On 12/31/2023 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 1:12:23 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:28:20 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2023 1:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:19:48 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:44:28 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 1:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:11:07 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 21:51:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:17:31 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Tommy's assertions that the tons of shipping sunk by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Germans caused the U..S. to declare war, well, I came across what
>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be German records of their submarines activity and from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first notation - 3 Sep 1939 until 11 Dec 1941 (U.S. declares war)
>>>>>>>>>>>> there were three U.S. registered ships listed as being sunk. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lehigh on 19 Oct 1941, the Astrai on 2 Dec 1941 and the Sagndahos on 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec 1941.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So,apparently, our registered dumb ass flaunts his ignorance yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. The order and sequence was:
>>>>>>>>>>> - Dec 07, 1941 Japan attacks at Pearl Harbor, Singapore, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Dec 11, 1941 US declares war on Japan, Germany and Italy.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Jan 1942 to Aug 1942 The 2nd "happy time" when Germany sunk 609
>>>>>>>>>>> ships totaling 3.1 million tons, losing only 22 submarines.
>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the various declaration of war ocurred prior to the
>>>>>>>>>>> massive sinkings. Some details:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also found some interesting discussion on this period at:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Why did Germany declare war on the US in WWII?"
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Germany-declare-war-on-the-US-in-WWII>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read over some of the posts at that site and the mentions of the
>>>>>>>>>> Japanese intents in the pacific are somewhat different the stated
>>>>>>>>>> intent made by various Japanese Navel officers. The attack on Pearl
>>>>>>>>>> Harbor was intended to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet thus giving
>>>>>>>>>> Japan pretty much a free hand in the Pacific but unfortunately for the
>>>>>>>>>> Japanese the three aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet were not in
>>>>>>>>>> harbor when the attack was made. Which proved disastrous in the battle
>>>>>>>>>> of Midway in June 1942.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the WWII participants realized that by 1940, battleships had
>>>>>>>>> become obsolete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obsolete?
>>>>>>>> Marines relied on those big guns before every landing all
>>>>>>>> across the Pacific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The US battlehips were being protected by carrier aircraft and didn't
>>>>>>> do anything that couldn't have been done by smaller ships, while the
>>>>>>> Japanese and German battleships spent the war running away and hiding
>>>>>>> from allied aircraft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as discussed recently, no single military device or
>>>>>> tactic can be dominant for very long or in all engagements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a place for 16 inchers and degrading emplacements
>>>>>> before a landing c.f. Normandy and Okinawa for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The pressure ratcheted up every day: in the final seven
>>>>>> days before fighting commenced on 1 April, US naval guns
>>>>>> fired more than 13,000 large-calibre shells on Okinawa’s
>>>>>> shore, destroying all known coast-defence guns."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://the-past.com/feature/the-fighting-forces-of-okinawa/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are heavy naval guns always dispositive? No, but Marines
>>>>>> came to like them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Battleships can be effective right up until enemy aircraft get to
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A very large number of our ships were hit by kamikazes or
>>>> dive bombers but our losses were mitigated by two factors.
>>>> Most US captains ran regular and rigorous fire drills and
>>>> our carriers purged AvGas lines with CO2 at the first call
>>>> for battle stations.
>>>>
>>>> Japanese captains felt fire drills were 'defeatist' and did
>>>> not train their crews, an often fatal difference.
>>>
>>> In WW2, more war ships were sunk by enemy aircraft than by enemy war
>>> ships. The battlehips and other big warships were vulnerable to
>>> aircraft unless they had friendly aircraft defending them.
>>>
>> The various theatres where quite different, yes the Pacific was very
>> carrier based for good reason, though note that was a big difference
>> between start of the war particularly the pacific with its air focus and
>> the end, for example HMS Prince of wales and Repulse compared to Yamato
>> which took multiple bomb and torpedo hits over best part of two hours.
>>
>> In the Atlantic/North sea/Mediterranean battleships where sunk by other
>> battleships, see Bismark and Scharnhorst or other uses for battleships such
>> as the battle of Narvik, where much HMS Warspite was used in the fiords,
>> against German destroyers.
>>
>> That’s not to say that battleships certainly being eclipsed by carriers but
>> situation dependent they could be very effective, a carrier is unlikely to
>> have been able to sink the Scharnhorst in the North Sea for example.
>>
>> Iowa class for example where reactivated partly to get numbers, but also a
>> fast heavily armoured ship with large calibre guns, still poses a threat ie
>> and has to keep the distance.
>>
>> Plus naval bombardment which they did for number of 20th century wars.
>>
>> Even with the Falklands war, the fact that the General Belgrano was older
>> gun cruiser and if she managed to slip away from HMS Conquerer with the
>> worsening weather grounding the planes she posed a real threat, being
>> larger armoured and carrying probably a larger broadside than the Royal
>> Navy task force.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
> Battleships had their place in time until the Aircraft Carrier came along and no armor no maater how thick can stand against rockets or earlier yet - Dive Bombers that could hit the weakest portions of a ship. Today. Aircraft Carriers are obsolete because they cannot defend themselves against satellite launched hypersonic missiles.

