>.>
<.<

So what happens when we make FAE bombs with a blast radius comparable to a nuke?

who here will join me as a libertarian lunar zionist, in an enterprise to establish a new society free of nuclear weapons and the state? Any missile sent to us from earth can be shot down long before it reaches us. We can survive as solar farmers and live by nuclear alchemy. We need only amass enough capital, say one trillion dollars?

is this possible? If it walks like a duck...

Who needs nukes when you have B-52s?

I thought the bomb already was banned, with a clause stating that the USA can invade any country they think might have it that they don't approve of.

Anyways the really funny thing is that Mystic0 wants a completely free market with no government interference, and yet wants nuclear weapons to be banned. Who is supposed to do the banning if we live in this so-called "anarcho-capitalist" society? A free market means that if there is a demand for ANYTHING then there will be someone to fill that demand, and I guarantee there is a demand for nuclear weapons.

Given that the MOAB and the rather recent Russian FOAB (Or something to that effect) are putting out [very low] kilotons of energy, it'll happen eventually.

Good News: It won't make your backyard glow in the dark.
Bad News: Most of your backyard is lodged into the remains of a house two blocks away.

To be frank, when we move on to space combat one day, and we will, tacnukes or something comparable will be pretty much a necessity.

if somebody points a gun to your head, have you not the natural right to grab the muzzle of the gun and break the threatener's arm, provided he is not carrying out justice for your own previous violation of natural law? How is possession of a nuclear arm any different than this? I suppose folks have the right to allow nuclear arms to exist in the hands of others, as the ethics of natural law dictate to nobody the responsibility of carrying out justice and security (morals bind men in these regards, and such society would not enforce morals)... to their own detriment (much like today?)

As far as space combat goes, I'm not actually convinced that nukes are the way to go. Unless you had a targeting system that could make sure that the bomb contacts the ship (not at all easy at the speeds involved), it will just vaporize itself into a cloud of mostly harmless plasma and gas, which won't hurt much at all. Radiation would be a problem I suppose, but spaceships will be shielded against solar flares and such anyways. You'd probable be better off with kinetic weapons like railguns, or shrapnel bombs that would become lethal as the orbital path of the ship crossed the debris field. Funny thing; the only way we know of to travel interstellar distances involves using nuclear bombs for propulsion. So it would already be armored against nuclear explosions.

i consider such a move, like de-magnitizing or de-rotating or de-orbiting the earth, to be an act of aggression and thus a violation of natural rights as well

Seriously Mystic what drugs are you currently on because man I've got to try some of that ****.

oh for god's sake, are spacecraft our concern here? Space warfare would more likely create a stranglehold on countries down below

beware of haarp!

Well yeah I think that space warfare is going to involve spacecraft of some sort shooting at other spacecraft. Anyways, if you want to talk orbital bombardment of a planet, kinetic impactors are STILL your best bet; a nuclear explosion is just superfluous when you're dealing with potentially tens of kilometers per second worth of kinetic energy. But I mean the ability of one country to pretty much instantly obliterate a city or something isn't anything new, and orbital combat platforms is not going to really change this. The only difference is that the costs might change and make it cheaper to drop a 10-ton chunk of tungsten on something from orbit than to nuke it.

Although I guess you could make the argument that missile defense is impossible for something like this; how do you "shoot down" something that's coming down anyways. A well-timed high-altitude nuclear blast *might* be enough to at least blow it off course I guess.

-- our dear leader, the third day of the tenth month of the year of our lord three and two thousand

Do you just spend your every day finding new conspiracy theories and ways to make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

I grimace every time I see you post, especially when it's a thread. Would it be too much to ask for you to lay off the drugs? :/

Only ten tons? You're not thinking big enough. Look at Halo! They toss around several hundred ton chunks of something really dense.

Someone set us up the bomb...

Heh, true, but I was thinking more of our current and near-future heavy lift capabilities. Getting a few hundred tons to orbit isn't really that easy, plus you have to include the rocket and fuel for de-orbiting each piece. Ten tons would do plenty of damage to any conceivable target.

Though you're right, several hundred tons hitting the ground at that speed would be a pretty impressive sight to behold.

what are you guys talking about? Ten tons in orbit? That's the stupidest thing i've ever heard. Have you any idea how much kinetic energy that is? None of it is free, you know. Why not chemical or nuclear energy, which isn't a function of height?

Ten tons of junk is a lot easier to find/make than a nuclear bomb as far as research purposes go, plus it can't really be deactivated or taken out...it's just going.

Not really that stupid of an idea, and one that's floated around the science fiction community for a while. Orbital bombardment of ****tons of heavy metal would decimate entire cities.

EDIT: In response to Mystic

I already addressed the fact that it's cheaper to bomb something than to drop a kinetic weapon from orbit. That's why it isn't used. The only way it would be useful is if:

a) there was a military-controlled space elevator that could easily lift the necessary weight into orbit, or

b) there was a pre-existing lunar facility including a mass driver for launching stuff off the surface, or

c) there was no other choice due to incredibly powerful defensive systems that could ensure no aircraft or missile was able to reach the target (even then it would probably be more practical to have a spy get close to the target and blow it up somehow.

Spouting a bunch of jargon doesn't make you smart. It makes you a poor communicator who likes to show off.

Your ideas are stupid. I say this, not because I disagree with you, but because you come here with sensationalistic crap that doesn't stand up to even the briefest of scrutiny. If you want people to respect your opinions, you need to respect other people enough to put the effort into your ideas to at least make them worthy of discussion.

Instead you come here to post theories and ideas straight from You Tube with out giving them a second thought, and then hide your lack of discernment behind a facade of painfully pseudo-intellectual buzz words. You aren't fooling anyone.


You do realize that even now we don't have the technology to make even a decent missile shield. Stopping even 90% of incoming nukes doesn't help us, and we wouldn't even have a chance at doing that.

Obi, don't worry about it, the more I read of his stuff, the more I'm convinced he's just screwing with us. I think it was his "dream of living in an anarcho-capitalist community" that really tipped me off, but the signs were there before.

I mean, nobody REALLY thinks that the poor should be allowed to starve to death, and that all government organizations are worthless, right? Please say I'm right so I can retain some faith in humanity.

#60 withstanding; id est:

That's what I thought at first, but someone spending this much time BSing all this stuff would be just as sad if not worse. I don't know.

though i do not advocate stealing to subsidize poverty, i am not a randian and do not despise their existance



aggressive coersion has much worth for many, and it may even be moral or utilitarian, but that does not make it ethical and thus should not be an end in itself by the doctrine of natural law



desire for such is one of your problems

Ah yes, lunar mass drivers! You could literally set up multiple mass drivers on the moon and bombard somewhere on the Earth with something on the order of at least a tacnuke 24/7.

Maybe it's because I haven't fully awoken yet, or perhaps it's due to the fact that our brains apparently run on different frequencies...but for some reason, I can't figure out what the hell you're actually trying to say here.

Heck, a single mass driver could hit anywhere on Earth, as long as you had a way to very precisely control the speed and direction of launch (you'd probably need some sort of navigational thrusters for course correction though anyways, for real pin-point accuracy). It's the issue of the average time between launch and impact where you'd want multiple mass drivers, otherwise you'd launch and they might have days to evacuate whatever your target is.

You'd only have to minutely control the angle of launch provided you had a good equatorial site for the driver; I'm thinking something like monorail switching tracks which can move a few degrees to either side.

Mystic0:

I don't know if you're attempting to joke with us, or if you're drugged up, or if you're just naturally crazy, but it's getting rather old.

Don't post again until you've come up with some coherency.