Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Is Bush totally out of his mind?

Is Bush totally out of his mind?

Posted by: Stefan Sigwarth - Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:36 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 50 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Is Bush totally out of his mind? 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:24 pm
Here's a little factual data:

"Tactical" nuclear weapons were developed by the US as a stopgap means of countering the overwhelming numerical superiority of Soviet Bloc conventional forces in Europe during the Korean War, when so many US conventional forces were in Asia... not because of any notion of somehow fighting a nuclear war on another continent as a means of defending North America

The fallout from a "limited" (let's say less than 500 warheads) nuclear exchange would not actually kill a significant portion of any population. Much of the earth's current population grew up in a time which saw scores of above-gound nuclear explosions carried out around the globe. Best estimates are that the combined radiation from this activity killed tens of thousands, that is true; but it happened over the course of many many years due to long-term illnesses such as cancer and the like. That may seem like a lot of people, but consider that over 100,000 people lost thier lives in Asia two weeks ago, and yet I have seen numerous articles proclaiming that the area's demographic won't even be substantially affected... so please don't make statements like "fallout would probably kill everyone in the US"

The Federation of American Scientists has a great deal of information concering the US nuclear arsenal and how it has been managed (or mismanaged, as the case may be) and which weapons systems were built and why. Persons inclined to make statments about such things are invited do a little research prior to doing so.

The United States government is primarily controlled by the Legislature, just like it says in the Constitution. If GW was responsible for a tenth of the things of which he is accused/credited, he would doubtless be busy despoting/meddling/plotting/rescuing/whatever for hundreds of hours each day, even with a large and very secretive/trusworthy staff. It is true that the Legislature is currently controlled by GW's party, but anyone whom has had the exquisite displeasure of seeing US politics up close knows that no one person runs any party. The truth is that everything is controlled by the flow of money/power which means that, surprise, the US is a capitalist entity, just as advertised. Please do not attempt to imply that changing the butts in a few seats would make the world a different place.

Politics has as much a place in this forum as the deranged rantings of some of the more colorful "backyard interstellar spacecraft" folks; but on the topic of space, one would perhaps point out that in fact NASA has excercised a budgetary authority clause to re-distribute money to follow GW's exploration "vision" ...even at the expense of other popular programs like Hubble. It was all over the news yesterday. Bureaucracies are slow to do anything, the US government is the grandaddy of them all. NASA takes a long time to do anything, and spaceflight is difficult and complicated; the elegant simplicity of SS1 took many years and Burt had no budgetary oversight. in the glory days of NASA (an old-timer told me, "we were breaking down technological barriers on a daily basis"), it took nearly 6 years from JFK's "we choose to go to the moon" speech before the first Apollo hardware flew, unmanned. In the current space climate, NASA has many other projects competing for it's attention, there is much more "oversight" getting in the way, and even though the President's party controlls the Legislature, NASA still didn't get the money they wanted for the "vision." The plan is for toes on the moon by 2020, I expect patience is in order; the only way it happens sooner is by market force, and it remains to be seen whether that will be sufficient to achieve the same timetable... Burt Rutan seems to feel that the economic foundation exists, but he is prudent enough to refrain from giving dates.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:03 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Here's a little factual data:

"Tactical" nuclear weapons were developed by the US as a stopgap means of countering the overwhelming numerical superiority of Soviet Bloc conventional forces in Europe during the Korean War, when so many US conventional forces were in Asia... not because of any notion of somehow fighting a nuclear war on another continent as a means of defending North America.


I thought that was exactly what the US was doing in Europe:-defending America with nuclear weapons, if there was no threat to the US they would not have been there. Also at the height of the cold war there was very little doubt that the US would have used them in Europe if nuclear weapons had been deployed against them. Irrespective of what other conflicts the US were involved in or what pressures they were under at the time these weapons were created to use in Europe, which is what I said.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
The fallout from a "limited" (let's say less than 500 warheads) nuclear exchange would not actually kill a significant portion of any population. Much of the earth's current population grew up in a time which saw scores of above-gound nuclear explosions carried out around the globe. Best estimates are that the combined radiation from this activity killed tens of thousands, that is true; but it happened over the course of many many years due to long-term illnesses such as cancer and the like. That may seem like a lot of people, but consider that over 100,000 people lost thier lives in Asia two weeks ago, and yet I have seen numerous articles proclaiming that the area's demographic won't even be substantially affected... so please don't make statements like "fallout would probably kill everyone in the US".


