is crucial,  so you have to recognize the situation,  and start the aid assets moving as early as possible.  Part of recognizing the situation is recognizing the scale:  FEMA and some National Guard are just entirely outclassed by what happened in Puerto Rico.  They were indeed right there,  but an order of magnitude or two short of what is really needed. We knew for 2-3 days where the hurricane was going to go "good enough" to know the entire island was going to be destroyed regardless of the eye's detailed track,  and that such a thing was too much for FEMA and some National Guard to handle adequately without massive help. 

What RobertDyck says about incompetence in many administrations leading up to today's impasses with North Korea is quite true.  My point is we don't need another incompetent administration while fighting a war with them.  (Edit/update:  Pointing out that incompetence does seem to really piss off its supporters,  though.)  And that war is now inevitable,  since they have the weapons.  Only the timing is uncertain now.  That and whether  we fight the right or wrong kind of war. 

Where I disagree with Robert's analysis is in motivation.  I think the real motivation of Kim Jong Un is the same as it was for his grandfather in 1950:  forced reunification of Korea by conquest.  The difference between then and now is that the grandson has nuclear weapons with which to prevent the invasion for regime change,  and which can be used to threaten allies,  bases,  and territories to fend off the retaliatory war if he does invade South Korea.  The lesson he learned from his grandfather's experience is really that without such weapons,  the threat to use them by the US forced an end to that war.  With them,  he is not so constrained as his grandfather was.  (Edit/update:  It's not just about deterring regime change,  although that is true;  it's about conquest of South Korea for reunification,  using the threat of nuclear destruction of assets to prevent the retaliatory war for regime change.)

Edit/update:  What Kim Jong Un presumes about that regime change war is that we will do what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq,  and attempt to invade-and-occupy.  He is counting on his nuclear extortion capability,  and the threat of Chinese counter-invasion,  to deter us from ever starting that process.  We cannot play that game.  The threat of Chinese counter invasion is the same as it was in 1950.  Plus,  it would be stupid to continue the strategy of invade-and-occupy which has proven so ineffective in Afghanistan and Iraq.  What you do instead is to destroy him and his entire government at one fell,  instantaneous swoop in a standoff strike.  Leave the decapitated failed state on China's doorstep to clean up.  It's only fair:  they created this abortion in the first place,  supporting it the way they have since 1950. This is still made possible by the longer launch time required to fire liquid-propellant ICBM's.  Once he has replaced those with instant-launch solids,  my suggested strategy is no longer feasible.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-28 12:13:06)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#780 2017-09-28 12:25:50

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,835

Re: Politics

GW,

I've never seen or heard of a C-5 taking off from a dirt strip.  Your assertion that they can means nothing.  The pilots who were in the Air Force that I knew referred to them as "hangar queens" and all of them that I ever saw were using enormous steel reinforced concrete runways.  I've seen C-130's get dusty and I know that C-17's can also do it, although I've never personally seen a C-17 do it.  There are no C-141's left in service, so whatever it is that they could or couldn't do doesn't matter now.  In any event, when they land or take off from a dirt strip, they sand blast the engines.  Sand blasting the inside of jet engine is an exceptionally good way to shorten its operational life.  I've seen screws and pen clips end jet engines and small pebbles typically do the same thing that screws do.  If the birds don't have working engines because there are no spare parts in the inventory, then they don't fly.  Period.  End of story.  You can thank former President Obama, along with current and former Congress critters for that.

The suggestion that we bulldoze a forest to create a dirt strip is just being silly.  They now have a functional airport because they finally cleared the runway.  If the runway is full of obstructions, then you clear the runway.  Creating a new one is a waste of precious time and resources.  We use bulldozers to clear existing runways and roads.  Building new airfields for multiple jets to use is a lot more involved than just knocking down a few trees.

As for aircraft carriers storing the water they can make in a day, I'm kbd from the 512 and I'm STILL from the party of basic math.  Although the Carl Vinson can produce 400,000 gallons of potable water per day, about 300,000 gallons of that are required to support the ship's crew and aviation operations.  In an actual disaster on Haiti, Carl Vinson was able to make 100,000 to 150,000 gallons per day for the Haitians.  Actually getting that water to the Haitians proved to be a bit of a problem.  They used bladders and helicopters because there was no functional pumping infrastructure available.

