On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:05:30 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:55:57 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > > Isn't that the one that (or, rather, one of the ones that), when the
> > > alt-right takes control and sets up their Final Solution Centers, will
> > > find herself in the first cattle car sent to one?
>
> > I Googled her. She doesn't _look_ Jewish...
> >
> > but then, the alt-right may be looking for an _endlosung_ to a
> > different problem.
> >
> > However, there could be another Candace Owens who is white, blond,
> > and crazier. I mean, we have a Candice Bergen in Canada who isn't the
> > famous actress.

> Oh, no. I forgot that I had actually seen the video about "the greatest
> black white supremacist in America"...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y65zpYaZJ6I

This conflict in Ukraine has provided me with the opportunity to
learn many fascinating things about history.

Thus, I've learned that under the Cossacks, the Ukraine nourished
a powerful democratic tradition, while Russia's democratic regime in
Novgorod was crushed by Ivan the Terrible, leading to Russia having
little experience of anything but autocracy to the present day.

I have also learned the appropriate Canadian response to anyone
like Candace Owens from the Trumpist wing of the Republican
Party who might think of invading Canada to bend it to their will.

Any one such as that should be invited to sit on a hedgehog.

https://lflank.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/the-zaporozhian-cossack-letter/

John Savard

On 2022-03-06 8:57 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 15:17:32 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-05 3:14 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 02:10:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 3:03:36 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> None of that is going to happen without someone going in and
>>>>> conquering the place, with the associated millions of dead even if
>>>>> there is no nuclear war.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely. And with no justice, there can be no permanent peace.
>>>>
>>>> I wish the United States could completely eliminate the risk of nuclear
>>>> attack from Russia, and go in and conquer the place in a similar fashion
>>>> to, say, the initial stages of the war on Iraq, but wishes are not realities.
>>>>
>>>> What I hope Putin's adventure will trigger, though, is the United States
>>>> going into an arms race. Matching - and far exceeding - Russia's
>>>> hypersonic cruise missiles. Dusting off the Strategic Defense Initiative.
>>>> And so on and so forth.
>>>>
>>>> If we're lucky, not just Russia, but even China could be brought to
>>>> economic collapse, repeating the original fall of the Soviet Union.
>>>
>>> I'm getting sick of this "hypersonic missiles" crap. They have a turn
>>> radius measured in tens of miles--they can't actually conduct evasive
>>> maneuvers, and they can't hit a moving target, so they're basically
>>> just an expensive unreliable alternative to ICBMs.
>>
>> Riiiiiight.
>>
>> Because a hypersonic missile couldn't POSSIBLY...
>>
>> ...oh, I don't know...
>>
>> ...SLOW DOWN...
>>
>> ...in the final phase of attacking a target.
>
> Using what? Breaking rockets? Parachutes?

You think that maintaining hypersonic speeds doesn't require huge gobs
of thrust?

To give an example I know well, before you touch the brake pedal, a
Formula One car will decelerate at greater than 1g from top speed just
from the aerodynamic drag.

>
> And, anyway, if they did that, they would not longer be ...
> hypersonic. The thrill would be gone.

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 9:44:10 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> If you are talking about Bitburg, it was viewed as a photo-op. No
> thinking involved. And, anyway, by that point Nancy (or rather, her
> astrologer) was running things.

But doesn't that still show you were mistaken in accusing the
Republicans of being supporters of Hitler? Even if Ronald Reagan
had other faults?

John Savard

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 9:44:10 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 09:44:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:

> >There is hope, though, that it may turn around, and choose Mike Pence
> >rather than Trump or Ron de Santis as its new leader.

> It is a sad day when the best we can hope for is a man whose only real
> advantage is that he appears to be sane. But that's still better than
> the insane alternatives.

I do remember seeing the title of an opinion piece noting that Mike
Pence wasn't really a good alternative to Trump, but unfortunately I
didn't remember what was wrong with Pence.

Ah, I think I found it.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

Mike Pence is apparently the Koch brothers' inside man - the quintessential
representative of the far right of the traditional Republican Party.

The fact that several of his children served their country in its armed
forces is certainly a heartwarming plus.

