How will we defend ourselves from a Incoming Asteroid if Obama Rids us of Nukes.

[Douger]

IsNtReal will nuke it for you.
Just don't stop sending their welfare checks !

 

[Si modo]

Listen to this statement:

YouTube - Obama will Gut the Military

Now how in the world are we suppose to defend the US from a potential killer asteroid if he doesn't weaponize space or he rids us of Nukes? Has he been asked that question? Nuclear Missiles or Space Satellites with Weapons on them would be our best bet to knock a potential killer asteroid off course and prevent it from hitting our atmosphere causing massive damage equal to nukes going off killing millions. This is something to think about. We need to continue to build advanced weapons systems for this purose too.

Siberia 1908
1908 SIBERIA EXPLOSION: Reconstructing an Asteroid Impact from Eywitness Accounts

^^ I think he's serious. Please, someone tell me he isn't. Please. I am too afraid of losing the little faith I have remaining in sanity of the masses if I read beyond the OP.

 

[Old Rocks]

Man are ya seriously asking these people to know anything about much?

They've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you should go find some data; which is readily available; wherein you can point to the studies which speak to the use of Nuclear warheads as a means to push Near-earth orbiting bodies off of a colliding trajectory.

Ya have to understand that these people are, for the most part, idiots.

One doesn't come to believe that the best solution where the question is one of right and wrong; is to compromise with wrong... and have much to say about... much. (That's how they grew to be Progressives... they stopped growing, intellectually speaking.)

Says the party where Palin and Bachmann are considered rockstars.

Yeah...

And here's how this works...

I note that you; a Progressive; have implied some intellectual superiority over the two respective examples...

Hell, the squirrels running around my back deck have intellectual superiority of said sad samples of humanity

I then challenge you to post a position which both or either of them actually stated... distinct from the mythical revisions projected by Leftist dis-information websites... and state a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument contesting that or those positions...

DEATH PANELS..DEATH PANELS.....Iiieeeeee.........

You then fail to do so, thus conceding TO ME, the point wherein I noted the regressive nature of the Progressive intellect.

Now get to work and show us what you're made of...

Why? Much more fun to watch you show us what you are made of. Kind of like the guy in the trench coat opening it up, and all the ladies fall on the floor, laughing hysterically.

 

[Ringel05]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Killer fucking asteroids? DO you really think that scenarion where Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck strap themselves to an ACME rocket while jamming to Aerosmith is actually fucking viable? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

I want to ride a rocket while listening to Aerosmith, screw Bruce Willis and Affleck!

Is there something you want to tell us? Are you working on a 'wardrobe' change?

 

[GilbertArizona]

With a giant laser.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, that is probably a better solution than nukes, and a non-existant delivery system.

 

[Defiant1]

Can anyone give a serious response. What if the asteroid today was actually headed towards us. What would the solution be to deflect it?

Position Michelle to absorb the impact with her ass?

 

[Old Rocks]

Does Bachman have that big of an ass?

 

[Hellokitty]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Killer fucking asteroids? DO you really think that scenarion where Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck strap themselves to an ACME rocket while jamming to Aerosmith is actually fucking viable? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

It was Steve Buscemi who strapped himself to the rocket....

 

[rdean]

Quit making fun of Republicans and conservatives because of their lack of education. It's not funny.

.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait, maybe it is.

 

[Avatar4321]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Killer fucking asteroids? DO you really think that scenarion where Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck strap themselves to an ACME rocket while jamming to Aerosmith is actually fucking viable? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

It's not? You mean Hollywood is lying?!?! Please tell me you arent serious. I mean I thought Bruce Willis is going to save us from the asteroid. Who are we going to send up now, Will Smith???

Next thing you'll tell me is that Global warming won't cause the next Ice age. We all know Hollywood doesn't lie

 

[Avatar4321]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Killer fucking asteroids? DO you really think that scenarion where Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck strap themselves to an ACME rocket while jamming to Aerosmith is actually fucking viable? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

I want to ride a rocket while listening to Aerosmith, screw Bruce Willis and Affleck!

Id rather not. They aren't my type.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why? Much more fun to watch you show us what you are made of. Kind of like the guy in the trench coat opening it up, and all the ladies fall on the floor, laughing hysterically.

Bad experiences with the trench coat thing?

 

[random3434]

Best Thread Ever!

 

[slackjawed]

After a good night's sleep, it has occurred to me that we simply do not know if any asteroid has some form of life on it. If it does, and we destroy it, that would make us guilty of genocide on a 'global' scale, errrrr maybe 'astroidal' scale.
Anyway, That is probobly an act of terror on a galaxal scale, maybe universal scale.

For that reason, I say we need to form a non profit and hold several concerts to save the asteroids.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PLANETARY DEFENSE CONFERENCE PART 2: MITIGATION PROPOSALS

"Harris emphasized that asteroid mitigation is not a job for leftover ICBMs and warheads, that experimental nuclear explosions in space are politically difficult, and of course the cost of risk prevention should not exceed its value.

