true, and to follow convention, that does define a demarcation between 'hard science' and 'soft science.'

I don't see how it would be possible, although I would have a hard time proving it is impossible, — leo

If you regard science as a method, rather than some collection of facts, then there isn't really a way to define a limit to its application.

I'm gonna go wallow now. — Wallows

Sure. Thanks for chat. See you in the air in September, perhaps.

China tested its nuclear weapons last week, but the system they want to use in the upcoming 'small tactical nuclear conflicts' scenario for a world war won't be ready until 2024 by its current schedule, by which time, the USA will have proven, on current plan, that its nuclear bunker busters in N Korea will not have caused any significant damage to China.

the USA does have nuclear weapons it could use now if it wanted to start a nuclear war with Russia. But the first nuclear weapons it can use without starting a war with Russia will be available in September, on current schedule.

sn't that a more specific idea than "the first nuclear weapons for attacking N. Korea . . ."? — Terrapin Station

They can't use the old nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea without violating the START treaty, so they have to convert the old ones into nuclear bunker busters first. And they had to wait for Russia to start doing it too. To avoid MAD. Now Russia is doing it too, according to Mattis Russia started it in fact, so now they can use nuclear bunker busters in September. That's why Kim Jong suddenly started being really nice. Because he worked that out last year, about the same time I did.

If Boeing does not slip schedule, the first nuclear bunker busters will be available in September. Currently the USA does not have any nuclear bunker busters. No one has. They are being made by modifying B61-12 nuclear bombs for more ground-piercing directional force. Boeing was just given money to manufacture them in April, and the first ones are planned in September, ahead of the original schedule, as it was in 2015 and since Trump took over, because of the N Korea nuclear tests and missile tests.

That the SDI was a hoax to bankrupt the Soviets? — Wallows

It wasn't to bankrupt the Soviets. It was a bluff to get them to the table for START 2 so the USA did not need to commission another heavy water plant. The two which the USA had have both expired and closed down. The USA no heavy water plant now, it is living on reserves. thats also why the older nuclear weapons are being recycled now.

Tell Wallows. He started the thread. — Terrapin Station

I did. And the first nuclear weapons for attacking N Korea, and Iran, and Syria, and the Balkans, and anyone attacking Gibraltar, not the least, could be ready in September. That's why Trump is in the UK getting a full military parade.

I wasn't commenting on whether an SDI system is currently feasible. Just the logic of it being an advantage given the assumption of present or future feasibility. — Terrapin Station

Because Trident defense systems can also mount a nuclear attack, and an SDI system could not stop B2s dropping B61-12s, the 'logic' on whether to pursue SDI as a defense system has become null and void.

Yeah, I was wondering how they intend to power these weapons by air-combat defense systems... Secrets unknown. — Wallows

It's not an unknown secret. Its impossible. Its an old bluff that's already run out of steam. the USA has submarine based nuclear Tridents, ground-based nuclear Tridents, and next year, air-based nuclear bunker busters. The SDI bluff can no longer stop nuclear weapons. Neither can 'MAD.' they are both outmoded concepts.

You build and launch a set of satellites equipped with laser weapons that can shoot missiles down so that they're not a danger. — Terrapin Station

the problem is, laser weapons that can shoot missiles down need something the size of three small bank vaults, and then all they can do is burn sensors out. It's not possible to put something into orbit even that powerful, or even in a ground vehicle. They have to be carried on warships.

The NRA has run into problems increasing US sales because everyone who wants a gun has already bought one. So its remaining market is to sell guns which can do things that the ones gun owners already have can't. So now its most profitable business sector is AR-15s, and who wants assault rifles? You have to terrify the bejeebles out of people to buy assault rifles, so the rhetoric surrounding the need for self defense has increased to religious levels.

There is only one known temple to Pan, as I said, it was called Paneas, and you can find out all the different things people have written on Paneas too, but I will stick to the version taught to Winston Churchill. Thank you.

Religion is a whole other discussion though — I like sushi

Well I dont think so. Given the weight of empirical evidence that the 2nd amendment is wrong, and justified self defense is more dangerous to citizens than criminals, self defense with firearms has become part of the whole atheistic, Randian, Nietzschian, self above everything and then we die, Darwinian survival above all else cult.