But given that the right-wing billionaires that support the traditional
right wing are the force behind the botched COVID response, this means
they're the real destructive force in the United States - and so Mike Pence
wouldn't really stop the disaster, he would only disguise it and make it more
insidious.

John Savard

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 11:18:14 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-06 8:57 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 15:17:32 -0800, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-03-05 3:14 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 02:10:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 3:03:36 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> None of that is going to happen without someone going in and
> >>>>> conquering the place, with the associated millions of dead even if
> >>>>> there is no nuclear war.
> >>>>
> >>>> Precisely. And with no justice, there can be no permanent peace.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wish the United States could completely eliminate the risk of nuclear
> >>>> attack from Russia, and go in and conquer the place in a similar fashion
> >>>> to, say, the initial stages of the war on Iraq, but wishes are not realities.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I hope Putin's adventure will trigger, though, is the United States
> >>>> going into an arms race. Matching - and far exceeding - Russia's
> >>>> hypersonic cruise missiles. Dusting off the Strategic Defense Initiative.
> >>>> And so on and so forth.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we're lucky, not just Russia, but even China could be brought to
> >>>> economic collapse, repeating the original fall of the Soviet Union.
> >>>
> >>> I'm getting sick of this "hypersonic missiles" crap. They have a turn
> >>> radius measured in tens of miles--they can't actually conduct evasive
> >>> maneuvers, and they can't hit a moving target, so they're basically
> >>> just an expensive unreliable alternative to ICBMs.
> >>
> >> Riiiiiight.
> >>
> >> Because a hypersonic missile couldn't POSSIBLY...
> >>
> >> ...oh, I don't know...
> >>
> >> ...SLOW DOWN...
> >>
> >> ...in the final phase of attacking a target.
> >
> > Using what? Breaking rockets? Parachutes?
> You think that maintaining hypersonic speeds doesn't require huge gobs
> of thrust?
>
> To give an example I know well, before you touch the brake pedal, a
> Formula One car will decelerate at greater than 1g from top speed just
> from the aerodynamic drag.
> >
> > And, anyway, if they did that, they would not longer be ...
> > hypersonic. The thrill would be gone.

Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 2022-03-06 1:44 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterwezeman@hotmail.com"
> <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 11:18:14 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-06 8:57 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 15:17:32 -0800, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-03-05 3:14 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 02:10:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 3:03:36 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of that is going to happen without someone going in and
>>>>>>>> conquering the place, with the associated millions of dead even if
>>>>>>>> there is no nuclear war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Precisely. And with no justice, there can be no permanent peace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wish the United States could completely eliminate the risk of nuclear
>>>>>>> attack from Russia, and go in and conquer the place in a similar fashion
>>>>>>> to, say, the initial stages of the war on Iraq, but wishes are not realities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I hope Putin's adventure will trigger, though, is the United States
>>>>>>> going into an arms race. Matching - and far exceeding - Russia's
>>>>>>> hypersonic cruise missiles. Dusting off the Strategic Defense Initiative.
>>>>>>> And so on and so forth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we're lucky, not just Russia, but even China could be brought to
>>>>>>> economic collapse, repeating the original fall of the Soviet Union.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm getting sick of this "hypersonic missiles" crap. They have a turn
>>>>>> radius measured in tens of miles--they can't actually conduct evasive
>>>>>> maneuvers, and they can't hit a moving target, so they're basically
>>>>>> just an expensive unreliable alternative to ICBMs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Riiiiiight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because a hypersonic missile couldn't POSSIBLY...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...oh, I don't know...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...SLOW DOWN...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...in the final phase of attacking a target.
>>>>
>>>> Using what? Breaking rockets? Parachutes?
>>> You think that maintaining hypersonic speeds doesn't require huge gobs
>>> of thrust?
>>>
>>> To give an example I know well, before you touch the brake pedal, a
>>> Formula One car will decelerate at greater than 1g from top speed just
>>> from the aerodynamic drag.
>>>>
>>>> And, anyway, if they did that, they would not longer be ...
>>>> hypersonic. The thrill would be gone.
>>
>> Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
>> NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
>> approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>> the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
>> the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
>> an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>
> If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
> is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
> defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.

For what value of "near"?

With what level of readiness?