Several speakers discussed the use of nuclear explosives either for destruction or deflection. David Dearborn (Livermore National Lab) discussed coupling of nuclear blast energy into NEOs. Nuclear explosives provide by far the most efficient packaging of energy (a million times more energy than the same mass of chemical explosive). For deflection, he noted that only by applying the force vector along the trajectory do we change the total angular momentum of the NEA and provide a shift that is cumulative over many orbits. Forces applied in other directions to change inclination or eccentricity do not produce cumulative effects (except in unusual resonant return cases).

With conservation of momentum, we can readily calculate how much reaction mass must be ejected based on mass of asteroid, velocity of material ejected, and required change in asteroid velocity. For deflection, must keep delta v much less than escape velocity. Standoff explosion heats rock and vaporizes material to exert reaction force. The explosion needs to be within 1 radius or we lose most of energy. For a delta-v of 1 cm/sec on kilometer-scale object, we need to vaporize the top 2 cm. X-rays dont penetrate deep enough, but neutrons are more penetrating and give centimeters of heating. We could deflect a 1 km object by cm/s with a few megatons explosion of a neutron-rich nuclear device. "

Yes, dear. But do you have any idea what cm/s means when you're talking about deflecting an orbiting object?

It would work only if the nukes are loaded on those spaceship thingys and sent out to meet the little buggers. From interplanetary space big enough nukes could, theoretically, nudge their velocity and/or orbital trajectory just enough that over time it turned a hit into a near miss - long before they hit Earth's gravity well. We're talking a year, two years, three before the actual impact scenario. And that's cutting it close - a hundred thousand miles is an incredibly close shave in astronomical terms. How long will it take to shift an asteroid 100,000 miles at the rate of a centimeter per second?

That's spaceships capable of interpanetary travel - which we don't have. And they would be used to meet asteroids we don't spend enough time and resources looking for. Land-based missiles and ICBM's launched from low-orbit satellites are of no value whatsoever, their range means we would have to wait until the target was already well within Earth's gravity well. In other words, these hypotheses are currently just as much science fiction as the rainbow powered unicorns.

But you keep patting yourself on the back, brainiac.

So what we see above is a concession to the First Sergeant... that HE was right and SHE, along with her Progressive gal-pals were WRONG... But as is always the case when one is dealing with Progressives.... The debate begins with the Progressives denying the thesis... then when they're refuted, they demand that it doesn't matter... refusing to admit they were wrong; dead wrong; totally wrong, utterly indisputably wrong... and decide to change the subject or shift the position of their failed argument.

Again... it's the typical result of Progressive reasoning: Deceit and Fraud.

Happens every time... in nearly every point of contest: from the Blue dress, to 9-11. In the case of this thread, it went like this:

Progressive: "ROFL! Did you just claim that Nuclear warheads were something which SCIENCE is actually considering to change the course of a Planet killing asteroid? Why that's PREPOSTEROUS! You watch too many MOVIES! Whatta RUBE!"

American: "Uh Yeah... I did... and it's a fact."

Progressive: "You're a FOOL! First the Earth isn't threatened by such, and second ONLY A FOOL would even CONSIDER using Nukes to save the planet from a collision with an Asteroid. That's Science FICTION... not Science FACT!You're a moron whose to be belittled and berated for your clownish beliefs..."

American: "Well... If that's how ya feel, that's fine and all; but here's a synopsis of the thinking on the issue from the worlds foremost experts, which readily states that the earth has no potential alternative except nulcear warheads; with no current program being so much as considered, let alone funded, that might provide any potential alternative.

So despite what you claim and the passion which you hold in believing it, the incontrovertible fact is, you're wrong: See!"

Progressive: "Well uh... SO what? It doesn't matter... We don't have the means to launch the nukes to the asteroids to do anything about it, so it's still science FICTION like we SAID!"

Now at that point the Progresive has conceded the argument; they simply refuse to be held accountbale for their failure...

And of course this can go on indefinitely...

American: "Well actually, that's not true, we don't need anything more than what we already have to launch our nukes... you've been misinformed again. The Nukes would be launched so as to intercept the asteroid body at a certain time and place; such being dependent upon the information available once it is determined that it will collide with earth... Not distinct at all from the launching of scientific probes which we've sent throughout the solar system.

(Now Miss Progressive: this is where you return to dismiss the latest refutation of your ignorance; you'd probably love to demand some evidence, but you're leary to do so, because that always tends to reflect poorly on your credibility.)

... and so it goes.

 

[geauxtohell]

FUCK!

I am too repped-out to rep all the funny comments on here.

 

[bodecea]

PLANETARY DEFENSE CONFERENCE PART 2: MITIGATION PROPOSALS

"Harris emphasized that asteroid mitigation is not a job for leftover ICBMs and warheads, that experimental nuclear explosions in space are politically difficult, and of course the cost of risk prevention should not exceed its value.