I find it hard to believe that laser systems are in some way inferior to conventional chemical-based munitions. — Wallows

There is a navy-based laser system which the Navy tried to upgrade to 180 kW last year, which was what the 600 million in last year's DOD budget was for. With it they made a power delivery system of 18 drawers with 480 Li-Ion phosphate cells. What they do is, charge them continuously with 450 kW, then burn them for a single-use shot by sudden short circuiting. Three sets of 18 steel battery drawers, each the size of a small bank vault, are themselves encased in thermal insulation to stop the sudden discharge from setting the ship on fire. That creates a brief 150KW pulse, strong enough to make people look away, and to burn out small sensors.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/us-navy-will-fire-150-kilowatt-laser-on.html

Here is a drawing from 2016 showing the design concept.

Because that's how I was taught at Eton. If you'll excuse me, Im a little tired after explaining all that.

Well if you want total specifics, there was a temple dedicated to Pan in what became Caesarea, and later Philippi. It held a small Greek cult for about a hundred years after Alexander the Great found it. Prior to Greek occupation, there was a lush oasis around some rock springs, which satisfied all the first settler's needs. So the Greeks renamed a small Ba'al temple there Pan, saying that Pan had given Alexander the strength to terrify the enemy, and naming the place Paneas.

But the Greeks turned it into desert, so then Pan became more of an early nomadic deity for desolate places, music, and goat herds who didn't terrify anybody. To the nomads, Pan was still a major deity, but the Hellenic Gods said it wasn't that important.

Then the Romans conquered it, and Pan's temple was abandoned, making Pan more of a curio in 200BC, after which the Romans lost it back to the Persians who replaced Pan with Ba'al again. Then the Romans conquered it again and renamed it Caesarea, by which time Pan didn't have a city named after him either, then it became a holy Christian city.

That's why current mythology of ancient Greece says Pan is the god of everything but doesn't care very much about people, so nobody worships him. It's already more than most people want to know, and it helps children learn what Pan means--its a God with the lower half of a goat and it means everything. That's how Greeks teach children. They were very good at that, and so Greek became a kind of universal language that everyone spoke, because of they way they taught it.

If you'll excuse me, I'm a little tired after explaining all that.

ou said this before, but it wasn't correct then, either. Pan was not the "God of Everything". You're getting confused with the Greek word "pan", usually translated as "everything", or something close. — Pattern-chaser

That's why he's called Pan. Just like Eros was called Eros. And what I tried to tell you is, the Greeks did not think a God of everything was particularly important, because a God of everything would not care about human beings very much. People these days think of the Greek 'PanTHEON' - collection of all Gods, which was a collection and not a conscious entity - as far more powerful than the Greeks did themselves too. Zeus was not the God of everything, just the God of Hellenic Gods. Aphrodite was not the God of all love, and Ares was not the God of all war. They were just the pantheon native to Hellenic Greece, centered in Athens and Delphi.

Sometimes other pantheons had different Gods with the same name too, for example, Artemis was a Goddess of hunting in ancient Greece, but a Goddess of fertility with a thousand breasts in Turkey.

but Pan was always Pan, that was the point of him. there were not different versions of Pan. The Hellenic gods looked down on Pan as a satyr, but in other pantheons he was considered more important than the Hellenic Gods. But nowhere ever worshipped Pan. For reason first stated.

Just a little wisdom of the ancients

Do you not know," he continued, "that it is a sign of fear in a man for him to carry arms? And no man who is afraid would ever have a chance to become king any more than a slave would."
— Dio Chrysostom: The 4th Discourse — Merkwurdichliebe

"Religion, you see, is not in its roots adoration of a god or a goddess. Religion is fear. Religion is the spark that issues forth when the thought of death or danger strikes the individual. It's personal. It grows out of darkness and uncertainty.""
A E Van Vogt, Book of Ptath

Someone serious about discussing Rand's contentions would go back to the ancients Greeks, the Tao, the Upanishads, Buddha, Confucius, the Tora and the Gospel, and see, starting from the beginning of written history and in addition what insights archaeologists and sociologists have gained in to pre-history and non-written cultures, and from this starting point see how the issue is debated all the way to the present, then present the results of this inquiry and the critical positions that have been taken over the years and the arguments in favour of preferred premises and conclusions and against the primary contenders with them, followed by one's original ideas, if there be any (there is no problem with novel analysis of old ideas). — boethius

As you say, its a significant amount of work, and significantly, people who know enough to do that don't want to do it.

