straydog
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
Re: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> Date: 25 Dec 2004 10:14:46 -0800
> From: Kamal R. Prasad <kamalp@acm.org>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Subject: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
>
> From: R. Martin (russell.martin@wdn.com)
> Subject: Re: Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2029
>
> View this article only
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> Date: 2004-12-24 10:40:18 PST
>
> BMJ wrote:
>>
>> R. Martin wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> How about a justification for the ballistic missile defence system--you
>>>> know, the one that can't hit the broad side of a barn?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know about that one, but I know about the one that didn't
>>> even get off the ground in the last test. :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Russell
>>
>> How can it hit its target when it can't get off the ground? :-)
>
>> It waits for the incoming missile to hit it and destroys it that
>> way. :-) I think the plan is to put one in every major city. So
>> what if it doesn't work? To quote our illustrious Sec. of Def.,
>> "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want
>> to have."
>
> My counter woould be :- Why did you go to war,
You should be asking Rummy, Bushie, Connie, and the rest that question,
not anyone on this newsgroup.
if you didn't have the
> army to win the war?
Lots of people in the world go into debt buying things that they cannot
afford.
It is something of a given that americans don't
> make diehard soldiers.
You would have to give: i) a reference to back up that statement, and ii)
discuss a fair number of cases for comparison. I can do this, can you?
They win most of their battles with moneypower
> -raining dollars instead of bullets on enemy soldiers.
In all of history, the favored party was usually (but not always), the one
with the superior forces or resources. When there were two superior forces
(eg. USA and USSR) present, each developed their followers (satellites?
client states?).
The good/bad
> news depending on whether you are liberal or conservative is that the
> US is closer to pulling off the occupation than it would like to
> admit.
Its really too early to say. Really. Besides you would have to define the
criteria for success as well as list the criteria you would like to
ignore.
>> There
>> have been allegations that many of the previously "successful" tests
>> were actually orchestrated by following pre-determined trajectories
>> rather than completely random which a full-scale strike would likely be.
>
>> They wouldn't be completely random, unless the attacker can control
>> gravity. ;-) Yes, I've heard that, along with the incoming target
>> having some device that sent out a signal that the interceptor could
>> track.
>
> I have also seen allegations that Neil Armstrong could never have
> walked on the moon, and it was faked out.
There are people who are sure the earth is (still) flat.
To date, no country has been
> to land an astronaut on the moon (for a technical reason which I don't
> remember].
You should remember these things.
> One of the astronauts also filed a court case about the inhumane
> tests done on astronauts -and was mysteriously killed in a car
> accident (around that time).
Such thoughts remind me of "conspiracy theories" which are very often
nearly impossible to disprove (and sometimes also nearly impossible to
prove, too).
You should read some books on our system of justice and how often it is
wrong. Do you have justice in India?
> regards
> -kamal
>
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-25-2004 05:02 PM