We need to make at least a gallon per day for at least half of the people on Puerto Rico just to keep them above ground.  Someone besides me needs to do the math on how many aircraft carriers are needed to do that job.  I think we might come up a little short even if every carrier in the fleet not doing its best impression of a barge for lack of spare parts was moored outside of San Juan.  That'd probably be why FEMA and the Seabees who are there are trying to get their infrastructure up and running again.

I'm not suggesting that the US Navy can't provide anything, because they're already doing that as I write this.  150,000 gallons per day for an island nation with 3.4 million people on it is like pissing on a forest fire.  Has scale recently become a ludicrous concept to rocket scientists?  You can "blow harder" if you want to, but this swabbie would concern himself with getting their water treatment plants and fuel pumping stations restored ASAFP.  I'm guessing that's exactly what they're trying to do right now.

Elderflower,

I'm just sick of politicians and political commentators, aka the peanut gallery, using the US military as a political tool to play their political games with.  If we want a military that's more than window dressing to scare third world dictators, then we have to pay for it.  It's like people can't find the ON switch in their brains to save their lives.

You'll get no argument from me that our military buys questionable stuff at times or that we have too many costly overseas bases, but President Trump didn't create those problems and any attempt to blame him for that is an attempt to redirect blame from the real culprits and avoid fixing the problems.  President Obama wanted an absurdly expensive new entitlement program and that's what he received.  He wanted new wars in the Middle East and that's what he received.  The US military funding was cut to pay for the entitlement programs and now we're living with the consequences of a new absurdly expensive entitlement program.  Whether or not that decision was right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent is relevant to how it affected the response to the disasters in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico.  The federal government's response to the disaster in Puerto Rico is already greater than the response in Texas in terms of federal assets committed to the relief effort.

We don't have enough working ships and aircraft and should expect a blunted military response after the third consecutive disaster in a month's time.  It took a week to fish everyone out of their homes here in Houston with thousands of boats in the water and it was actually possible to get to Houston on something smaller and cheaper than a Navy ship.  Unfortunately, the bulk of the Cajun Navy can't make it to Puerto Rico.  They'd need ships they don't have to do that.  Anyone who packs the gear to actually help the people in Puerto Rico is already doing that and they aren't waiting for directions from our government, nor should they.

The services are working with what they have and trying to do what they can, as fast as they can.  The US Navy has to have working ships and aircraft along with qualified / trained personnel.  There's nothing simple, easy, cheap, or fast about it.  The US can afford a capable and responsive military or it can afford entitlement programs galore, but not both.  Everyone who actually wants a solution needs to stop blaming the President for the fact that he inherited a decimated US military after he took office.  He's never going to say exactly what you want him to say or do exactly what you want him to do because he isn't you and never will be.

Everybody who criticized our Mayor, who happens to be a Democrat, about his decision not to evacuate Houston can eat a flaming bag of Long Horn manure.  Using less politically correct terminology, I've made that exact statement to anyone who mouthed off to me about his decision not to tell people to leave their homes and I'm a conservative / Republican.  He made the best possible decision using the information he had available at the time and knowledge of how poorly past evacuations went for us.  Sometimes I get the sense that civilians believe those of us who work or have worked for the government have crystal balls that we can stare into.  I assure you that we don't.

People who think the US military can pull rabbits out of its rear end need first hand knowledge of how these operations work, or don't.  People are welcome to comment on it until they're blue in the face, but anyone who is not working on the solution is part of the problem.  How many rescues have media personalities, politicians, or political commentators performed in Puerto Rico?  How many ships and aircraft have they sent?  The media certainly have people who know how to fly aircraft and their executives have yachts, so what have they done about the problem, apart from criticizing their political opponents to further their political agendas?  If the answer is nothing, then what use are they to the people of Puerto Rico?

When some of us see problems, we just go out and fix them as best we can.  Our problems are nobody else's responsibility but our own.  At least none of my neighbors complained about me messing up their grass because I drug their trees or tree limbs back onto their property and out of the street after Hurricane Ike.  The city didn't ask for my arborist credentials when they saw me cutting down their trees that were damaged from the storm when their work crews stopped by to help us a couple days after the storm.

Offline

#781 2017-09-28 12:46:42

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,701
Website

Re: Politics

GW Johnson wrote:

This is still made possible by the longer launch time required to fire liquid-propellant ICBM's.  Once he has replaced those with instant-launch solids,  my suggested strategy is no longer feasible.

