|
he shoots, he scores! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dr. DAS |
| 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? |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| 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". |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| 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? |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| 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. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| 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 like that without informing the international community. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| 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 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... |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| 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 ? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
No, they orbit around yo mamma! |
yo momma so fat asteroids orbit around here! |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| Yo momma so fat when her beeper goes off, people thought she was backing up. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
yo momma so fat when she sits around the house, she sits around the house
/lame.
lol this reminds me of In Living Color:stongue: |
|
|
|
|
