09 Mar 2022, 4:10 pm
magz wrote:
If anyone, Musk is the one most likely to name his next rocket engine "Broomstick", just to p!ss off Roscosmos CEO 
It's true that Roscosmos is bitter about the success of SpaceX. Before SpaceX came along Roscosmos kept the dominant position in the world for commercial satellite launches due to the relatively low cost of rockets and high reliability, and with arrival of SpaceX they've lost the lion's share of launches. Roscosmos has not developed reusable craft and have scrapped plans for the next generation of commercial rockets as SpaceX has significantly undercut them in cost.
09 Mar 2022, 5:08 pm
09 Mar 2022, 5:29 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
10 Mar 2022, 1:07 pm
Can’t someone just use the rod of God to take out whatever bunker putin is hiding in and then blame it on alien intervention? 
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
10 Mar 2022, 1:20 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
Can’t someone just use the rod of God to take out whatever bunker putin is hiding in and then blame it on alien intervention?
It someone possesses orbtillery, perhaps.
10 Mar 2022, 1:45 pm
10 Mar 2022, 2:06 pm
10 Mar 2022, 2:17 pm
10 Mar 2022, 2:23 pm
10 Mar 2022, 2:39 pm
kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
Speaking of those "rods from God", this comes to mind,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ped-172663
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ped-172663
um, nationalinterest has never heard of DU?
Quote:
Depleted uranium is (almost) as dense as tungsten and has an added advantage - from a military perspective - that it burns at the extreme temperatures generated as you punch your way through steel tank armour.
10 Mar 2022, 3:33 pm
The_Znof wrote:
um, nationalinterest has never heard of DU?
I think you might find it much more fullfilling to ask them what they've heard of instead of asking me.
Even so, I will wager they are aware of this type of thing as published in the Vermont Law Review in 2016, Vol 41 page 405
THE LATEST NUCLEAR WAR: DOES THE USE OF
DEPLETED URANIUM ARMAMENTS AND ARMORS
CONSTITUTE A WAR CRIME?
Andrew Womack*†
(Spelling counts! Do make a note not to confuse author Andrew Womack a Juris Doctor at Vermont Law School with a preacher named Andrew Wommack)
I'm going to highlight 2 sections of it,
Quote:
As discussed above, scientists and military personnel alike have
debated the advantages of depleted uranium armaments.119 According to the
address given by Mr. Sheehan-Miles,
the government tends to overstate
these armaments’ effectiveness,120 which is likely fueled by the
government’s base desire to maintain cheap waste disposal. The present
uncertainties surrounding the concrete military advantages gained by using
depleted uranium weapons should serve to dissuade militaries from using
such weapons. The risk of harming both civilian and veteran populations
should be enough to have an international ban on depleted uranium’s use.
By invoking the principle of proportionality, governments planning
these attacks would be forced to actively minimize the risks to civilians and
civilian objects.121 Article 57(2)(a)(ii) of Protocol I further elucidates that
these militaries must, “take all feasible precautions in the choice of means
and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to
minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to
civilian objects.”122 Therefore, the principal of proportionality would work
to reduce collateral damage by determining its proportion to the intended
military objective.123 The military could argue that using depleted uranium
creates more efficient weapons and saves soldiers’ lives; however, that
argument is subject to debate.124
debated the advantages of depleted uranium armaments.119 According to the
address given by Mr. Sheehan-Miles,
the government tends to overstatethese armaments’ effectiveness,120 which is likely fueled by the
government’s base desire to maintain cheap waste disposal. The present
uncertainties surrounding the concrete military advantages gained by using
depleted uranium weapons should serve to dissuade militaries from using
such weapons. The risk of harming both civilian and veteran populations
should be enough to have an international ban on depleted uranium’s use.
