If someone believes in good faith that a Lulu Account Holder has infringed their copyright, they can request that we take down the infringing material by filing a DMCA Notice. When a clear and valid Notice is received pursuant to the guidelines, we will respond by either taking down the allegedly infringing content or blocking access to it, and we may also contact you for more information.
If you are not the copyright holder or its agent and if the content is clearly infringing the copyright of a well-known work, please select "Infringes a well-known work" from the dropdown menu. Lulu Staff has been notified of a possible violation of the terms of our Membership Agreement. Our agents will determine if the content reported is inappropriate or not based on the guidelines provided and will then take action where needed. Thank you for notifying us. The page you are attempting to access contains content that is not intended for underage readers.
This item has not been rated yet.
Elmo Cotton, the Harlie, is the only one left; he alone has survived. On the advice of his fly-catching uncle, Elmo Cotton leaves everything behind and becomes a fugitive, a raccoon on the run; and from now on, things will never be the same. He also meets up with Sherman Dixon, a big brown turtle with a gregarious heart and a taste for cat-fish and carrots Log in to rate this item.
You must be logged in to post a review.
Putin wants increased petro exports, not a descent into chaos. Now it seems that people can do it on mass-access platforms and it passes on the nod. If you could build a base that could self-sustain indefinitely in a black flag zone, it wouldn't be that much harder to colonize Mars, but it's a definite trick. Charlie, won't you feel horribly embarrassed if all these things happen as predicted? None of this was leaked onto Twitter, where the President-Elect happily re-tweeted random adolescent memes and attacks on Vanity Fair while pressing forward with swamp-draining activities such as disbanding Ethic Committees. Remember that Russian industrial culture and strategy has been low-tech and easy to repair since WWII.
There are no reviews for the current version of this product Refreshing There are no reviews for previous versions of this product. Moderation of Questionable Content Thank you for your interest in helping us moderate questionable content on Lulu. How does this content violate the Lulu Membership Agreement? From our Membership Agreement "Lulu is a place where people of all ages, backgrounds, experience, and professions can publish, sell, or buy creative content such as novels, memoirs, poetry, cookbooks, technical manuals, articles, photography books, children's books, calendars, and a host of other content that defies easy categorization.
Address Address is required. Location of Infringing Material Identify each web page that allegedly contains infringing material. Sworn Statements I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I wish to be contacted with the results of the investigation. Your notification has been sent Lulu Staff has been notified of a possible violation of the terms of our Membership Agreement. We were unable to complete your request. By Joe Prussing Paperback: By Joe Prussing eBook: Knights in Rusty Armor The Black Diamond - Book This means that you could to some degree determine which hemisphere got "hit".
So if you can time it for the Pacific that's likely what would happen. Sucks to be Hawaii and other such places but that's life. The Atlantic is a smaller target. I'm sure that some in the US would go for as close to the Urals as possible. While some in Moscow and Prague might argue for a more "western" hit. Bear in mind that as the Earth moves around the Sun it travels its own diameter every seven minutes or so. Depending upon the exact trajectory and orbital mechanics of the comet, if you delay it by 10 minutes or so, congratulations, it's missing the Earth entirely.
That said, any attempt to deflect the comet could still affect where it hits within the hemisphere facing it, so your speculation about the politics involved is still legit. If it can be turned "just a little bit" then why not set things up so our giant meteor hits the Antarctic? Also, the impact would be at an oblique angle, and I think that's good.
The factor which makes this work or not would be how much ice we can expect to melt, and whether that ice would run-off the continent, or be contained against mountain ranges, other ice, etc. The Pentagon and the Kremlin have been waiting for that comet. Strap some extra solid boosters on a big launcher, and Comet, please make a left turn, thankyouveddymuch. That, of course, happens while at least in the US, Pence and the Dominionists next concert, Nov, !
One small group of alt-wrongs and ammosexuals try to attack, with the expect result - them being Gen Custer, and the US Army as Sitting Bull I did a google, and according to CoolCosmos So your mostly burned out comet has a lost most of its loose corona, and b ain't that big. One, or several, 50 MT nukes would actually go into it perhaps half a klick and that's assuming it's not primarily iron.
