News Stories

[Anh_Minh]

Load the bomb on a plane. Find a kamikaze to pilot it. Maybe find more kamikaze and planes to play decoy and escort...

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

That's the unknowledgeable people's thought. For a ballistic missile to function as such you need to have trajectory controls, which are completely different from just tipping over a rocket, and requires much sophisticated engineering that a civilian would think. Furthermore, there is the problem of guidance which I wouldn't even begin to discuss.

So how did Nazi Germany hit London with V2s without any such controls or advance technology? Blind luck?

Early ICBMs only used simply inertial navigation, via dead reckoning, to hit their targets. This would be easy to incorporate into a rocket design (in fact, current Japanese rockets already have such a system).

The bigger issue is actually how fast they could launch the vehicle. No adapted space craft could be launched in the minutes long window that is currently required of an ICBM. Still, you could do a lot worse.

Again, no. The basic idea that transport aircraft can be turned into a bomber that easily is ignoring the aerodynamic problems and the basic mechanism of loading a bomb and such.

What aerodynamic problem? You have an aircraft at 5000 feet, you arm the bomb, you drop it on their heads. You can use transport planes to drop paratroopers. You can use them to drop bombs (though admittedly, not particularly well, and the thing would be easy enough to shoot down...(

Frankly, everything you say can be summarized like this: It's just a average person's line of thinking which is not applicable to actual weapon research and development. If things were that simple, quite a few countries would have ICBMs right now. They don't because a ballistic missile of practical use requires much engineering skill and time.

The problem is the scale of rocket required. Most countries do not have the capability to build rockets. If we exclude Europe(who have a shared programme), only 5 states in the world have the ability to launch rockets into space: Russia, USA, China, India and Japan. It's not coincidental that all those countries also have ICBMs. To deliver their payload ICBMs have to reach low earth orbit. The only difference with an orbital rocket is that it has to come down again. Now having an ICBM that launches from a moving platform (say a submarine) to hit precise targets is a lot harder to make then a silo based ICBM that is only intended to hit large cities.

Japan has highly advanced multi stage rockets that can carry large payloads. The main time hurdle for Japan developing a nuclear launch system would be gaining the enriched Uranium for the warhead. All the other ingredients are already in place.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Load the bomb on a plane. Find a kamikaze to pilot it. Maybe find more kamikaze and planes to play decoy and escort...

Indeed...

[SeijiSensei]

Remember, too, that the early stages of the US satellite program tried to develop a rocket, the Vanguard, specifically for that purpose. It routinely blew up on the launch pad or otherwise malfunctioned. Then NASA decided to use the Redstone "Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile" to launch a satellite, and it was much more successful. This was back in the late 1950's. Inter-service rivalries played a big role here as well. The Redstone was an Army project, while the Navy backed their Vanguard. The Air Force had the Atlas on the drawing boards, but NASA needed something right now to show the US could keep pace with the Soviets after the Sputnik launch. The Redstones successors, the Jupiter missiles, were deployed in Europe where they could hit Russian targets until the ICBMs were developed. Most analysts of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis argue that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's primary goal in sending missiles to Cuba was to have the Jupiters removed from their European bases. Kennedy agreed to dismantle the European IRBMs in return for the removal of the Cuban missiles.

The Atlas played a role in later space launches and was the backbone of the US nuclear deterrent until the development of the Titan and MIRV systems. The Mercury and Gemini programs used the Atlas and Titan ICBMs as their launch vehicles until the development of the Saturn which powered the Apollo moon landings.

So, based at least on the early years of the US space program, there was an intimate relationship between offensive missile weapons and manned space flight.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

So, based at least on the early years of the US space program, there was an intimate relationship between offensive missile weapons and manned space flight.

I wish it still is now. Then we would have started the XCOM and fought with Martians instead of between ourselves.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I wish it still is now. Then we would have started the XCOM and fought with Martians instead of between ourselves.

You perfectly know than, even so, we would be still fighting each others.

[Roger Rambo]

Jesus Christ, this is how proto fascism gets started.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/PfoaLbbAix0

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[willx]

^ Hm.. what is he saying that is so surprising to anyone? He's actually being much more candid than you usually hear, but he's not making this stuff up. He's being perfectly realistic in the historical contexts.. I mean, war doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's usually induced due to policy measures, economic sanctions and other means.. Japan didn't decide to add the U.S. to WW2 willy-nilly when it attacked Pearl Harbour..

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Jesus Christ, this is how proto fascism gets started.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/PfoaLbbAix0

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

who the hell is this guy ?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Jesus Christ, this is how proto fascism gets started.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/PfoaLbbAix0

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

First, is that guy a idiot ? You may have such talk behind closed door but not in front of the press.
Second , if he really want the US to ''create'' a incident to give a reason to go to war, could we strap him in a U2/TR1 and send him over Iran ?

[willx]

It's clearly a right wing think tank, look behind him at the banner. Again, not surprising that he's speaking about this, it's his job to think up "crazy" ideas. In case it's not clear he's not a government official.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

who the hell is this guy ?

somebody who supports Israel.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

somebody who supports Israel.

really ?
can we refuse his support ?