Nope. It would be absolute heresy for the US navy to use a missile system from another branch!
And carriers usually aren't attacked by ballistic missiles (even if they can be, especially the Chinese have these kinds of plans). Something like a torpedo works better. — ssu

Well it's a major relief to hear about turf wars that stop Trident nuclear missile deployment on ships as well as submarines, airplanes, and land-based carriers. But the reason aircraft carriers aren't attacked by missiles is because the destroyers in the convoy group are stopping missiles with ABM countermeasures, as you say, so so far, the opposition forces have simply tried sinking a defense destroyers with torpedoes, or ramships, at least a couple of times, and so far managed only to cripple its movement. That only immobilizes the aircraft carrier convoy until a fake convoy joins back in, and so far, that's as far as its got. but after knocking out a destroyer, the next logical thing is to attack the aircraft carrier with ballistic missiles as fast as possible.

I'm sorry I misinformed you slightly on laser attack systems.

The 2019 budget did include 800 million for 'laser systems,' but that will also cover GPS and land/sea-based laser targeting systems. the 20200 budget proposal instead includes 235 million for "Directed Energy investment to support implementation of directed energy for base defense; enable testing and procurement of multiple types of lasers; and increase research and development for high-power density applications."

For nuclear bombs, the 2019 defense budget included $13.9 billion. The 2020 defense budget proposal no longer includes funding for nuclear bombs, because that is now part of Homeland Security.

The 2020 budget does provide $14 billion for space-based laser detection, infrared detection, and optical detection systems. Also it provides as follows for ABMs which could double as nuclear attack devices:
* 37 AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (SM-3) with Install - $1.7 billion
* Land-Launched Conventional Prompt Strike, Extended Range Weapon, Space-based Discrimination
Sensor Study - $1.5 billion
* Ground Based Midcourse Defense - $1.7 billion
* 37 THAAD Ballistic Missile Defense - $0.8 billion
* 147 Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancements - $0.7 billion

The alternative to the B61-12 nuclear bunkerbuster, as alluded to by Mattis before his departure, is the modified Trident missile as a surface-to-surface attack device, instead of as a surface-to-air defense device, which means, the Trident missile launchers in the defense grid could also function as nuclear attack tanks. And, the USS John McCain could double as a single attack vessel, as well as be part of anti-ballistic missile defense system.

The British learned of this from their own paper, the Guardian, in January this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/28/us-nuclear-weapons-first-low-yield-warheads-roll-off-the-production-line

Thank you for interesting information and questions.

Further investment in laser-based attack systems has, as far as I know, been totally discontinued for quite a long time, in favor of the "MM104 Patriot" Surface-to-Air (SAM) Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), since their spectacular success in Isreal, in 2014. They are still there, this is from three years later:



While they are not as effective as laser-based systems could be, public approval of their success in Israel led to the USA wanting NATO to pay for a EU defense grid.

Northrop Grumman also makes wireless-networked sensor and control vehicles, one each for a pair of Patriot launchers. The sensor vehicle includes laser tracking sensors. The lasers are not used for destruction. They are for painting a pinpoint target for the Patriot missiles.

The patriot control vehicles were designed to communicate and coordinate across multiple groups via an Engagement Operations Center (EOC). The first EOC for the USA's Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) was delivered to the Army, at Huntsville, Alabama, last month.

The US navy missile destroyers, such as the USS John McCain, probably carry Patriot missiles to protect aircraft carriers, but I don't know the details.

Unfortunately, no, the penultimate could prove far worse than the last global war. It appears World War 3 won't be the last. There could be at least two more world wars, with WW3 creating large zones of nuclear scorched earth first, starting in January next year.

NSA chief John Bolton leads the charge. His position now is, the Russians have nuclear bunkerbusters too, so the USA can use them as soon as they roll off the assembly line, next January. Say we use them in N Korea first, and maybe later Iran, Syria, and Mexico's South border. Then there is a 'gentleman's agreement' with Russia that they don't break the START treaty, because they aren't WMDs. Hence Russia gets to use its own nuclear weapons that are not WMDs too, with impunity from massive retaliation also. Russia might go for military installations in Ukraine right now, if it could; although Russia would probably want to warm up first in Yemen or Afghanistan.

In April 2019, John Bolton approved Boeing to manufacture 'nuclear bunkerbusters' by modifying B61-12 nuclear bombs, for deployment in N Korea next year. He claims the modified B61-12s will no longer be WMDs, because the nuclear chamber containment shape was modified to focus the blast downwards, into the ground, and the bomb's tail fin was modified to enable control of the angle at which the bomb strikes the ground, under satellite control.

