twilight2000-digest Saturday, May 15 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 040 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Mine Clearing Foreign Phrases Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Foreign Phrases Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 17:59:19 +0100 From: "Mark OIiver" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing There was a device which I believe called the Bangalore Torpedo, at least by the British army. This comprised of a a length of pipe filled with explosive. You could join lengths of these pipes together. As they were rigid you could push them accross a minefield. When the pipe(s) exploded the idea was that they cleared a path for the infantry to follow. You see US infantry using one in "Saving Private Ryan". A very simple concept (get some drain pipe and fill it with explosives) that I'm sure would still be in use in the T2K world. - -----Original Message----- From: Dwight Looney To: T2K Mailing List Date: 15 May 1999 00:32 Subject: Mine Clearing >What's that thing big rope you shoot across a mine field called? I don't >remember if their was an infantry version or it was shot from a vehicle or >device. > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:08:03 +0100 From: "Mark OIiver" Subject: Foreign Phrases I've had an idea for a new section on my website (visitweb.com/twilight2000). I'd like a section on common phrases in various languages. To be able to suddenly shout "halt" or "who goes there" in polish at my players would be nice :) Well for me anyway, hopefully it might make them jump a little bit. So what I'm wondering is can anybody out there provide a few stock phrases in as many languages as possible? Thanks in advance, Regards, Mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 13:36:23 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases > I'd like a section on common phrases in various languages. To be able to > suddenly shout "halt" or "who goes there" in polish at my players would be > nice :) Well for me anyway, hopefully it might make them jump a little bit. > > So what I'm wondering is can anybody out there provide a few stock phrases > in as many languages as possible? There's a text translator on my source page from Alta Vista. I was working on the exact same thing, since I saw the T2K slang on Grimaces site. I just hadn't got around to posting yet. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:21:40 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 04:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >> > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and >> >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses >> >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack >> >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. >> > >> In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear payload >> (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? > > The only reason I can think of to want to be seen attacking is if you >want to lose an aircraft. Even if you're delivering nuclear weapons, >being shot down before delivering your weapons to the target seems like >a bad idea. If the enemy doesn't know you're coming, it's a lot easier >to drop bombs on target. > Okay, let me ask again. WHY would you want to use a bomber to drop a nuclear device, when you have perfectly good ICBM's which are just as accurate, cheaper, and harder to intercept? What's the point? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:22:05 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 04:09 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 08:58 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >> > SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who >> >felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. >> >> How did actual, as opposed to imaginary, people feel about it? >> > What, liberals don't exist? Where do you live anyway? > Both liberals and conservatives are actual people. > I'll stand on the original question. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 06:19:08 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 04:09 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> > >> At 08:58 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >> > >> > SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who > >> >felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. > >> > >> How did actual, as opposed to imaginary, people feel about it? > >> > > What, liberals don't exist? Where do you live anyway? > > Both liberals and conservatives are actual people. > > > I'll stand on the original question. > > Scott Orr If you don't know the difference then there's no point in answering. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 06:25:45 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 04:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> > >> At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >> > >> > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and > >> >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses > >> >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack > >> >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. > >> > > >> In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear payload > >> (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? > > > > The only reason I can think of to want to be seen attacking is if you > >want to lose an aircraft. Even if you're delivering nuclear weapons, > >being shot down before delivering your weapons to the target seems like > >a bad idea. If the enemy doesn't know you're coming, it's a lot easier > >to drop bombs on target. > > > Okay, let me ask again. WHY would you want to use a bomber to drop a > nuclear device, when you have perfectly good ICBM's which are just as > accurate, cheaper, and harder to intercept? What's the point? > > Scott Orr Sorry, but ICBM's are not just as accurate. Not that that makes much of a difference with nuclear weapons, but it is a difference. Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 15:25:02 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 04:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> >> >> At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >> >> >> >> > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and >> >> >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses >> >> >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack >> >> >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. >> >> > >> >> In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear payload >> >> (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? >> > >> > The only reason I can think of to want to be seen attacking is if you >> >want to lose an aircraft. Even if you're delivering nuclear weapons, >> >being shot down before delivering your weapons to the target seems like >> >a bad idea. If the enemy doesn't know you're coming, it's a lot easier >> >to drop bombs on target. >> > >> Okay, let me ask again. WHY would you want to use a bomber to drop a >> nuclear device, when you have perfectly good ICBM's which are just as >> accurate, cheaper, and harder to intercept? What's the point? >> >> Scott Orr > > Sorry, but ICBM's are not just as accurate. Yes, actually, they are, as long as you're dropping nuclear weapons: an aircraft can launch laser-guided bombs, of course, but not with nukes, since you have to be a lot closer to the target for that than you want to be with a nuke. And a B-52 firing cruise misiles would be more accurate than either (and avoid the necessity of having the aircraft penetrate enemy airspace). Assuming that there's a difference in accuracy, is the difference worth the extra cost of the B-2? >Not that that makes much >of a difference with nuclear weapons, but it is a difference. Well, no, it isn't a difference, unless your objective it to take out hardened targets, like command centers or missile silos. However, you only do a stupid thing like that if you're planning to "win" a nuclear war by taking out the enemy's nuclear weapons before than can be fired. In fact, the _only_ purpose of having the B-2 is to destroy enemy nuclear weapons before those weapons can fire. If this actually is workable, it's an _extremely_ destabilizing capability to have, because it puts the enemy in a "use it or lose it" situation with his nuclear weapons, prompting him perhaps to use them before he otherwise might. And unless this capbility works _perfectly_, it won't keep your country from getting hurt in nuclear war. Because of the above, many people would argue that the B-2 has no real use--in fact, you could even make the argument that having such weapons _reduces_ the country's security. [Note that the above remarks on nuclear escalation constitute Actual Twilight: 2000 Content.] > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. > And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. The flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of democracy. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 08:05:49 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: --stuff snipped that proves that you weren't really listening-- > > > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if > >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a > >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was > >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. > > > And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. No kidding? Really? This comment only proves that you have to go to extremes to find a reason to support your arguement. The > flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber > back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner > than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that > there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground > when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for > that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. > > So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the > B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take > over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees > with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of > democracy. > > Scott Orr It's your kind of thinking that brought us the all-missile fighter back in the 1960's. After all, missiles were the ultimate weapons, you didn't need guns. Care to take a guess at what happened to the all-missile fighter? John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 13:38:44 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Foreign Phrases Mark OIiver wrote: > I've had an idea for a new section on my website > (visitweb.com/twilight2000). > > I'd like a section on common phrases in various languages. To be able to > suddenly shout "halt" or "who goes there" in polish at my players would be > nice :) Well for me anyway, hopefully it might make them jump a little bit. > > So what I'm wondering is can anybody out there provide a few stock phrases > in as many languages as possible? > > Thanks in advance, > > Regards, > > Mark > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. I can provide some phrases in Polish; I also know people who speak Russian and can ask them for Russian phrases. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:43:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline - --- Scott David Orr wrote: > In fact, the _only_ purpose of having the B-2 is to > destroy enemy nuclear > weapons before those weapons can fire. If this > actually is workable, it's > an _extremely_ destabilizing capability to have, > because it puts the enemy > in a "use it or lose it" situation with his nuclear > weapons, prompting him > perhaps to use them before he otherwise might. And > unless this capbility > works _perfectly_, it won't keep your country from > getting hurt in nuclear > war. There are other purposes to having the B-2, as proven by its current use in the Kosova conflict. The laser-guided bombs that it can now carry are effective against a wide-variety of hardened targets, and the B-2's stealth nature makes it a better choice against certain targets than other bomb-carrying aircraft in the US arsenal. Michael Cook _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Interesting how you almost present it as some good vs. evil sorta thing. Anyone whose political beliefs are left of center isn't necessarily pro-communism. As you say, both liberals and conservatives are real people, and to lump them into two broad categories, an US and THEM sort of world, is ludicrous. Michael Cook - --- "John H. Schneider II" wrote: > > What, liberals don't exist? Where do you live > anyway? > Both liberals and conservatives are actual people. > > > John II > _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 17:57:16 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 02:43 PM 5/15/99 -0700, Michael Cook wrote: > >There are other purposes to having the B-2, as proven by its current >use in the Kosova conflict. The laser-guided bombs that it can now >carry are effective against a wide-variety of hardened targets, and the >B-2's stealth nature makes it a better choice against certain targets >than other bomb-carrying aircraft in the US arsenal. > As an earlier poster pointed out, the B-2 wasn't deisgned to carry conventional munitions, and wasn't allowed to perform such missions for some time. In any case, the F-117 is a cheaper and better way of doing this (except for the targets requiring the heaviest bombs). Yes, it's true that once we built the B-2's it's worth using them, but that doesnt mean it was worth building them. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:13:35 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 08:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > --stuff snipped that proves that you weren't really listening-- No, I was listening, but I don't agree with you. Please get that straight: I can listen to you and understand you, and still disagree with you, and all without being a Communist. In fact, I even answered each of your points specifically. I assume that if you had good arguments in response, you'd make them, but all you can do in return is claim that I'm not listening to you. I find it ironic that when you can't answer a person's arguments with your own, not only do you ignore them, but in place of answering them you unjustifiably accuse the other person of doing what you yourself are doing (that is, not answering arguments). Another example of this was when an earlier poster responded to your unsupported assertions by presenting hard facts that seemed to weaken your positions, and YOU accused HIM of not using facts. To repeat: there are really good arguments to the effect that the B-2 doesn't do anything useful, and that even if it does do some useful things, it's not worth the price we have to pay to do them. People who believe in a strong defense, and people who are not in fact Communists, can therefore quite reasonably believe that we shouldn't have built the B-2. >> >> > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if >> >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a >> >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was >> >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. >> > >> And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. > > No kidding? Really? This comment only proves that you have to go to >extremes to find a reason to support your arguement. > No, my point was that you were to some extent comparing apples and oranges. >> The >> flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber >> back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner >> than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that >> there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground >> when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for >> that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. >> >> So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the >> B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take >> over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees >> with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of >> democracy. >> > It's your kind of thinking that brought us the all-missile fighter >back in the 1960's. After all, missiles were the ultimate weapons, you >didn't need guns. Care to take a guess at what happened to the >all-missile fighter? It's also that kind of thinking that led us to abandon muzzle-loading muskets after the repeating rifle was developed. Sometimes decisions like that turn out well, and sometimes they don't, but you can't draw a general rule from looking at a single anecdote. Please try to address my arguments directly rather than attempting to draw analogies that may or may not be applicable--the analogies can be good illustrations, but if there's no underlying argument, they don't do much for you. scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:02:17 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 02:43 PM 5/15/99 -0700, Michael Cook wrote: > > > >There are other purposes to having the B-2, as proven by its current > >use in the Kosova conflict. The laser-guided bombs that it can now > >carry are effective against a wide-variety of hardened targets, and the > >B-2's stealth nature makes it a better choice against certain targets > >than other bomb-carrying aircraft in the US arsenal. > > > As an earlier poster pointed out, the B-2 wasn't deisgned to carry > conventional munitions, and wasn't allowed to perform such missions for > some time. In any case, the F-117 is a cheaper and better way of doing > this (except for the targets requiring the heaviest bombs). Yes, it's true > that once we built the B-2's it's worth using them, but that doesnt mean it > was worth building them. > > Scott Orr Scott, Given that logic, it wasn't worth building ICBM's either because we never used them. Just think of how much money we would've saved by not building them! John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:11:26 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 08:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> > >> At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > > --stuff snipped that proves that you weren't really listening-- > > No, I was listening, but I don't agree with you. Please get that straight: > I can listen to you and understand you, and still disagree with you, and > all without being a Communist. No, you weren't listening. You can say that to make yourself feel better but it doesn't change anything. > > In fact, I even answered each of your points specifically. I assume that > if you had good arguments in response, you'd make them, but all you can do > in return is claim that I'm not listening to you. You didn't answer my arguements. See above. > > I find it ironic that when you can't answer a person's arguments with your > own, not only do you ignore them, but in place of answering them you > unjustifiably accuse the other person of doing what you yourself are doing > (that is, not answering arguments). Another example of this was when an > earlier poster responded to your unsupported assertions by presenting hard > facts that seemed to weaken your positions, and YOU accused HIM of not > using facts. When soneone doesn't use facts, then why shouldn't it be pointed out? Unless, you don't want facts, or think that facts are irrelevant. My assertions were supported by facts, which you still want to ignore. > > To repeat: there are really good arguments to the effect that the B-2 > doesn't do anything useful, and that even if it does do some useful things, > it's not worth the price we have to pay to do them. People who believe in > a strong defense, and people who are not in fact Communists, can therefore > quite reasonably believe that we shouldn't have built the B-2. I have yet to see a good arguement against building the B-2. Then again, I want this country to have a strong defense too. > > >> > >> > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if > >> >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a > >> >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was > >> >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. > >> > > >> And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. > > > > No kidding? Really? This comment only proves that you have to go to > >extremes to find a reason to support your arguement. > > > No, my point was that you were to some extent comparing apples and oranges. No, it wasn't apples and oranges. The ability to call something back is the entire point. > > >> The > >> flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber > >> back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner > >> than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that > >> there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground > >> when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for > >> that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. > >> > >> So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the > >> B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take > >> over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees > >> with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of > >> democracy. > >> > > It's your kind of thinking that brought us the all-missile fighter > >back in the 1960's. After all, missiles were the ultimate weapons, you > >didn't need guns. Care to take a guess at what happened to the > >all-missile fighter? > > It's also that kind of thinking that led us to abandon muzzle-loading > muskets after the repeating rifle was developed. Sometimes decisions like > that turn out well, and sometimes they don't, but you can't draw a general > rule from looking at a single anecdote. So we don't have any fighters with guns? > > Please try to address my arguments directly rather than attempting to draw > analogies that may or may not be applicable--the analogies can be good > illustrations, but if there's no underlying argument, they don't do much > for you. > > Scott Orr Please try to address my arguements directly rather than attempting to draw flawed analogies that aren't applicable at all. Your case loses what merit it has when you do so. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 17:47:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline - --- "John H. Schneider II" wrote: > > > It's your kind of thinking that brought us the > all-missile fighter > > >back in the 1960's. After all, missiles were the > ultimate weapons, you > > >didn't need guns. Care to take a guess at what > happened to the > > >all-missile fighter? > > > > It's also that kind of thinking that led us to > abandon muzzle-loading > > muskets after the repeating rifle was developed. > Sometimes decisions like > > that turn out well, and sometimes they don't, but > you can't draw a general > > rule from looking at a single anecdote. > > So we don't have any fighters with guns? > I believe the point that Scott is trying to make here, and that I fully agree with him on, is that while abandoning guns to go with solely missile-equipped fighters was a mistake, abandoning muzzle-loaders for breech-loaders was a very obvious success, and so you can't really base your argument on the one without also looking at the other. In this case, "his kind of thinking..." seems to refer to taking a risk on new technology, which i believe is what a lot of warfare (as well as business) is all about. Sometimes the risk pays off and other times it doesn't. Michael Cook _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:11:46 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline "John H. Schneider II" wrote: > Scott David Orr wrote: > > > > At 08:05 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > >Scott David Orr wrote: > > >> > > >> At 06:25 AM 5/15/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > > > > --stuff snipped that proves that you weren't really listening-- > > > > No, I was listening, but I don't agree with you. Please get that straight: > > I can listen to you and understand you, and still disagree