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Nonsense, the sort of enemies Japan has to deal with don't possess advanced missile defenses. As for MIRV, One warhead close to the center of Beijing is enough. No need for anything fancy. As for Guidance systems, Germany could hit London during WW2 with simple dead reckoning. Japan can do the same.
Simply tip a civilian rocket on it's side and it functions like a large missile. The whole point of developing rockets in the first place is that they're functionally identical to ICBMs. It's a way to develop weapons without seeming like you are (in the cold war context). Launching a satellite into space equally means you can drop a payload from space.

They...rather, China, don't. Yet. Why take the risk that they have no defences at all?

Cruise missiles are cheaper and much harder to detect...just fly nap of earth all the way to Zhongnanhai. As for blast yield issues....TOT cruise missile retaliation spread out over the target is more destructive than a single warhead missile.

Hit by dead reckoning vs GPS guidance for cruise missile strike, the latter is far more preferable any day.


vs

an option of single dumb rocket with just a warhead re-configured for ballistic strike launched from.....where? Another question to ponder, in event of chinese first strike, Japan's launch pads are likely going to be taken out as a precaution. To launch from subs is already as good as building a whole new class of missile

Clearly cruise missiles are a far better option

Also, the main advantage of rockets is range and throw weight. In Japan's case, the main use would most likely to act as a first-strike weapon to try and take out as many chinese silos and launchers as possible. Because China's economically crucial cities are all mainly concentrated near the coast and thus vulnerable to cruise missile attack, it would be wasteful to use ballistic missiles on these.

To destroy nuclear launch sites effectively, you need MIRVs to target the individual silos. You need something hardened to get past defences and something fast enough that can hit with as minimal warning as possible, among a host of other considerations

[MrTerrorist]

Sad news, singer Andy Williams dies at aged 84.

I''m gonna miss you Andy. ;_;

YouTube

https://youtu.be/NHWcvHYDmkY

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Ithekro]

From Iran (via the UN):
Ahmadinejad: In 'New Order,' We'll All Be Equal

And that whole nuclear program thing is a non-issue


http://www.newser.com/story/154736/a..._medium=united

(Newser) – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his media blitz yesterday, giving the AP an interview in which he touched on all the usual topics: Israel, Iran's nuclear ambitions, Syria. The subject closest to his heart, however, was the "new order" he envisions—in which, surprise, surprise, the US plays a lesser role, and all nations are equal (except Israel, of course). This new order would "institute fairness and justice," the Iranian president said. "Now even elementary school kids throughout the world have understood that the United States government is following an international policy of bullying. I do believe the system of empires has reached the end of the road. The world can no longer see an emperor commanding it."

Ahmadinejad, who is in New York to address the UN General Assembly this morning, mostly dismissed questions about his country's nuclear ambitions, though he said he is still open to talks. "Everyone is aware the nuclear issue is the imposition of the will of the United States," he said. "I see the nuclear issue as a non-issue. It has become a form of one-upmanship." Bill Clinton, for one, isn't buying it: The former president sat down yesterday with CNN and said he doesn't trust Ahmadinejad's insistence that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. "What they're really saying is, in spite of the fact that we deny the Holocaust, that we threaten Israel, and we demonize the United States, and we do all this stuff, we want you to trust us," Clinton said. "They don't have a tenable position."

[Endless Soul]

Stories like this make me rage.

Mom 'unconcerned' after baby's fatal fall

Originally Posted by NBCNEWS

A San Diego woman accused of strangling her infant son, and throwing him out of a third-story window to his death was “calm and unconcerned about the baby,” a police sergeant testified Tuesday.

Zewoinesh Badasso, 32, of North Park, faces a first-degree murder charge in the death of her 7-month-old son, identified in court records as David N.

Parents are supposed to HELP their children, not hurt them.

and...

Baby dies in car after father forgets to drop her off at day care

Originally Posted by NBCNEWS

A 6-month-old baby in Florida was discovered dead in a car Tuesday after the father forgot to drop her off at day care, police said.

Miami-Dade Police confirmed the girl was found at Doral Academy Preparatory School Tuesday afternoon after she had been left in a car seat for approximately nine hours.

The baby, Rosalyn Ramos, was taken to Miami Children’s Hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

How the FUCK do you just "forget" your baby in the car?!

Endless "Rage mode" Soul

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

From Iran (via the UN):
Ahmadinejad: In 'New Order,' We'll All Be Equal

And that whole nuclear program thing is a non-issue


http://www.newser.com/story/154736/a..._medium=united

If Clinton wasn't such an intern-con, he would have made another great and sensible term.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Endless Soul

Stories like this make me rage.

Mom 'unconcerned' after baby's fatal fall

Parents are supposed to HELP their children, not hurt them.
and...

Baby dies in car after father forgets to drop her off at day care

How the FUCK do you just "forget" your baby in the car?!

Endless "Rage mode" Soul

See, the problem is that they're allowed to have more. Otherwise, this would be natural selection at its finest. But this is just one end of a spectrum of parents who *have* children but don't actively *raise* them or *participate* in their growth.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If Clinton wasn't such an intern-con, he would have made another great and sensible term.

He already did his two terms.

[Ithekro]

Limit two. Thank you, come again.