I just noticed that archive was corrupted.
Here’s one that features Wallison’s prescient prediction about lower mortgage lending standards.
A Golden Dome: can the US afford it and is it even needed?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Here’s one that features Wallison’s prescient prediction about lower mortgage lending standards.
That was about 4 years ago... I'll see if I can find it and get back to you... Sickening thing is I had kept most of those articles in my phone files for just this instance and dumped all of them about a month and a half ago in anticipation of buying a new phone starting as relatively a clean sheet... Which reminds me I need to find my password for this site or I'll end up back here as a newbie under a different poster name...
Last edited:
Much of what you presented is certainly at least plausible and I'm asking for no explanation, save for only one thing. I focused on the one and only aspect that seems as likely to be true as the Earth being flat. A highly infectious disease will only spread from where an infected person (case #1) is, during the entire time of that person being infectious.
If you are infectious and go to a gas station, a restaurant, a shopping mall, a movie theater, a pickleball court, an arena, and then hang out with your family and neighbors, I expect infections to spring up in all of those places right after your visit. Not just in (say) the area of the pickleball court.
Care to make it make sense?
No because this debate can go on ad-infinitum... Which is why I hesitated posting about it...
Here's the first thing I tripped over with just a quick search... :
State Department cables: Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted classified research
Three State Department cables obtained by U.S. Right to Know show new information about classified research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
usrtk.org
That was not my original source, I do know that... I don't know anything about that outfit...
Here's an Oversight Committee synopsis:
COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Here's a Washington Examiner article linking the PLA to the lab:
Chinese military had deep ties to Wuhan lab suspected of COVID-19 outbreak, cables show - Washington Examiner
Newly-unearthed State Department cables show the United States government’s early concerns about the deep ties and research collaboration between a Wuhan lab and the Chinese military amid the search for COVID-19’s origins. The heavily-redacted cables, which warned about the connections between...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Last edited:
Thanks. That the PRC would conduct that kind of research doesn’t surprise me. I just hadn’t read it and I’ve never heard of U.S. Right to Know.Here's the first thing I tripped over with just a quick search... :
State Department cables: Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted classified research
Three State Department cables obtained by U.S. Right to Know show new information about classified research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.usrtk.org
That was not my original source, I do know that... I don't know anything about that outfit...
Here's an Oversight Committee synopsis:
COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountabilityoversight.house.gov
It’s the rest of the speculation that seems implausible to me.
I understand.
But to me it's like prosecuting a murder case, making tons of valid points about the accused murderer...
-he hated the victim
-he had threatened the victim
-he was a very bad guy
-he knew how to kill
Then someone points out that the accused murderer and the victim were definitely not in the same city when the murder happened, but you say "so what?"
Maybe if we’d stop becoming such assholes to the world we wouldn’t need a goddamn dome. You know the ole, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Nope instead we’re just pissing on everyone’s face.
'Golden Dome' for US: Trump's mega defence plan explained - The Times of India
US News: President Trump has proposed a 'golden dome' missile defense shield, inspired by Israel's Iron Dome, to protect the US from advanced aerial threats. Htimesofindia.indiatimes.com
Seems like a boondoggle of SDI-like proportions. The USA wasted hundreds of billions (when those numbers meant something) on this type of craziness in the 1980s. Are we really going to waste trillions on another attempt now?
Cmon crazed. There are a lot of people out there predicting a lot of things. The vast majority didn’t foresee the fall of the Soviets but obviously some did, just as with my analogy.
Predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia
Well, it's all out there if you want verification... I'm too busy (and mainly too lazy) to re-look it up...
I've found on here that most will believe what they want to believe and disregard any info that doesn't match how they "feel" about it...
Which is why I won't waste time re-debating the topic...
There are no stats for such a thing because it’s too immeasurable and subjective. Common sense prevails. If we tried to design a vessel to travel at light speed we’d make crazy progress on things with consumer and military applications that we never even knew were a thing.
Did you write for S & G?
The Boxer
Song by
Simon & GarfunkelI am just a poor boy
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
I mean, I agree to an extent. But, China seems like the type of country that would sacrifice a few millions pawns for its agenda.
Air Defense testing:
taskandpurpose.com
In 15 months, the Navy fired more air defense missiles than it did in the last 30 years
The Navy has burned through costly missiles, some with a price tag of $28.7 million. So, it has turned to 5-inch gun rounds to down drones.
taskandpurpose.com
I know nothing about it. I just remember all the Dems saying SDI would never work because shooting a missile out of the sky was impossible.