North Korea has displayed a vehicle to launch an ICBM. It looks like a Russian ICBM vehicle. So what fuel is North Korea using? If it's storable propellants like UDMH/N2O4 then they don't need to pre-chill, they can instant launch anyway.

Offline

#782 2017-09-28 13:03:54

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,835

Re: Politics

GW,

Yeah, no kidding, Texas and Florida definitely were different.  There was still some infrastructure left for our first responders to use.  Once you send someone to an island with no food / water / fuel, then you have an extra mouth to feed and they're only an asset for as long as you can keep them alive.  Even if you consider our servicemen expendable because it's not your child, after you start killing your personnel you have to replace them.  Maybe we could get some liberal regressives to volunteer at that point.  They're lemmings so it should be easy, so long as they're not too busy "taking a knee" to get off their butts to do some real work.

For those who don't understand what broken / down / out-of-commission means, anything that is broken, down, or out-of-commission can't be used.  That statement applies to about 2/3rds of our military aircraft and about half of our ships.  Do you get it yet?  Can I make that point any clearer?

Our military aircraft and ships are scattered around the world, as in not here in America where I think they belong and therefore not immediately available to save our own damn people in Puerto Rico.

You seem to think you know more about fighting brutal dictators and suicidal terrorists than the US military does.  Have you spent a day in uniform?  College ROTC doesn't count.  Incidentally, your suggestion "won't work" the minute North Korea decides to use their infiltrators to nuke Seoul.  Your suggested strategy happens to be the only option left at this point and is exactly what the US military will do, if required.  Did you come up with that strategy all on your own or did you listen to the news media reports sharing our military strategy with our enemies?  Somehow you still believe you're more competent than President Trump is, but share the same military strategy regarding North Korea.  We don't have B-1's and A-10's circling that fat midget's doorstep because President Trump is looking for kicks on a Saturday night.  Promise.

Offline

#783 2017-09-28 13:15:07

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,524
Website

Re: Politics

That orangey-pink flame from the big ones suggests nitric acid - kerosene (or at least some hydrocarbon liquid) to me.  That's the original "Scud" propellants,  which is what they started with. 

Those really aren't so very storable inside the missile airframe,  especially the acid.  It usually takes the form of "inhibited red fuming nitric acid" (IRFNA). That's mostly HNO3 with a bit of NTO added,  plus just a dash of water.   Usually,  like "Scud",  these are erected and loaded with propellants,  before launch. 

Not being cryogens,  this isn't so difficult in the field.  The kerosene is not much of a problem at all,  and the acid is much less of a field handling problem than the very toxic gas-producing NTO and hydrazine storables are. 

As for the C-5 rough field capability,  I know about that because my Dad helped design the damned thing back around 1965.  That's precisely why there are so many tires on its main gear trucks:  to spread out the load onto more contact patches,  so that it won't sink into the dirt.  It's just that paved runways were preferred,  because of rapid wear from dust ingestion into the engines. 

The smaller C-130 didn't need so many wheels to do exactly the same thing.  The most infamous photo of one is in the desert burned along with the helos from the failed raid to rescue the Iranian hostages back about 1979.  The aircraft had landed on desert sand.  Which shows what it can do.  And,  paved is preferred to prevent dust ingestion into the engines. 

I wasn't actually aware that all the C-141's were gone now.  It only seems a few years ago I saw a couple of them flying for USAF,  but then I haven't really kept track. 

The C-17 is overall-similar to the C-5,  but I don't know if it has rough-field capability.  Haven't looked closely at its main gear trucks.  That's fundamentally how you can tell.  The contact load pressure has to be less than what the surface bearing pressure limitation is.  Then if you have to,  you can just accept the dust ingestion damage and land on the unprepared surface. 

GW

PS -- if anybody actually reads what I wrote in the earlier post,  you will see that I said to bulldoze the runway clear,  not to bulldoze the forest.  There's that political filter again!

PPS -- yes,  I have worn the uniform.  I am a Vietnam-era vet,  although I did not go to southeast Asia.  (I did join up to try,  just didn't get to go.  Tried for Naval aviation.)  At that time,  we were down to a ~200-ship Navy.  We had totally worn-out WW2-vintage diesel submarines still in service,  and a WW2 battleship shelling Quang Tri province.  More than half of DOD's air fleet was still gasoline engine / propeller-driven in those days.  The main jet ground attack aircraft in Vietnam were F-100 and F-105 craft from the mid 1950's. 