Several speakers discussed the use of nuclear explosives either for destruction or deflection. David Dearborn (Livermore National Lab) discussed coupling of nuclear blast energy into NEOs. Nuclear explosives provide by far the most efficient packaging of energy (a million times more energy than the same mass of chemical explosive). For deflection, he noted that only by applying the force vector along the trajectory do we change the total angular momentum of the NEA and provide a shift that is cumulative over many orbits. Forces applied in other directions to change inclination or eccentricity do not produce cumulative effects (except in unusual resonant return cases).

With conservation of momentum, we can readily calculate how much reaction mass must be ejected based on mass of asteroid, velocity of material ejected, and required change in asteroid velocity. For deflection, must keep delta v much less than escape velocity. Standoff explosion heats rock and vaporizes material to exert reaction force. The explosion needs to be within 1 radius or we lose most of energy. For a delta-v of 1 cm/sec on kilometer-scale object, we need to vaporize the top 2 cm. X-rays dont penetrate deep enough, but neutrons are more penetrating and give centimeters of heating. We could deflect a 1 km object by cm/s with a few megatons explosion of a neutron-rich nuclear device. "

Yes, dear. But do you have any idea what cm/s means when you're talking about deflecting an orbiting object?

It would work only if the nukes are loaded on those spaceship thingys and sent out to meet the little buggers. From interplanetary space big enough nukes could, theoretically, nudge their velocity and/or orbital trajectory just enough that over time it turned a hit into a near miss - long before they hit Earth's gravity well. We're talking a year, two years, three before the actual impact scenario. And that's cutting it close - a hundred thousand miles is an incredibly close shave in astronomical terms. How long will it take to shift an asteroid 100,000 miles at the rate of a centimeter per second?

That's spaceships capable of interpanetary travel - which we don't have. And they would be used to meet asteroids we don't spend enough time and resources looking for. Land-based missiles and ICBM's launched from low-orbit satellites are of no value whatsoever, their range means we would have to wait until the target was already well within Earth's gravity well. In other words, these hypotheses are currently just as much science fiction as the rainbow powered unicorns.

But you keep patting yourself on the back, brainiac.

So what we see above is a concession to the First Sergeant... that HE was right and SHE, along with her Progressive gal-pals were WRONG... But as is always the case when one is dealing with Progressives.... The debate begins with the Progressives denying the thesis... then when they're refuted, they demand that it doesn't matter... refusing to admit they were wrong; dead wrong; totally wrong, utterly indisputably wrong... and decide to change the subject or shift the position of their failed argument.

Again... it's the typical result of Progressive reasoning: Deceit and Fraud.

Happens every time... in nearly every point of contest: from the Blue dress, to 9-11. In the case of this thread, it went like this:

Progressive: "ROFL! Did you just claim that Nuclear warheads were something which SCIENCE is actually considering to change the course of a Planet killing asteroid? Why that's PREPOSTEROUS! You watch too many MOVIES! Whatta RUBE!"

American: "Uh Yeah... I did... and it's a fact."

Progressive: "You're a FOOL! First the Earth isn't threatened by such, and second ONLY A FOOL would even CONSIDER using Nukes to save the planet from a collision with an Asteroid. That's Science FICTION... not Science FACT!You're a moron whose to be belittled and berated for your clownish beliefs..."

American: "Well... If that's how ya feel, that's fine and all; but here's a synopsis of the thinking on the issue from the worlds foremost experts, which readily states that the earth has no potential alternative except nulcear warheads; with no current program being so much as considered, let alone funded, that might provide any potential alternative.

So despite what you claim and the passion which you hold in believing it, the incontrovertible fact is, you're wrong: See!"

Progressive: "Well uh... SO what? It doesn't matter... We don't have the means to launch the nukes to the asteroids to do anything about it, so it's still science FICTION like we SAID!"

Now at that point the Progresive has conceded the argument; they simply refuse to be held accountbale for their failure...

And of course this can go on indefinitely...

American: "Well actually, that's not true, we don't need anything more than what we already have to launch our nukes... you've been misinformed again. The Nukes would be launched so as to intercept the asteroid body at a certain time and place; such being dependent upon the information available once it is determined that it will collide with earth... Not distinct at all from the launching of scientific probes which we've sent throughout the solar system.

(Now Miss Progressive: this is where you return to dismiss the latest refutation of your ignorance; you'd probably love to demand some evidence, but you're leary to do so, because that always tends to reflect poorly on your credibility.)

... and so it goes.

You really need to see a doctor.

 

[critter]

oh lord.. he said they going to lower how much nukes we will have... they never said he was taking them away... plus most ateriods destroy itself before coming to earth

 

[rightwinger]

Can anyone give a serious response. What if the asteroid today was actually headed towards us. What would the solution be to deflect it?

Never fear!

I have been praticing on saving the world for 25 years