There are as yet no orbiting missiles and not likely soon.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 7:06:03 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/31/2023 4:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 1:12:23 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:28:20 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/29/2023 1:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:19:48 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/29/2023 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:44:28 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 1:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:11:07 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 21:51:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:17:31 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> (...)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As for Tommy's assertions that the tons of shipping sunk by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Germans caused the U..S. to declare war, well, I came across what
> >>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be German records of their submarines activity and from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first notation - 3 Sep 1939 until 11 Dec 1941 (U.S. declares war)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> there were three U.S. registered ships listed as being sunk. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lehigh on 19 Oct 1941, the Astrai on 2 Dec 1941 and the Sagndahos on 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dec 1941.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So,apparently, our registered dumb ass flaunts his ignorance yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>> again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. The order and sequence was:
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Dec 07, 1941 Japan attacks at Pearl Harbor, Singapore, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Dec 11, 1941 US declares war on Japan, Germany and Italy.
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Jan 1942 to Aug 1942 The 2nd "happy time" when Germany sunk 609
> >>>>>>>>>>> ships totaling 3.1 million tons, losing only 22 submarines.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the various declaration of war ocurred prior to the
> >>>>>>>>>>> massive sinkings. Some details:
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I also found some interesting discussion on this period at:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Why did Germany declare war on the US in WWII?"
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Germany-declare-war-on-the-US-in-WWII>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I read over some of the posts at that site and the mentions of the
> >>>>>>>>>> Japanese intents in the pacific are somewhat different the stated
> >>>>>>>>>> intent made by various Japanese Navel officers. The attack on Pearl
> >>>>>>>>>> Harbor was intended to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet thus giving
> >>>>>>>>>> Japan pretty much a free hand in the Pacific but unfortunately for the
> >>>>>>>>>> Japanese the three aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet were not in
> >>>>>>>>>> harbor when the attack was made. Which proved disastrous in the battle
> >>>>>>>>>> of Midway in June 1942.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> None of the WWII participants realized that by 1940, battleships had
> >>>>>>>>> become obsolete.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Obsolete?
> >>>>>>>> Marines relied on those big guns before every landing all
> >>>>>>>> across the Pacific.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The US battlehips were being protected by carrier aircraft and didn't
> >>>>>>> do anything that couldn't have been done by smaller ships, while the
> >>>>>>> Japanese and German battleships spent the war running away and hiding
> >>>>>>> from allied aircraft
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, as discussed recently, no single military device or
> >>>>>> tactic can be dominant for very long or in all engagements.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's a place for 16 inchers and degrading emplacements
> >>>>>> before a landing c.f. Normandy and Okinawa for example:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The pressure ratcheted up every day: in the final seven
> >>>>>> days before fighting commenced on 1 April, US naval guns
> >>>>>> fired more than 13,000 large-calibre shells on Okinawa’s
> >>>>>> shore, destroying all known coast-defence guns."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://the-past.com/feature/the-fighting-forces-of-okinawa/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are heavy naval guns always dispositive? No, but Marines
> >>>>>> came to like them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Battleships can be effective right up until enemy aircraft get to
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A very large number of our ships were hit by kamikazes or
> >>>> dive bombers but our losses were mitigated by two factors.
> >>>> Most US captains ran regular and rigorous fire drills and
> >>>> our carriers purged AvGas lines with CO2 at the first call
> >>>> for battle stations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Japanese captains felt fire drills were 'defeatist' and did
> >>>> not train their crews, an often fatal difference.
> >>>
> >>> In WW2, more war ships were sunk by enemy aircraft than by enemy war
> >>> ships. The battlehips and other big warships were vulnerable to
> >>> aircraft unless they had friendly aircraft defending them.
> >>>
> >> The various theatres where quite different, yes the Pacific was very
> >> carrier based for good reason, though note that was a big difference
> >> between start of the war particularly the pacific with its air focus and
> >> the end, for example HMS Prince of wales and Repulse compared to Yamato
> >> which took multiple bomb and torpedo hits over best part of two hours.
> >>
> >> In the Atlantic/North sea/Mediterranean battleships where sunk by other
> >> battleships, see Bismark and Scharnhorst or other uses for battleships such
> >> as the battle of Narvik, where much HMS Warspite was used in the fiords,
> >> against German destroyers.
> >>
> >> That’s not to say that battleships certainly being eclipsed by carriers but
> >> situation dependent they could be very effective, a carrier is unlikely to
> >> have been able to sink the Scharnhorst in the North Sea for example.
> >>
> >> Iowa class for example where reactivated partly to get numbers, but also a
> >> fast heavily armoured ship with large calibre guns, still poses a threat ie
> >> and has to keep the distance.
> >>
> >> Plus naval bombardment which they did for number of 20th century wars.
> >>
> >> Even with the Falklands war, the fact that the General Belgrano was older
> >> gun cruiser and if she managed to slip away from HMS Conquerer with the
> >> worsening weather grounding the planes she posed a real threat, being
> >> larger armoured and carrying probably a larger broadside than the Royal
> >> Navy task force.
> >>
> >> Roger Merriman
> > Battleships had their place in time until the Aircraft Carrier came along and no armor no maater how thick can stand against rockets or earlier yet - Dive Bombers that could hit the weakest portions of a ship. Today. Aircraft Carriers are obsolete because they cannot defend themselves against satellite launched hypersonic missiles.
>
> There are as yet no orbiting missiles and not likely soon.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I am quiie certqain that the US has them. Musk's largest rocket hsa put "unknown" and large satellites into orbit. China, in turn, claims to have them as well

