• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Which projects would have generated maximum controversy it produced?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aubi

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
169
Reaction score
242
Website
www.armedconflicts.com
Orionblamblam: The US Army allegedly thought about projecting a giant hologram of Allah above Baghdad, urging the locals to rise against Saddam.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
868
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The same weapons are impacted by the fact that in general different races and ethnic groups are artificial human concepts/ divisions with little genetic underpinnings.

This popular line of reasoning is of course factually inaccurate, given that couples of any chosen race or ethnic group almost invariably produce offspring of the same race/ethnic group. Rarely do, say, a black couple produce a clearly Chinese child. When that happens, the man tends to look rather askance at the woman, and then they end up on the Maury Povich show.



The differences between races/ethnic groups *are* driven by genetics (you can, for example, get that Chinese kid from black parents if you genetically tinker, but you can't do it by having the parents wish real hard or study Chinese or eat a lot of Kung Pow chicken). But the genetics are often so vague and relatively minor in the grand scheme of the entire genome that a virus intended to attack a single race - or all races save one - is doomed to failure. Hell, even if you could nail it down with precision, on the same day that CNN announces the death of the very last person of Ethnicity X, a minor story scrolling by on the bottom of the screen will talk about how squirrels and badgers have also mysteriously gone extinct.

The groovy thing about genetic weaponry, though: it's coming to an edgy teen near you soon enough. Nuclear weapons are, at least until we enter a whole new realm of physics, always goign to be beyond the reach of the average schmoe. Simply obtaining a sufficient quantity of weapons grade uranium or plutonium is going to remain the province of industrial powers. But bioweapons? Shoot, soon enough an entire bioweapons lab will be compressible down to something the size of a desktop printer. And the dark web will doubtless be filled with the genomes of any biological nasty you might be interested in, and there'll be apps to adjust those weapons any way you like. Someone *will* crank out a flu bug designs to take out tall redheads with heterochromic eyes... not because of deep ideological reasons, but just because they can.

The lesson here: support space exploration. Because Earth will get reduced to a blasted wasteland, sooner or later.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
868
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Orionblamblam: The US Army allegedly thought about projecting a giant hologram of Allah above Baghdad, urging the locals to rise against Saddam.
I'd *love* to see the hardware that would be needed for such a thing. Because you'd not only need image projection technology of a *kind* that currently does not exist, but you'd also need to scale it up to a monumental degree... and marry it to sound projection technology of truly vast power.
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
209
Reaction score
89
Orionblamblam: The US Army allegedly thought about projecting a giant hologram of Allah above Baghdad, urging the locals to rise against Saddam.
I'd *love* to see the hardware that would be needed for such a thing. Because you'd not only need image projection technology of a *kind* that currently does not exist, but you'd also need to scale it up to a monumental degree... and marry it to sound projection technology of truly vast power.
A thousand tons of TNT, inside one bomb, I’d love to see that son........
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
327
The same weapons are impacted by the fact that in general different races and ethnic groups are artificial human concepts/ divisions with little genetic underpinnings.

This popular line of reasoning is of course factually inaccurate, given that couples of any chosen race or ethnic group almost invariably produce offspring of the same race/ethnic group. Rarely do, say, a black couple produce a clearly Chinese child. When that happens, the man tends to look rather askance at the woman, and then they end up on the Maury Povich show.



The differences between races/ethnic groups *are* driven by genetics (you can, for example, get that Chinese kid from black parents if you genetically tinker, but you can't do it by having the parents wish real hard or study Chinese or eat a lot of Kung Pow chicken). But the genetics are often so vague and relatively minor in the grand scheme of the entire genome that a virus intended to attack a single race - or all races save one - is doomed to failure. Hell, even if you could nail it down with precision, on the same day that CNN announces the death of the very last person of Ethnicity X, a minor story scrolling by on the bottom of the screen will talk about how squirrels and badgers have also mysteriously gone extinct.