While I agree "killing everyone in the US" is over stating the effect, since this has never actually happened no one knows for sure how many would die, so irrespective of what scientists think this is an unknown. Death rates would be based on so many different things, such as location of exchange, weather conditions and the population levels in the area. There has been a lot of research on these effects but mostly I suspect what is thought is guesses based on extrapolations. This is all irrelevant though as there would be no such thing as a limited exchange, it would quickly become a full scale conflict and everyone would be affected. That is, I suspect, why tactical weapons were removed, it was more likely that these would be used against Russia because of the inbalance but rather than act as a containment they would lead to a full scale holocaust. Once one side uses any nuclear weapon (irrespective of its size) the other side feels free to do likewise. Initially Russia did not have these small weapons so they would have replied with their main Nucs, instant escalation.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
The United States government is primarily controlled by the Legislature, just like it says in the Constitution. If GW was responsible for a tenth of the things of which he is accused/credited, he would doubtless be busy despoting/meddling/plotting/rescuing/whatever for hundreds of hours each day, even with a large and very secretive/trusworthy staff. It is true that the Legislature is currently controlled by GW's party, but anyone whom has had the exquisite displeasure of seeing US politics up close knows that no one person runs any party. The truth is that everything is controlled by the flow of money/power which means that, surprise, the US is a capitalist entity, just as advertised. Please do not attempt to imply that changing the butts in a few seats would make the world a different place.


I dont think George Jr is any more corrupt than any other politition, I refer to an earlier post in this thread where I make the point they are all a bunch of liars. Will he deliver on his space promises, doubtful given the other demands for funding placed upon his administration. Besides he's probably to busy despoting/meddling/plotting all the time. :) Kerry would not have delivered either but then again he didn't offer anything.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
NASA has excercised a budgetary authority clause to re-distribute money to follow GW's exploration "vision" ...even at the expense of other popular programs like Hubble. It was all over the news yesterday. Bureaucracies are slow to do anything, the US government is the grandaddy of them all. NASA takes a long time to do anything, and spaceflight is difficult and complicated; the elegant simplicity of SS1 took many years and Burt had no budgetary oversight. in the glory days of NASA (an old-timer told me, "we were breaking down technological barriers on a daily basis"), it took nearly 6 years from JFK's "we choose to go to the moon" speech before the first Apollo hardware flew, unmanned. In the current space climate, NASA has many other projects competing for it's attention, there is much more "oversight" getting in the way, and even though the President's party controlls the Legislature, NASA still didn't get the money they wanted for the "vision." The plan is for toes on the moon by 2020, I expect patience is in order; the only way it happens sooner is by market force, and it remains to be seen whether that will be sufficient to achieve the same timetable..


Agreed we should be more patient, but we've waited so long already :cry: Its more about the frustration of getting NASA to use the technology it has rather than having to make lots of break-throughs. You are right that NASA, like all large organisations, is not best suited to realign itself on a different path to the one it had been following for so long.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:13 pm
Wow, I agreed with everything SawSS1 said except the bit starting with "here's a little factual data" ... and ending with "dates."

A revisionist! They're always fun. Those first five words were just classic!

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:52 pm
I am not sure what portion you are calling revisionist?

Greenpeace says there have been over 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests within most of our lifetimes:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nuk ... read9.html

The first nuclear weapons deployed by the US in Europe were ARTILLERY (i.e. not for striking inside the USSR) in other words a TACTICAL weapon whose use was intended specifically to counter conventional forces on the ground in the theater:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.p ... ct90norris
You will note that the timeframe was during the Korean Conflict.

Here's the front page of the FAS Nuclear weapons site:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/index.html

Here is where you can learn about each US device and why and when it was built:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Wea ... bombs.html

All of these sources are from organizations opposed to nuclear weaponry so I'm not sure how you figure I'm offering the opinion
of somebody who needs to rewrite history for political gain? Unless you're a warmonger, and you think that my earlier statements are revisionist on the peacenik side?

Or am I mistaken about the date of JFK's "moon" speech (Sept 1962) or the first flight of Apollo 6 (April 1968)?

I won't debate the internal workings of the US government with a foreigner, that would be unkind and insulting to the poor fellow who had to immerse himself in that much dreck just to spar elecronically with a guy whom doesn't even like the topic.

