"you aren't intelligent enough"
"you have some rediculous agenda"
"Who cares?"
"don't comment"
"Go to another site"

Happy Christmas, Mr Obvious!

If you aren't intelligent enough to remain on topic, then don't comment. It only proves you have some rediculous agenda to spew all over the Internet. Go to another site.

do the people of Zimbabwe deserve Mugabe?

With your answer, which is a clear "NO", you claim to have falsified my assertion by a singular statement.

What you did not consider is the fact, that "deserving" needs an interpretation. And indeed, you claim conformity where there is none. You never talked with me about the content of the terms used in the assertion. But you think that you are allowed to condemn due to your (narrow-minded) interpretations.

Do the Zimbabwean deserve Mugabe?

Yes, if they are gawky enough to let him keep his power. No, if they wholeheartedly tried to get rid of him, but could not due to his overwhelming power.

If you can demonstrate that they tried to get rid of him but could not succeed, then I will agree that you have questioned my assertion with a singular statement. Meanwhile, the stars must wait for you to gaze at them …

I'm gonna bandwagon this one and say thats the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard. It shows you have no clue of foreign issues if you did you would know that corruption is A BAD THING that should not be taken lightly. Not petty corruption like Blagojevich I mean cruel corruption like Mugabe that is evil that noone deserves. Now enough dumb politics and let us look back to the stars….

I was hoping this site would be a small step in that direction.

But as for now…we not only fight…but we fight fire with fire…

It's silly, really…bigger mirrors for bigger lasers…the most intelligent and precise lens workers work on this stuff…instead of more telescopes and scientific instruments…what a waste of time and effort.

Go open your eyes to what is really going on and take part in shaping the future…NOW…

What? The term "Pig's arse"? Certainly, but joking aside!

—- BEGIN OF joking aside NOW —-

The meaninglessness of universal statements in an empirical context depends on its falsifiability.

—- END OF joking aside HERE —-

The generalisation "every" in the sentence "every people [replace the term country by people] has the Government it deserves" should be sufficient to constitute an universal statement. Thus the operationalization of "deserve" is critical for testability.

As long as you are only able to claim the stupidity/meaninglessness of the above statement by casting invectives on it you …em… don't really show its metaphysical content.

"Every country has the government it deserves."

Pig's arse. Just a fecking stupid and meaningless little soundbite there buddy. I hope you realise how stupid that sounded.

Also, while they are virtually invisible to mobile sonar and pressure signature sweeps… fixed systems are quite a bit better at detecting objects.

I am not sure about this since the beginning of operation of type 212 submarines.

The range of the laser is quite considerable; it is designed to attack a missile during its "boost" phase… which is typically from its launch point to about 60 miles above Earth; so no, it doesn't have to be in a dangerous area to be useful. This is also the best and easiest time to try to kill an ICBM… re-entry being the worst time, since you often have multiple warheads to deal with, many which are decoys.

Shoulder fired missiles don't work well against aircraft over 4500 feet. They are a bit slower, noisier, less maneuverable and don't have a lot of fuel. Your typical SAM missile which can reach 40K feet plus weighs in excess of 1800 pounds; your shoulder fired variety weighs in about 30-55.

747 is used due to the size of the equipment required to generate the power required to fire a laser through the atmosphere at a range of X miles. The atmosphere is the enemy, as there are many things in it which bend, deflect and in general mess with lights energy. You also want something which can loiter many hours without having to land or be refueled constantly.

Submarines… again, not used to combat China or Russia. Submarines used by other navies, would be picked up by the sonar network before they could get close. You'd be shocked at how well the US and other large countries can track maritime operations.
Typically, any large boat in transit from one country to any country in Europe/North America, plus China and Russia is tracked from departure to destination. Any anomoly, and the ship is held up far before it becomes a threat. You think security outgoing at an airport is tough… see what containers have to go through at both ends.

Waste of money? Guess it depends on what level of protection you demand, and if you are educated enough to know all the variables required to do the risk assessment. However, I have a feeling this program will be continued by the Obama administration.

Is this the message we want to send the world in 2009? This technology will spread rather quickly to the more industrialized nations ( Lots of money spent) and soon there will be multiple nations with laser capability which will lead to multiple launch decoy based missle systems in advanced nations to overcome this threat. (Proliferation)

However, according to the web site 'Atomic Scientist' , rougue nations only have to put the bomb in a container ship and send it over the pond to one of the overcrowded and under observed ports somewhere in the world. It does not really matter where. The result will be the same. All ports will shut down, trade will grind to a halt and the world will live in fear of letting anything in from the outside.

They win. The rest of the world loses. I hope they can carry cargo on that 747.

Diplomacy works when the person your arguing with cannot gain what he wants by force, theft, or some other means.
If our enemies cant march over the border with soldiers, cant blast their way through with tanks, cant sneak terrorists behind the lines, and cant lob missiles at us… they'll probably resort to talking.

America has never used the same cant in concealing its ambitions like many of its counterparts by using the phrases like "peace" and "universal peace" as did the communist propaganda or the propaganda of North Korea or Iran.

America can simply change itself by elections. How far these change does go depends on how strong the people want it to. States like Iran or North Korea do not change from within. They can only be changed from outside. They made their current political systems as stable as possible against change. There is no real influence of the people foreseen in the Iranian constitution:

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad."

( http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html )

I do not see how "the US manages another first in the race to obliterate humanity". Nowhere in the world than in modern western democracies does the wickedness, the selfishness of the single individual prevent the whole system from becoming better. We don't need to blame the governments, because we don't need to sacrifice ourselves any longer on the stake for our will to change the world. Every country has the government it deserves. As America showed again, change is possible by the people, for the people. And every weapons system that does protect and stabilize this feature of the American political system is more valuable than the mere military aspect offers.

You regret that "it has simply gone to insure further instability in an already unstable world", but that's a good thing. Yes, let the world be unstable for several regimes of this world!

If your target is above the horizon, there are numerous satellites in orbit, including one with humans in it. And passenger filled airplanes scaterred about the horizon.

If your target is below the horizon (in front of the horizon, with the earth in the background), there are numerous people down there and many facilities too.

Unless the targeting system is 100% accurate (not a realistic scenario), this weapon could end up producing some serious collateral damage.

I'm guessing a scenario of someone in an airplane whose last words will be "what's that red ligh…"

What this money could have meant to science or humanitarian aid! Instead, it has simply gone to insure further instability in an already unstable world. And this is described as a 'Dream'?

There is a much cheaper, safer way for the government to fulfil its duty to its people; it’s called diplomacy.

What pisses me off is the way that military pet projects will get endless funding (even the stupid s__t that places such as DARPA work on), and budget overruns seem to be of such little concern that it is almost a congress in-joke: – "…a year over schedule? Throw another couple 'a billion at it! HAHAHA! I bet those science weenies wish they could get that sort of funding!"

When non-military science work even slightly runs over on time or budget, in comes the scythe of congress to cut the 'fat'.