On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 5/7/2018 6:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.


Yup. The threats continue, they are just different. We need to adjust
for the times and technology.

On 5/7/2018 6:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/7/2018 6:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on
military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder
what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or
nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall
out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and
pessimistic as
you seem to be.Â* I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on
stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off
and
we're all dead anyway.Â* :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst.Â* ;-)



That's our difference.Â* I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and
militarily.
Â* I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race.Â* I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already.Â* EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand.Â* That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers.Â* Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.



Yup.Â* The threats continue, they are just different.Â* We need to adjust
for the times and technology.


Then again, I can understand where Greg is coming from.
His computers run on vacuum tubes so they are pretty much immune to EMP
blasts. :-)

On Mon, 07 May 2018 18:27:21 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.


I guess the question is whether an arms race is the best use of money
neither of us has. The reality is a war we are spending a trillion a
year to tool up with will be ended with a few million dollar nukes.
The only question is how long we well try to win with conventional
forces until someone pushes that button. You know damn sure nobody
with a nuke is going to lose their country in a conventional war,
whether that is the US, Russia or Pakistan.
All of the wars any of the super powers have had were over some 3d
party's territory and I have had a hard time thinking of one of those
we have won either.
The Israelis are the only ones I can think of who have actually taken
land away from people in a war since 1945.

On 5/7/2018 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2018 18:27:21 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2018 16:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:57:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/7/2018 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 15:23:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2018 13:16:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/6/2018 12:27 PM, wrote:

It is naive to believe our trillions of dollars wasted on military
weaponry will keep us safe from a serious enemy. I wonder what will
happen when one of our overwrought carriers is sunk or nearly completely
disabled...


About the same as if they bombed DC


If an all out war started tomorrow I'd feel safer on one of the
new DLGs at sea than I would in any large city.


In a real "all out war" the difference may be academic.
Think "On the Beach".



Yabut at least we could shoot back.


That might make someone feel good for a day or two until the fall out
started raining down across the globe and the sun got shaded out.

If everyone could be happy shooting one or two, it might not be a
global disaster but when you start getting up around 100, it will be
the roaches, rats and Keith Richards. Much over that and viruses may
be threatened.


I could never get through a day if I were as negative and pessimistic as
you seem to be. I suppose we should never have spent a nickle on stuff
to defend ourselves because some day the sun is going to blink off and
we're all dead anyway. :-)


I am pessimistic when I think about a war with another super power and
we should all be. On the other hand I don't think about it enough to
square spending close to a trillion a year that we don't have trying
to fight conventional wars with 3d world nations. We can beat them
much less expensively.
Nukes are cheap and present a credible deterrence to aggression just
because what I said is true.
The fantasy that a nuclear power would lose a conventional war of
attrition without using them is ludicrous too.
That is the main reason why the US is so interested in making sure
Israel never gets in a real war and why we jump in front of the
bullets aimed at them. If they ever were in any real trouble they
would nuke someone and WWIII would be on.

BTW all of us pessimists know the real danger is a killer asteroid or
a gamma ray burst. ;-)



That's our difference. I am very optimistic that we will never have
a war with another super power *if* we stay militarily strong enough
both conventionally and with the deterrent of nukes to discourage any
goofy nation to even try.

We haven't had to fight a major war with the goal of *winning* since
WWII when we emerged as a super power, both economically and militarily.
I think there's a reason for that and it's not just because of nukes.
They conflicts we've engaged in have been bad enough and cost too many
lives but they have all been politically motivated and controlled.

My only question is how much stronger than them do we need to be 5x?
10x?
We spend more money than the next dozen countries behind us or
something.
If we actually crash the dollar and the world economy follows, all of
those air craft carriers won't mean much.


===

Not for nothing is it called an arms race. I fully expect it to move
into space based weapons at some point, if it hasn't already. EMP
generators in low earth orbits could certainly create a great deal of
havoc without any loss of life, and might be almost undetectable. It's
not inconceivable to me that we might eventually have space based
weather on demand. That could certainly be weaponized, right along
with high powered lasers. Of course internet based attacks are
already happening and will no doubt grow more intense, along with
attacks on satellites.


I guess the question is whether an arms race is the best use of money
neither of us has. The reality is a war we are spending a trillion a
year to tool up with will be ended with a few million dollar nukes.
The only question is how long we well try to win with conventional
forces until someone pushes that button. You know damn sure nobody
with a nuke is going to lose their country in a conventional war,
whether that is the US, Russia or Pakistan.
All of the wars any of the super powers have had were over some 3d
party's territory and I have had a hard time thinking of one of those
we have won either.
The Israelis are the only ones I can think of who have actually taken
land away from people in a war since 1945.



The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.

On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.

On Tue, 8 May 2018 11:57:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.


If you are just using that as a metaphor for a common enemy, you are
right. America forgot about fighting communism to fight the Germans
and the Japanese, then we started right back up on each other.

Have you watched the Oliver Stone "Untold History" show. He definitely
puts the Stone spin on things but there are still a lot of things we
don't hear, backed up by actual footage and news coverage, that he
points out.
It is on Netflix.

On 5/8/2018 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 11:57:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.


If you are just using that as a metaphor for a common enemy, you are
right. America forgot about fighting communism to fight the Germans
and the Japanese, then we started right back up on each other.

Have you watched the Oliver Stone "Untold History" show. He definitely
puts the Stone spin on things but there are still a lot of things we
don't hear, backed up by actual footage and news coverage, that he
points out.
It is on Netflix.




I started watching it a couple of weeks ago but fell asleep.
Didn't finish it.

On 5/8/2018 12:01 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/8/2018 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2018 06:24:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The only way to end an arms race is to convince every nation on the
planet to agree to it.

Good luck with that.


At the end of both world wars the winners decided they would divide
the world up into sectors that each would control and the rest of the
world wasn't happy about that either.
Something along those lines might end up being the answer to avoiding
WWIII but nobody in the 2d and 3d world will like it.



Hope for final proof of unfriendly aliens from outer space.

It's really the only way people on this planet will ever agree
to work together as allies.




You watch too much sci-fi. The corporationists will sell us out to turn a
larger profit, as usual.



It was a joke. I don't watch sci-fi. Don't even like it.