Tau 02, 01 / Mar 27, 17 02:36 UTC

Re: If some nation declare war against Asgardia  

You referenced the post, not specifically what the attack would be constituted as. If I stand accused, I think I should at least know what it is I'm accused of. You might want to check that inbox.

Tau 02, 01 / Mar 27, 17 22:34 UTC

No EyeR it is not based around fact and is indeed an example of you speaking ill of me. Your claim regarding myself like all your others, is based solely around your own opinion and that does not make it fact. Actually, the use of weapons can bring about peace, because believe it or not weapons are actually designed to do just that. The conflict can only continue as long as both sides can still fight and weapons are designed solely to cause enough damage to each side until one can no longer fight and the conflict is ended! Thus bringing about peace as a result, so, no the idea is not retarded. What is retarded is not having a way to defend yourself, especially in an environment in which rocks that range from miniscule to gigantic zip around at speeds of thoussnds, tens of thousands, or even millions of kilometers and let's not forget about the threat the nations of Earth may pose. Then there is the possibility of attack from an advanced civilization from elsewhere in the galaxy, universe, or even other dimensions!

Of course it does, the entire purpose of a military is to act as a deterrent to any nation that may consider attacking. Without that deterrent there would not be any reason for a nation that wishes to attack to not do so. Remember, humans are irrational and often times just being a good neighbor is not enough to keep hostile forces at bay. I do not know where you keep getting these silly ideas from but, if an extremist group wants they could certainly gain access to a space vehicle launch site. It would not be hard it would only be a matter of outsmarting or overpowering the defending force.

Dude, society has done just that by creating a police force and having them patrol the streets and guess what? Every crime those officers swear to oppose still take place to this day and why? Because it is impossible to know where those crimes will occur and when they will occur. Which means, that your plan would fail because you would not have the vital information needed for it to succeed and that is "WHEN THOSE CRIMES WILL OCCUR". You can not plan for something ahead of time unless you know it will occur and where it will occur.

Why are you so disenchanted with being human? Oh, and, I never mentioned whatever god those extremists in my example. May worship needing their intervention into the matter. Because the extremists and their actions was the star of said example

  Updated  on Tau 03, 01 / Mar 28, 17 00:39 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Tau 03, 01 / Mar 28, 17 06:32 UTC

No it is fact. An observation of the repeated and intentional failure to acknowlege logical cause and effect whilst being determined to generate friction against even the simplest of concepts. It does not "speak ill" - it's phrased very carefully as to not be detrimental and sticks purely to the facts. If you don't like this being pointed out, then try not to make it so obvious.

Weapons have never been designed to "bring about peace" - another retarded claim - having the sole function of causing harm, destruction and or death. Commonly resulting in a competition of penile size with compensatory efforts placed into the weaponry involved. Something quite stupid to encourage, and that's before you consider "space". Almost as retarded is your definition of "peace" this would bring - basically destroy them so they cannot be bothersome. The sort of mentality that lead to the usage of nuclear weaponry on civillian targets. To take that statement on face value, this implies the very presence of weaponry - being designed specifically to achieve peace - should result in a much more peaceful environment. Lets look at some "real world" models of this very principle. By extension of the design for peace and the proliferation and availability in the USA then this must surely be one of the most peacefilled places on the planet. I wonder why the actual data doesn't match.

The conflict can only continue if both sides are willing to fight - which is precisely why we shouldn't be, and be focused purely on defense. The other end will eventually not even bother once the futility has been consistently demonstrated, and only the really hard of thinking would of made the certainly doomed attempt in the first place. Attempting to cause this via damages just effectively results in neighbour throwing grenades over his wall because someone threw one over his, with steady escalation into larger destructive capacities. Growing up absented a father due to a grenade appearing over the wall doesn't do much for that child growing up with peaceful intent. You can't do much about initial intent, but you can do plenty about not giving any more.

"Weaponry" for "asteroid defence" is again, retarded, and likely to generate a lot more problems in the attempt. Deflection by imparting kinetic energy is a tactic so poor it would only be considered if there are literally no plausible alternatives. Like speeding up or slowing down 1m/s to avoid impact. Can't confess to seeing anything "millions of kilometers" in diameter but there are certainly some large rocks up there - turning them into lots of slightly smaller rocks with the same momentum as something several times it's mass isn't going to solve this problem. What would make sense is targetted intercept with propulsion and steering it, and this is certainly viable if it's intercepted early enough.

Just as retarded is the concept of Earth nations attacking - as previously covered multiple times in this thread and the ones similar. There is no viable way this cannot be made result in massive cost and 0 gain. The best case senario of a successfull attack being the destruction of large facilities which is likely to take out all surface life with the impacts.

And as previously mentioned, an advanced civilisation would likely of done away with retardations such as weaponry and if they do possess some the energies required by the propulsion technologies required to cross these vast distances in a sensible timeframe suggest that these weapons are going to be significantly advanced to the point their defences are not even going to acknowlege our primative weaponry. The best I can offer to placate such relentless and unfounded fear is that should they be able to cross such vast distances and intend for harm, you'd already be dead. I don't think you entirely understand the concept of "dimensions".