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterwezeman@hotmail.com"

>>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
>>NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
>>approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
>>the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
>>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>
>If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
>is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
>defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.

The key word is "drag".

" glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force than when
it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach 20 faces 400 times
the drag of when it is at Mach 1."

"So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times faster than
at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose energy 8,000 times faster."

"Yet after decades of research and development, U.S. hypersonic weapons
tested in the past decade appear to have L/D values less than three.
Such low L/D ratios mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
and increases surface heating."

"Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages
in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution.
Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And
yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new
arms race and escalating the chances of conflict."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-weapons/

A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral withdrawal from the
ABM treaty.

In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2.20263@fx11.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterwezeman@hotmail.com"
>
> >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
> >>NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
> >>approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
> >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
> >>the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
> >>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
> >
> >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
> >is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
> >defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.
>
> The key word is "drag".
>
> " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force than when
> it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach 20 faces 400 times
> the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
>
> "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times faster than
> at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose energy 8,000 times faster."
>

This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag coefficient
involved in the drag equation. It is relatively low at subsonic speeds,
increases rapidly (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and
decreases at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher than
the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at higher Mach
numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at
Mach 4, it is less than 25 times higher.

> "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S. hypersonic weapons
> tested in the past decade appear to have L/D values less than three.
> Such low L/D ratios mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
> the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
> and increases surface heating."
>
> "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages
> in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution.
> Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And
> yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
> has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new
> arms race and escalating the chances of conflict."
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-
> weapons/
>
> A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral withdrawal from the
> ABM treaty.

It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific American is
frequently wrong when discussing military affairs (this included stupid
statements about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
1800 warship construction).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
> >
> > >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
> > >>NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
> > >>approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
> > >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
> > >>the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
> > >>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
> > >
> > >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
> > >is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
> > >defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.
> >
> > The key word is "drag".
> >
> > " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force than when
> > it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach 20 faces 400 times
> > the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
> >
> > "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times faster than
> > at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose energy 8,000 times faster."
> >
> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag coefficient
> involved in the drag equation. It is relatively low at subsonic speeds,
> increases rapidly (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and
> decreases at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher than
> the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
> drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at higher Mach
> numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at
> Mach 4, it is less than 25 times higher.
> > "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S. hypersonic weapons
> > tested in the past decade appear to have L/D values less than three.
> > Such low L/D ratios mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
> > the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
> > and increases surface heating."
> >
> > "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages
> > in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution.
> > Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And
> > yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
> > has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new
> > arms race and escalating the chances of conflict."
> >
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-
> > weapons/
> >
> > A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral withdrawal from the
> > ABM treaty.
> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific American is
> frequently wrong when discussing military affairs (this included stupid
> statements about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
> 1800 warship construction).

SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.

I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
The Russians already have
a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry conventional
or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic energy is equivalent to 2 tons
of TNT).

For more scary stuff:

Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise missile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

pt

On 3/5/2022 1:02 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 9:12:23 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:16:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> How you can make this about Trump is amazing. Trump has nothing to do
>>>> with Ukraine at all. It is Biden's son Hunter who took millions of
>>>> dollars in bribes in the kleptocracy known as Ukraine. And 10% for the
>>>> Big Guy.
>>> Exactly.
>>>> BTW, Russia and Ukraine grow 29% of the wheat in the world. Do you like
>>>> bread ? Get ready to pay $10 for loaf of bread.
>>> And even if you could get bread you wouldn't have to turn on the
>>> kitchen lights as you could see the bread glowing in the dark!
>> We grow a lot of wheat, rye, etc here in the States. During the
>> pandemic I learned how to make my mother's soda bread.
>> It tastes way better than the generic wheat bread I buy at the
>> local Aldi.
>>
>> I used to live within walking distance of a great bakery that sells
>> great bread that I suppose would be called "artisanal." "Real bread"
>> would be my term for it. Loaves there are between $6 -$10 each.
>> I used to have to freeze half, because they didn't have preservatives
>> in them, and would go bad before I could eat half of one.
>>
>> I may "practice bake" this weekend, before I make some soda
>> bread for the 17th.
>
> Seeing as the US exports about 7 times as much grain as it imports,
> I'm not too worried.
>
> Pt

Is that a recent number ? I was thinking that the wheat crop in the USA
had fallen recently.

