Trump launches military strike against Syria

[TheMastersSon]

 

Just because someone says something, does not necessarily imply it is actually going to happen that way. I tend to take anything those folks have to say with a pound or so of salt.

Can you please refer us to a single known instance of exaggerated or unfulfilled claims by Skunk Works.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Just because someone says something, does not necessarily imply it is actually going to happen that way. I tend to take anything those folks have to say with a pound or so of salt.

Can you please refer us to a single known instance of exaggerated or unfulfilled claims by Skunk Works.

 

They don't talk much, but, they are out there. A google search will turn them up for you. Sorting the wheat from the chaff will be the fun part. An exercise I am not really interested in indulging in.

 

For more than five decades, I have seen various folks, both public, and private, state flatly that "we will have fusion power within X years." I have not seen a single one of those predictions come true. We can barely manage to get more energy out of the reaction, then we put into it at this point. We are still a LONG way from a sustainable reaction, that we can actually use for power generation. Unless someone gets really lucky, and stumbles upon the trick we seem to be missing, I am quite certain that will continue to see these 'predictions', but, we still won't see a viable fusion power plant.

[TheMastersSon]

"It's closer than you think."

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

 

Technical details if you're interested:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

 

I have no idea if this is even tangentially related to Syria. Probably not.

Edited April 15, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

"It's closer than you think."

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

 

Technical details if you're interested:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

 

I have no idea if this is even tangentially related to Syria. Probably not.

I have been seeing things of that nature for decades. A company that used to be in Ann Arbor, was working on the same type of tech. That was back in the late 80's, early 90's.....

 

Granted, Lockheed has a boatload more resources to throw at the problem, that still isn't a 'guarantee' of success. Will research move faster? Quite likely. Will they be any more successful? That remains to be seen.

 

You aren't showing me anything new. ALL of these ideas have been around for decades, yet we still don't have fusion power. We have a LONG way to go, and I would be absolutely astounded to see anything come of it within the next 10 years......

 

Edit: What? You mean, "Off Topic"????? Nah, we would never do that...... :D

Edited April 15, 2017 by HeyYou

[Beriallord]

Look, here is the way I see it, we got the choice between the lesser of 2 evils. Either choice isn't that great, but IMO, Assad is the lesser of two evils when we're talking about the other side being Islamic State. Nobody has proven there is a viable 3rd option, IMO. Assad and the Russians have ISIS on the ropes in Syria. This problem is/was going to solve itself without the USA doing anything. The attack on Assad was just completely pointless. Maybe I get it if Trump just wanted to attack someone to prove to the world he's tough. Ok Donald, we get it, you're tough. You can stop with the insanity now.

 

Every "regime change" in recent years has turned into abysmal failure, and only made the region even more chaotic than it was prior. We're spending all this money, resources, and lives and the world is definitely not a more peaceful or stable place. Trump had this problem handed to him, and now it looks like he's continuing policies similar to the previous 2 administrations. That's not what he campaigned on.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Beriallord

[HeyYou]

Look, here is the way I see it, we got the choice between the lesser of 2 evils. Either choice isn't that great, but IMO, Assad is the lesser of two evils when we're talking about the other side being Islamic State. Nobody has proven there is a viable 3rd option, IMO. Assad and the Russians have ISIS on the ropes in Syria. This problem is/was going to solve itself without the USA doing anything. The attack on Assad was just completely pointless. Maybe I get it if Trump just wanted to attack someone to prove to the world he's tough. Ok Donald, we get it, you're tough. You can stop with the insanity now.

 

Every "regime change" in recent years has turned into abysmal failure, and only made the region even more chaotic than it was prior. We're spending all this money, resources, and lives and the world is definitely not a more peaceful or stable place. Trump had this problem handed to him, and now it looks like he's continuing policies similar to the previous 2 administrations. That's not what he campaigned on.

Wholeheartedly concur. And now, I see folks noising about, that the chemical attack was indeed staged, and ISIS is likely the responsible party.

[Harbringe]

 

Wholeheartedly concur. And now, I see folks noising about, that the chemical attack was indeed staged, and ISIS is likely the responsible party.

 

 

 

So the guy that was hired by the US Gov't to teach other people about chemical weapons is saying this is obviously filled with false claims , anyone who believes this was done by Assad if a fool , if so I got some WMD's from Iraq to sell you , yeah that's right I found them. lol. People are so stupid.

[Beriallord]

 

Wholeheartedly concur. And now, I see folks noising about, that the chemical attack was indeed staged, and ISIS is likely the responsible party.

 

 

I honestly don't see what motive Assad would have had to use chemical weapons. His side is winning. Why risk escalating the situation into dangerous territory when you don't have to? I don't think Assad is stupid and neither is Putin. And you'd have to be more than stupid to launch a chemical weapons attack when you're in a strong position. Like 2 sandwiches short of a picnic basket.

 

There are also questionable reports about the amount of damage they inflicted with the attack. The USA is claiming they destroyed 20% of Assad's airforce (or something like that), but the Syrians and Russians are both claiming that's not true. Assad had warning before the attack, because the USA warned Moscow. I guess, according to the USA, Assad is supposed to leave all his aircraft parked on the runway because they're launching missiles at them..... Regardless, I don't think we're getting the full truth from either side here.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Beriallord

[HeyYou]

 

 

Wholeheartedly concur. And now, I see folks noising about, that the chemical attack was indeed staged, and ISIS is likely the responsible party.

 

 

I honestly don't see what motive Assad would have had to use chemical weapons. His side is winning. Why risk escalating the situation into dangerous territory when you don't have to? I don't think Assad is stupid and neither is Putin.

 

My thoughts as well. Unless Assad/Putin is TRYING to provoke the US..... which really doesn't strike me as the brightest idea....... I think trump didn't look hard enough before he leaped..... (leapt??? Whatever.)