Then, as it goes sailing by, the various militaries, meeting under the auspices of the UN, take pot shots at it, to develop the best technique. Yeah, that's the Pretorian Guard scenario. There's always an incredibly good reason for the good people in the Imperial Guard to get rid of a bad emperor. Problem is, it sets a precedent, and after a few decades, you have factions of the Pretorian Guard would that be the Army, or the Secret Service? To use your analogy.
There's no happy ending that can't be twisted. Every happily ever after with the lovers riding off into the sunset can experience the equivalent of an ectopic pregnancy. Another nasty side effect: Angsty teenagers in giant robots. President-elect works on restructuring Office of the Director of National Intelligence, tweets again his doubts that Russia hacked Democrats. One wonders what Obama said to Putin. One also wonders whether Farage will also be asked to pay back any "loans. One does indeed wonder what is moving beneath the surface?
One of the great moments of my life was at around years-old, when I saw a science-fiction book at the store. It had a yellow submarine on the cover - good times! There is also the option of ablation by a standoff nuclear detonation, if there is enough time. This ejects a large amount of surface material from one hemisphere or whatever if non-spherical of the object, and provides a very substantial nudge. Deflection methods with sufficiently high energy density are often preferred over a nuclear disruption approach.
Nuclear standoff explosions are thus assessed to be much more effective than any other non-nuclear alternatives, especially for larger asteroids. Sorry, that second paragraph at should also have been italicized, as it is a quote from the article. Aah, we've reached the point in this conversation where the violent overthrow of the US government by a bloody military coup is a happy ending. Now, what does reality need to achieve the Godzilla Threshold? Having the US establishment have to cope with the horrid fallout of a Trump-near-win would be excellent from Putin's point of view.
Very, very, very bad. Putin wants increased petro exports, not a descent into chaos. And he's a smart guy and presumably has a very realistic assessment of people -- he is, after all, not dead -- so he's aware that trying to control The Donald is not a long term success strategy. So right now, having Europe not disintegrate -- Europe is a major market -- would be one of Putin's goals.
NO If "Europe" disentegrates, he gets the Baltic states back a slaves, err Baltic states are a net economic drain to the conqueror. Russia's economy sits on selling natural gas and oil. They're very much a petro state. Europe is their main natural gas customer. Europe disintegrating -- a resumption of national currencies of initially unknown valuations -- means a very bad winter with very low sales. It means a critical market that might never recover. And the Russian GDP is already falling.
And a resumption of European nationalism isn't good for Russia because you don't know what they're going to do. Recovery of the Baltic means very slow sphere of influence stuff; you threaten the mailed fist all you like, but that's to convince people the Americans can't or won't save them. It's not to open the fiscal drain of conquest. My first thought when all the volcanoes and earthquakes started going off was "thank fuck for that, at least we're back to normal disasters that make sense".
Later came the wondering whether Charlie has found John's mushrooms. I wonder how the politics of piping something valuable across hostile-ish international borders works? That might be another issue for Russia. If, say, Poland won't allow Russia to pipe oil to Britain, it's tankers or lose that market.
The countervailing argument is that Authoritarian leader-types don't necessarily think things like this out in this level of detail, which is why they seem to get more interested in conquering each others' land than in negotiating multilateral trade agreements wherein everyone gets rich. Russia, I note is partially withdrawing from Syria, under the guise of "peace talks" I wonder if the costs of that intervention are beginning to bite?
Also, I'm not sure how much "traditional" military capability Russia can field and for how long. I have some personal interest in what they do, my country having a long border with them, though we also have a longer time as an independent country. What I'm trying to say about the duration of a war is that waging war is expensive, and the Russian economy is not doing that well - as I understand it, not even their internal one, though the trade restrictions are probably one factor. One thing they do have for waging war is fuel, and I'm not sure how well they could do if they just refactored their system for war.
Still I'm not convinced they could do that much straight-up invasion, at least not for long. Their special operations people seem to be good and well-equipped, and that's what I'm mostly afraid of, but masses of tanks rolling over borders is a different thing. Of course the Baltic states do not have that large armies - especially not if the NATO will not help them.
