161–170 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't some of them planning to use lasers? They'd have a hard time blocking that.
wat how are lasers working in this scenario
Starlink can’t come soon enough. Imagine internet beyond the grasp of control freak governments
> Imagine internet beyond the grasp of control freak governments Radio jammers. There are very few technological solutions to political problems.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_counter-countermeas...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The United States has often chosen the latter Seems like it's usually a government that's popular with its people that gets overthrown and replaced by a "democratic" government.
The incumbent government is usually popular because it's a totalitarian regime where the people aren't given a choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wanting to protect your own civilization and way of life doesn't make one a bastard. It's this kind of divisive rhetoric that has spurned the division we see today and the rise of hard-right nationalism. Please learn to be somewhat more rational and civil in your discourse.
Refusing to accept people fleeing from death, torture and sorrowful life, because you are afraid they might interfere with your way of life, is a bastard move, to say the least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if…
I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. When you want a country to be free and democratic, you can't also tell them who to elect. You have to choose one or the other. The United States has often chosen the latter while pretending to want the former, but at least with Iraq they seem to be mos…
> The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. I don't the right prior here is "elections = real democracy", for cases like Iraq. The US has long history of installing "democratic" governments that are not actually democratic, but rather military states who violently suppress the people, but supp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The United States has often chosen the latter Seems like it's usually a government that's popular with its people that gets overthrown and replaced by a "democratic" government.
The incumbent government is usually popular because it's a totalitarian regime where the people aren't given a choice.
the ones that come readily to my mind like Iran and Chile don't quite fit that mold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. When you want a country to be free and democratic, you can't also tell them who to elect. You have to choose one or the other. The United States has often chosen the latter while pretending to want the former, but at least with Iraq they seem to be mos…
The hands off approach to Iraq is exactly how we got ISIS btw...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The incumbent government is usually popular because it's a totalitarian regime where the people aren't given a choice.
The opposite is often true. For instance, in Guatemala and Chile the US helped overthrow democratic governments and installed totalitarian regimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine a laser at typical radio wavelengths would be just as susceptible to cloud-cover-induced interference as a non-laser at typical radio wavelengths, no? Not that even lasers would be necessary to mitigate jamming; ordinary beam-forming / directional antennas should be enough (barring some really sophisticated jamming technology of which I'm not aware, or the Iraqi government putting up and maintaining perma…
> Jammers (to my knowledge) operate by actively producing an inverted copy of the signals it actually sees. No. Usually, all you need is to do is to send a signal - any signal - on a frequency you want to jam with enough power to overwhelm the target signal. A directional antenna won't get a milliwatt satellite signal if it starts picking up half a kilowatt of random noise, even if that noise is coming from the side.…
There are plenty of other strategies, too (like not sticking to a single frequency, or picking frequencies that are likely to be too valuable to block with such a blunt-force method).