As for the B-52, the YB-52 first flew in 1952,  while the very last B-52H came off the assembly line in spring of 1961,  so the "pointy tail" models are the earlier birds from all during the 1950's.  Neglect of the defense establishment goes much further back than Obama,  and across administrations of both parties. 

Point is,  there's been more than enough incompetence to go around,  and for a very long time (such as Truman,  Eisenhower,  Kennedy,  Johnson,  and Nixon deciding to back the wrong sides in Vietnam for nothing but ideology;  and Nixon committed something close to treason by secretly sabotaging peace talks for political purposes while running for President in 1968).

So,  consider me an equal-opportunity pointer-outer of incompetence.  I knows it when I sees it.

PPPS -- I pointed out the war-planning strategy problem that actually dates back earlier than the Civil War.  With exceptions,  we do still suffer from it today.  Even after the Vietnam experience,  we still had to learn the hard way about conducting asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq-2. 

What I foresee as a risk is the same invade/occupy approach used in Afghanistan and Iraq-2 without much success.  I also foresee that Kim Jong Un expects us to do precisely that,  based on our history of entering wars with the last war's strategy. His nukes are intended to deter us from doing that,  so he can conquer the South without his regime being destroyed. 

What I suggested was NOT to fight that way.  We've already seen the Islamic terrorist groups complain bitterly about us not fighting "fair" when we destroy them with standoff weapons.  I merely suggest we do the same thing with Kim Jong Un. War isn't about "fair",  and it's not about dying for your country.  It's about making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country,  as Patton so eloquently put it. 

I'd like to see us carry this out with an Earth-penetrating nuke exploded under the foundations of the government complex in Pyongyang.  That way we topple the regime with no invasion and without civilian mass casualties (like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).  I fear we have no such weapon.  Which means we do a city-buster on top of that complex.  Either way,  it's a nuclear strike,  and so they have to strike first,  else we be the villains for the rest of history.  Given that Kim Jong Un is the head bully in a society organized by bullying the weak,  then that triggering attack is inevitable.  We just don't know when,  or precisely where.  But when it comes, and it will,  we must destroy him.  Now that he has the nuclear missiles,  diplomacy is rendered hopeless.

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-28 14:00:15)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#784 2017-09-28 14:37:00

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,049
Website

Re: Politics

No. America cannot launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. That is not a valid option. Do you want war with China? Do you want to normalise the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare? What happens if they have a dead-hand system?

Diplomatic and economic solutions have not yet been exhausted. Alas, that would require imposing a lot of hardship on Americans, in order to impose more hardship on the Chinese. They deal with their boy in Pyongyang, or there is absolutely no trade between the two countries. Still, it's preferable to the use of nuclear weapons.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#785 2017-09-28 17:58:03

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,701
Website

Re: Politics

GW Johnson wrote:

I'd like to see us carry this out with an Earth-penetrating nuke exploded under the foundations of the government complex in Pyongyang.  That way we topple the regime with no invasion and without civilian mass casualties (like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).  I fear we have no such weapon.  Which means we do a city-buster on top of that complex.  Either way,  it's a nuclear strike,  and so they have to strike first,  else we be the villains for the rest of history.  Given that Kim Jong Un is the head bully in a society organized by bullying the weak,  then that triggering attack is inevitable.  We just don't know when,  or precisely where.  But when it comes, and it will,  we must destroy him.  Now that he has the nuclear missiles,  diplomacy is rendered hopeless.

I disagree. I don't think the government of North Korea is stupid enough to mount a nuclear attack on anyone. Nuclear weapons have to be reserved for retaliation. Nuclear first strike would equal suicide. The US is just too strong, don't poke that bear.

However, according to Wikipedia, the US started development of "earth penetrating" mini-nukes in 2003. Congress revoked funding for that in 2004. However, Donald Trump announced he would update the nuclear arsenal. So expect that such development has resumed.
BBC 2003: Mini-nukes on US agenda
Wikipedia: Nuclear bunker buster

Donald Trump tweeted that his first executive order was to update nuclear weapons. It wasn't his first order, but I think he did sign an executive order to do that.

Offline

#786 2017-09-28 19:37:22

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,524
Website

Re: Politics

Terraformer:

If you look closely at what I wrote,  I very specifically said we should NOT strike first,  or else be regarded as the villains forevermore.  What I did not say was that I have no confidence in Trump not to screw that up.  But it is true:  I do not trust him not to screw that up. 

