• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

America doesn't have enough guns

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,507
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,433
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)
It's not the fallout. It's the actual particles out there in places ostensibly around and between places things may want to go.

Having a chunk of several of uranium reconstitute from the dust out there in the cold of space spinning very very fast after a few years or decades from the cloud of gas it would become would be kinda shitty for whatever runs into that very dense obstacle.

I'm more talking about environmentally polluting the vacuum with bits of stuff.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,507
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)
It's not the fallout. It's the actual particles out there in places ostensibly around and between places things may want to go.

Having a chunk of several of uranium reconstitute from the dust out there in the cold of space spinning very very fast after a few years or decades from the cloud of gas it would become would be kinda shitty for whatever runs into that very dense obstacle.

I'm more talking about environmentally polluting the vacuum with bits of stuff.

How would a chunk of uranium reconstitute? Virtually 100% of the material will depart at very high speed, how would it ever come back together?

And radiation is a fact of life in space, adding a tiny bit more isn't going to have a meaningful effect. Almost certainly not even a measurable one.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,433
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)
It's not the fallout. It's the actual particles out there in places ostensibly around and between places things may want to go.

Having a chunk of several of uranium reconstitute from the dust out there in the cold of space spinning very very fast after a few years or decades from the cloud of gas it would become would be kinda shitty for whatever runs into that very dense obstacle.

I'm more talking about environmentally polluting the vacuum with bits of stuff.

How would a chunk of uranium reconstitute? Virtually 100% of the material will depart at very high speed, how would it ever come back together?

And radiation is a fact of life in space, adding a tiny bit more isn't going to have a meaningful effect. Almost certainly not even a measurable one.
The same way asteroids and planets do once stars pop, I'd imagine. Sure, it'll be a cloud of dust for a while, but nothing stays that way forever, especially outside a gravity well.

Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,507
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

Orion drive, aka Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

Even if we aren't going to use it for mining we should know how in case a dangerous rock shows up.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,433
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

Orion drive, aka Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

Even if we aren't going to use it for mining we should know how in case a dangerous rock shows up.
That's the one thing I could see, though I would like to hope we get our science to the point where we are proactive on the bigger rocks. If KSP taught me anything, it's that it's more about timing than total delta-v.

I would rather just... Not be doing things that significantly change the velocity of things, forever, especially when we might have to move through there again, eventually.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,507
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

Orion drive, aka Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

Even if we aren't going to use it for mining we should know how in case a dangerous rock shows up.
That's the one thing I could see, though I would like to hope we get our science to the point where we are proactive on the bigger rocks. If KSP taught me anything, it's that it's more about timing than total delta-v.

I would rather just... Not be doing things that significantly change the velocity of things, forever, especially when we might have to move through there again, eventually.

The residual radiation threat from an Orion in deep space is effectively zero.

And whatever we want, we need to be able to deflect rocks. We also need to be able to take an emergency shot with an ICBM or the like--city-killers might be picked up at the last minute and could be killed with an ICBM modified to carry a seeker and appropriate detonator. Setting off a nuke that close to the planet wouldn't exactly be good but it's a hell of a lot better than a city being wiped out.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,785
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,667
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Electromagnetic pulse.
Look up the Starfish Prime nuclear test.

If an asteroid is close enough that a nuke would trigger an EMP it would be too close to deflect. Even with nukes, you'd need to be millions of km away to deflect any large space rock. Although composition matters too.
For EMPs you need to explode a nuke in the ionosphere, which is only a few 100 km.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,667
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I would rather just... Not be doing things that significantly change the velocity of things, forever, especially when we might have to move through there again, eventually.
Why? What difference would it make?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,287
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
This paper goes into detail about deflecting a space rock with a neutron bomb. But it doesn't appear to address the question of how distant the deflection can or should be. Those details depend greatly on the specific trajectory of the enemy asteroid. Many discussions involve  Gravitational keyhole — a rock which intersects such a keyhole would have its trajectory altered to impact Earth on some future orbit.

All of this is unrelated, of course, to America's problem of too few guns. Let's hope that the thread-starting Infidel is a tolerant sort of fellow.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,433
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This paper goes into detail about deflecting a space rock with a neutron bomb. But it doesn't appear to address the question of how distant the deflection can or should be. Those details depend greatly on the specific trajectory of the enemy asteroid. Many discussions involve  Gravitational keyhole — a rock which intersects such a keyhole would have its trajectory altered to impact Earth on some future orbit.

All of this is unrelated, of course, to America's problem of too few guns. Let's hope that the thread-starting Infidel is a tolerant sort of fellow.
Well.let me bring this back then: just give everyone a button that will redirect an asteroid through a keyhole and cause a heavy impact any time someone skins their knee and doesn't have someone around to kiss the booboo for them
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
614
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
On one hand, I think that it is idiotic to bother carrying a gun. It is a liability. It is one more thing to get in the way. It is one more thing that can be misplaced. It is one more thing that needs to be maintained and cleaned if one wants it to work properly. I do not have an even slightly aggressive personality, in actual practice, and I would not actually use it in any situation whatsoever. I would be more likely to get shot by a five year old that was playing with it as if it were a toy.

That said, I say let Iran have nuclear weapons. They have a right to their own self-defense, and besides, it's kind of jingoistic to pretend that we and our buddies are the only people in the world that are "responsible" enough to be allowed to have them. It's a little bit authoritarian to ask that a country pass a "background check" in order to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Who is making the decisions about who passes that background check, huh? It sounds to me like the only test you need to pass to have nukes is "be one of Uncle Sam's drinking buddies." Iran should tell us, "shove a warhead up your ass, you jingoistic motherfucker." Nukes don't kill people, but people kill people. More Japanese died during the firebombing of Tokyo than due to nukes. The nukes just got the emperor's fucking attention more effectively.

With that taken care of, I do not care a rodent's rectum what kind of policy my country or my state or my municipality decides on for regulating guns. I truly do not give a fuck. However, if I meet one more person that assumes that I am some sort of ignoramus because I do not have any enthusiasm about the idea about owning a gun, I will literally bend the barrel around their necks, no matter how stumpy it is, and punch them in the eye. I was being taken on hunting trips with my father when I was a fucking infant because my mother was a negligent bitch that could not be assed to change a diaper. The reason why I don't like guns is overexposure. They are a fucking nuisance.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
614
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
By the way, I use the "give Iran nukes" tack because the sorts of jingoistic dipshits, whose idea of "freedom" is only intended to apply to white heterosexual protestants, really start to love the idea of background checks if you demonstrate how their favorite arguments can apply elsewhere, and when it works, I have noticed a trend of reasonable people starting to agree with each other. However you settle the argument, get the topic out of my politics. Whoever you are, I truly don't give a fuck who, settle on a compromise, so we can focus on more serious issues.
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,507
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Electromagnetic pulse.
Look up the Starfish Prime nuclear test.

If an asteroid is close enough that a nuke would trigger an EMP it would be too close to deflect. Even with nukes, you'd need to be millions of km away to deflect any large space rock. Although composition matters too.
For EMPs you need to explode a nuke in the ionosphere, which is only a few 100 km.

Against a city-killer a contact-fused nuke will blow it into small enough bits it will turn Tunguska into Chelyabinsk. That's worth burning out some satellites.
 
Top Bottom