The groovy thing about genetic weaponry, though: it's coming to an edgy teen near you soon enough. Nuclear weapons are, at least until we enter a whole new realm of physics, always goign to be beyond the reach of the average schmoe. Simply obtaining a sufficient quantity of weapons grade uranium or plutonium is going to remain the province of industrial powers. But bioweapons? Shoot, soon enough an entire bioweapons lab will be compressible down to something the size of a desktop printer. And the dark web will doubtless be filled with the genomes of any biological nasty you might be interested in, and there'll be apps to adjust those weapons any way you like. Someone *will* crank out a flu bug designs to take out tall redheads with heterochromic eyes... not because of deep ideological reasons, but just because they can.

The lesson here: support space exploration. Because Earth will get reduced to a blasted wasteland, sooner or later.
Unfortunately most of that is quite incorrect from a scientific perspective - suggest other contributors go to better informed and more credible sources for information in this area.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
948
Reaction score
170
It doesn't need to be a danger to the public to be controversial. It just needs to be expensive in money, resources and manpower only to prove totally useless as some brilliant new discovery makes it obsolete very soon after it comes out, leaving the development and procurement team with egg on their faces.
And what does that for the XB-70? SAMs? Please. The B-52 is still flying.
The XB-70 was rendered obsolete as a high-speed nuclear delivery system intended to be uninterceptable by the ballistic missile, which was even more unstoppable.

The B-52 is far more vulnerable, but has stayed around because it's proved to be adaptable to conventional bombing with VERY heavy loads of iron bombs, and the B-1B and B-2 also retain this capability. Could a developed B-70 have done that? Or would it have remained a one-trick pony whose trick some other pony eventually did better? Sometimes it DOESN'T pay to be optimized to do Mach 3 at 70,000 feet.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,113
Reaction score
1,171
It doesn't need to be a danger to the public to be controversial. It just needs to be expensive in money, resources and manpower only to prove totally useless as some brilliant new discovery makes it obsolete very soon after it comes out, leaving the development and procurement team with egg on their faces.
And what does that for the XB-70? SAMs? Please. The B-52 is still flying.
The XB-70 was rendered obsolete as a high-speed nuclear delivery system intended to be uninterceptable by the ballistic missile, which was even more unstoppable.

The B-52 is far more vulnerable, but has stayed around because it's proved to be adaptable to conventional bombing with VERY heavy loads of iron bombs, and the B-1B and B-2 also retain this capability. Could a developed B-70 have done that? Or would it have remained a one-trick pony whose trick some other pony eventually did better? Sometimes it DOESN'T pay to be optimized to do Mach 3 at 70,000 feet.
The XB-70 could have carried 25,000lbs of weapons internally as well as (supposedly) a pair of Skybolts on underwing hardpoints. Yes, yes, the Skybolts weren't purchased but those hardpoints (assuming they existed) would be useful for other weapons, as would the weapons bays. So no, "It just needs to be expensive in money, resources and manpower only to prove totally useless as some brilliant new discovery makes it obsolete very soon after it comes out, leaving the development and procurement team with egg on their faces." does not apply.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
948
Reaction score
170
It doesn't need to be a danger to the public to be controversial. It just needs to be expensive in money, resources and manpower only to prove totally useless as some brilliant new discovery makes it obsolete very soon after it comes out, leaving the development and procurement team with egg on their faces.
And what does that for the XB-70? SAMs? Please. The B-52 is still flying.
The XB-70 was rendered obsolete as a high-speed nuclear delivery system intended to be uninterceptable by the ballistic missile, which was even more unstoppable.

The B-52 is far more vulnerable, but has stayed around because it's proved to be adaptable to conventional bombing with VERY heavy loads of iron bombs, and the B-1B and B-2 also retain this capability. Could a developed B-70 have done that? Or would it have remained a one-trick pony whose trick some other pony eventually did better? Sometimes it DOESN'T pay to be optimized to do Mach 3 at 70,000 feet.
The XB-70 could have carried 25,000lbs of weapons internally as well as (supposedly) a pair of Skybolts on underwing hardpoints. Yes, yes, the Skybolts weren't purchased but those hardpoints (assuming they existed) would be useful for other weapons, as would the weapons bays. So no, "It just needs to be expensive in money, resources and manpower only to prove totally useless as some brilliant new discovery makes it obsolete very soon after it comes out, leaving the development and procurement team with egg on their faces." does not apply.
I can't help but think that sending a B-70 on a conventional bombing mission, especially with draggy iron bombs under its wings, is akin to adapting a YF-12 to fire Sidewinders against MiG-17s.