In January this year, the prior secretary of defense, 'Mad Dog' Mattis, said they were still WMDs, and the Russians started making them first. But Mattis was fired the following month. John Bolton has been NSA chief since April, 2018, and is still in power.

Last year, Sandia National Labs announced the manufacturing space and tooling in Albuquerque would be ready in July this year. At first the funding was blocked by Congressional law stopping nuclear bomb development by the Department of Energy (DoE). In Trump's budget for 2018, the NSA was granted authority for nuclear bomb development, because the NSA has authority over the DoE, and so could legally fund the nuclear bomb development program independently.

After the funding approval in December, the NSA took only four months to select Boeing as the manufacturer for nuclear bunkerbusters. Boeing has been an active military contractor for the Department of Defense since at least its proposed alternative, and more technically advanced, 'delta wing' prototype for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Catobar, which, together with the radar-invisible B2 Stealth Striker Bomber, would be the two airplanes dropping nuclear nuclear bunkerbusters any time after January next year.

This is the USA's second attempt to create a viable attack strategy on North Korea since Trump too power. First, former head of state Rex Tillerson was ordered to sell nuclear weapons to Japan. While trying to do as told, Tillerson called Trump an idiot (probably because Trump suddenly revealed he did not know what happened at Nagasaki, or the ilk). Tillerson was fired the following week, in March 2018, and Marine General Pompeo took over the Secreatary of State role. In April 2018, John Bolton took over the NSA. In March 2019, Patrick Shanahan became Acting Secretary of Defense, and is still not Senate approved.

In March 2019, after only one month in office, Shanahan deployed the largest nuclear mission since the Cold War: six B-52 bombers flew from the UK over Norway, the Baltic States, Greece, and Morocco. Four of the six B-52s were nuclear-capable. The other two were probably fuel tankers for escort jets.

Interesting. So they’ll fight each other on an agreed upon breaking of the rules. Sort of a gentleman’s agreement. — Brett

Exactly Bolton's view. If he says the B61-12 modifications don't qualify as making a new kind of nuclear weapon, then the Russians can make nuclear bunkerbusters too. So the Russians get to attack, say, Kiev's military bases with their own nuclear bunkerbusters. That's the way it is now.

↪Wallows If you want to be safe from MAD (which term was coined before Ronald came along) you have to get rid of the means to achieve MAD -- nuclear weapons, whether launched from the air, the land, or the sea. — Bitter Crank

The problem is, Bolton claims that nuclear bunker busters are not WMDs, and therefore do not justify massive retaliation. That's why the USA is now making 'tactical nuclear devices,' and Russia is following suit.

What now happens, is, Bolton claims, there will not be mutually assured destruction after he uses tactical nuclear devices. The most the Russians can justifiably do is use nuclear bunkerbusters themselves.

So MAD no longer stops the use of nuclear weapons. It broke down. It still stops massive retaliation, but it no longer stops nuclear weapons. As the USA keeps most of its active nuclear arsenal in Turkey, people there are scared out of their wits, because that's the first thing someone would target first, if they were attacking us in the same manner as we would attack N Korea.

But this doesn't address Wallows thoughts on SDI which is a defence strategy making America impregnable. What you're talking about us another offence weapon. — Brett

To be precise, it is an old offense weapon, that was a WMD, with a new delivery system and shaped charge, making it more like a gun than a bomb, because it targets a particular thing. Therefore, Bolton will be arguing, it is not a WMD, and does not invoke MAD.

But to defend against an attack with radar-invisible B2 bombers carrying nuclear bombs from aircraft carriers, a satellite-based laser would not have 120 seconds to respond. It would have to move its target faster than the aircraft can change direction until the laser destroys an entire plane. The cost of deploying SDI has now gone up one or two orders of magnitude.

So SDI program was dropped, and the NSA is about to manufacture tactical nuclear bombs instead. Next month.

That's exactly right, M., but the problem is, USA's NSA chief, John bolton, has figured out a way to bypass triggering of the Doomsday Device, and has already got funding to Boeing to manufacture the nuclear bunkerbusters.

But in doing so, Bolton has created a paradox for himself.

