TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- he shoots, he scores!
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS IMO the US is just using this as an excuse to test/show off thier ability to shoot down enemy satellites. Didn't China test an anti-satellite missle system last year? Seems pretty reasonable that the Americans would want to put on thier own show of force...reasonable in that it's reasonable to assume they would want to, not that the weaponization of space is reasonable.

do you idiots read what other people have posted or do you just wander in here to hear yourselves speak?

either way, youre wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN do you idiots read what other people have posted or do you just wander in here to hear yourselves speak? either way, youre wrong.

No I didn't read the whole thread...I'm just expressing my opinion.
In my opinion, this was part of a pissing contest by the US.

Also in my opinion, you're an ass.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN do you idiots read what other people have posted or do you just wander in here to hear yourselves speak? either way, youre wrong.

i don't know about the china-part, but of course this is a display of their new weapons. if the satellite posed a threat big enough to be at all considered a threat, the pentagon wouldnt have had a press conference about it. it wouldve been classified.

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu back once again OT: Such a waste of good ammo, they could have let it burn in the athmosphere. Or they could have use the remaining fuel to raise the speed of the satellite, so it would have bounced off the earth's orbit and go into space, and be lost forever.

Being as the root cause of the satellite falling out of orbit, in the first place, was that it was non-responsive to control commands sent from earth; chances are your plan of speeding it up to bounce of the earth's orbit (my guess is you mean atmosphere as orbit is a path of motion, which is not matterial therefore impossible to bounce something off off) wouldn't have worked out too well.

Now I've read the whole thread...my opinion is the same. The US were just showing off.

As far as the motive for this intercept, being the toxic hydrazine, I'm curious - if this is a highly flammable fuel, wouldn't it burn up in the atmosphere? Did you see what happened to the Shuttle columbia? It was reduced to bits and that mofo was designed to brave the atmosphere.

Nothing you say will convince me that this was all for our best interest.

All that was missing from this test was a ruler to measure penis-size.

it never ceases to amaze me what a complete gathering of cretins we get in here, professing to know the first thing about the US' agenda.

some of you fucks needs to grow the fuck up and stop watching so much tv. yeah, the US needed to have a pissing contest with the chinese

clueless fucks the lot you.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it never ceases to amaze me what a complete gathering of cretins we get in here, professing to know the first thing about the US' agenda. some of you fucks needs to grow the fuck up and stop watching so much tv. yeah, the US needed to have a pissing contest with the chinese clueless fucks the lot you.

what makes you, with your BA and all, an expert on US agenda?

quote:

Originally posted by stren asteroids don't go on an orbit around earth

No, they orbit around yo mamma!

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Now I've read the whole thread...my opinion is the same. The US were just showing off. As far as the motive for this intercept, being the toxic hydrazine, I'm curious - if this is a highly flammable fuel, wouldn't it burn up in the atmosphere? Did you see what happened to the Shuttle columbia? It was reduced to bits and that mofo was designed to brave the atmosphere. Nothing you say will convince me that this was all for our best interest. All that was missing from this test was a ruler to measure penis-size.

Hydrazine is not highly flammable..

Some info on the toxicity of Hydrazine for you lazy CORers..

"Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine."

Oh and yeah, "Only one human is known to have died from exposure to hydrazine hydrate"

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it never ceases to amaze me what a complete gathering of cretins we get in here, professing to know the first thing about the US' agenda. some of you fucks needs to grow the fuck up and stop watching so much tv. yeah, the US needed to have a pissing contest with the chinese clueless fucks the lot you.

Considering that China has the world's largest military, yeah they do.

You need to grow up a little and accept that not everything the government (especially THIS govenment) tells you is accurate.

What education do you have relating to aerospace? Chemical engineering? political science?
Maybe then you could argue that you know anything about space vehicles, the fuels that power them and the politics of firing a weapon into space.

I'll ask again, why would hydrazine not burn up in our atmosphere? Why would the satllite not break up on re-entry? How much hydrazine was on board the doomed vehicle? What concentration of hydrazine is required to produce what toxic effects?

Are you really dismissing out-of-hand the idea that the US has a hidden agenda? Really?