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:03:44 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/31/2023 3:12 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:28:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2023 1:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:19:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:44:28 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 1:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:11:07 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 21:51:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:17:31 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Tommy's assertions that the tons of shipping sunk by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Germans caused the U..S. to declare war, well, I came across what
>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be German records of their submarines activity and from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first notation - 3 Sep 1939 until 11 Dec 1941 (U.S. declares war)
>>>>>>>>>>>> there were three U.S. registered ships listed as being sunk. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lehigh on 19 Oct 1941, the Astrai on 2 Dec 1941 and the Sagndahos on 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec 1941.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So,apparently, our registered dumb ass flaunts his ignorance yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. The order and sequence was:
>>>>>>>>>>> - Dec 07, 1941 Japan attacks at Pearl Harbor, Singapore, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Dec 11, 1941 US declares war on Japan, Germany and Italy.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Jan 1942 to Aug 1942 The 2nd "happy time" when Germany sunk 609
>>>>>>>>>>> ships totaling 3.1 million tons, losing only 22 submarines.
>>>>>>>>>>> Notice that the various declaration of war ocurred prior to the
>>>>>>>>>>> massive sinkings. Some details:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also found some interesting discussion on this period at:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Why did Germany declare war on the US in WWII?"
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Germany-declare-war-on-the-US-in-WWII>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read over some of the posts at that site and the mentions of the
>>>>>>>>>> Japanese intents in the pacific are somewhat different the stated
>>>>>>>>>> intent made by various Japanese Navel officers. The attack on Pearl
>>>>>>>>>> Harbor was intended to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet thus giving
>>>>>>>>>> Japan pretty much a free hand in the Pacific but unfortunately for the
>>>>>>>>>> Japanese the three aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet were not in
>>>>>>>>>> harbor when the attack was made. Which proved disastrous in the battle
>>>>>>>>>> of Midway in June 1942.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the WWII participants realized that by 1940, battleships had
>>>>>>>>> become obsolete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obsolete?
>>>>>>>> Marines relied on those big guns before every landing all
>>>>>>>> across the Pacific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The US battlehips were being protected by carrier aircraft and didn't
>>>>>>> do anything that couldn't have been done by smaller ships, while the
>>>>>>> Japanese and German battleships spent the war running away and hiding
>>>>>>> from allied aircraft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as discussed recently, no single military device or
>>>>>> tactic can be dominant for very long or in all engagements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a place for 16 inchers and degrading emplacements
>>>>>> before a landing c.f. Normandy and Okinawa for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The pressure ratcheted up every day: in the final seven
>>>>>> days before fighting commenced on 1 April, US naval guns
>>>>>> fired more than 13,000 large-calibre shells on Okinawa?s
>>>>>> shore, destroying all known coast-defence guns."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://the-past.com/feature/the-fighting-forces-of-okinawa/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are heavy naval guns always dispositive? No, but Marines
>>>>>> came to like them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Battleships can be effective right up until enemy aircraft get to
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A very large number of our ships were hit by kamikazes or
>>>> dive bombers but our losses were mitigated by two factors.
>>>> Most US captains ran regular and rigorous fire drills and
>>>> our carriers purged AvGas lines with CO2 at the first call
>>>> for battle stations.
>>>>
>>>> Japanese captains felt fire drills were 'defeatist' and did
>>>> not train their crews, an often fatal difference.
>>>
>>> In WW2, more war ships were sunk by enemy aircraft than by enemy war
>>> ships. The battlehips and other big warships were vulnerable to
>>> aircraft unless they had friendly aircraft defending them.
>>>
>>
>> The various theatres where quite different, yes the Pacific was very
>> carrier based for good reason, though note that was a big difference
>> between start of the war particularly the pacific with its air focus and
>> the end, for example HMS Prince of wales and Repulse compared to Yamato
>> which took multiple bomb and torpedo hits over best part of two hours.
>>
>> In the Atlantic/North sea/Mediterranean battleships where sunk by other
>> battleships, see Bismark and Scharnhorst or other uses for battleships such
>> as the battle of Narvik, where much HMS Warspite was used in the fiords,
>> against German destroyers.
>>
>> That’s not to say that battleships certainly being eclipsed by carriers but
>> situation dependent they could be very effective, a carrier is unlikely to
>> have been able to sink the Scharnhorst in the North Sea for example.
>>
>> Iowa class for example where reactivated partly to get numbers, but also a
>> fast heavily armoured ship with large calibre guns, still poses a threat ie
>> and has to keep the distance.
>>
>> Plus naval bombardment which they did for number of 20th century wars.
>>
>> Even with the Falklands war, the fact that the General Belgrano was older
>> gun cruiser and if she managed to slip away from HMS Conquerer with the
>> worsening weather grounding the planes she posed a real threat, being
>> larger armoured and carrying probably a larger broadside than the Royal
>> Navy task force.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
>Yes, thanks.
>Carriers and battleships are different tools for different
>situations and are countered differently.
>
>p.s. Happy new year!