Of course, with the supposed global warming, several areas of the USA
(Kansas !) now get a third cutting of the wheat right before winter starts.

Lynn

On 3/5/2022 11:54 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:55:00 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Depending on how things shake out, the Russians could /lose/ the
>> Crimea again. It all depends on how desperate they are to get the
>> sanctions reduced, and how badly they do militarily.
>
> If Russia does not "win" this war, it will definitely have to completely
> withdraw from the Ukraine before sanctions will be removed.
>
> John Savard

Are you going to hold your breath until Russia leaves the Ukraine ?
Please feel free to do so.

Lynn

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:43:24 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> And, since Trump is a Putin sock puppet, those calling Putin "fascist"
> are saying the Republican Party is /still/ the Party of Hitler. But I
> am not.

Putin's the Hitler. Trump is only the Mussolini. Or maybe even the Franco.

Trump as Franco - that would be a plus. That would mean that while Xi and
Putin were carving up the world, the U.S. would actually decline to invade
Canada.

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:48:39 AM UTC-7, Robert Woodward wrote:

> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific American is
> frequently wrong when discussing military affairs (this included stupid
> statements about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
> 1800 warship construction).

Back after the fall of the Soviet Union, a column in Scientific American actually
recommended against getting all of Russia's scientists and engineers to leave
the economic collapse there and move to the U.S..

This was terrible advice, because, of course, as it turned out, democracy didn't
remain permanently in effect in Russia. If they didn't have any scientists or
engineers, it would have been harder for them to keep their nuclear weapons in
order.

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:05:12 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Of course, with the supposed global warming, several areas of the USA
> (Kansas !) now get a third cutting of the wheat right before winter starts.

How can you grow more real wheat with an imaginary warmer climate?

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:06:07 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/5/2022 11:54 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

> > If Russia does not "win" this war, it will definitely have to completely
> > withdraw from the Ukraine before sanctions will be removed.

> Are you going to hold your breath until Russia leaves the Ukraine ?
> Please feel free to do so.

Russia may not leave the Ukraine any time soon. So it can endure sanctions
for a long time. Until the downfall of the government responsible for the aggression
against the Ukraine. Even if it hangs around for fifty years or more.

John Savard

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:43:01 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 01:30:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >It is true that the conquest of a country is not complete until you can
> >put boots on the ground in it.

> >However, if the United States did not have nuclear weapons, it could
> >be easily conquered.

> How?

> >It's true that after all its big cities were nuked, one couldn't steal its
> >factories or technology. But there would still be all that farmland,
> >and all those mineral resources.

> What mineral resources? Seems to have escaped your notice that the US
> mines are mostly played out. And what good is radioactive farmland?

Why would more than only a small fraction of the farmland be radioactive
after thermonuclear weapons destroyed all of the major cities in the United
States?

Also, destroying all American cities was only an extreme outcome. If the
United States had no nuclear weapons, then given that Russia could destroy
its cities at will, one presumes Americans would rather live than die, and so
the country would surrender without a fight.

Of course, no doubt there would be small groups of armed resistance
fighters - but their activities would presumably be met with massive reprisals.

John Savard

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:08:43 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> Could that be his actual objective--nuke Kiev and see if he gets away
> with it, as a prelude to further nuclear diplomacy?

He has already gotten away with killing people in Ukraine. *How* he
does it is a trifle in comparison. So I doubt if that is a significant
objective. As a possible response to a very determined resistance in
Ukraine which is difficult to deal with otherwise, on the other hand,
it is at least possible, but I doubt it; the forces are available to devastate
Kyiv already.

John Savard

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:32:59 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 21:34:04 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> ><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>news:hvkj1hhlhl7kj3d1m...@4ax.com:

> >>> If you're looking to the US to defend liberty you're in the
> >>> wrong shop. We're more of a police state than Russia ever was.

> >OK so please go into the US Code and tell us what article you consider
> >analogous to Stalin's article 58 which has about 10-20 clauses under
> >which 90+% of Gulag inmates were "convicted".
>
> >Exact paragraph please.

> Why? What leads you to believe that a few words on some piece of
> paper are what make one country a police state and another country
> "free"?