RobertDyck:

There is a rather vast difference between what you believe and what the North Korean regime believes.  You and I share the belief that nuclear war is to be avoided if possible.  They do not share that belief. 

The sob story about being deposed if they give up their nukes is just that:  a lie designed to make them more credible.  Look at actions,  not words.  Not once in 64 years since the end of the Korean War have we tried to overthrow that ugly regime in any way,  shape,  or form. While they have shelled South Korean towns and sunk South Korean ships.  They have killed.  We did not. 

They will eventually bomb something unacceptable (more likely conventionally,  at least initially) while testing our resolve to see how far they can push us.  That's just what bullies do.  That's the trigger.  We've seen it before.  His given name was Adolf. 

As for nuke penetrators,  I hope we have them.  But I doubt that we do.  An item being developed is NOT an operational weapon. 

The fallout containment with such a weapon is not by any means perfect,  but it is far better than a low air burst,  and far,  far lower than a surface burst.  The point is to destroy the giant complex with Kim and all his government within.  If we can do that without destroying the entire city,  so much the better. 

But we must take advantage of the fueling delay.  Once they have solid propellant instant-fire ICBM's,  this strategy becomes untenable.  So far,  I cannot think of any other. 

Antius:

I cannot speak as to what you wrote,  as I am totally in the dark about that.  But I hope things change for the better for you and your fellow Britons.  It does not sound good.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-28 19:57:19)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#787 2017-09-29 07:29:01

Antius
Member
From: Cumbria, UK
Registered: 2007-05-22
Posts: 1,003

Re: Politics

"As for nuke penetrators, I hope we have them.  But I doubt that we do.  An item being developed is NOT an operational weapon."

When one uses such devices, it is greatly advantageous to make it look like an accident.

Wait until North Korea launches a ballistic missile and then target the facility with a cruise missile armed with a low-yield nuclear warhead during launch, preferably from a submerged hunter-killer submarine off the coast.  That way, it looks like an operational nuclear missile test that went wrong.

Even the most oppressive dictator will struggle to maintain support for a programme after a nuclear 'accident' like that.

Offline

#788 2017-09-29 07:37:38

Antius
Member
From: Cumbria, UK
Registered: 2007-05-22
Posts: 1,003

Re: Politics

GW Johnson wrote:

Antius:
I cannot speak as to what you wrote,  as I am totally in the dark about that.  But I hope things change for the better for you and your fellow Britons.  It does not sound good.

They have already passed laws that require internet service providers to keep records of everything their customers do online.  I expect an outright ban on VPNs will not be far behind.  Right now, they are attempting to force internet companies to provide loopholes and back doors in internet encryption, so that there is no place that can be secret from them.

None of this seems to ring any alarm bells in the minds the UK public.  The worst thing about all of this is just how few people are prepared to stand up and say how absolutely crazy and sinister it is.  The media pretend it isn't happening.  Only a small minority of people seem to care about it at all.  I am shocked by how complacent people are and how easily they are enslaved.  Where the hell is the modern day equivalent of Thomas Paine?

Last edited by Antius (2017-09-29 07:39:26)

Offline

#789 2017-09-29 16:25:29

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,835

Re: Politics

GW,

Diplomacy is never hopeless as long as our representatives and their representatives are willing to try.  If diplomacy fails, then our military needs to be ready to continue politics through other means.  Our military options need to remain viable by properly funding our military.  When a situation goes from bad to worse, as it frequently does when our politicians fail us, we rely heavily on our military to get the job done.

We should maintain a "Just Say No!" policy on nation building, pointless wars of attrition, new military bases, and any other military operations that do not have clearly defined mission success objectives.  After success has been achieved, it's then time to leave.

If we nuke North Korea, China has already stated that they'll respond in kind.  Using nuclear weapons is not a viable option.  Quite frankly, it's never an option.  The use of the first two nuclear weapons was awful enough.  The next time humanity uses nuclear weapons should be to stop an incoming asteroid that would otherwise wipe out life on Earth as we know it.

Offline

#790 2017-09-29 16:43:43

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

Glad you stop in to post kbd512 about the "Aid that was already staged on Puerto Rico before the hurricane hit" and what was being deployed by the Navy to begin getting help to the people. The fact that the Navy is there to support thousands of FEMA and number of Seabees pls the likes of all other branches in attendance the efforts to render aid will go along ways to give comfort to those hurt the most. So true that there will be no cajun navy or large vehicles to help with any of this.