• To evade inevitable nuclear retaliation by third parties, hence, mutually assured destructiion (MAD), Bolton still has to claim the modified B61-12 is a not a WMD, but a 'tactical nuclear device.' Then retaliation with WMDs is not justified, Bolton claims.
• However, to bypass START treaty restrictions on making new kinds of nuclear weapons, Bolton already had to state it was not a new kind of weapon, but a modification of the B612-12 nuclear bomb. So he only pissed off the Russians, but didn't actually violate the treaty.

Bolton now has the paradoxical job of persuading the Acting Secretary of Defense that Matthis was wrong, and the modified B612-12 is not a WMD.

So that is the current state of the MAD.

Here's an article describing the alternatives to a nuclear attack on N Korea, from Popular Mechanics in 2017. It's wildly imaginative, but none of it makes as much sense as a B61-12 modified for directional nuclear blast:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a28147/north-korea-bunker-buster/

Also on the tactical nuclear device:

"Why the B-61-12 Bomb Is the Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon in America's Arsenal"
National Interest, October 2018
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-b-61-12-bomb-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-americas-arsenal-32976

To permit a directional nuclear blast for bunker busting, the Air Force modified the bomb's tail fins so that it would strike the ground at a known angle, permitting a directional nuclear blast. This article described the mechanical modifications in 2015, stating at that time, production was planned in 2020:

"Development and flight testing of B61-12 nuclear bomb"
Air Force Technology,
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b61-12-nuclear-bomb/

Boeing was awarded the contract to perform the manufacturing in April this year.

"Boeing awarded $127.6M contract for nuclear bomb life extension"
UPI Defense News, April 20
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/04/29/Boeing-awarded-1276M-contract-for-nuclear-bomb-life-extension/6201556549973/

The conversions will be performed in Albuquerque's nuclear research facilities, where the modifications to the nuclear containment shape were made to create a more directional blast:

"Stockpile Stewards,"
Sandia News, March 2017, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
https://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labnews/articles/2017/03-03/stockpile.html

I think Iran, then Syria, would be after N Korea, if the nuclear bunker busters work in N Korea, because its an easier first victim.

This is the current state of affairs then:

In 2018 and early 2019, US strategic bombers engaged in a variety of forward deployments, including B-52s, B-2s, and non-nuclear B-1s to Guam in January 2018 (Lamothe 2018 Lamothe, D. 2018. “In a Rarity, the Air Force Temporarily Deploys Three Kinds of Bombers to the Pacific.” Washington Post, January 16.[

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/01/16/in-a-rarity-the-air-force-temporarily-deploys-three-kinds-of-bombers-to-the-pacific/?utm_term=.a55cb3a28f86

In March 2019, the Air Force deployed an unprecedented (in post-Cold War times) six B-52 bombers to the United Kingdom from where they flew missions over Europe from Norway, to the Baltic States, to Romania, to Greece, and to Morocco. Four of the six B-52s were nuclear-capable. The operations included a five-bomber operation over Norway (US Air Force Europe 2019a US Air Force Europe. (“B-52s Operate over Europe.” March 30, https://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002107687/); and a four-bomber mission over the Baltic Sea (US Air Force Europe 2019b US Air Force Europe. “U.S. Air Force B-52s Train over Baltic Sea.” March 23, https://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Press-Releases/Article/1793735/us-air-force-b-52s-train-over-baltic-sea/ ).

In noticeable contrast to other trends, annual large-scale US-South Korean military exercises – Foal Eagle and Key Resolve––were significantly scaled back in 2018 due to ongoing diplomacy efforts between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea. In a stark departure from previous years, the 2018 exercises did not include US nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, or strategic bombers (Gady 2018 Gady, F.-S. 2018. “US, South Korea Kick Off Annual Military Drill Without US ‘Strategic Assets’.” The Diplomat, April 3.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/us-south-korea-kick-off-annual-military-drill-without-us-strategic-assets/

In March 2019, immediately following the Hanoi Summit, the United States and South Korea announced that these two annual strategic exercises will be cancelled and reorganized into a series of smaller exercises (Starr and Crawford 2019 Starr, B., and J. Crawford. 2019. “US, South Korea Scale Back Joint Military Drills ‘To Reduce Tension‘ with North Korea.” CNN, March 3.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/02/politics/us-south-korea-military-exercises/index.html

For information on current land-based nuclear missiles, see the full report:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1606503
"United States nuclear forces, 2019"
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

It may seem unlikely to you that a nuclear-weapons attack from an aircraft carrier could in fact happen next year, but there's been alot of preparation for it in the last few years, since Kim Jung suddenly scared the world by lobbing a nuclear missile over Japan, something people thought he couldn't do. Trump even made his first secretary of state go to Japan and try to sell Japan nuclear weapons. The secretary of state since resigned, calling Trump an idiot. One does have to wonder whether Trump even knows what happened at Nagasaki, so he had a point. The real point is, Japan won't do anything about it, just like Canada. So Trump really does have a reason to approve Bolton making nuclear weapons to drop on N Korea which bypass START treaty restrictions.