> The American "justice system" can generally find a way to lock up
> anybody it wants locked up. That they do it using a different
> combination of statutes and precedents and procedurs than did the
> Soviet Union doesn't alter the fact.

Even if that were true, it seems as though the United States federal government
is not going around locking up lots of people to suppress dissent or for other
harmful purposes.

To the extent that the United States _does_ fall short of democratic norms, it
is usually due to the activities of some of its *state* governments, and those are
usually directed against African-Americans, although sometimes out-of-state
motorists of any color are also targets.

But nothing remotely approaching the climate of fear in Stalin's Russia has
existed in the United States at any recent time. Not to mention the Holodomor.

If you go far enough back, of course, there is the Trail of Tears, but using
distant history to interfere with the ability of the democratic United States
of today to fight against present-day tyrannies is hardly constructive.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:b4061d71-4fd9-4c6a-b0cf-7fe8c15d30c5n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:48:39 AM UTC-7, Robert Woodward
> wrote:
>
>> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific
>> American is frequently wrong when discussing military affairs
>> (this included stupid statements about the Battle of Cape St.
>> Vincent in an article about c. 1800 warship construction).
>
> Back after the fall of the Soviet Union, a column in Scientific
> American actually recommended against getting all of Russia's
> scientists and engineers to leave the economic collapse there
> and move to the U.S..
>
> This was terrible advice, because, of course, as it turned out,
> democracy didn't remain permanently in effect in Russia. If they
> didn't have any scientists or engineers, it would have been
> harder for them to keep their nuclear weapons in order.
>
We don't really know that they *have* kept their nuclear weapons in
order. And based on declassified files after the fall of the USSR,
it's not entirely clear how in order they were *were*.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
> >> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> >>
> >> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
> >> >
> >> > >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
> >> > >>NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
> >> > >>approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
> >> > >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
> >> > >>the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
> >> > >>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
> >> > >
> >> > >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
> >> > >is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
> >> > >defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.
> >> >
> >> > The key word is "drag".
> >> >
> >> > " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force than when
> >> > it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach 20 faces 400 times
> >> > the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
> >> >
> >> > "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times faster than
> >> > at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose energy 8,000 times faster."
> >> >
> >> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag coefficient
> >> involved in the drag equation. It is relatively low at subsonic speeds,
> >> increases rapidly (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and
> >> decreases at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher than
> >> the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
> >> drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at higher Mach
> >> numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at
> >> Mach 4, it is less than 25 times higher.
> >> > "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S. hypersonic weapons
> >> > tested in the past decade appear to have L/D values less than three.
> >> > Such low L/D ratios mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
> >> > the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
> >> > and increases surface heating."
> >> >
> >> > "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages
> >> > in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution.
> >> > Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And
> >> > yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
> >> > has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new
> >> > arms race and escalating the chances of conflict."
> >> >
> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-
> >> > weapons/
> >> >
> >> > A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral withdrawal from the
> >> > ABM treaty.
> >> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific American is
> >> frequently wrong when discussing military affairs (this included stupid
> >> statements about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
> >> 1800 warship construction).
> >
> >SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
> >
> >I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
> >This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
> >The Russians already have
> >a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
> >capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry conventional
> >or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic energy is equivalent to 2 tons
> >of TNT).
> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about which they
> are making outlandish claims. So how does it find its target through
> that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it "invisible" while lighting
> up half the universe? Just for openers.

They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range, so they've solved
the problem. How, I don't know.

> >For more scary stuff:
> >
> >Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise missile:
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
> >
> >Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
> Yeah, yeah, the Russians have no shortage of bad ideas.

Project Pluto was American.