The entire purpose of a military is not to provide for deterrant - the entire "deterrant" method of thinking was demonstrated as insantity decades ago. The entire purpose of a military is an offensive force that can take the fight to the enemy. Any defensive potential is a fringe benefit and an afterthought. Even with this "deterrant" in place this does not mitigate attack, as proved countless times in countless places across the entire history of military conflict. It just allows for return of the same destructive potential.

Humans are irrational, it's difficult to ingore this consistently present fact - one could successfully argue this entire topic is born from this precise irrationality. Acting irrationally upon it isn't going to make the situation any "better", instead it will simply add to and compound the problem. This is not a "silly idea" it is logical cause and effect.

The concept of an "extremist group" gaining access to a launch site - somewhere that stores enough rocket fuel to damage a significant area and the ability to place this literally anywhere on the globe - quite amusing. How would you really expect that to happen? if outsmart or overpower was an option the target would of been far too juicy to ignore, attempts would of been made. Just like if "religion" was a primary factor in "terrorism" things they hate - like disney - would become far too juicy targets able to cause the most ammount of damages to the most amount of people in the shortest possible time. Just like if disruption was the real goal, a few random attacks would be replaced by a co-ordinated effort on the incredibly fragile power grid, followed rapidly by the communications infrastructure, then the transport solutions.

"My plan" doesn't require previous information to succeed, the core principle being the attack is expected regardless. You can plan ahead of time for things, even if you don't know when/where it will happen. There is much evidence of this happening, in fact, quite a lot accounts for the "unknown" factor of time and location. In the example of Police, most forces are currently ACO or migrating into.

The "disenchantment" with humans would be the examples presented by folks like yourself consisting of irrational fears and poorly thought out arguments that result in a output far less than optimal and commonly of the quality that no sane thinking individual would want any association.

Tau 03, 01 / Mar 28, 17 08:09 UTC

Do you have evidence for your claim that I was intentionally trying to start friction? I highly doubt it, but since you want to bring up someone trying to intentionally start friction. I can point out many examples of you intentionally trying to start friction. Like when you began claiming I was on crack, insulted my intelligence, and all around was needlessly hostile. If you could point out any instances of me trying to intentionally start friction I would not care. Because if it is the truth then I own up to it. But, you can't so, there is nothing for me to dislike! You know what my definition of peace is how? I never told you and you couldn't possibly know otherwise. So, what on Earth makes you think you have any clue regarding my definition of peace? Actually, yes weapons are designed to bring about peace. For example, the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they leveled those two cities, which lowered the moral and will to fight of the Japanese and that in turn lead to their surrender. The two cities were destroyed and many people did indeed die but, in the end the war both sides were fighting with each other ended and what comes after all the fighting has ceased? Peace does, which means the horrific act of bombing those cities brought about peace and with that example I rest my case knowing you can not argue otherwise.

No, it does not where did you get that idea? No, the conflict continues even if on side surrenders. The conquering side will just find themselves a new opponent and the fighting continues. The fighting only ends when both sides agree to stop fighting. No, we should not focus solely on defense, some matters will require us to go on offense and if we only focus on defense we will not have the ability to take the offensive and no, the other side will not cease just because their current actions have been shown to be futile. That is just naive thinking on your part, what they will do is try and find something that works as is human nature! Remember, this is not Mr. Roger's neighborhood, this is reality and not everyone gives up as easily as you seem to think. No, no it is not, weapons for defense from space rocks is actually a good idea. They give us something to fall back on should the primary way of dealing with asteroids fail for whatever reason. Why do you and others automatically assume any agressor on Earth would not have considered the danger associated with destroying large facilities in orbit? I mean, it is a pretty OBVIOUS threat after all and anyone with a third of a brain in their head's would be aware of it. Give folks more credit than that you are not the only one capable of thinking of such things! Wow, I have been using the word no so very often in this reply. No, an advanced civilization would not do away with weaponry. Because they would be well aware that the universe is not full of the types of beings that would make that possible. Remember not all beings are tolerant and well intentioned. Some have ill intent and having weapons means having the ability to defend yourself from them! I need nothing from you to deal with any fear because I am not afraid. Anything you can think of I can and likely have long ago.

No, it has not been, take nuclear weapons for example, the US has nuclear capabilities and could attack Russia using nukes but does not and why? Because Russia also has nuclear capabilities and could respond in kind and since the US does not want that the US will not attack using nukes. I seriously doubt your disenchantment with being human has anything to do with me or people like me. I also highly doubt you are of sound mind, I could be wrong admittedly but that is my honest opinion based on your arguments which. When picked apart contain little substance, for example an irrational fear would be a fear of being raped by a rainbow colored giraffe or being afraid of the CIA using my fillings as a radio transmitter. Not being concerned of something occuring because the measures against said event are not a guarantee that it will not happen. That is actually very rational because it has basis in reality

  Updated  on Tau 03, 01 / Mar 28, 17 16:24 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times
Reason: Removed something seen as inappropriate by the mods