By invoking the principle of proportionality, governments planning
these attacks would be forced to actively minimize the risks to civilians and
civilian objects.121 Article 57(2)(a)(ii) of Protocol I further elucidates that
these militaries must, “take all feasible precautions in the choice of means
and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to
minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to
civilian objects.”122 Therefore, the principal of proportionality would work
to reduce collateral damage by determining its proportion to the intended
military objective.123 The military could argue that using depleted uranium
creates more efficient weapons and saves soldiers’ lives; however, that
argument is subject to debate.124
Quote:
The argument may also be that depleted uranium weapons are simply
more effective, yet the accounts of Mr. Sheehan-Miles explain that tungsten
rounds were the major workhorses of the U.S. military.125 Evidence
presented by the numerous sources describing the horror that depleted
uranium exposure causes contradicts both of these arguments. As Judge
Higgins explains in her dissent to the Nuclear Advisory Opinion, “[t]hus
even a legitimate target may not be attacked if the collateral civilian
casualties would be disproportionate to the specific military gain from the
attack.”126 Taken in conjunction with the account of Sheehan-Miles,127 the
more important objective of the military attack should be to avoid civilian
casualties while directing the attack toward concrete military targets.
The fourth element is also the source of debate between humanitarian
and human rights efforts and the militaries employing these weapons. As
the U.S. argues, these weapons are used because they are more effective,
and therefore they save lives.161 However, as Sheehan-Miles discussed, the
military conducted the majority of anti-tank operations effectively by the
use of tungsten rounds.162 Weapons without depleted uranium were equally
effective tools at defeating the enemy. There is no quantifiable evidence
that suggests depleted uranium munitions provide a significant advantage
during war operations.
more effective, yet the accounts of Mr. Sheehan-Miles explain that tungsten
rounds were the major workhorses of the U.S. military.125 Evidence
presented by the numerous sources describing the horror that depleted
uranium exposure causes contradicts both of these arguments. As Judge
Higgins explains in her dissent to the Nuclear Advisory Opinion, “[t]hus
even a legitimate target may not be attacked if the collateral civilian
casualties would be disproportionate to the specific military gain from the
attack.”126 Taken in conjunction with the account of Sheehan-Miles,127 the
more important objective of the military attack should be to avoid civilian
casualties while directing the attack toward concrete military targets.
The fourth element is also the source of debate between humanitarian
and human rights efforts and the militaries employing these weapons. As
the U.S. argues, these weapons are used because they are more effective,
and therefore they save lives.161 However, as Sheehan-Miles discussed, the
military conducted the majority of anti-tank operations effectively by the
use of tungsten rounds.162 Weapons without depleted uranium were equally
effective tools at defeating the enemy. There is no quantifiable evidence
that suggests depleted uranium munitions provide a significant advantage
during war operations.
10 Mar 2022, 4:47 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
11 Mar 2022, 11:06 am
Fixxer wrote:
It’s ok tu support Ukraine, but cancelling russia is another thing. Putin is trying to take down the deep state ruling over since the plandemic started. The Bidens did a lot of money because there is lots of corruption over there. Don’t forget that the media created a lot of division in this world and is still portraying a world of chaos and fear, while the media is known for creating chaos and creating gossips and telling you how to think. Anyway, Russia vs. Nuke rain.
Evidence and sources cited that prove any portion of the bolded sentence is true?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
11 Mar 2022, 11:41 am
goldfish21 wrote:
Fixxer wrote:
It’s ok tu support Ukraine, but cancelling russia is another thing. Putin is trying to take down the deep state ruling over since the plandemic started. The Bidens did a lot of money because there is lots of corruption over there. Don’t forget that the media created a lot of division in this world and is still portraying a world of chaos and fear, while the media is known for creating chaos and creating gossips and telling you how to think. Anyway, Russia vs. Nuke rain.
Evidence and sources cited that prove any portion of the bolded sentence is true?
I think you've got to be a level 3 Q-bro to read those threads on Pedochan or wherever they spread their guano these days.
11 Mar 2022, 11:57 am
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
11 Mar 2022, 12:26 pm