Ah I remember now. The NSA, under Bolton, is paying for making tactical nuclear devices, because it has authority over the Department of Energy. Thus, the congress bill to stop the DoE doing it was sidestepped. That's when Russia got annoyed and started making tactical nuclear devices too. I totally forgot. Sorry.

That's what Bolton says. He agrees. Therefore, he approved of converting B62-12 nuclear bombs into 'tactical nuclear devices' that, rather understated, can be dropped from silent and radar-invisible aircraft on cloudy days, from aircraft carriers that we don't know where they are.

Well sure, but as you say, and I agree totally, the SDI is not an issue, especially now nuclear bombs can be carried by aircraft-carrier supersonic bombers.

That means the radar-invisible B2 can also deliver nuclear bombs now. It can glide almost totally silently, too. Juyst about the only thing you can hear on this landing is the wheels turning.

In earlier news, it was stated conversion of existing B61-12s to nuclear bunker busters would start in July, after tooling and assembly line setup.

There was good news. Matthis himself has been dissuaded from using the term 'tactical nuclear device,' as wanted by progenitors of the Iraq war.

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/mattis-no-such-thing-as-a-tactical-nuclear-weapon-but-new-cruise-missile-needed/

But Matthis already resigned. Now it is Acting Defense Minister Shanahan in control, who has made no statement I know off. Trump's NSA advisor, John Bolton, who also was a major proponent for starting the war in Iraq, is said to want to be Defense Minister.

Note also, this article claims that the russians started making tactical nuclear devices first, well I have been following this for years, and that is the first time I ever read that claim. Maybe it has some justification, but mostly I have been reading of two nations complaining about the USA's program to convert B61-12 nuclear bombs into nuclear bunker busters: Russia, and Canada. Canada is where the things fly over between the USA and Russia, so it is understandably rather concerned, rather like Japan in the N Korea/USA faceoff to date.

But the point is, B61-12s can be dropped from bomber planes. So all the USA needs is an aircraft carrier near N Korea. The problem with that is, we don't really know where the aircraft carriers might be. The last time there was news of a US aircraft carrier near N Korea, it turned out to be in the South Pacific. The USA now has fake convoy groups too.

The reason why this thing started, back in 2016 when the problems first started with N Korea again, was because the bunkers in N Korea are too deep for conventional weapons to penetrate. The USA conducted a 100-missile test on Sharyat, in Syria. It found that even with 100 conventional warheads, it could not do significant damage.



So that's why the B61-12 program was kicked off again. Here is Trump approving the spending in 2016.

Totally correct. It was one of the biggest bluffs in history. Reagan went on TV and talked during computer animations. Most Americans believed it too.

it was known from day one that it was virtually impossible.

At the time Reagan made the announcement, it was not even possible to detect the rockets from orbit. Now it is somewhat possible to detect the rockets from orbit with infrared cameras.

It was also impossible to target them. It is now vaguely possible to target them, but there are problems with keeping semiconductor circuitry in orbit, because above the Van Allen belt, there is alot of solar radiation which causes semiconductors to break down. Satellite computers are made of 'radiation hardened' sapphire on silicon, which cannot make devices as complex as modern computers. So the information mostly has to be processed on the ground, which introduces control latency. so it's vaguely possible only.

It was never possible to make something to blow up the incoming satellites. Missiles are too slow. Originally it was going to be particle beams, but they require even more energy than lasers. A laser still has not been made which is powerful enough, even on the ground, because it needs a 'controlled nuclear explosion' as energy source. Not even nuclear power stations are designed to deliver the needed amount of point power for a laser with enough energy to knock a missile out of the sky.

But it was effective. The technical problems were hidden, scientists were prohibited from publishing about the impossibilities, and instead there was an enormous amount of noise and distraction from the facts.

The Russians were scared out of their wits by it.

View of Troy. no wall in back.