Pt

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:05:12 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/5/2022 1:02 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 9:12:23 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:16:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> How you can make this about Trump is amazing. Trump has nothing to do
> >>>> with Ukraine at all. It is Biden's son Hunter who took millions of
> >>>> dollars in bribes in the kleptocracy known as Ukraine. And 10% for the
> >>>> Big Guy.
> >>> Exactly.
> >>>> BTW, Russia and Ukraine grow 29% of the wheat in the world. Do you like
> >>>> bread ? Get ready to pay $10 for loaf of bread.
> >>> And even if you could get bread you wouldn't have to turn on the
> >>> kitchen lights as you could see the bread glowing in the dark!
> >> We grow a lot of wheat, rye, etc here in the States. During the
> >> pandemic I learned how to make my mother's soda bread.
> >> It tastes way better than the generic wheat bread I buy at the
> >> local Aldi.
> >>
> >> I used to live within walking distance of a great bakery that sells
> >> great bread that I suppose would be called "artisanal." "Real bread"
> >> would be my term for it. Loaves there are between $6 -$10 each.
> >> I used to have to freeze half, because they didn't have preservatives
> >> in them, and would go bad before I could eat half of one.
> >>
> >> I may "practice bake" this weekend, before I make some soda
> >> bread for the 17th.
> >
> > Seeing as the US exports about 7 times as much grain as it imports,
> > I'm not too worried.
> >
> > Pt
>
> Is that a recent number ? I was thinking that the wheat crop in the USA
> had fallen recently.
>
> Of course, with the supposed global warming, several areas of the USA
> (Kansas !) now get a third cutting of the wheat right before winter starts.

Yes it's recent. ...and yes, it's down a bit.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/237902/us-wheat-imports-and-exports-since-2000/

Pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e0bdb3eb-4b0e-4f5f-857b-eaf5a9627154n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
>> >> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST),
>> >> > >"peterw...@hotmail.com"
>> >> >
>> >> > >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic
>> >> > >>lift-to-drag ratio? NASA has flown experimental
>> >> > >>scramjets in that speed range. Another approach would be
>> >> > >>to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>> >> > >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a
>> >> > >>lot written about the proposed "wave rider" advanced
>> >> > >>re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps an L/D ratio of
>> >> > >>somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a
>> >> > >target" then what is the point of making it hypersonic in
>> >> > >the first place? Most of the defenses that it needs to
>> >> > >defeat are near the target.
>> >> >
>> >> > The key word is "drag".
>> >> >
>> >> > " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force
>> >> > than when it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach
>> >> > 20 faces 400 times the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
>> >> >
>> >> > "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times
>> >> > faster than at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose
>> >> > energy 8,000 times faster."
>> >> >
>> >> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag
>> >> coefficient involved in the drag equation. It is relatively
>> >> low at subsonic speeds, increases rapidly (starting at Mach
>> >> .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and decreases at higher Mach
>> >> numbers (but is still significantly higher than the subsonic
>> >> number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
>> >> drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at
>> >> higher Mach numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is
>> >> higher at Mach 20 than at Mach 4, it is less than 25 times
>> >> higher.
>> >> > "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S.
>> >> > hypersonic weapons tested in the past decade appear to
>> >> > have L/D values less than three. Such low L/D ratios mean
>> >> > low lift and high drag\u2014which limits the speed and
>> >> > range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
>> >> > and increases surface heating."
>> >> >
>> >> > "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have
>> >> > advantages in certain scenarios, but by no means do they
>> >> > constitute a revolution. Many of the claims about them are
>> >> > exaggerated or simply false. And yet the widespread
>> >> > perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
>> >> > has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China,
>> >> > driving a new arms race and escalating the chances of
>> >> > conflict."
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-
>> >> > hype-of-hypersonic- weapons/
>> >> >
>> >> > A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral
>> >> > withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
>> >> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific
>> >> American is frequently wrong when discussing military
>> >> affairs (this included stupid statements about the Battle of
>> >> Cape St. Vincent in an article about c. 1800 warship
>> >> construction).
>> >
>> >SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
>> >
>> >I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
>> >This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
>> >The Russians already have
>> >a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
>> >capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry
>> >conventional or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic energy
>> >is equivalent to 2 tons of TNT).
>> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about
>> which they are making outlandish claims. So how does it find
>> its target through that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it
>> "invisible" while lighting up half the universe? Just for
>> openers.
>
> They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range

Well, they say they are.

>, so they've
> solved the problem. How, I don't know.