Of course, things do move fast in the modern world. Appropriate spec ops missions are hard to defend against and can wreak a lot of havoc. The dread is not at the s nuclear holocaust levels, but I'm still not happy.
Then there is of course the angle of internal politics: Thus, while Sweden and Finland have coastline on the Baltic sea, they are not Baltic states. Charlie, Off topic but important for this crowd: As far as I have understood, the countries with conscription armies are actually much more able to manage long conflicts than countries with professional armies.
Russia is quite likely able to manage long campaigns that involve many, many "boots on the ground". Possibly even a traditional war of attrition with conventional weapons. The interesting thing is that in order to occupy some territory for a longer time you need at least one of two things.
Preferably both of them. A many many boots on the ground, or preferably and B a local population that does not mind the occupation. In the case of Crimea the case B is clearly true. It could be that Eastern Ukraine would be a similar case. The main reason why USA and UK botched Iraq and quite apparently Afghanistan is that they just did not have enough boots on the ground for a working occupation. For example the military power of USA is currently unmatched, but the structure of US military is not at all suitable for occupying a country with a significant population.
If I remember right, Pentagon assumed that a working occupation of Iraq would require at least half a million men in active front-line duty in the occupation forces. When you consider the supply structure and rotation of US military forces and add those numbers to the half a million, it is obvious why the occupation of Iraq was a failure. Successful occupation requires a population that is quite happy with it or many, many occupiers with relatively low-tech weapons.
Russia, with a conscription army, could be able to get enough troops on the ground, but occupying a country with a significant hostile population is unlikely to be something that current-day Russia is willing or even able to do. It is worth remembering that Russia does not have that big population itself and domestic support is important even in Russia. Of course the Russian government could collapse and be replaced with a really expansionary, totalitarian regime, which would change the situation, but currently Russian foreign policy is at least partly domestic politics.
Domestic support is important even for Putin et. During the Cold War days the current Russia would have been happily accepted as a part of the democratic West. If "Europe" disentegrates, he gets the Baltic states back a slaves, err Firstly, despite large transplanted russophone minorities, the Baltic states have long memories of what happened when they were rolled over by the Red Army twice in five years with the Nazis as the filling in the triple-decker shit sandwich.
There will be resistance. Even if NATO doesn't go to war to defend its new members — something which would amount to a suicide note for the alliance — the economic sanctions against Russia would be crippling. The Baltics are too small a prize to offset that kind of damage.
If he was dumb enough to push through an invasion, Putin might survive as leader — it wouldn't be the first time he's used a patriotic flag-wave gambit to rally support for actions that caused large-scale economic self-mutilation — but his personal fortune and diplomatic credibility would both take a beating. And it'd run the risk of triggering a major re-armament drive in the rest of Eastern Europe, as everyone from Romania to Croatia start to shit themselves and ask who's going to be next.
This has been getting more than a bit of attention from my quarter. To which the Australian government responds by evacuating them all off to Manus Island and Nauru, because clearly the earthquakes were all set up by the NZ government in order to get around Australian Border Force restrictions. They can apply for refugee status from there, just like all the other economic refugees.
This is even more likely to be the case if we have the Mad Monk Tony Abbott back in charge again Look, this is a bloke who was influenced by someone so paranoid they wanted to build a moat around Parliament House in order to prevent anyone trying to assassinate the PM with a tank. Given the only people in Australia who have tanks are over the other side of Lake Burley Griffin, surely the simpler response would have been to avoid pissing off the Department of Defence?
Objective reality was not a criterion being used to determine anything. Maybe he got confused by the fact that us Pommy Bastards ;- had more tanks in private ownership than in the army for a while? A friend of my uncle in Melbourne bought himself a Ferret for 4wd fun - according to the local media that counts as a tank. He did have to take out the broomstick he put in to replace the gun though, someone complained. I agree with Charlie, Putin won't invade the Baltics, ever. Let's not forget, there's a former Soviet Republic, Belarus, way more ethnically close to Russia, that's been begging to be returned to the rodina for years now and Putin hasn't let them back in.
