Originally posted by mbkennel
The physics that we understand it today is different from what it was 100 years ago, but it is a refinement of physics from 50 years ago.
And as the article points out the weapons, well the weapons i am trying to discuss, were already in testing or in use 50 years ago and the physics
they are based on is thus rather older than a century. Contrary to popular belief 'scientific' breakthrough more often than not has nothing to do
with 'breaking through' as much as it has to , over decades, batter down the unscientific notions of it's era. My reading strongly suggest that
breakthroughs are the exception and that our scientific knowledge normally progresses at about the rate at which the defenders of the current
paradigms die of old age or are otherwise replaced in their positions of power.
OK, maybe I"ll be more clear. The USA deployed all technology that it could other than nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Far from it. There are vast areas of technology that have simply not been introduced to use in the US military, and other armed forces, as it would be
either tremendously expensive, would not yield much profit for the military industrial complex in question or would undermine the force structure
itself . Do you know that the large majority of soldiers serving in harms ways in Iraq and Afghanistan went there with personal protective
wear&technology dating from the Vietnam era? This may not seem like a big deal given the fascination American military enthusiasts have with large
bombs but the current US armed forces is as conservative as such forces normally is with no great hint of high tech thought or high tech means;
battlefields today resemble those of the second world war mostly because the conceptual basis is exactly the same.
If there were some magic superphysics I'd expect it to be used.
How? Against who? How should one employ weapons that can change the weather or set of earthquakes against Iraq or Afghanistan? And why do you use the
word super thereby presuming that there is anything but physics that is not yet understood by humanity or by most of it?
Is there any evidence this is something other than guided rockets with nuclear warheads?
In 1960, especially for somebody who wasn't that smart like Kruschchev, these were hitherto unknown to man.
The question of nuclear tipped ICBM's were an engineering one ever since the Germans started raining rockets on London back in 44' and the US
dropped the bombs on Japan a year later. Admittedly that is not the greatest span of time but it's going on a generation of scientist and rather
enough time for the Soviet academy of sciences to be able to inform the premier about what was to be regarded as scientific breakthroughs and what was
not. Admittedly this was the time when the USSR were fast moving to try offset America's strategic dominance by trying to build up their ICBM forces
so you're analysis is how that speech is commonly understood.
I just believe that it's not the full story and that he was in fact being led to believe, by advisers, that the USSR were on the verge of being able
to deploy a new class of weaponry.
Stellar