And perhaps they don't know, either.
>
>> >For more scary stuff:
>> >
>> >Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise
>> >missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
>> >
>> >Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
>> Yeah, yeah, the Russians have no shortage of bad ideas.
>
> Project Pluto was American.
>
No stupider than Project Oilsand.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 3/7/2022 5:29 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e0bdb3eb-4b0e-4f5f-857b-eaf5a9627154n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>>> "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic
>>>>>>>> lift-to-drag ratio? NASA has flown experimental
>>>>>>>> scramjets in that speed range. Another approach would be
>>>>>>>> to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
>>>>>>>> the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a
>>>>>>>> lot written about the proposed "wave rider" advanced
>>>>>>>> re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps an L/D ratio of
>>>>>>>> somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a
>>>>>>> target" then what is the point of making it hypersonic in
>>>>>>> the first place? Most of the defenses that it needs to
>>>>>>> defeat are near the target.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key word is "drag".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force
>>>>>> than when it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach
>>>>>> 20 faces 400 times the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times
>>>>>> faster than at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose
>>>>>> energy 8,000 times faster."
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag
>>>>> coefficient involved in the drag equation. It is relatively
>>>>> low at subsonic speeds, increases rapidly (starting at Mach
>>>>> .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and decreases at higher Mach
>>>>> numbers (but is still significantly higher than the subsonic
>>>>> number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
>>>>> drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at
>>>>> higher Mach numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is
>>>>> higher at Mach 20 than at Mach 4, it is less than 25 times
>>>>> higher.
>>>>>> "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S.
>>>>>> hypersonic weapons tested in the past decade appear to
>>>>>> have L/D values less than three. Such low L/D ratios mean
>>>>>> low lift and high drag\u2014which limits the speed and
>>>>>> range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
>>>>>> and increases surface heating."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have
>>>>>> advantages in certain scenarios, but by no means do they
>>>>>> constitute a revolution. Many of the claims about them are
>>>>>> exaggerated or simply false. And yet the widespread
>>>>>> perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
>>>>>> has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China,
>>>>>> driving a new arms race and escalating the chances of
>>>>>> conflict."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-
>>>>>> hype-of-hypersonic- weapons/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral
>>>>>> withdrawal from the ABM treaty.
>>>>> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific
>>>>> American is frequently wrong when discussing military
>>>>> affairs (this included stupid statements about the Battle of
>>>>> Cape St. Vincent in an article about c. 1800 warship
>>>>> construction).
>>>>
>>>> SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
>>>> This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
>>>> The Russians already have
>>>> a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
>>>> capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry
>>>> conventional or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic energy
>>>> is equivalent to 2 tons of TNT).
>>> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about
>>> which they are making outlandish claims. So how does it find
>>> its target through that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it
>>> "invisible" while lighting up half the universe? Just for
>>> openers.
>>
>> They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range
>
> Well, they say they are.
>
>> , so they've
>> solved the problem. How, I don't know.
>
> And perhaps they don't know, either.
>>
>>>> For more scary stuff:
>>>>
>>>> Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise
>>>> missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
>>>>
>>>> Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
>>> Yeah, yeah, the Russians have no shortage of bad ideas.
>>
>> Project Pluto was American.
>>
> No stupider than Project Oilsand.

Just bring a Geiger counter to the gas pump.

