Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX cleared for US military launches

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#111

Post by ryanlol »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #72
ryanlol wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The middle east is migrating to democracy and has the least amount of dictators in charge in my lifetime How's that democracy working out in Libya and Syria? Many (probably pretty much everyone actually familiar with the situation) would argue that things were better under those dictators.

>How's that democracy working out in Libya and Syria? How was India immediately after its colonial rule? Or South Korea after the war? Its incredible how people conveniently forget how long transition periods are for societies that were previous non-democratic to a democratic one. Ten to fifteen years from now it will be a very different picture. Migrating to a democratic capatalistic economy is an incredible thing.…

Will it be different in 20 years? Or even 50? Right now these countries are warzones, and the stronger parties seem to be those more willing to pick up weapons and slaughter people.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#112

Post by engi_nerd »

jessaustin wrote: post #107
engi_nerd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think somewhere else on HN today there was mention of the famous discussion between Kissinger and Ellsberg about how the world seems different when you have access to information that most people don't. I think most people that work on the F-35 feel that way.

I don't get your meaning here. Do those people feel like the typical high-clearance honcho that Ellsberg described, or like Ellsberg himself with the wisdom of years?

I can only speak for myself. I haven't had the super high clearances that Ellsberg talks about, but I do understand the feeling because of the work I do. I am paranoid about winding up like the "wisdom of years" version of Ellsberg though.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#113

Post by datamingle »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #101
datamingle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you want to use a new network operator you would need to purchase new hardware for it. That happens all the time everywhere. I don't see the big problem. All of those links do not point to any corruption. Budget overruns that are usual with large govt. contracts. And other links with hard negotiations with US officials over the already resolved issue with Galileo wanting to use the same frequency. They have a…

> All of those links do not point to any corruption. What, you think the CEO of a company benefiting from a project would go badmouth it to the project's enemies without any incentive? The guy was sacked the minute that embassy cable came out: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12212525 Why do you think that the disapproval of the US Deputy Secretary of Defense is enough to almost kill a EU project? Those so…

badmouth? Seems like he was saying what he truly felt without being biased because his company benefits. Actually being truthful against his own company's interests. I read all the links.

> quoted the OHB-System chief as saying, "I think Galileo is a stupid idea that primarily serves French interests", and, in particular, French military interests. Berry Smutny denied making the comments attributed to him in the US cable. Mr Smutny was further reported to say that Galileo was "doomed for failure" or would "have to undergo drastic scalebacks for survival".

Saying the government project won't be on budget and not efficient. Over budget and needing scale backs to be affordable is par for course for most government contracts. These links are benign nothing unusual, nothing special.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#114

Post by samstave »

foobarqux wrote: post #77
yc1010 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I was born and lived during the dying days of the USSR in 80s (left in mid 90s) Under communism everyone knew the system was a failure and everything was a sham, hell the jokes being made were hilarious. Now on the other hand in last few years everything in Russia under Tsar Putin went full retard mode with people actually believing the unashamed propaganda that the state controlled media puts out. Many R…

> People there now actually believe the evil Western boogeyman is out to get them. Even Henry Kissinger believes their fears to be well-founded.

To be fair, Kissenger is a notorious warmonger and his whole goal is fomenting tensions.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#115

Post by sqeaky »

shit_parade2 wrote: post #108
sqeaky wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> military industrial complex This phrase shows a simplified few events and organizations as they actually are. The rest of your post shows a fanatical viewpoint lacking in critical thought. I will agree with you insofar as not everything is ideal with our military spending, the amount of spending and there is some corruption in military spending. But the government and military must buy goods, this cannot always be…

Without evidence? It is true the US military refuses to count civilian murders and quaintly calls it collateral damage, as if brown kids are but roads and bridges. What do you call 14 years of war in multiple theaters resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths? It that not fanatical? You should reassess your heart, you're in need of a new one.

