2012 US Presidential Election

[jaybug]

Aw naw Nikk, the only thing huge about that would have been the Donald's hair.

Israel and maybe South Africa have had the bomb for over 30 years. So far they do not seem to have wanted to use it as a first strike weapon. Pakistan hasn't budged, because India has a MAD policy going with them. Iran, well, who do they have a MAD policy with? With whom do they want to wipe off the face of the earth? With whomo would they absolutely not give a shit if they killed every man, woman and child? ( which coincidently is why they shipped all those Katusha rockets into Gaza and the Golan Heights. And may be a large reasonw why Syria now has all those troubles, Iran likes to destabilize that which it does not rule.)

[zherok]

Israel and maybe South Africa have had the bomb for over 30 years. So far they do not seem to have wanted to use it as a first strike weapon. Pakistan hasn't budged, because India has a MAD policy going with them. Iran, well, who do they have a MAD policy with? With whom do they want to wipe off the face of the earth? With whomo would they absolutely not give a shit if they killed every man, woman and child? ( which coincidently is why they shipped all those Katusha rockets into Gaza and the Golan Heights. And may be a large reasonw why Syria now has all those troubles, Iran likes to destabilize that which it does not rule.)

I don't know why you think Iran would be more than willing to commit suicide by test firing their hypothetical first nuke at Israel than Pakistan would be in seeing what happens when they fired on India. At least with the latter it *would* be MAD, but a single nuclear weapon would be insufficient to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and the retaliation from Israel would be far more devastating to the country that provoked it than what that singular nuke could do to Israel.

[jaybug]

One nuke is enough is you can get it to spread the toxic plutonium around. Just make the place uninhabitable by the Jews, and it would be just fine with the ayatollahs. The target would be Tel Aviv, or somewhere towards the western edge, so that the dispersal would be downwind towards the rest of Israel.

Besides being radioactive, plutonium is a toxic substance. And it is a heavy metal, but then so too is everything with a higher number on the Periodic Table of Elements, than iron.

It will be just like the tactic the ancient Romans used when they could not defeat an enemy, it's called salting the earth. You make it so that no one can have it.

[AceHigh]

Now to make a sarcastic post in which I subtley point out.... ah, fuck it!

I'll be blunt here because I can't be arsed with anything else right now. Jaybug, you are retarded for taking rhetoric and election pep-talk  of the Iranian leaders at face value. Last an only time a country actually used a nuke on another country was USA, so shut the fuck up.

[TMRNetShark]

Now to make a sarcastic post in which I subtley point out.... ah, fuck it!

I'll be blunt here because I can't be arsed with anything else right now. Jaybug, you are retarded for taking rhetoric and election pep-talk  of the Iranian leaders at face value. Last an only time a country actually used a nuke on another country was USA, so shut the fuck up.

Nah-huh... Remember the USA nuke testing on those islands? That's what made Godzilla and destroyed Tokyo... >.>

[AceHigh]

At least they used Marshall Islands, the Brits conducted half of their nuke tests in Australia. Heh, I guess Great Britain still views Australia as their personal trash bin.

[TMRNetShark]

So wait, isn't that group that stole Romney's tax returns for like 2 decades gonna release them on the 24th?

Romney even released his 2011 tax returns. Made $13 million and paid effectively 14% tax rate.

[jaybug]

So wait, isn't that group that stole Romney's tax returns for like 2 decades gonna release them on the 24th?

Romney even released his 2011 tax returns. Made $13 million and paid effectively 14% tax rate.

14%, he paid a higher percentage than did Democrat Warren Buffet. Still lower than Buffet's secretary who paid 17% rate. Buffet did pay 13%, right?

I'll bet you money that we won't have a great president, until we get one that is willing to fight congress, no matter the party affiliation. Perhaps Romney will fight them once elected, but he has so far shown he will be a go along get along guy with members of his party. Gotta just love those conservatives, eh? But then Obama has shown that he is perfectly willing to let the Democrats do whatever crazy shit they want too. So it isn't as if he is going to be a great president. Just another president. In a way these guys remind me of all the presidents of the latter part of the 19th century. Do you even know their names? Do you care?

[vicious796]

All right, now Romney's really starting to piss me off.

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-reveals-space-exploration-plans-few-details-194109234.html

Yeah, Obama totally fucked up NASA all on his own. We've only been in decline in the space game for 4 years? Fuck, man, try 20 years. The only thing I really approved of Obama doing whole-heartedly was what he did with NASA. You want profits in space? The asteroid belt is the way to go! You want to go further into deep space? Once again, the asteroid belt is the ideal "resupply" and/or "safety" area for trips to Mars.

We gain very little from a moon base. We gain some stuff - and some very valuable things, of course - but not that much. The moon will be a great place to try to colonize first since it's only a couple days away. But don't say Obama destroyed NASA in 4 years when the government's been shirking it for decades.

[AceHigh]

I am all for space exploration and any other kind of research that will advance humanity as a whole.

However isn't it in America's spirit to let the private sector to push the USA forward? As a comparison with the dissolution of USSR, their space program became mothballed, but as a result the present day "roskosmos" developed a business model that allows space programmes to yield profit. Don't you think the same will happen to NASA where lack of funding from the government will force them to adapt an enterprise business model and thus allow them to function without tax payers money?

[vicious796]

I am all for space exploration and any other kind of research that will advance humanity as a whole.

However isn't it in America's spirit to let the private sector to push the USA forward? As a comparison with the dissolution of USSR, their space program became mothballed, but as a result the present day "roskosmos" developed a business model that allows space programmes to yield profit. Don't you think the same will happen to NASA where lack of funding from the government will force them to adapt an enterprise business model and thus allow them to function without tax payers money?

