USAF commercial mentions starships

a reply to: mbkennel

Now a days.

I think the point is to make the other guy think you have one.

Then he has to scramble and try to figure out exactly what you have.

a reply to: mbkennel

Been thinking about that very question in light of other threads going on.

If the mystery space sci-if program is a doomsday device, I as the owner would want some whisper of its existence to get out. No details, and I'd undersell its abilities, but advertise just enough to make the other guy sweat.

On the other hand, if it was to be a new source of resources, scientific discovery and exploration, I might want to keep all my nifty toys to myself for as long as possible. Or at least until I have such an advantage that it doesn't matter who knows my capabilities.

Just random thoughts.

a reply to: shagg

Why do you think russia is acting up right now for? They have caught wind of some of the advancements.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well except for the OMFG class boats.

I was always partial to the General Dynamics FS-1...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There's another thread about this, and I'll say the same thing here. If you sit down and really think about it, the Air Force is a bad choice for starships.

Totally agree,,
Should be the Navy..

originally posted by: darrman

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There's another thread about this, and I'll say the same thing here. If you sit down and really think about it, the Air Force is a bad choice for starships.

Totally agree,,
Should be the Navy..

So the ships will be full of space seamen eh? no need for captain kirk.

a reply to: yuppa

Nope. Kirk still needed to get rid of klingons on the starboard bow

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess if it's land-able and capable of atmospheric flight it technically wouldn't be "space based", right, if we're talking about a weaponized platform? Do you know what the treaty has to say on it? Perhaps that is a sneaky workaround.

a reply to: engineercutout

No space based weapons. As far as I know it doesn't say anything about weapons that take off and come back down.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: engineercutout

No space based weapons. As far as I know it doesn't say anything about weapons that take off and come back down.

Like say a LASER weapon that can vaporize a man reading a paper in a back yard? WIth a laser that has the power of over a quad?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: engineercutout

No space based weapons. As far as I know it doesn't say anything about weapons that take off and come back down.

Lawyering up?

I think the functional distinction is clear: is the decision to launch an attack initiated with the weapon on already on station in space, or not?

That's what space-based means in the usual sense of land-based or Guam-based or whatever.

So ICBM is clearly not covered. A bomber orbiting in space on station is.

a reply to: mbkennel

What if the bomber can come down once a week? But spends most of it's time up in orbit? Is that the same thing as "already on station" since it can change stations in orbit? Like have it hover over Moscow for 12 hours then Beijing then crapministan etc??? Never "on station" just up there somewhere until it comes down once weekly so as to not violate laws. Would that be legal?

a reply to: mbkennel

Actually, IIRC, the technical treaty prevents nuclear and similar type weapons in orbit. It doesn't prevent orbital bombardment systems or other weapons.

a reply to: Zaphod58

excellent!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: engineercutout

No space based weapons. As far as I know it doesn't say anything about weapons that take off and come back down.

It also doesn't prohibit the PLACEMENT of any conventional weapon into orbit. Just no testing. We have leveraged this particular loophole.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

Actually, IIRC, the technical treaty prevents nuclear and similar type weapons in orbit. It doesn't prevent orbital bombardment systems or other weapons.

Define "Similar" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Would that cover what I think it does too?

a reply to: howmuch4another

They left a LOT of wiggle room in that treaty when they wrote it. No nuclear weapons. You can have a kinetic bombardment system, but nuclear weapons are bad, mmkay.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Technically. Realistically, not so much.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So it kinda sorta doesn't.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Wiggle room. There's enough in that treaty to drive my truck sideways through.