US Defence Review 65


Seldom has so much PR hype been given to anything as meaningless as Obama’s US Defence Review. There will be no drop in US military spending, just a smaller increase than previously proposed. The move to less grunts and more zapping from drones and eventually satellites has been underway for years and is simple continuation of technological development. The doctrine of a “right” to intervene anywhere in the World has not changed. The rhetoric is stepped up on a new – and totally pointless – Cold War with China that will keep the military-industrial complex in its dominant position to exploit US society for the next half century. In short, nothing has changed.


65 thoughts on “US Defence Review

1 2 3
  • crab

    Wave particle duality does NOT lead to anything known in physics as “atomic waves” The term is a blooper. No one who understands atomic science (and yes i do some) uses the term, because it has no coherent meaning. There are no “atomic waves” But do keep refering to them, it is useful indicator of your awareness.
    .
    Re energy beam weapons, if US military were capable of making energy beam weapons powerful enough to part the earths crust from orbit, why does the Navy use Phalanx for missile defence? Firing 50 cannon rounds a second in an attempt to intercept missiles which can pop over the horizon at supersonic speed, is a worringly late and defeatable mechanism, because the rounds cant go faster than mach 5 or so, the time to intercept is dangerously tight. A much, much smaller energy beam weapon than the ones required for earth quaking satellites could intercept missiles at light speed. With such a weapon the navy would be invulnerable to missile attacks.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Just more of your ignorant, deceptive claims.

    If you look on google for atomic waves, you find no less than 301,000,000 possible links. Apparently only you don’t know about them.

    And the problem with satellite lasers is that it has not proven capable of shooting down a missile, even on takeoff, travelling at great speeds, especially super sonic ones.

    As for hitting a sationary target, it is a piece of cake. Just ask the people who survived the earthquakes in Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and China.

    Every 90 minutes, the targets, either qanats or other man-made structures underground were hit by their laser waves, and ultimately there was a devastating earthquake.

    In short, since you have lost the thread, I am talking about causing earthquakes in mountainous and sandy areas of America’s alleged enemies, not shooting down missiles.

  • crab

    I did google atomic waves, and did not first find any technical reference for them. Googling again, i have to admit they are variously refered to. In a few places they are refered to as “atoms acting as waves” That is known quantum mechanics, but is very rarely refered to as atomic waves. I still dont think you have a clue what they are. And i need my teachers to know what they are talking about.
    .
    “the problem with satellite lasers is that it has not proven capable of shooting down a missile,”
    .
    Why are the “satellite lasers” not on warships? If there are beam weapons that can penetrate the ozone layer, the atmosphere and the earths crust with enough power to move it- Why not use the beam weapon on warships to hit instantly missiles?, instead of the currently used supersonic cannon rounds. How can it be more difficult to hit a missile with an energy beam at lightspeed, than a supersonic cannon round?
    .
    Dont just propose secret technologies – reality check them. Why struggle with picking off missiles with bullets, when electromagnetic or ‘atomic’ beams (deployable even in orbit) can intercept missiles at the speed of light? No use just saying ‘it doesnt work on moving objects’

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    You still are not being responsive to what I am claiming, though you grudgingly admitted that atomic waves exist – what lasers exploit to cause unexpected surprises and explosions.

    Who’s to say that lasers aren’t on some ships to shoot down missiles?

    I wrote an article about shooting down that dying Misty satellite back before a new one made the earthquake in Sichuan in May 2008. Using a laser to do it, though, would cause just what the war-making Pentagon wanted most to avoid – rupturing its fuel tank which would spread hydrozine all over the area where it came down – so the Navy shot it down with one of its surface-to-air missiles.

    I am pretty sure that the Navy has lasers on ships, patrolling off China’s coast, and ready to shoot down a suspected Chinese launch of some ICBM during any serious confrontation.

    The only reason what the airborne one during the final showdown with the Soviets – the one where the Anglo-American warmongers want to end the Cold War with the USSR by triggering the assassination of Olof Palme on February 28, 1986 – wasn’t tested was because Moscow was not caught by the surprise, thanks to the spying by Ames, Hanssen, Pollard et a., and the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded trying hurriedly to put one up about a month earlier.

    When the Cold War ended peacefully, Danny Stillman, the biggest designer of the Misty satellite laser, persuaded the Pentagon to use it to cause the earthquake in Iran during the first Gulf War, and it surprisingly worked, causing former DCI and recently SoD Robert Gates to surprisingly reveal about his book with Thomas Reed, The Nuclear Express: “(Stillman’s) ability to adapt the latest advances in science to solve unmanageable problems and analyze foreign technologies made him an invaluable asset to the intelligence community.” (Quoted from the back of its dustcover.)

    And it is just this capability which is being exploited in space by the new Defense Review where the bottom line is that it will give Washington a leaner, meaner Pentagon where is can prevent two major wars at the same time by dissuading a second war-maker from starting one with its new space weapons – what, in the final analysis, could result in its being used to prevent a first one from getting started.

    In sum, I don’t have to dream up anything about technologies or strategies. I just read what is reported by the media, and what spokesmen for America’s warmongers say at times about their war-making.

  • crab

    The thing about atomic waves existing is that, they are an early rarely used, hard to understand term from quantum mechanics. Everything involves ‘atomic waves’, because everything exhibits wave and particle nature in fine quantum detail. It is a very obscure term without a distinct meaning outside of particular contexts. In the context of secret mil technology, it is just suggestive of similar sounding technologies, like x-rays, shock waves etc. eg. “Atom optics” is the study of relative dense, slow moving particle beams. Every particle is a wave.
    .
    In programming there is a thing called ‘code smell’ which is when you come across problematic expressions and structures in source code, which warn that there are likely to be more bugs and puzzles nearby. Indistinct technical sounding terms in authoritively sounding writtings, are literary code smells to me. The subject you research and write about is so complex and beyond assumptions and knowledge, at the end of a few pages of it, all i can tell is whether the stories smelled clean and fitted remarkably or not with physical repercussions.
    .
    You can reply to my practical doubts “Who’s to say that lasers aren’t on some ships to shoot down missiles?” And a debate can continue – if there were, the navy is in fact invulnerable to missile attacks in the gulf and visible strategy and excerises are being feigned for ages. Overall in my reckoning the claims are not tight, and sometimes ‘smell’. Everything smells a bit.
    .
    You seem to be a good guy, i apologise again for my virtual crabbieness which got the better of me again, but didnt get the better of you. So best to you and good luck Trowbridge.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.