It did have the advantage of hastening the breakup of the Soviet Union.....This article says we've spent $250 billion, and says it is separate from things like the Patriot system. And what is the success rate for that $250 billion? "They have worked 12 times out of 21 tests, a paltry success rate achieved only after $250 billion spent since their 1985 beginning. This illustrates the intrinsic, expensive difficulty of intercepting even dummy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). It’s just hard to hit them."
It was a boondoggle.
Current U.S. Missile Defense Programs at a Glance | Arms Control Association
www.armscontrol.org
Trump’s ‘Iron Dome’ Space Weapons Plan Ignores Physics and Fiscal Reality
Proposed U.S. space defenses against hypersonic nuclear missiles are unnecessary, impractical and would trigger a dangerous new arms racewww.scientificamerican.com
Common sense does not support that historically, more science and tech comes from moonshots than incremental advancement. We learned a lot from our own project to go to the moon, but nowhere near what we've learned in the research labs, etc. in everyday scientific research, incrementally advancing, over the last 50-60 years. Not even close.
Missile defense is a good example. SDI was so unsuccessful that it was discontinued just 10 years later. If it was providing such amazing benefits, why do that? In the 40 years since it was initiated, we've never shot a missile down from space, like intended, let alone developed a laser that could do so. In the meantime, the older Patriot system incrementally evolved due to targeted advancements and is still in use today.
But if you don't believe me, here's my AI friend who has been created out of 20+ years of incremental advancement in computer programming:
While both incremental improvements and "moonshot" advancements contribute to technological progress, more technological advancements often stem from incremental improvements, which build upon existing technologies and systems, rather than solely relying on radical, transformative "moonshot" ideas.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
- Incremental Innovation:
This involves the regular implementation of minor enhancements to existing products, services, or processes. It's a continuous process of refinement and optimization, often leading to steady, long-term improvements.
- Moonshot Innovation:
This refers to pursuing radical, transformative change rather than mere incremental improvements, aiming for breakthroughs that could fundamentally alter industries or address major global challenges.
- Examples:
- Incremental: The steady evolution of smartphones, with features like improved cameras, larger screens, and faster processors, is a prime example of incremental innovation.
- Moonshot: Projects like the development of the internet or the space program, which aimed to achieve goals that were previously considered impossible, are examples of moonshot innovation.
- Incremental: The steady evolution of smartphones, with features like improved cameras, larger screens, and faster processors, is a prime example of incremental innovation.
- Why Incremental Innovation Dominates:
- Practicality and Feasibility: Incremental improvements are often easier to implement and manage than radical innovations, as they build upon existing knowledge and infrastructure.
- Market Acceptance: Consumers and businesses tend to be more receptive to gradual changes than to disruptive technologies, making incremental innovations more likely to be adopted.
- Cost-Effectiveness: Incremental innovation can be more cost-effective than moonshot projects, as it requires less investment and carries lower risks.
- Practicality and Feasibility: Incremental improvements are often easier to implement and manage than radical innovations, as they build upon existing knowledge and infrastructure.
My guess is that a true answer is probably as clear as mud.'Golden Dome' for US: Trump's mega defence plan explained - The Times of India
US News: President Trump has proposed a 'golden dome' missile defense shield, inspired by Israel's Iron Dome, to protect the US from advanced aerial threats. H
Seems like a boondoggle of SDI-like proportions. The USA wasted hundreds of billions (when those numbers meant something) on this type of craziness in the 1980s. Are we really going to waste trillions on another attempt now?
SDI had a lot of other stuff that they were looking at besides traditional ground to missile interceptors. Directed energy, kinetic stuff, satellite engagement--Not sure anyone could possibly segregate the costs.
The directed energy stuff has been going on for a long time-EdwardTeller was a huge proponent of that in the 60s, and that's where Reagan got his ideas from. I have no clue how far directed energy weapons are away from being a true reality outside of structured and limited testing.
Missile defense systems were proposed back in WW2. Allies were able to shoot down a ton of V1 with a barage of artillery, but couldn't lay a glove on the V2.
My hunch is that the SDI program likely advanced the ball in the development of some of our current systems, but I think the underlying conclusion with SDI as conceptualized, is that we were decades away from some of the technology.
The age of the manueverable hypersonic missile is upon as well. I do not know the success rate of shooting down such missiles in Ukraine. It is more than zero and less than 100% --clear as mud.
My general thought is that SDI took such a wide scope approach to research that it became a jack of all trades and a master of none, but likely generated some level of technology we use today. How much? I have no clue. I don't think boondoggle is the wrong word--good things can happen out of boondoggles (ask @mcmurtry66 about the girl from room 230 at his last CLE conference
). It seems to me that some significant discussions with industry leaders in this type of field might lead to a beneficial end product that could justify certain costs. Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Air Defense testing:
In 15 months, the Navy fired more air defense missiles than it did in the last 30 years
The Navy has burned through costly missiles, some with a price tag of $28.7 million. So, it has turned to 5-inch gun rounds to down drones.