Lynn

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 8:36:33 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:49:13 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:02:26 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:48:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> >> In article <tnpVJ.46115$mF2....@fx11.iad>,
> >> >> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:00:11 -0800 (PST), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >>Are there any estimates of the missiles' hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio?
> >> >> > >>NASA has flown experimental scramjets in that speed range. Another
> >> >> > >>approach would be to extrapolate from the observed trajectories of
> >> >> > >>the space shuttle during re-entry. There has also been a lot written about
> >> >> > >>the proposed "wave rider" advanced re-entry vehicle. At a guess, perhaps
> >> >> > >>an L/D ratio of somewhere 3/1 and 5/1.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >If it "slows down in the final phase of attacking a target" then what
> >> >> > >is the point of making it hypersonic in the first place? Most of the
> >> >> > >defenses that it needs to defeat are near the target.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The key word is "drag".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > " glider at Mach 5 is subjected to 25 times the drag force than when
> >> >> > it flies at Mach 1, for example, and one at Mach 20 faces 400 times
> >> >> > the drag of when it is at Mach 1."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "So a glider flying at Mach 5 will lose energy 125 times faster than
> >> >> > at Mach 1; one flying at Mach 20 will lose energy 8,000 times faster."
> >> >> >
> >> >> This is at best an excessive simplification. There is a drag coefficient
> >> >> involved in the drag equation. It is relatively low at subsonic speeds,
> >> >> increases rapidly (starting at Mach .7?) to a spike at Mach 1 and
> >> >> decreases at higher Mach numbers (but is still significantly higher than
> >> >> the subsonic number even at Mach 20). Also, the drag includes induced
> >> >> drag (proportional to the lift) which is less important at higher Mach
> >> >> numbers. Thus, while the drag on a vehicle is higher at Mach 20 than at
> >> >> Mach 4, it is less than 25 times higher.
> >> >> > "Yet after decades of research and development, U.S. hypersonic weapons
> >> >> > tested in the past decade appear to have L/D values less than three.
> >> >> > Such low L/D ratios mean low lift and high drag\u2014which limits
> >> >> > the speed and range of a hypersonic glider, reduces its maneuverability
> >> >> > and increases surface heating."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Our studies indicate that hypersonic weapons may have advantages
> >> >> > in certain scenarios, but by no means do they constitute a revolution.
> >> >> > Many of the claims about them are exaggerated or simply false. And
> >> >> > yet the widespread perception that hypersonic weapons are a game-changer
> >> >> > has increased tensions among the U.S., Russia and China, driving a new
> >> >> > arms race and escalating the chances of conflict."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-
> >> >> > weapons/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A good overview of the consequences of GWB's unilateral withdrawal from the
> >> >> > ABM treaty.
> >> >> It has been my experience over the years that the Scientific American is
> >> >> frequently wrong when discussing military affairs (this included stupid
> >> >> statements about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in an article about c.
> >> >> 1800 warship construction).
> >> >
> >> >SciAm has fallen far from its zenith in the early 70s.
> >> >
> >> >I'll bring a note of reality to this discussion.
> >> >This isnt theoretical, or just under development.
> >> >The Russians already have
> >> >a hypersonic cruise missile in service, the 3M22 Zircon:
> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
> >> >capable of Mach 8-9, about 1000 km range. It can carry conventional
> >> >or nuclear payloads (and just its kinetic energy is equivalent to 2 tons
> >> >of TNT).
> >> So basically the Russians managed to test some object about which they
> >> are making outlandish claims. So how does it find its target through
> >> that "plasma sheath" that somehow makes it "invisible" while lighting
> >> up half the universe? Just for openers.
> >
> >They are hitting targets at hundreds of miles range, so they've solved
> >the problem. How, I don't know.
> Most likely by attacking stationary targets with known positions that
> can be reached with inertial guidance.

So, you're saying the Russians are developing and fielding at vast
expense, a weapon that is actually useless? I don't like their
ideology, but they're not that dumb.

For example, perhaps the 'plasma sheath' is only seriously dense
when viewed from the front.

> >> >For more scary stuff:
> >> >
> >> >Nuclear powered, unlimited duration, very dirty cruise missile:
> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
> >> >
> >> >Compare to Project Pluto, 60 years earlier
> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
> >> Yeah, yeah, the Russians have no shortage of bad ideas.
> >
> >Project Pluto was American.
> And it was a bad idea which is why it was not put into production. The
> Russians having the same idea doesn't make it any better.

It's a good idea, but only in a situation where you don't want the
other side to ever be able to recover; an Armageddon scenario. Otherwise
it's useless.

Pt

In article <63afccad-8e1d-4065-990e-d2065a74fa57n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:43:24 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > And, since Trump is a Putin sock puppet, those calling Putin "fascist"
> > are saying the Republican Party is /still/ the Party of Hitler. But I
> > am not.
>
> Putin's the Hitler. Trump is only the Mussolini. Or maybe even the Franco.
>
> Trump as Franco - that would be a plus. That would mean that while Xi and
> Putin were carving up the world, the U.S. would actually decline to invade
> Canada.
>

I will point out that Franco died in bed as the ruler of Spain 30 years
after the end of WWII. He was a lot smarter than Mussolini (probably
less ambitious, but perhaps he recognized his limits).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com