with you, and > > all without being a Communist. > > No, you weren't listening. You can say that to make yourself feel > better but it doesn't change anything. > > > > > In fact, I even answered each of your points specifically. I assume that > > if you had good arguments in response, you'd make them, but all you can do > > in return is claim that I'm not listening to you. > > You didn't answer my arguements. See above. > > > > > I find it ironic that when you can't answer a person's arguments with your > > own, not only do you ignore them, but in place of answering them you > > unjustifiably accuse the other person of doing what you yourself are doing > > (that is, not answering arguments). Another example of this was when an > > earlier poster responded to your unsupported assertions by presenting hard > > facts that seemed to weaken your positions, and YOU accused HIM of not > > using facts. > > When soneone doesn't use facts, then why shouldn't it be pointed out? > Unless, you don't want facts, or think that facts are irrelevant. My > assertions were supported by facts, which you still want to ignore. > > > > > To repeat: there are really good arguments to the effect that the B-2 > > doesn't do anything useful, and that even if it does do some useful things, > > it's not worth the price we have to pay to do them. People who believe in > > a strong defense, and people who are not in fact Communists, can therefore > > quite reasonably believe that we shouldn't have built the B-2. > > I have yet to see a good arguement against building the B-2. Then > again, I want this country to have a strong defense too. > > > > > >> > > >> > Also, once an ICBM is launched, it can't be called back to base if > > >> >there's been a mistake or the reason for launch has been eliminated as a > > >> >problem. Bombers can be. The theory of an all-missile force was > > >> >discussed and discarded for those very same reasons. > > >> > > > >> And once a bomber launches its bombs, the bombs can't be called back. > > > > > > No kidding? Really? This comment only proves that you have to go to > > >extremes to find a reason to support your arguement. > > > > > No, my point was that you were to some extent comparing apples and oranges. > > No, it wasn't apples and oranges. The ability to call something back > is the entire point. > > > > > >> The > > >> flaw in the logic above is that, while it's true you can call the bomber > > >> back, it's equally true that you have to launch the bomber a lot sooner > > >> than you'd launch a missile for a given time on target. It's true that > > >> there's some advantage to being able to get the aircraft off the ground > > >> when you think there's a strike coming in, but a B-52 works well enough for > > >> that, even if you don't think your submarines already fulfill that role. > > >> > > >> So yes, there are in fact very good reasons for people to think that the > > >> B-2 is a waste of money--even people who never wanted the Soviets to take > > >> over. In fact, I'd suggest that if you think that everyone who disagrees > > >> with you is as Communist, you're not truly partaking of the spirit of > > >> democracy. > > >> > > > It's your kind of thinking that brought us the all-missile fighter > > >back in the 1960's. After all, missiles were the ultimate weapons, you > > >didn't need guns. Care to take a guess at what happened to the > > >all-missile fighter? > > > > It's also that kind of thinking that led us to abandon muzzle-loading > > muskets after the repeating rifle was developed. Sometimes decisions like > > that turn out well, and sometimes they don't, but you can't draw a general > > rule from looking at a single anecdote. > > So we don't have any fighters with guns? > > > > > Please try to address my arguments directly rather than attempting to draw > > analogies that may or may not be applicable--the analogies can be good > > illustrations, but if there's no underlying argument, they don't do much > > for you. > > > > Scott Orr > > Please try to address my arguements directly rather than attempting to > draw flawed analogies that aren't applicable at all. Your case loses > what merit it has when you do so. > > John II I don't know whether you are trying to be a modern day Billy Mitchell, McCarthy and monkeyboy all rolled into one, but you sound very irritated (as someone once said on the list to Saul Basgen, as if someone had "stolen your birthday"). Many of your arguments seem to become personal. Take it easy; the same for whoever let out that flood of profanity. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:59:06 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Peter Vieth wrote: > > > John II > > I don't know whether you are trying to be a modern day Billy Mitchell, McCarthy and > monkeyboy all rolled into one, but you sound very irritated (as someone once said on > the list to Saul Basgen, as if someone had "stolen your birthday"). Many of your > arguments seem to become personal. Take it easy; the same for whoever let out that > flood of profanity. > > -- > ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) I don't know why you're trying to insult me, but I would like to know. Maybe if people weren't making this personal, I wouldn't be irritated. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:24:29 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: ***In order to avoid using blatant profanity, I will replace all profanity with the most profane words in computers today. > DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA YOU? who the diamond multimedia are you to question my > political allegience. i chose to serve in the united states navy with a > better personal > understanding of myself and my country than most other people twice my age. > DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA you mister USAF iwas there. i am there. Incidentally, the word has been used in 12 other posts since December 1997. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #40 ************************************