Of course clearing the entry into any harbor or landing would be a plus as well as cutting a road from the coast inland is a means to get a clear path especially along existing roads for those on foot to get easy access to the aid that has arrived.

I know what it is like to carry just 2 gallons of water and food for the days means just 2 miles one way up hill so the easier the walking is the better for those trying to get what is needed for the families. I did this when I had no vehicle from my home in fall through spring until I was able to afford one. So while the Navy can produce the amounts of water stated for the people there is a big but in light that all containers for getting it are most likely gone so what will they carry it in?

The argue about air or sea is better to get the supplies to the people is moot just use all capability possible. So getting people out to the outlying area needs people in greater numbers that what is sent so far. To give help we will need to make even temporary habitats for all of these to stay in as well. Aka tent cities....

The people could even be those being deported that would be willing to work for the citizenship or papers to allow them re-entry sooner to be able to return to there own families.

Offline

#791 2017-09-29 20:49:13

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

After criticism, acting homeland security chief admits humanitarian situation in Puerto Rico 'is not satisfactory'
9,000 cargo containers filled with necessary supplies have arrived at a port in San Juan but have yet to be distributed to those in need.
Puerto Rico to get aid from the Navy's 900-foot long floating hospital, the USNS Comfort which can hold as many as 65 civil service mariners and 1,215 Navy medical personnel, left Norfolk, Virginia, today to help bring relief to the U.S. territory devastated by Hurricane Maria but at maximum speed of about 20 miles per hour, up to a week to sail to the island.
Hearing a plea for help a CEO uses private jet to deliver supplies to Puerto Rico nursing home

More hate and racism showing its head after Irma Yellow wristbands, segregation for Florida homeless
from the others, denied cots and food, deprived of medication refills and doctors' visits, or otherwise ill-treated during the evacuation.

Power systems that use poles are going to be damaged by the sheer size of these huricanes so isn't it time to change it.

hurricane-maria-virgin-islands-2-rt-jt-170929_4x3_608.jpg

Offline

#792 2017-09-30 11:08:22

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,524
Website

Re: Politics

Kbd512 and I quite agree about a policy of no more nation-building.  But that is not what has been happening,  repeatedly,  since Vietnam.  Politicians have really been very thick-headed about that.  Because they don't have to go help fight themselves.  Maybe they should.

I looked online about nuclear bunker-buster efforts.  There were some based around the mod 11 version of the B-61 bomb,  but funding for this stuff disappeared by 2005 or 2006.  So I don't think we have one.  I suppose a mass raid of those 4700-lb penetrators might accomplish most of what we need done,  but it would be really hard to mount such a mass raid as a near-simultaneous event.  That's a big building. 

Power poles are easy to put back up.  It would help survivability some,  to use half the spacing,  although very little can really be done to ensure survival in 100+ mph hurricane winds.   Putting the wires underground is far more expensive in terms of wire type and conduit requirements,  and is still subject to flooding problems,  especially in hurricane-induced mass rain events or storm surge events.  Much more expensive to dig up and repair,  too.   They’re probably better off with wires on poles. 

Kbd512:  I hope you have pretty well got your recovery done.  Some parts of Houston look pretty good,  others not so much. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-09-30 11:09:48)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#793 2017-09-30 17:40:29

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

Hurricane Maria a reminder of 'second-class' status for some

New York Times poll that showed more than half of Americans don't realize that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory — and that its residents are U.S. citizens. Puerto Ricans have been recognized as U.S. citizens for a century. A majority of them — roughly 5 million — live in the United States, while an estimated 3.4 million live on the island. Puerto Ricans living on the mainland can vote for president in the general election every four years, yet residents of the island cannot, nor do they have voting representation in Congress.

Many Puerto Ricans share that view — a sentiment reinforced by what critics say has been a slow federal response to the humanitarian crisis that descended on Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria devastated the island.

"The response from Congress ... has been almost as if Puerto Rico did not exist," said Jose Cruz, a political scientist at the University at Albany-State University of New York. His mother and sister live on the island.

President Donald Trump's response "has been inadequate," Cruz said. "He should have been there last week. Puerto Rico is not a priority."

FEMA, the agency heading relief efforts, has sent at least 150 containers filled with relief supplies to the port of San Juan since the storm struck.