It's not just about carrying the weight; it's about fitting the volume of those weapons in and releasing them safely within an appropriate flight envelope and with acceptable accuracy. Yes, the plane was a work of technical beauty, but you might just end up with nothing more than an even bigger and more expensive version of a B-58 (which after all the effort that went into building it served for how many years?).
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,113
Reaction score
1,171
I can't help but think that sending a B-70 on a conventional bombing mission, especially with draggy iron bombs under its wings, is akin to adapting a YF-12 to fire Sidewinders against MiG-17s.

It's not just about carrying the weight; it's about fitting the volume of those weapons in and releasing them safely within an appropriate flight envelope and with acceptable accuracy. Yes, the plane was a work of technical beauty, but you might just end up with nothing more than an even bigger and more expensive version of a B-58 (which after all the effort that went into building it served for how many years?).
You keep moving the goalposts. You claim it was "instantly" and "embarrassingly" made obsolete by ICBMs. That is not true.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
378
I can't help but think that sending a B-70 on a conventional bombing mission, especially with draggy iron bombs under its wings, is akin to adapting a YF-12 to fire Sidewinders against MiG-17s.

It's not just about carrying the weight; it's about fitting the volume of those weapons in and releasing them safely within an appropriate flight envelope and with acceptable accuracy. Yes, the plane was a work of technical beauty, but you might just end up with nothing more than an even bigger and more expensive version of a B-58 (which after all the effort that went into building it served for how many years?).
You keep moving the goalposts. You claim it was "instantly" and "embarrassingly" made obsolete by ICBMs. That is not true.
Agree with you sferrin, the stated reason was SAMs but the reality was costs and a budget that did not have room for it. ICBMs were one leg of the triad and would not have replaced the aircraft leg (aircraft, ICBMs and SLBMs (Polaris at that time)) of the triad.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
948
Reaction score
170
You claim it was "instantly" and "embarrassingly" made obsolete by ICBMs. That is not true.
No, I originally claimed that a weapon which elicits maximum controversy if produced is one that is rendered obsolete soon after production. I stated a general guideline and then attempted to fit the XB-70 to that guideline.
The flipside of the coin is that we're dealing in what-iffery. What if you build a fleet of B-70 bombers for the nuclear deterrent, spend all that money, and then find you spent it to no end because the only certain retaliatory mechanism is ICBMs? THAT is the possibility I was discussing, not what actually happened IRL.
 
Last edited:

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
434
Reaction score
374
How about the sort of weapons that would destroy the planet, in one go.

blow up the moon, poison the oceans, Burn all the air.

weapons based upon sex?
Male/female sterilisation weapon?
Or indeed the opposite, every woman pregnant at the same time? Think of the resources burned up.

Blindness- ala mr Wyndham?

Would anyone count a device that stopped you dying from natural causes as a weapon?
There's not a great deal of use destroying your enemy if you destroy yourself in the process. Hence MAD.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,942
Reaction score
634
T-15 torpedo...oh wait, it has been resurrected as Poseidon SUV
Myasishchev M-25
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,113
Reaction score
1,171
Would the M-25 have even worked?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
128
My personal favorite.

"dust defense": clean nuclear devices would be detonated on or under the ground near ICBMs to send up clouds of dust to disable attacking RVs.

Advantages:
  • Highly effective
  • No technical issues to implement.
  • Cheap and quick to field.
  • No known countermeasures
Disadvantages:
  • Requires the President to detonate hundreds of megatons on US soil based on warning
  • pre-use and post-use fallout
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,113
Reaction score
1,171
Unfortunately most of that is quite incorrect from a scientific perspective -
I look forward with great interest to the sources you will doubtless post that will show how something *other* than genetics leads to an individuals physical characteristics.
I wouldn't hold your breath. ;)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
128
My personal favorite.