By "tank" I meant objects classed as "track-laying vehicles" by our Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency? It does not include armoured recovery vehicles or things like, say, FV and FV No one's mentioned lasers high powered enough to blast an approaching Earth-destroying object. Not mentioned, but would be obvious since it's due to be retired soonish is: Why not renovate Hubble into a super-duper laser? A laser saves valuable response time, light travels pretty darn fast after all The debris field would probably be smaller too if the laser vaporized the comet. What this might mean to Earth - not sure - anything from a huge billowing cascade of meteor shower to if rocky comet molten rain igniting wildfires here and there.
The resulting plumes of vaporized or ablated rock can then push targets away from collision courses. Lubin's team has run computer simulations to see how well lasers of different strengths might work against incoming asteroids of various sizes. As for which species next rises to the top of the heap And, given that convergent evolution happens all the time, maybe this new octopus species will also be able to walk on land That's because the idea is frankly silly. Hitting them with enough energy to significantly change their trajectory in less than decades is, shall we say, Out There, at least with current technology.
This translates as, "here's a clapped-out Ford Focus. Why don't we renovate it and re-purpose it as a Panamax container ship? Wrong type of mirror assembly. Power supply is somewhere between 6 and 12 orders of magnitude too small for the job you're asking for. The researchers calculated that if DE-STAR had a 1-kilometer-wide phased laser array and an equally large solar power array, it could deflect an meter Tunguska-class asteroid by about 1, kilometers over the course of four weeks. That's a phased laser array with an area of around 1 million square meters.
Hubble's mirror has 4. The Hubble if only because it would provide an existing frame even if all the innards need to get changed. And if not the Hubble, there's at least one massive telescope or five going up within the next few years In both instances Hubble and new telescopes , interchangeable modular design for quick multipurposing should be a key design feature vs.
On an even more speculative note Musk is sending up about 1, mini satellites. Maybe not super useful at destroying a massive object, but could help clean up still dangerous smaller bits. On December 30, the White House quietly released its Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy, a page document outlining the United States' plans in the event that a giant asteroid is found to be on a collision course with Earth.
Among the priorities outlined by the strategy are improving Near-Earth Object NEO detection, developing methods for deflecting asteroids, and developing interagency emergency procedures in the event of an NEO impact. Story and links at https: Putin is absolutely no one's fool. He knows, hard and fast, the full capability of their military, and if he hadn't known before, he's had the data of what happened in the Middle East since ' The Baltics were attractive, because warm water port.
I would expect to see him moving more towards making Georgia and the Ukraine, or at least part of the latter, part of Russia again. He knows where that goes. I suspect he's "mentoring" Trumpolini, really. Note that the Trump, I suspect, he sees as a pliable fool, easily directed. Odd chain of thought from 6: I note their fleet is buggering off back to Russia, before the engines fail, incidentally. As for the Baltic warm water port, I figure Kaliningrad would satisfy most of their ambitions, otoh they did lose many other ports in the Baltic. Just imagine the fallout if Putin leaks proof of how Russia rigged the election after the inauguration.
IIRC melting the antarctic ice will amount to a 60m sealevel rise, so more countries than just Australia and Argentina would be pissed. How exactly is Kaliningrad a "real, nasty, difficult problem" in terms of Russia's foreign adventures? I agree that reconquering Baltic states is a non-starter, but what does Kaliningrad have to do with it?
But you're mostly right. You get a meter sea level rise if you melt ALL the ice. The question of whether an Antarctic impact for a giant meteor is something to aim for has everything to do with how much ice melts and where the water runs off to. Imagine a million square miles of mile-thick ice. If you melt the central , square miles, does that water immediately run off into the ocean, or does it form a puddle in the middle of the other , square miles of ice? There's probably a very complex solution having to do with terrain and how deep a crater the meteor digs and how long that crater stays hot Ten meters of sealevel rise might be very preferable to the consequence of having the meteor hit land near Mumbai, for example.
