From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:02:54 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Which gets you either a diffuse shot that probably won't do anything or a   
   narrow one that will probably miss.   
      
   (Not that getting this kind of even distribution is exactly easy.)   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   And it's still really hard to hit because of the long time in flight and   
   the need for information which is impossible to have because it doesn't   
   exist yet.   
      
   > Yes, I noticed. The correction was irrelevant.   
      
   He flat out made the argument "you can't hide the sensor platforms   
   either."  It is 100% relevant to respond to that by pointing out that I   
   was not making an argument based on hiding the sensor platforms.   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   They aren't anywhere near as tight as you seem to think, (given that you   
   have now revealed that you think a 100km wide attack is almost certain to   
   hit).   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   Spotting the launching of a large, coordinated, attack is a lot easier   
   than compromising a important and highly redundant system.  To use an   
   analogy:  I'm trying to spot when your ship leaves harbour while you are   
   trying to get a saboteur into each of my coastal forts.   
      
   >> 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".   
      
   You are misunderstanding the adage.   
      
   > Most of the forces used in WWII were built for WWI... some literally.   
      
   False.  Even most of the small arms had been replaced by new designs.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Those ships haven't gone a generation without systems upgrades.   
      
   They also don't have a crew that's a generation out of date, (although   
   you can get around that in space war).   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   IOW:  You'll have nice bright radiators.   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)