What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

GMD at the next test stage.

The basic defensive idea is to fire a rocket into space upon warning of a hostile missile launch. The rocket releases a 5-foot-long device called a “kill vehicle” that uses internal guidance systems to steer into the path of the oncoming missile’s warhead, destroying it by force of impact. Officially known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the Pentagon likens it to hitting a bullet with a bullet.

The Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency is responsible for developing and testing the system.

An interceptor is to be launched from an underground silo at Vandenberg and soar toward the target, which will be fired from a test range on Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. If all goes as planned, the “kill vehicle” will slam into the ICBM-like target’s mock warhead high over the Pacific Ocean.
Click to expand...

"We manufacture those, by the way."

It's a kinetic energy weapon, using the ICBM's momentum to create a space car crash. Hitherto, the results are mixed, about 50% "this isn't working yet" and 50% "this can't actually ever work." If it actually ever did work that might end the world. There would be a short window before every other nation's ICBMs became useless both for attack and, way more importantly, deterrent. Given our electorate's recent demonstration of Dunning-Kruger, I doubt any nation with the ability to stop us would relish handing over global security unilaterally to our grasping hands and weak minds. And somehow I doubt the mindset that occupies the DIA and, currently, the White House is going to open publish the entire tech (which from the perspective of saving the species is what it ought to do).
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

They've been testing this for a decade, and I think they've had about a 50% success rate, which is still 0% useful.

The minute someone is able to to stop ICBM's, the treaty about not using weapons in space will be torn up.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

bronconick said:
They've been testing this for a decade, and I think they've had about a 50% success rate, which is still 0% useful.
Click to expand...

That 50 is also a cooked number. They test under perfect conditions, the contractors design their own test suite, and if they don't like the result they just scrub it and rerun later. Everybody involved -- the contractor but also the government who OKed the design in the first place -- has a vested interest in success. The larger the project the more you run into co-enabling and, eventually, Sunk Cost Fallacy. USG defense contracts are a very special corner of psych research.

The amazing thing is most of the folks involved are not deliberately corrupt. The MBAs and investors on the corporate boards obviously are, but the techs and COTRs and auditors are actually straight up folks and they are very conscious of WF&A and do their best. But the systemic forces just roll over and crush them.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

No idea if this is a credible site, but it's a good idea. Concept: take foreign press stories for foreign audiences on American policy and translate them to English.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

bronconick said:
Saudi Arabia accusing other nations of sponsoring terrorism, now that's rich.
Click to expand...

I know that SA is a bad actor regarding human rights and that a lot of Saudis become terrorists, but is there much evidence of SA state-sponsored terrorism? (I probably just provided even more evidence of my own ignorance.)
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

burd said:
I know that SA is a bad actor regarding human rights and that a lot of Saudis become terrorists, but is there much evidence of SA state-sponsored terrorism? (I probably just provided even more evidence of my own ignorance.)
Click to expand...
The official stance by the House of Saud is that SA does not support terrorism and will prosecute those they find perpetrating it. The problem for them is that there are many Sauds, and they don't all agree with the crown's stance on terrorism. The problem for the world is that the Crown doesn't investigate most other members of the royal family too closely.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Yeah to put it in American terms...the Saudi Royal Family is the Italian cops in the mob run neighborhood. Sure they will speak out against the mob but they will also break their neck looking the other way. They are basically Louie from Casablanca walking through the casino placing bets then SHOCKED to find gambling when he needs to make an arrest ;)
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

burd said:
I know that SA is a bad actor regarding human rights and that a lot of Saudis become terrorists, but is there much evidence of SA state-sponsored terrorism? (I probably just provided even more evidence of my own ignorance.)
Click to expand...

Caveat lector.

Saudi Arabia—not Iran—is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today and Wahhabism remains the source of most radical Islamic extremism. For years Iran has borne the unenviable title of “world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism.” However, out of the 61 groups that are designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department, the overwhelming majority are Wahhabi-inspired and Saudi-funded groups, with a focus on the West and Iran as their primary enemy. Only two are Shi’a—Hezbollah and Kataib Hezbollah, and only four have ever claimed to receive support from Iran. Nearly all of the Sunni militant groups listed receive significant support from either the Saudi government or Saudi citizens.
Click to expand...
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

President Pustule went off script for his NATO speech, blowing the entire point his team was delivering. What a maroon.

When President Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his debut overseas trip little more than a week ago, he surprised and disappointed European allies who hoped—and expected—he would use his speech to explicitly reaffirm America’s commitment to mutual defense of the alliance’s members, a one-for-all, all-for-one provision that looks increasingly urgent as Eastern European members worry about the threat from a resurgent Russia on their borders.

That part of the Trump visit is known.

What’s not is that the president also disappointed—and surprised—his own top national security officials by failing to include the language reaffirming the so-called Article 5 provision in his speech. National security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all supported Trump doing so and had worked in the weeks leading up to the trip to make sure it was included in the speech, according to five sources familiar with the episode. They thought it was, and a White House aide even told The New York Times the day before the line was definitely included.

It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.

“They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster,” said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. “As late as that same morning, it was the right one.”

Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on”—and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”

The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trump’s nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

This is precisely why you either voted for Clinton or your voted for Trump. He's a child that doesn't comprehend the impact of just leaving out a paragraph or even a sentence from a speech. He's a puppet. An absolute puppet of the two factions inside the White House and Russia.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

dxmnkd316 said:
This is precisely why you either voted for Clinton or your voted for Trump. He's a child that doesn't comprehend the impact of just leaving out a paragraph or even a sentence from a speech. He's a puppet. An absolute puppet of the two factions inside the White House and Russia.
Click to expand...

This.

Joe Scarbourough calls Bannon, President Bannon every morning. It's funny.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

I had forgotten about the base until MTP Daily came on in the car.

It's now even more incredible.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

French Rage said:
He lauds Saudi Arabia, known for funding terrorism, for going after Qatar, who they claim is funding terrorism.

Oh, Qatar also has a military base with 11K US personnel, so that's safe for them.

All in all a well thought out plan.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's so much better having an outsider in the White House who can stir things up. You know, none of that status quo ****.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top