"Dust off and nuke the site from orbit"

Post Reply New Topic

To what end? Why do you even ponder this theoretical situation? Why ?

Space stations would be more vulnerable than terrestrial fortifications, however I would include as part of spacefaring underground habitats on the moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. Also, once the materials are mined at lower cost from the moon or asteroids or whatever source is more practical/feasible, then space stations could be engineered with thicker armor to protect it from projectiles and radiation.



You'd want to make certain that any space based agriculture is not completely sterile then as well as have various sections of the station quarantined by default so as to reduce the chances of completely losing the crops. Also, if the torus type stations were structurally sound enough they could rotate so as to emulate 9.83 m/sec^2 acceleration or slightly more or less if so desired. A habitat for housing infantry could have slightly more than Earth gravity, and if in orbit of Mars it would provide them with an advantage of physical strength as compared to any denizens of Mars. There could be sets of centrifugal stations for adjustment of muscle tone in a gradual manner for those who have lived on a zero-g craft for too long, etc.



Well, for cyber-warfare from a point not on the station, I'd suggest turning off the antennas. Also, having life support systems not accessible via the intranet would also be wise. Have it be a closed system, a simple matter of planning ahead when wiring. Terraforming Mars may not be something to be seen in anyone's lifetime who's alive now, but perhaps building tunnel systems and bunkers underground would be more practical for an initial colony. If we were to discover an Earth-like planet nearby with any certainty in the finding, then perhaps we'd not wait for FTL to be developed but instead construct ships in orbit and travel at possibly whole percentages of the speed of light.

Because it would be a reason that would probably be used later on by the UN to continue to proscribe the technology of nuclear pulse propulsion. A lot of paranoia and fear mongering on the part of half wit politicians that effectively denies any serious development of the space industry. Right now it is just a ban on atmospheric nuclear testing which also happens to include nuclear pulse propulsion, but eventually some nutty politicians are probably going to directly ban a practical and peaceful use of tactical nuclear devices. I would like it discussed so I can get an idea of the type of argumentation used against it. The most likely one is that it would allow for unilaterally assumed destruction, even though by definition tactical nukes are much lower yield than strategic nukes.

By the way, for anyone not knowing where the title of the thread is from:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q[/youtube]

I thought it sounded familiar.

Apparently I misremembered the first part "take off" being correct instead of "dust off", even though I've watched it a few times recently. I kinda wish that less of the squad died, such as Vasquez, Drake, Higgins, Apone, but then again I suppose it's necessary in a movie to have the villain/menace be portrayed as dangerous by eliminating characters built up as good guys, and such was well done in Aliens. What really stinks though is that for all the effort to save the lives of Newt and Hicks, they are just automatically killed off in the opening of the next movie. It's like, that was so pointless, why? It would have been cooler if they left the Alien franchise at the end of the second movie and gone no further.

Herin lies my argument, the title of the thread gave context to the post, perhaps you should think before you type, perhaps something less 'loaded' and precise as a title would have made the entire inference of the comments about the viability of nuking the entire planet as it would not result in mutually assured destruction a different meaning, though somehow I doubt it as they have direct and implicit meaning.

As for my postulations about your motivations they come from interpreting your comments through the lense of the impression you have made on me with the entire body of posts by you which I have read.

Really the only reason I harrass you is that your avatar looks like someone about to forcibly bugger their opponent and I am really actually deeply turned on by your impecable and forcefull reasoning and desire your attentions in this regard

kiss kiss, j

agreed. I'm dating myself, but my best friend and I went to see the 1st showing of the 3rd when it came out in our town - special tickets and everything - b/c we liked the 2nd; we were disappointed. Didn't bother to see the 4th.

The forth was simply horrible. Beyond the worst possible contrivance, Ripley and whole bunch of aliens are cloned and headed straight for Earth, not to mention Ripley has acid for blood now since the somehow-remaining-DNA-from-the-furnace mixed up hers and the aliens.... it's just unbelievable and it gets worse as the movie progresses.

Well, perhaps I should get a frame from Serenity where Simon decks Mal for putting his sister at risk on a planet that got attacked by zombie space pirates. If you judge people by their avatar, and you claim the rest of the body of my posts - of which I think you mean only your general emotional reaction to the worst possible interpretation of everything I write - then perhaps I should make my statements even more deceptive for the simple minded and my avatars containing more implications of anger for people who reflexively react to anger with unmitigated rage. You know, just to set such simpletons on edge, like they try to do by flame-baiting me wherever I respond to anyone else.

Reminder to everyone to keep the conversation civil. No more name calling.

The most hilarious non-comedy ever made.




It's distracting. In a really far-from-bad way. Strikes me as Steampunk-ish, and I can't put my finger on why.

A space-going Orion craft could be constructed using laser inertial confinement - essentially, you drop a deuterium pellet into the focal point of a battery of lasers, and the pressure of the laser beams forces the deuterium to undergo fusion. In theory, it should work - it's hard to test, though, as keeping the deuterium in the correct spot long enough works best in zero-gee, and it's hard to persuade the guys aboard the ISS to test fusion explosives...

There's a lot of other work needed before an Orion-drive craft could be constructed, as well, not least of which would be how to couple the impact plate with the rest of the ship without shaking your crew to death while under thrust. Such a craft probably won't be built until we're ready to start sending manned ships over interstellar distances, as in-system travel would be easier with VASIMR and similar drives.

I am confused? Am I being reprimanded here?

peace j

With the current technology it would require more energy to power the lasers than can be recovered from the imploded pellets. So far controlled nuclear fusion has turned out to be a bust. It has been 30 years in the future since the late 1950s and mostly likely it will be thirty years in the future a century from now.

ruveyn

Firstly choice of Avatar does say something however small about a person.

Secondly, my responses are about 75% intellectual and 25% emotional, I hate poor logic, socially destructive predjudice and the use of the PPR forum for people to vent non-specific frustrations under the guise of some vague fantasy scenario that should probably have been in the Science etc forum unless I was to take it as a philosophical proposition in which case I responded in kind.

Lastly, you really could use a chill pill, like the gun nut who told this 'foreigner' to 'shut up', If you are going to make biggoted comments and poor arguments then you are going to get razzed for it, I am amazed at how some of you think you should be able to pay it out but can't take it. I am amazed at how seldom you actually respond in full to peoples responses choosing to ignore anything you have no answer to or find uncomfortable.

Lastly, you could use some lessons in manners yourself, I have been thinking of your insult to Ryan the other day, closing your post with 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' now your evasion was that it was a loaded question and you posted a rationalisation. This however dosen't ring true to me, it may be a cultural thing but over here a loaded question is one that contains a barbed subtext, eg

Two women meet at a dinner party, one has on a dress that the second women has seen her in before, as she greets the first woman she says, 'oh darling lovely to see you, lovely dress - is it new?'

This would be a 'loaded question' it can also be a question that contains the answer within the subtext.

So again I wonder what it had to do with your exchange about evolution/creation and why you would say it at all?