Trump sets refugee cap for 2018 at 45,000
The U.S. welcomed 84,995 refugees in fiscal year 2016

What I am not reading thou about these refugee's is how we are going to vet them and how are we going to process them to becoming citizens which is the end goal for those that stay.....other wise send them back.....

If you are following the rules and making progress to become citizens then giving the  Immigrants line up to renew work permits as program ends camping out as early as 3 a.m. just to be able to have another two years of safety.

Immigration Raids Target Hundreds in 'Sanctuary' Cities
ICE Arrests Nearly 500 In Massive Crackdown On Sanctuary Cities from 42 different counties for alleged violations of federal immigration laws.

The operation, dubbed “Safe City,” targeted undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, gang affiliations or those who have fled and re-entered the country following a previous deportation, the agency said on Thursday.

I am ok with this action as it does what we want it to do....

Offline

#794 2017-09-30 18:44:19

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

44 slides
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/hurric … mber-2017/

True form bad mouthing those in need has resulted in Puerto Ricans fire back at Trump for critical tweets

"I'm amazed that he has the gall to say Puerto Ricans expect everything to be done for them," said Abner Breban of Atlanta, who started a Facebook group to raise money for relief. "They are working exhaustively to lift themselves up. We are citizens. We pay taxes. We serve in the military."
Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico 10 days ago, killing at least 16 people. Federal Emergency Management Agency official Alejandro de la Campa said only 5% of electricity had been restored in the island. He said 33% of the telecommunications infrastructure is back up and close to 50% of water services have been restored.


Teamsters organize truckers to move supplies in Puerto Rico big challenge for the recovery effort is simply getting supplies and personnel to places that need them. With the big challenge for the recovery effort is simply getting supplies and personnel to places that need them.

Major U.S. labor unions are organizing truck drivers to help with relief efforts in Puerto Rico as the island continues to grapple with the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria last week. But there is more than just Puerto Rico in the Carrabian area as The US Virgin Islands are struggling to recover from the storms, too

The humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico grips the country, but the destruction from the storms was widespread, and the US Virgin Islands are facing their own lengthy recovery.

FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers are proving residents with blue tarpaulin and other materials as part of Operation Blue Roof, Topp said, so some can live in their homes as a temporary solution. According to FEMA, as of Thursday there were seven shelters throughout the islands housing 396 residents. That number is steadily declining, Julio Rhymer, executive director for the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (WAPA), recognizes that Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico, are struggling from being hit by the hurricanes, but he wants "to make sure the Virgin Islands doesn't get forgotten in the restoration process."
After Hurricane Irma pummeled St. John and St. Thomas, St. Croix was mercifully left with about 90% power. But two weeks later, Hurricane Maria arrived to change that, decimating the island with the capabilities to support the others.

Offline

#795 2017-10-01 06:41:25

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,049
Website

Re: Politics

Do Puerto Ricans pay federal taxes? I don't know how this territory business works.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#796 2017-10-01 07:15:10

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Offline

#797 2017-10-01 08:12:43

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

Protesting during the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" began last season when Colin Kaepernick, then a quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers, declined to stand as a way to bring attention to police treatment of blacks and to social injustice.

Protests during the Anthem does not equal unpatriotic, nor does the burning of the flag, nor cutting it up to make a loin cloth or shash and many other such acts. But targetting those that do will only create the next teir of those that will become terrorists and they will be amoung us.

The flag and anthem mean loyalty to the government. Six in ten Republicans feel it does. Democrats are less likely to say so.

Relatively few players had demonstrated before Trump's remarks. Last Sunday, more than 100 NFL players sat, knelt or raised their fists in defiance during the national anthem.

Texas high schoolers thrown off team for protest

Trump tweets anew about NFL players, national anthem protest

Democrats, Republicans divide over NFL protests, Trump comments - poll
nfl-poll-player-protest-0929.jpg

nfl-poll-trump-comments-0929.jpg

yougove-approval.jpg

nfl-poll-trump-is-trying-to-092.jpg

Last week Kneeled during the Anthem but this week they Monday Night Football: Cowboys kneel before national anthem with that seen continuing to the others that have plyed as well.

I do perfer this rather than during the playing of the athem as being more respectful. These teams learned along time ago that racism has no place if you want to win....

NFL player Delanie Walker says he received death threats over national anthem comments

This is a crime and they should be going after the perpetrators of this.

