Comments by "Paul Frederick" (@1pcfred) on "Hoe kan je een kernraket stoppen?" video.

  1. At least that would end all the space exploration lunacy. As the debris would stop us from ever getting into space again. See Kessler syndrome.
    2
  2. AKlover precisely how long do you think SpaceX would last without government contracts? Let me count the microseconds. Musk is the prince of parasites at the moment.
    2
  3. One of my cousins was present when they tested the Sprint. I asked him, Did they let you light the fuse?
    2
  4. If there is one thing manned exploration has taught us it is that humans are not worth the fuel it costs us to boost them out of this planet's gravity well. But if people want to spend their own personal fortunes pursuing that, and proving me wrong in the process, then I'm all for it.
    1
  5. AKlover the lesser of two evils argument does not gain traction with me. As lesser evils remain evil themselves. I look at NASA as the carrot we use on scientists. Be really good in the military industrial complex and we may just let you go to NASA. So I can see valuable returns there. Smart people can be remarkably gullible at times.
    1
  6. So if as you claim the best and the brightest do not work for the government how do you explain how we developed nuclear weapons, and our space program? This Internet you're on right now was a DARPA project too, you know?
    1
  7. Nazis Schmatzis. All of those fears turned out to be unfounded. Germany did not have the resources to run a job like the Manhattan Project anyways. America barely did. We had to break into our own mint for silver to wind the Cyclotrons with. At one point we were using 10% of the nations electrical generation capacity to separate Uranium. In todays dollars the Manhattan Project cost something like 1.2 trillion. The scope of it was colossal. Heisenberg's heart wasn't into developing a bomb for the Nazis either. He told them it was impossible, and it stayed at that. The efforts we uncovered after the war were paltry and would have never lead to anything. I doubt the Germans could have pulled it off if we gave them an instruction manual. It would have been a good way to win the war though if they diverted enough resources to pursuing it they wouldn't have been able to do anything else. They would have chased a Will 'O the Wisp to defeat.
    1
  8. You're getting a plus one just for the V-2 footage alone.
    1
  9. It is not nearly as crazy as launching a major war of conquest every generation. These days there's no Hitlers, or Napoleons, Ghengis Khans, Alexanders, or Caesars running around thinking they can conquer the world anymore. Those days are over.
    1
  10. +Strange Faction Why would the US ever enter into an ABMT in the first place? We'd stand to lose, and gain nothing. I thought it was our standing policy since Reagan's administration to never compromise on Anti-missile technology. Being as we have no competition in that arena anyways. No other country could hope to produce the systems that we do.
    1
  11. electronics can be pretty hardy hardware. In WW2 we developed a VT proximity shell that used vacuum tubes. They were artillery shells that we shot out of cannons. Now shells withstand very high G forces when fired.
    1
  12. See, that's why our strike capability is sub based. Can't be knocked out. So retaliation is assured.
    1
  13. Although you forgot how his name is spelt. Reagan.
    1
  14. Yeah the US has invested a sizable amount into weaponizing lasers. We are the world's leaders in that technology. Though the details of our actual capabilities there I don't know. I know their ultimate goal is to be able to put weapon grade lasers into fighter planes. Because that is awesome sauce.
    1
  15. Well only one country has ABM kinetic technology. That's the USA. We started working on it when Reagan was in office over 30 years ago. Now you know why we never sent anyone back to the Moon. We've been a bit busy working on more terrestrial problems since then.
    1
  16. 2.2 million VC lives were lost in Vietnam too. Let us not lose sight of the fact that while we were engaged we were not defeated. We had the planes to lose. The ONLY reason the Soviets ever became involved with missile technology is because they knew they could never compete with the West when it came to bomber technology. For the advantage of starting first they had an initial lead. Which was quickly lost when the US invested more in missiles themselves. We are more advanced than they are. End of story.
    1
  17. We have lasers now.
    1
  18. Oh come off it. We already know we can. We just don't want to. I'll tell you what we do want though. We want things to say just like they are now. Because we like it that way. Everyone should just stay within their own borders and we'll all get along just fine.
    1
  19. Stef Gamble Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world before we invaded. They were destroyed in 100 hours. Which is likely the most impressive military victory in all time. So do not think any nation, or combination of nations on this planet could stand up to US military might. Because none can. In a conventional war the US could defeat the combined armies of the rest of the world several times over. What we lack is the will to do these things, for various reasons. Not the least of which is that it simply is not neighborly to conquer your neighbors. It is not US policy to expand by military adventure. We are in fact opposed to that idea. So it is our policy to fight against aggressor nations. Like we did in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. We are actually in a unique period in history right now. Where the dominant power in the world is not a conquering one. It is just not something we do, or even support. We go to war to fight against war. Which is why we have a Department of Defense, not War.
    1
  20. When we invaded Iraq possessed the 4th largest standing army on the planet. Of course when we left they had fallen a few places in rank. Their military was virtually non-existent at that point. We destroyed something on the order of 38,000 of their military vehicles. The Highway of Death, etc. We do not engage North Korea because regardless of the provocative moves they have made they are still right where we want them to be. Which is in North Korea. The moment they set foot south of the 38th parallel you'll see us act differently then. We do not possess forces on foreign soil without an invite by the hosting country either. Foreign countries love US bases on their soil. Why wouldn't they? For them it amounts to free defense. The absolute best that money can buy in fact. Heck they end up profiting by us having bases in their countries. But it is a win for us too. Having forces in place keeps things from flaring up around the globe. Troops stationed are always cheaper than troops in combat. All of you Europeans are playing nice nice together now. But that was not always the case. Twice we had to put you children back in your places. We're back to back World War champions!
    1
  21. What are you basing US descent on? We just added 3 trillion in value to our stock market recently. Winning https://www.thestreet.com/story/14020577/1/trump-touts-3-trillion-stock-market-rally-at-joint-congressional-address.html
    1
  22. Stupid Gamble if you make mistakes that is hardly our fault. Thanks for your comment BTW. Brought to us on our tatty Internet the US invented, from a tatty device we engineered. On a tatty website owned by an American company too, I should add. You must really like them tatty.
    1