Now who's the idiot?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi Hydrazine is not highly flammable.. Some info on the toxicity of Hydrazine for you lazy CORers.. "Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine." Oh and yeah, "Only one human is known to have died from exposure to hydrazine hydrate"

In what concentration?

My educational background is in political science and military history... I may know a thing or two about the potential motivations here. While it is absolutely true that the US has used shows of strength in the past as a pre-emptive measure to intimidate other countries the present climate does not fit the conditions they would like for "flexing their muscles". Maybe the best example is the atomic bomb strikes on Japan at the end of WWII. There is no question that the US could have won the war without droping those bombs or invading Japan, at very least the second bomb was completely unnecessary. The US did this to show the USSR their new toy and diswade them from using that massive standing army in Europe to go any further then they already had. But let's look at the conditions that existed at the time.... Japan was beat, Germany was beat; the US had no other battles to fight. The US had a massive military force lined up square against the Soviets in Europe, their entire Pacific Navy in position to strike the east of the USSR, their war production at peak performance, and the Red Army weakened from years of fighting the lion's share of the war. In short, all the conditions were right for the US to win a war against the Soviets (they certainly didn't want to do this but had the ability to). This is key, in every situation where the US has made an overt show of force they have had favorable conditions to win a conflict if one arised in retaliation to their display.

If you look at the present climate the US does not have the favorable conditions it needs for a show of force to be considered a good risk. The US forces are exhausted and largely tied up in two wars that don't appear to be ending any time soon. The Russians and the Chinese are both well rested and large militaries... the chinese much larger then the US. The world community is not on side with the US on the issue of missle defence or many issues in general and not likely to assist the US in a conflict with either of the parties that may respond negatively to a show of force. In short, the US cannot win a conflict with China or Russia (okay, maybe Russia but not likely) at this point.... antagonizing either of these nations would be a bad risk for the US.

If there is anything more to this operation, in terms of motivation, other then what the US has stated it is far more likely that the satellite was carrying some technology that they did not want to risk being discovered by any other party then it is that it was a show of force.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard My educational background is in political science and military history... I may know a thing or two about the potential motivations here. While it is absolutely true that the US has used shows of strength in the past as a pre-emptive measure to intimidate other countries the present climate does not fit the conditions they would like for "flexing their muscles". Maybe the best example is the atomic bomb strikes on Japan at the end of WWII. There is no question that the US could have won the war without droping those bombs or invading Japan, at very least the second bomb was completely unnecessary. The US did this to show the USSR their new toy and diswade them from using that massive standing army in Europe to go any further then they already had. But let's look at the conditions that existed at the time.... Japan was beat, Germany was beat; the US had no other battles to fight. The US had a massive military force lined up square against the Soviets in Europe, their entire Pacific Navy in position to strike the east of the USSR, their war production at peak performance, and the Red Army weakened from years of fighting the lion's share of the war. In short, all the conditions were right for the US to win a war against the Soviets (they certainly didn't want to do this but had the ability to). This is key, in every situation where the US has made an overt show of force they have had favorable conditions to win a conflict if one arised in retaliation to their display. If you look at the present climate the US does not have the favorable conditions it needs for a show of force to be considered a good risk. The US forces are exhausted and largely tied up in two wars that don't appear to be ending any time soon. The Russians and the Chinese are both well rested and large militaries... the chinese much larger then the US. The world community is not on side with the US on the issue of missle defence or many issues in general and not likely to assist the US in a conflict with either of the parties that may respond negatively to a show of force. In short, the US cannot win a conflict with China or Russia (okay, maybe Russia but not likely) at this point.... antagonizing either of these nations would be a bad risk for the US. If there is anything more to this operation, in terms of motivation, other then what the US has stated it is far more likely that the satellite was carrying some technology that they did not want to risk being discovered by any other party then it is that it was a show of force.

Great post.

I'll accept the logic of destroying the satellite to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands, it was after all a spy satellite.

Honestly though, I still feel like this is in some way related to the January 2007 missle strike on a low-orbit satellite by China.
If only for the US to say, "see, we can do it too".