“First off, I’m going to say this: We’re not disrespecting the military, the men and women that serve in the Army. That’s not what it’s all about,” Walker told a reporter from USA Today. “If you look at most of the guys in here, I’ve been in the USO. I support the troops. This is not about that. It’s about equal rights, and that’s all everyone is trying to show, is that we all care about each other."

"The death threats that my family and I have received since my comments are heartbreaking. The racist and violent words directed at me and my son only serve as another reminder that our country remains divided and full of hateful rhetoric,"

"These words of hate will only fuel me in my efforts to continue my work reaching out to different community groups, listening to opposing voices, and honoring the men and women in the armed forces who risk their lives every day so that we may have this dialogue,"

Trump needs to be quelching the flames of racism and hate instead of fanning them into the next civil war....

Offline

#798 2017-10-01 11:38:50

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

Residents of Vieques, Cut Off From the Rest of Puerto Rico, Plead for Help. This island is just seven miles off the coast of Puerto Rico, but Hurricane Maria storm that knocked out power, flattened homes, ripped out trees by the roots, and turned longtime residents into refugees its made it feel cut off from the entire world. FEMA Says Puerto Rico Recovery Making Progress, but Long Waits for Supplies Continue and that progress is being made in Puerto Rico to restore water, gasoline and communications to the hurricane-battered island.

Political "bickering" hinders Puerto Rico recovery, Sen. Marco Rubio warns

"Every minute we spend in the political realm bickering with one another over who's doing what, or who's wrong, or who didn't do right is a minute of energy and time that we're not spending trying to get the response right," Rubio said on "Face the Nation."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, says Puerto Rico relief effort has been "slow-footed" and "not adequate"

Schumer said the Puerto Rico response "needs the president to stop calling names, stop downgrading the motives of people who are calling for help." Schumer called the response "not good" and urged the deployment of more military troops to the area.

Retired Lieutenant General: While Trump Golfs, San Juan’s Mayor Is ‘Living On A Cot’, Army Lt. Gen. Jeff Buchanan arrived on the island Thursday after being appointed by the Pentagon to lead the relief effort there. So far, approximately 4,400 troops are on the island, Harvey was monumental in Texas because of the amount of flood damage but the impact here is completely different. It’s like an atomic bomb went off.

Offline

#799 2017-10-01 12:28:47

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,701
Website

Re: Politics

I would hope they don't make the same mistakes as Haiti after the earthquake. Some homes were destroyed, but others were damaged and still standing. Officials said on camera that those damaged would have to be torn down. I saw them on TV, many of those homes could be repaired. And those that couldn't, could be dismantled and construction material used to rebuild the home. But businessmen who want to sell stuff just don't want to think that way, they want to sell new construction material. But the worst of all was forcing people out of their homes, into a tent community outside the city.

The best place for people to be is their own homes. Help them repair. If utilities aren't working, then staying in their home is far better than some tent.

After hurricane Katrina, the Canadian navy provided assistance to New Orleans when no one else would. FEMA was debating what they should do, while the Canadian navy used navy helicopters to rescue people off roofs of houses under flood water, provided bottled water/food/medial supplies, used navy ship desalination equipment to make more water, and sent a navy hospital ship to provide medical assistance. (Yes, a Canadian navy hospital ship isn't as big or impressive as a US navy one. Avoiding that discussion.) Why can't FEMA do this? Isn't that their entire job?

Offline

#800 2017-10-04 20:18:09

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,597

Re: Politics

Aid Is Getting to Puerto Rico. Distributing It Remains a Challenge.

Inside a dark school sheltering families left homeless by landslides and hurricane winds, bottled water was getting so scarce on Monday that relief workers parceled out one small plastic cup to go with each person’s dinner of hot dogs, rice and beans and syrupy apricots.

“This is the ration,” Thomas Bosque, 60, whose roof was torn off in the storm, said, lifting his cup.

Some disaster experts say that while the military can be useful, it is not a cure-all in relief efforts, and that too many troops could overwhelm available resources in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rican and federal officials said they had been pushing out the approximately five million meals and five million liters of water that had been delivered to the island of 3.4 million people, largely through an expanding network of 11 regional aid centers set up by the governor. But some local officials said they needed assistance commensurate with their populations — more than the three pallets of food and one pallet of water allotted per day.

“I received 10,000 meals so far, and we’re a city of 54,000,” Lornna Soto, the mayor of Cánovanas, said on Monday. “We need more water. We need more food.”

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB