Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Interesting bit on Sen. Kerry's voting record

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Freemason, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting bit on Sen. Kerry's voting record

    I've been going through Sen. Kerry's voting record over the past week and I noticed something. From 1989 through 1992 (as far as I've gotten so far) he voted in favor of funding SDI in every single instance. It'll be interesting to see if he was consistant as the years passed.

    Till then, :drink: to some good votes!
     
  2. Suicidal Zebra

    Suicidal Zebra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    What was SDI again? Another version of the missile defense system?
     
  3. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was the precursor to it. Space-based weapon systems to protect us from ballistic missles. It never worked as advertised so far as we know. But from that we developed a tremendous amount of other military applications.
     
  4. Damascus

    Damascus IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    So the guy that was supposed to dismantle the military voted to increase it?
     
  5. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In that same amount of time he voted against the B-2 bomber every time it came up (7 times), against the MX missile (once) and against raising military pay (once).

    That's in just 3 years.
     
  6. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We must never put weapons on satelites.

    One atom bomb detonated in the atmosphere will take out every single satelite in space and if countries start puting weapons on them then we could be forced to do it for the safety of everyone which would at the same time set us back 50 years in communication.

    This is one battlefield we should all leave alone as the Soviet and USA agreed to do so many years.
     
  7. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't they teach you anything about EMP bombs in your military? One 50 megaton nuke detonated in low-earth orbit cannot damage anything on the other side of the planet. If I remember right, said nuke only has an effective EMP out with a 2,000 mile radius.

    Only the Soviets ever tested a 50 megaton bomb. The US as far as I've ever been able to find out, has limited itself to 20 megaton bombs. Bigger isn't always better. Better to use several 1 megaton bombs spread out than a single massive bomb.

    That said, you completely missed what SDi was about. It was there to destroy ICMBs. Not attack other nations. ICBMs are a far more cost-effective method of destroying than space-based lasers. Sheesh. :rollseyes:
     
  8. Draconis

    Draconis IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Actually, with the massive increase in high-velocity debris, it probably would decimate most, if not all, of the satellites up there. Hell, from what I've heard they're expecting something similar in the next dozen or so years just from the junk and debris left by broken satellites, shuttle missions etc.
     
  9. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never thought of that. :scratch:

    A blast from lower orbit would push the debris out. No problem there.
    A blast from higher orbit would push the debris in. The debris would burn up on re-entry.
    A blast at the same orbit would push the debris straight. Moving straight over a sphere is essentially the same as being pushed out.

    I don't think there would actually be any debris. But a very good question :thumbsup:
     
  10. Suicidal Zebra

    Suicidal Zebra IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Yeah, but lasers are so much cooler. And 'Orbital Laser Platforms' sound much better than 'Orbital Missile Platforms' too. ;)

    But seriously, any 'space platforms' for missile defence are likely to utilise small warhead designs rather than nukes. Nukes are rather like taking out cocroaches with a howitzer.
     
  11. Draconis

    Draconis IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,941
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Actually, I don't think the blast would be all that significant... My physics is a little rusty, but the blast is mainly significant in atmosphere because you get a massive compression wave formed, which proceeds to do the whole 'flatten cities' thing. In low-earth orbit there isn't going to be any atmosphere to speak of to compress, leaving the 'blast' comprised of just the EMP and the high-speed missile/bomb debris. The 'debris' that would be the most likely to cause a chain of destroyed satellites is the satellites fried by EMP, losing power, and drifting out of their orbits.
     

Share This Page