From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le vendredi 22 juillet 2016 19:30:24 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
      
   > This operation just keeps getting bigger and bigger.  You are now evenly    
   > distributing billions, (covering a 10Mm radius at one KKV per hectare    
   > takes ~30 billion KKVs), of KKV pellets and all you can guarantee is to    
   > restrict it's ability to do long term avoidance.   
      
   From my original proposal on this point: 400 trillion, exactly. (200m)^3   
   material. This was extreme overkill. I have since brought it down to (30m)^3   
   of material... or even less, using smaller pellets.   
      
      
   >   
   > > No one is assuming that it is easy.   
   >    
   > The guy I initially responded to did.  Furthermore, you did notice the    
   > context of that remark, right?  That was pointing out that someone was    
   > arguing against the wrong thing in his response to me.   
      
   Interpretation. I interpreted that the mechanism was not complicated, which is   
   correct... essentially, you through stones. You interpreted that it was not   
   difficult, which I agree is false... you need to make careful calculations   
   based upon careful    
   observations.   
   Yes, I noticed. The correction was irrelevant.    
      
      
   > >    
   > > And tracking how much it has deviated in course over a couple years   
   > > gives a fairly reliable stadnard of deviation of how much allowance has   
   > > to be taken into account.   
   >    
   > That would be part of those constraints.   
      
   Yes. We are in agreement here. My point being that constraints are relevant.   
      
      
   >   
   > > As I said, no one said it would be easy. OTOH, having a few well place   
   > > agents...   
   >    
   > Which both sides will have and you can thus assume that your shots are    
   > known.  Thus the war starts a couple years before your 'surprise' attack    
   > on the sensor net.   
      
   Oh, absolutely, all sides will have agents. This is a large part of why wars   
   drag out. It is also why many wars never get started. OTOH, you can never   
   assume anything. Your spies miss the opportunity to sabotage the platforms,   
   and you have to kill them    
   instead. The other side misses the opportunity to gather key intelligence on   
   the intents of a separatist movement (for example), and a wave of surprise   
   attacks commences.   
   Espionage isn't easy, either. Nothing is going to be easy. You take the   
   opportunities you can.   
      
      
      
   > So you are going to war with a ship a generation out of date.   
      
   Yes. Just like militaries always have. There is an adage, "armies always plan   
   for the last war". Most of the forces used in WWII were built for WWI... some   
   literally. The majority of forces used in Korea and Vietnam were built for   
   WWII. Most of the    
   vessels we have deployed now were built in the '80s. Our newest carriers and   
   destroyers were put on the drawing board 20 years ago, based on 30 year old   
   concepts.    
      
      
   >    
   > The "little nudge and drift" plain fails because of the time scales    
   > involved:  It either takes forever to get there or you need a lot more    
   > than a little nudge.   
      
   Well, yes, the "little nudge" was actually a mass driver spitting out tonnes   
   of excavated material at a few km/s. Such phrasesare relative.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)