Once again, a reason I supported the Obama plan after I really read about it. I firmly believe that the private sector does things faster and more efficiently than the federal government and Obama's plan pretty much sets the private sector in a prime position to reap the benefits of getting to the asteroid belt. On that end, Obama basically said "here's a bunch of tax breaks if you're a space exploration company aiming for the asteroid belt. Meet x, y, and z and you'll see a much lighter tax burden while still being able to cash in on whatever you find at the end of the rainbow."

Part of the problem, though, is the sheer prestige of working for NASA. That organization's reputation is well deserved in the scientific community and it's the only branch of government, aside from the CIA, that I firmly believe has the best and brightest working for it. There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest minds in the field work at NASA. That means the private industry is working with, in all honesty, second best.

[AceHigh]

And thus privatising NASA and making it independent from the government budget... do you follow my train of thought?

[vicious796]

And thus privatising NASA and making it independent from the government budget... do you follow my train of thought?

I've never considered removing NASA from the fed...

It may come as a shocker from me, but I don't think I like the idea. It may make me sound more hippy than you're used to, but I honestly believe space exploration and advances in the sciences are something that should be shared among the people. We reap the benefits of it as a whole and we should pay the price together. As such, it's only natural that the fed have organizations like NASA to promote scientific advancement and, honestly, should be at the receiving end of some of the DoD's money.

[Nikkoru]

Ah, so Romney/Ryan want to secure NASA as tool to promote a Cold War nationalist mentality, but without raising its expense, or doing anything truly beneficial? I kind of figured that.

I don't care about space tourism, which is all I see these private entities offering. We need an organization like NASA who're willing to do the expensive theoretical research to enable generations of private space development which isn't prohibitively expensive and actually has a purpose beyond novelty.   

[sdedalus83]

I don't care about space tourism, which is all I see these private entities offering. We need and organization like NASA who're willing to do the expensive theoretical research to enable generations of private space development which isn't prohibitively expensive and actually has a purpose beyond novelty.   

Space tourism is a lot more pragmatic than you think.  A bunch of rich people bankroll the beta tests on mass transit spacecraft while also funding the development of lower cost, higher efficiency launch systems.

[AceHigh]

I've never considered removing NASA from the fed...

It may come as a shocker from me, but I don't think I like the idea. It may make me sound more hippy than you're used to, but I honestly believe space exploration and advances in the sciences are something that should be shared among the people. We reap the benefits of it as a whole and we should pay the price together. As such, it's only natural that the fed have organizations like NASA to promote scientific advancement and, honestly, should be at the receiving end of some of the DoD's money.

After a thought, I also support a scientific programme that benefits all, somehow I just forgot to realize that NASA comes in a big package.

So to modify my statement: the launch control in Houston, bearer rockets and pretty much everything that has to do with research and development to get stuff up there, could be private. Basically a shuttle service to space. NASA could be the customer and focus on the scientific advancement in space.

[sdedalus83]

So to modify my statement: the launch control in Houston, bearer rockets and pretty much everything that has to do with research and development to get stuff up there, could be private. Basically a shuttle service to space. NASA could be the customer and focus on the scientific advancement in space.

That's exactly what their focus has been for the last few years.

[AceHigh]

Well, it's on the right track then and should not be fixed if it's not broken.

Also what is really weird is a statement like this:

"has put the space program on a path where we are conceding our global position as the unequivocal leader in space,"

Now we all know the USSR actually won the space race (by launching first ICBM, satellite, animal in space, man and woman in space, spacewalk, manned long duration flight and satellite around the moon about space race) only losing in manned moon landing in which USA declared themselves winners, only to witness the launch of a successful series of USSR orbital stations in which Mir was the undefeated champion of space stations until scrapped.

Also as far as we have seen USA has also stopped going for new "I am first" accomplishments in space after USSR collapse. In fact now that American corporations are using Russian Soyuz rockets to send their satellites into orbit because it's cheaper and the safety record is better, implies that a statement like "we are leaders in space" is nothing more than deceitful boast. Then again those are usual in pre-election speeches too.

[surdumil]

Russia also won the business case race.  Russia provides a solid for-profit satellite delivery service.

The U.S., on the other hand, is constantly hampered by witless political budgeting issues and a military that can't keep their nose out.
NASA and JPL are doing some great scientific research, but they're definitely not self-supporting.

If your satellite provides functionality that the U.S. military doesn't approve (like high-resolution imaging or high-resolution navigation) then satellite delivery is refused and you need to shop around, usually to Russia or ESA or even China.

[vicious796]

I've never considered removing NASA from the fed...

It may come as a shocker from me, but I don't think I like the idea. It may make me sound more hippy than you're used to, but I honestly believe space exploration and advances in the sciences are something that should be shared among the people. We reap the benefits of it as a whole and we should pay the price together. As such, it's only natural that the fed have organizations like NASA to promote scientific advancement and, honestly, should be at the receiving end of some of the DoD's money.

After a thought, I also support a scientific programme that benefits all, somehow I just forgot to realize that NASA comes in a big package.

So to modify my statement: the launch control in Houston, bearer rockets and pretty much everything that has to do with research and development to get stuff up there, could be private. Basically a shuttle service to space. NASA could be the customer and focus on the scientific advancement in space.

You've essentially explained, word for word, the Obama plan - which I fully support but would like more funding to go to - a lot more funding. And, to your next post on it, you're right - it's not broken, don't "fix" it.