The battleships were and still are magnificent ships, but like the
fighters and bombers of WWII and Korea, magnificence is not enough to
keep them from becoming the museum pieces that they are today. Long
live the WWII and Korean war museum pieces.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:05:59 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>There are as yet no orbiting missiles and not likely soon.

Unfortunately, there's no ban on conventional weapons in space.

"Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty>
"Key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty include prohibiting nuclear
weapons in space; limiting the use of the Moon and all other celestial
bodies to peaceful purposes..."

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/1/2024 3:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:05:59 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> There are as yet no orbiting missiles and not likely soon.
>
> Unfortunately, there's no ban on conventional weapons in space.
>
> "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
> Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
> Celestial Bodies"
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty>
> "Key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty include prohibiting nuclear
> weapons in space; limiting the use of the Moon and all other celestial
> bodies to peaceful purposes..."
>
>

My reply above was in response to Mr Kunich's "Aircraft
Carriers are obsolete because they cannot defend themselves
against satellite launched hypersonic missiles."

Yes, I agree the requisite technology exists and is possible
but it's (literally) a heavy lift and so far there aren't any.

Besides which, hypersonic weapons don't need to be
space-based. There's no significant advantage over
launch(es) from, say, the multitude of underground PLA
installations.

https://ausairpower.net/APA-2011-01.html
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 1:16:19 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/1/2024 3:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:05:59 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> There are as yet no orbiting missiles and not likely soon.
> >
> > Unfortunately, there's no ban on conventional weapons in space.
> >
> > "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
> > Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
> > Celestial Bodies"
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty>
> > "Key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty include prohibiting nuclear
> > weapons in space; limiting the use of the Moon and all other celestial
> > bodies to peaceful purposes..."
> >
> >
> My reply above was in response to Mr Kunich's "Aircraft
> Carriers are obsolete because they cannot defend themselves
> against satellite launched hypersonic missiles."
> Yes, I agree the requisite technology exists and is possible
> but it's (literally) a heavy lift and so far there aren't any.
>
> Besides which, hypersonic weapons don't need to be
> space-based. There's no significant advantage over
> launch(es) from, say, the multitude of underground PLA
> installations.
>
> https://ausairpower.net/APA-2011-01.html
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
https://www.space.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-x-37b-space-plane-launch-success
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/dec/29/us-military-x-37b-robot-spaceplane-spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-secret-mission
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-12-28/us-militarys-secretive-x-37b-spaceplane-ready-for-launch-to-higher-orbit

All of this is highly suggestive and China was talking about hypersonic missiles being unstopable. if you ever listen to one word that comes from that moron Liebermann that is wrong. He is incorrect 100% of the time.