You are objectively wrong. The military keeps count of civilian casualties and the numbers are close to civilian numbers but not identical. The deviance seems explainable by counting methods (for example if the building collapses 3 days after the attack should people injured here be counted or not).

My source if wikipedia, here is one of several examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

They do however keep these documents classified. I think this impairs oversight and all casualty reporting should be public.

As for the military being fanatical, I do not understand you point. The military did exactly what the publicly elected executive, the President, told them to do.

If you were able to speak objectively you should be destroying anyone taking my stance. You just keep shouting out things that are simple to demonstrate as wrong.

Our current violent streak is 15 and not 14 years long. If you can't get such basic facts straight how can you expect to convince others you are worth listening too?

As for the years of war, you should review history. As a country we have had 21 years of peace in the past 240 or so and our current run is in its 15th year. We have been a warring nation for a long time. This country is obsessed with violence, so we elect violent politicians.

It should be trivially easy to make a moral argument that obliterates anyone siding with the military particularly in discussion place like this. You can't make that simple argument because you speak without fact and with fanatical emotion. Let your emotion guide you, but be rooted in fact.

I cannot continue this discussion because arguing with someone so baseless lowers my credibility. This will be my last post in this debate thread.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#116

Post by shit_parade2 »

sqeaky wrote: post #115
shit_parade2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without evidence? It is true the US military refuses to count civilian murders and quaintly calls it collateral damage, as if brown kids are but roads and bridges. What do you call 14 years of war in multiple theaters resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths? It that not fanatical? You should reassess your heart, you're in need of a new one.

You are objectively wrong. The military keeps count of civilian casualties and the numbers are close to civilian numbers but not identical. The deviance seems explainable by counting methods (for example if the building collapses 3 days after the attack should people injured here be counted or not). My source if wikipedia, here is one of several examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak They do h…

This will be mine as well.

If the current war began 2001-9-11 that would be 14 years not 15. You are wrong.

Classified documents are meaningless, I have a classified document that is proof I am God. See, how stupid you sound?

If you believe American is beholden to democratic concerns you are either a troll or hopelessly naïve.

Anyone who isn't upset that they live in a country which repeatedly kills civilians without cause is a monster.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#117

Post by jessaustin »

engi_nerd wrote: post #112
jessaustin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your meaning here. Do those people feel like the typical high-clearance honcho that Ellsberg described, or like Ellsberg himself with the wisdom of years?

I can only speak for myself. I haven't had the super high clearances that Ellsberg talks about, but I do understand the feeling because of the work I do. I am paranoid about winding up like the "wisdom of years" version of Ellsberg though.

If one can assume that you have classified knowledge of the F-35 program, and one has seen the analyst's "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" statement, the "trust us we know stuff you don't" stuff rings really false, in today's reduced-trust context. If in fact that's what you're trying to say, because I find this statement to be if anything more impenetrable than the first.

Re: SpaceX cleared for US military launches

#118

Post by engi_nerd »

jessaustin wrote: post #117
engi_nerd wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak for myself. I haven't had the super high clearances that Ellsberg talks about, but I do understand the feeling because of the work I do. I am paranoid about winding up like the "wisdom of years" version of Ellsberg though.

If one can assume that you have classified knowledge of the F-35 program, and one has seen the analyst's " can't turn, can't climb, can't run " statement, the "trust us we know stuff you don't" stuff rings really false, in today's reduced-trust context. If in fact that's what you're trying to say, because I find this statement to be if anything more impenetrable than the first.

The "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" stuff -- well, sure, compared to a clean F-16, or an F-22, or any number of other platforms, the F-35 has less maneuverability. This pilot says it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCZmPUQZGvw

To paraphrase him: is the F-35 the world's best pure dogfighter? No. Is it the best pure CAS aircraft? No. For everything else, how does it compare? It's better.

This video is also worth checking out.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U

Sorry for sounding impenetrable.

Post reply on HN