So, Doc, where is the revisionism? Oh, wait, I forgot that you are an old-school 'net junkie and you're probably just stirring...


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:59 am
Quote:
I won't debate the internal workings of the US government with a foreigner, that would be unkind and insulting to the poor fellow who had to immerse himself in that much dreck just to spar elecronically with a guy whom doesn't even like the topic.

Fine.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:55 am
Ok, I'm bored ... let me poke you with a sharp stick ...
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Here's a little factual data:

Bad start given what you followed it up with ...
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
"Tactical" nuclear weapons were developed by the US as a stopgap means of countering the overwhelming numerical superiority of Soviet Bloc conventional forces in Europe during the Korean War, when so many US conventional forces were in Asia... not because of any notion of somehow fighting a nuclear war on another continent as a means of defending North America

You don't develop anything as prohibitively expensive as tactical nukes (which is an oxymoron) as a "stopgap" measure. The intention there was to close the door. Hindsight shows us it failed to foresee the advent of ICBMs. Also, every single deployment of US armament has the tacit and ultimate goal of defending US interests, even if it is at the expense of long and short term interests of other states.

So there, I'm calling bullsh*t on no less than two points of your first paragraph.
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
The fallout from a "limited" (let's say less than 500 warheads) nuclear exchange would not actually kill a significant portion of any population. Much of the earth's current population grew up in a time which saw scores of above-gound nuclear explosions carried out around the globe. Best estimates are that the combined radiation from this activity killed tens of thousands, that is true; but it happened over the course of many many years due to long-term illnesses such as cancer and the like. That may seem like a lot of people, but consider that over 100,000 people lost thier lives in Asia two weeks ago, and yet I have seen numerous articles proclaiming that the area's demographic won't even be substantially affected... so please don't make statements like "fallout would probably kill everyone in the US"

Earlier someone said something about PFA statistics. You should have paid attention. Your's are covered in sh*t. For example your first sentence in this paragraph is awesomely wrong. 500 nukes would kill substantial fractions of the global population, long term radiation is factored into this appreciation as well. Just because there is a time-lag between cause and effect doesn't mean you can simply discount the people who die from cancer they get as a direct result of exposure from the radiation. More than this, the radiation from those nukes would continue to contribute to the demise of people yet unborn for scores of generations.

It's plain stupid to compare a single 500 nuke event with decades of sporadic nuke testing and say that the latter suggests the former will have no great effect. So your greenpeace stats mean diddlysquat.

In the case of the recent tsunami, give me a link to three articles supporting that "the area's demographic won't even be substantially affected". If you cannot then this statement of yours, pulled from your ass, is staggeringly ignorant.
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
The Federation of American Scientists ... etc

You've used my foreign status ... a very telling strategy (sorry isn't that spelt "stratergery" now?) ... to disqualify me from debating you about particularly US concepts. So I wont waste my time.

Factual data my ass.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:05 pm
Keep going... and this post will be "locked"... I agree people can share their opinion.. but Dr_Keith_H, please don't "attack" other people.

Plain stupid, my ass.. sh*t... bullsh*t .. those words ARE NOT ment to be written on this forum.

Especially not in a topic where "opinions" is more important compared to actual facts.
And I don't think you're an expert in nuclear bombs.

EDIT; I guess this is my 2monthly warning to Dr_Keith or so.. so people, just ignore :lol:

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Last edited by Sigurd on Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:27 pm
Posts: 72
Location: The Land of Hurricane Charley
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:45 pm
You rang? :lol:

_________________
"Floating down the sound resounds around the icy waters underground.."


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:17 pm
Sigurd wrote:
Especially not in a topic where "opinions" is more important compared to actual facts.

Sigurd, the guy spouts forth a bunch of dreck (to use a more PC term) under the heading "factual data". Do you read my responses looking for naughty/inflammatory words only?

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:19 pm
Dr_Keith_H wrote:
Sigurd wrote:
Especially not in a topic where "opinions" is more important compared to actual facts.

Sigurd, the guy spouts forth a bunch of dreck (to use a more PC term) under the heading "factual data". Do you read my responses looking for naughty/inflammatory words only?

DKH


Be wise :P, hide your words using more advanced language lol, nah :)
Don't lower yourself to a foolish level :), if he's wrong, you still don't have to use those *** words.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:58 pm
Actually the whole "bad language" issue is effing fascinating. While we are waiting for SawSS1 to compose both himself and a reply, perhaps we can explore some aspects of one foul expression in particular.