"dust defense": clean nuclear devices would be detonated on or under the ground near ICBMs to send up clouds of dust to disable attacking RVs.
How would a cloud of dust bother an RV???
Either through direct collision of the lofted debris with the hypersonic RV or erosion of the heat shield
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
826
Reaction score
341
If the RV had a terminal guidance system based on visual or infrared cameras, dust would confuse it.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
868
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
How would a cloud of dust bother an RV???
Either through direct collision of the lofted debris with the hypersonic RV or erosion of the heat shield
Given the very low bulk density of the dust cloud, this seems dubious. If the RV was targeting ICBMs, which seems to be the case, then it is designed for *at* *least* an impact detonation, if not a sub-surface detonation. This means it is meant to survive at least touching the ground. Which means it's tough enough that a dust cloud will hardly be noticable.

If the RV had a terminal guidance system based on visual or infrared cameras, dust would confuse it.
How many RV's have cameras?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
868
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
489
Genetically engineered DNA targeted viruses are a concern, especially so-called 'Slatewipers' which are designed to wipe out entire ethnic groups and races.
in 1980s this story was publish in several german Magazin like P.M. or Der Spiegel and Stern.
i don't know if that story is true or just fake
the Story so far:

Once upon a time, 1960s they had Idea for a US bio-weapon that infected only Russians
After many trails, they manage to cultivate a version of Sickle cell disease that infected only Russians.
But during end phase came a question they had overlooked, how many US citizens are from Russian ancestry ?
The program was terminated very fast...


like i say, don't know if that story is true or just fake, i read it a long time ago...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,113
Reaction score
1,171
Why would the XB-70 be particularly controversial?
Too expensive purchase, too expensive operation cost, Limit survival during mission...
Expensive, yes? Too expensive? Debatable. Limited survival? How many Blackbirds got shot down? I'd wager an XB-70 would have been more survivable than a B-52.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
128
Given the very low bulk density of the dust cloud, this seems dubious. If the RV was targeting ICBMs, which seems to be the case, then it is designed for *at* *least* an impact detonation, if not a sub-surface detonation. This means it is meant to survive at least touching the ground. Which means it's tough enough that a dust cloud will hardly be noticable.
You are talking about ~ .3 megatons of earth per megaton of buried weapon yield; I'm not sure that's low density.
And impact detonation of the RV stresses the instantaneous survivability of the fuze + other components given the setback
forces they would encounter. And those impact velocities would typically be in the high supersonic range not the
much higher velocities the RV encounters in the cloud.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
327
Why would the XB-70 be particularly controversial?
Too expensive purchase, too expensive operation cost, Limit survival during mission...
...would eat into budget for Minutemen, other Airforce priorities (opportunity costs)
Simple solution: don't eat into the Minuteman & etc. USAF budgets. Eat into the Great Society budgets instead. Not at all controversial!
Advocating for fewer Americans with access to affordable healthcare (in general and right now in the middle of a Pandemic).
GREAT idea and REALLY relevant to the whole purpose and ethos of the forum.....
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,760
Reaction score
868
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Advocating for fewer Americans with access to affordable healthcare (in general and right now in the middle of a Pandemic).
GREAT idea and REALLY relevant to the whole purpose and ethos of the forum.....
See? Merely *suggesting* it set *you* off, thus demonstrating the relevance to the topic at hand.

PS: The Great Society led to *less* affordable healthcare, just as government-funded "food insurance" would inevitably lead to more expensive groceries. So once again one terribly effective-yet-controvesial weapon system would be one that showed populations that their cherished beliefs are wrong. Perhaps one great and controversial weapon system would be a mass produced drone made to closely resemble a local common bird; it would fly into regular folks homes and tell them things that they don't want to hear. "Dear leader is an idiot," or "communism is for saps" or "Hitler only has one ball" or "increased spending leads to increased cost," so on. Manufacture these drones by the hundreds of millions and blanket enemy populations with a blizzard of non-stop chatter at relatively high volume. It will directly harm nobody, but it will result in the local equivalent of TDS on a massive scale.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
550
The best way to stop Soviet Army is large depots of food, alcohol and prostitutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top