Saw that...
Hopefully the Chinese didn't... (but of course they have)...
Sort of gives a cost analysis data point to our just playing defense versus going on the offense in a serious way... (I'm for taking the Offensive when we're repeatedly attacked but I'm funny like that..)...
🍺🇺🇸🍺
The entire point of SDI was as something different than traditional ground to air interceptors. The tech it advanced was satellite based surveillance and communication, things we use in defense for sure (to detect a possible launch), but today's ground to air defense systems rely, exclusively, on Earth based systems to track and intercept a missile as far as I know.My guess is that a true answer is probably as clear as mud.
SDI had a lot of other stuff that they were looking at besides traditional ground to missile interceptors. Directed energy, kinetic stuff, satellite engagement--Not sure anyone could possibly segregate the costs.
The directed energy stuff has been going on for a long time-EdwardTeller was a huge proponent of that in the 60s, and that's where Reagan got his ideas from. I have no clue how far directed energy weapons are away from being a true reality outside of structured and limited testing.
Missile defense systems were proposed back in WW2. Allies were able to shoot down a ton of V1 with a barage of artillery, but couldn't lay a glove on the V2.
My hunch is that the SDI program likely advanced the ball in the development of some of our current systems, but I think the underlying conclusion with SDI as conceptualized, is that we were decades away from some of the technology.
The age of the manueverable hypersonic missile is upon as well. I do not know the success rate of shooting down such missiles in Ukraine. It is more than zero and less than 100% --clear as mud.
My general thought is that SDI took such a wide scope approach to research that it became a jack of all trades and a master of none, but likely generated some level of technology we use today. How much? I have no clue. I don't think boondoggle is the wrong word--good things can happen out of boondoggles (ask @mcmurtry66 about the girl from room 230 at his last CLE conference
But we are way off course here. The question no one is answering is whether it seems wise to pump hundreds of billions or trillions into a missile defense system for the continental USA. Where are all our fiscal hawks?
SDI was a combination of many different systems. Directed energy and satellite stuff were just a component.
I don’t know how you can answer the question when nobody seems to know how far along we are n a technological scale to establishing such a shield, if one can even be provided. And while it may take $2 trillion, how much more infrastructure or otherwise would be needed on top of it?
Directed energy and space-based initiatives were the entire reason for the separate push.
Well we can agree to disagree.
SDI was always multi layered from the get go.
The main thrust was a space-based response. That's why it was nicknamed Star Wars:
Also, from the Reagan Presidential Library, in its efforts to tout it:
"The heart of the SDI program was a plan to develop a space-based missile defense program that could protect the country from a large-scale nuclear attack. The media quickly began calling the program “Star Wars,” since it seemed as impossible as the events of a galaxy far, far away."
Star Wars and SDI: Defending American and the Galexy
Star Wars and SDI: Defending American and the Galexy. On March 23, 1983 in a televised address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to embark upon groundbreaking research into a national defense system that could make nucl
www.reaganlibrary.gov
but see you are now changing your proposition from satellites being SDI to being the heart. Two different things. SDI was correctly and wisely envisioned as a multi layered defense system. That was my sole point. We did get the Patriot missile out of SDI.The main thrust was a space-based response. That's why it was nicknamed Star Wars:
Also, from the Reagan Presidential Library, in its efforts to tout it:
"The heart of the SDI program was a plan to develop a space-based missile defense program that could protect the country from a large-scale nuclear attack. The media quickly began calling the program “Star Wars,” since it seemed as impossible as the events of a galaxy far, far away."
Star Wars and SDI: Defending American and the Galexy
Star Wars and SDI: Defending American and the Galexy. On March 23, 1983 in a televised address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to embark upon groundbreaking research into a national defense system that could make nucl
No, I didn't change (read post #41 "among other things") and no, we didn't get the Patriot missile out of SDI (also in post #41). That's the very issue I'm combatting in this thread on the history of the program--the incorrect conflation of SDI with all anti-missile defense systems.
The US had already developed the Patriot missile before SDI even got rolling:
MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia
You’re right on the patriot, I was mixing the patriot up with the Aegis.No, I didn't change (read post #41 "among other things") and no, we didn't get the Patriot missile out of SDI (also in post #41). That's the very issue I'm combatting in this thread on the history of the program--the incorrect conflation of SDI with all anti-missile defense systems.
The US had already developed the Patriot missile before SDI even got rolling:
MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