The brits have been subjected to a word that has the same first letter and last three letters of the innocuous "firetruck" (often referred to by prudish folk as "the F-word") on public TV since at least 1965.

This word is in the Oxford dictionary and has been there since 1972.

It is thought by some to have been an acceptible term (i.e. NOT profane) for "to strike" or "to penetrate" before the 17th century. However other sources contend that it has been a profanity since before the 15th century.

I could go on, but it would be mere plagerism from some interesting websites ... like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[censored]]wikipedia[/url] for example.

---

In the short term Sigurd, just give me a list of words I shouldn't use. Please. I realise though the paradoxical thing is that you couldn't do this without subverting your own preferences. Bit of a catch-22 I'd say. Perhaps you can give me a list of words I can use instead.

Alternatively, do you mind if I just continue learning your preferences by trial and error?

E.g. is D*mn ok?

DKH

(a while back I didn't bother with the d*mn asterisks at all, see I c*n learn!)

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:05 pm
lol.. just use your moral ideals ;)
If you don't agree, say I don't agree, don't use as example "you morron, it isn't like that".

Language can be use and abused ;) just make it funny :), so even in a tough discussion both sides keep a smile ;) (don't create personal attacks).

And this is the last reply on this topic coming from me :roll: (I'll notice when a fight is going on, when things whent wrong :P, if not, all is(maybe) ok ;))

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:22 pm
Posts: 34
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:59 pm
I t would be utterly stupid not to help the tsunami affected countries in Asia, since they
are a very important market for US goods and I´m sure the future economic growth will be high for that part of the world.

_________________
Have cool, will travel...


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:28 pm
Nuclear Weapons:
Of course, no government builds the Device for any reason other than to futher it's own gains. And you are correct, it was done to, as you say, "close the door," due to the US (and later NATO) policy of "right to first use" and the corresponding Soviet policy of "retaliatory deterrent," the placement of these weapons in the European theater in a stance indicating thier purpose as "battlefield assets" meant exactly that "If the USSR invades Europe it will precipitate nuclear war on a global scale." Which never meant that anybody believed that such an exchange would be limited to the European continent, as implied by the post I was refuting (Cowboy's).

Demographics:
"a fraction of the population and not enough to make a demographic dent."
http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/worl ... 8609c.html

"It's a blip,"
http://www.bkpm.go.id/en/news.php?mode=baca&info_id=876

Here's an article from an Indian news agency which gives some local demographic statistics:
http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/ne ... Tamil+Nadu

I should think that a biologist would understand enough about populations to know that 150K in well over a billion is an insignificant fraction. It's about 1 in 1000

Fallout:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/radiation.htm
"The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is essentially a long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, in the body as a result of ingestion of foods which had incorporated these radioactive materials."

half-life of cesium-137: 30 years
http://www.qivx.com/ispt/elements/ptw_055.php

half-life of strontium-90: 28.5 years
http://www.qivx.com/ispt/elements/ptw_038.php

...as such, the detonation of <500 weapons in a few days is in fact comparable (to within an order of magnitude or so) to over 1000 events in 40 years. True, the total global radiation will increase from present levels to two- or three-fold, and yes, millions will die. The population of earth is over 6 billion today. We're still talking about something on the order of 1 in 1000. It certainly doesn't mean that "everyone in America will die from the fallout," as suggested in the post I was refuting (Andy's)

Etiquette:
I am not going to jump through any more hoops for a guy whom demands proof when his own "forensic discourse" is composed entirely of unsupported argumentative prose seasoned by personal attacks. Do your own research from now on. Shucks, Doc, you're supposed to be a SCIENTIST! Go ahead and reply because I know you feel you must, but I am giving you the last word because unlike yourself I am not bored, I have much work to to.

Allesandro:
Of course, everyone should help. I was simply providing an example of how even though thousands of people have died, that part of Asia is still has a vibrant and significant population.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:34 pm
This has drifted away from the original "is Bush Mad?" question a bit or is it possible his sanity has been affected by all that radiation from those stockpiled American Nucs (might be that someone told him he cant let them off which drove him mad). :)

Alternatively he could have over despotted behind closed doors, they say it makes you blind you know (has anyone noticed him wearing glasses lately, that would be a giveaway?). :lol:

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: topspeed and 18 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use