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Great post. I'll accept the logic of destroying the satellite to prevent technology from falling into the wrong hands, it was after all a spy satellite. Honestly though, I still feel like this is in some way related to the January 2007 missle strike on a low-orbit satellite by China. If only for the US to say, "see, we can do it too".

The US already destroyed a satellite in 1985 with a ASM-135 ASAT missile. Why would we need to say "see, we can do it too" when we already did it 23 years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX The US already destroyed a satellite in 1985 with a ASM-135 ASAT missile. Why would we need to say "see, we can do it too" when we already did it 23 years ago?

Could have been testing new guidance mods, etc...the bottom line here is that I believe there is more to this intercept than we're being told.

If this was just to destroy a satellite, why make an announcement, just shoot the thing down. The fact they made a show of it makes me think there's more than meets the eye.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS If this was just to destroy a satellite, why make an announcement, just shoot the thing down. The fact they made a show of it makes me think there's more than meets the eye.

Because blowing up a satellite with a missile is not something that happens every day. When you start firing missiles into space and blowing things up without explaining what you are doing and why you are doing it the other world powers start to get nervous. Only countries like North Korea do shit like that without informing the international community.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Because blowing up a satellite with a missile is not something that happens every day. When you start firing missiles into space and blowing things up without explaining what you are doing and why you are doing it the other world powers start to get nervous. Only countries like North Korea do shit like that without informing the international community.

Understandable. Am I not allowed to have the opinion that there's more to this, then? You aren't going to convince me otherwise.

That's the great thing about opinions...

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS What education do you have relating to aerospace? Chemical engineering? political science? maybe then you could argue that you know anything about space vehicles, the fuels that power them and the politics of firing a weapon into space.

How many people who actually play this game have qualifications in any of these fields ?

When was a degree in political science necessary to become a politician ?

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M When was a degree in political science necessary to become a politician ?

I think it should be a prerequisit for the right to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex No, they orbit around yo mamma!

yo momma so fat asteroids orbit around here!

Yo momma so fat when her beeper goes off, people thought she was backing up.

yo momma so fat when she sits around the house, she sits around the house

/lame.

lol this reminds me of In Living Color

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi what makes you, with your BA and all, an expert on US agenda?

its called common sense mate.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Considering that China has the world's largest military, yeah they do.

no, they really dont, for reasons moral has outlined.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS You need to grow up a little and accept that not everything the government (especially THIS govenment) tells you is accurate.

i thought you said you'd gone back and read this thread? i have already stated that if the reasons are other than what they have stated, is due to the US having some technology (possibly military in nature) that they dont want to fall into the wrong hands.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS What education do you have relating to aerospace? Chemical engineering? political science?

i have an hons degree in political science, and you know, common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS I'll ask again, why would hydrazine not burn up in our atmosphere? Why would the satllite not break up on re-entry?

i have already asked the same question in another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS How much hydrazine was on board the doomed vehicle? What concentration of hydrazine is required to produce what toxic effects?

perhaps you should find an answer to these questions before you use that tiny brain of yours to start talking conspiracy bullshit?

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Are you really dismissing out-of-hand the idea that the US has a hidden agenda? Really?

reading comprehension is your friend; i have already outlined what the "hidden agenda" would be if there is one. its amusing that you would dismiss the US' stated reasons "out of hand" yet you criticise other people for doing the same (even though im NOT) with your conspiracy bullshit? haha.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Now who's the idiot?

funnily enough, still you.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Could have been testing new guidance mods, etc...

whats your problem? so they've already shot down satellites before, but now theyre testing a new guidance mod to "show off" - so how do the chinese know about this new "guidance mod" that the US is showing off to them? youre not a 911 truther as well are you? nothing like a tangent bereft of any evidence or common sense!

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS the bottom line here is that I believe there is more to this intercept than we're being told.

because of your natural intuition?

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS If this was just to destroy a satellite, why make an announcement, just shoot the thing down. The fact they made a show of it makes me think there's more than meets the eye.

omg! for reasons that have already been explained to you.

this isnt the movies kid.

How nice of you to break down my post, point by point.

In response...I can and continue to believe whatever the hell I like. In this case, the US was making a point. You can go on and on if it makes you feel better, but that's my opinion.

Agree to disagree?

Next?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.