On the other hand, a big-enough meteor might crack the crust and then you have a gazillion gallons of water pouring into gigantic caldera, at which point all life probably gets steam-blasted of the face of the planet. So yeah, you might want to do a little computer modeling before you let a giant meteor touch down in Antartica You forgot the national uprising in the US when the hacks have denied the peoples their tv and games -- headlines around the world: I predict Planet X levels of hype, multiple conspiracy theories, at least one cult and several suicides as a result of this.
Assuming you use the Hubble telescope as your aperture 2. That takes your power requirements for laser ablation of a large impactor 50km from a relatively sane 80MW to an utterly insane 80 TW. Never mind cooling a satellite, that's nearly 0. If it takes you a year to deploy those satellites, you might need a few more orders of magnitude from somewhere You probably need to add another couple of orders of magnitude in power output, just to be sure. I mean maybe one of those Bomb pumped X-ray lasers SDI research worked on could impart enough to do something.
But I'm thinking it would need to be shipped towards the comet and have a pocket of steam. And at that point, might as well just send a contact nuke and try to penetrate a bit into the surface. Search on "Casaba-Howitzer" in particular. Velocities achievable with thermonuclear shaped charges are impressive.
In book three of the Harlie Series, 'A RACCOON ON THE RUN', Elmo Cotton is forced, through a series of unfortunate events which he still doesn't quite. A Raccoon on the Run (The Harlie Series Book 3) - Kindle edition by Joe Prussing. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets.
Unlike molten jets produced by conventional shaped charges, which are limited to about 10 kilometers per second about four times the velocities of the gases resulting from chemical explosions , thermonuclear shaped charges can in principle propel matter more than two orders of magnitude faster. Since fusion temperatures reach million K, the detonation front of a thermonuclear explosive travels at speeds in excess of 1, kilometers per second.
Using a convergent conical thermonuclear bum-wave with a suitable liner, one could theoretically create a jet traveling at 10, kilometers per second, or 3 percent of the speed of light. Useful, I suppose, if for some reason approaching too close to the body would result in an unacceptable risk of mission failure. Imagine an asteroid that has been nudged into an Earth intersecting orbit, and that the nudgers may have placed defenses on the body to disrupt intercept attempts. But, with either a 1-kiloton TTBT or a CTB put into effect soon, the incentives and technical capabilities for third-generation development would be undermined, and the detectability of low-yield testing would likely continue to improve, especially given the opportunities at hand for in- country stationing of instruments and on-site inspections.
Although an early test ban might not be a perfect cure, it is probably the best preventive medicine against a third-generation arms race. A number of commenters have suggested penetrating the comet with a warhead. Ignoring scenarios where a vehicle matches velocity with the comet, is possible for a nuke to survive and function on impact? A ground penetrating bunker buster nuke is designed to hit at just 1. If the comet is just a weakly packed snowball, vs the reinforced concrete a bunker buster is designed for, that may help a bit. Christ wept not over bodies but souls - bring that up to date, the "Conscious Mind" still: It'd be NICE if any of you had taken the time to read the fucking stuff, but noooooooooooooo.
This isn't even the ideological battle you're looking for: Trump is going to sail through the Old Energy into New Energy Oligarchy Model, via robotics, and fuck me I wouldn't want to be an average bear in the 21st century. We knew this in Quote from [Someone worth more than most GDPs]: The Death of Consciousness is kinda more important, but hey. Gender-fluid is a fucking ancient concept, it's pathetic we even have to spell it out. You update them, or we do it non-kindly, you fucking psychos.
If you're running high-tech ELF weapons and have also many many members of your military on tape stating sociopathic things and who believed that their Power was Absolute and it didn't matter who got burnt doing it Nuke the entire site fom orbit YT: Film - Aliens 0. You got caught cheating with H. Sheesh, that was a nice rant, and deserved IMO.
Off to meditate and think more about schemas and schema changes and education with variation as a primary goal. Variation being what drives evolution and makes populations robust. Read, but not sure what you mean by "Gigadeath through Walls". Also still trying to work out how porous or impervious the walls are or can be. Hitting anything at that sort of speed counts as hitting a solid. Either you have to match velocity, or you just go so fast that you don't need to bother with the nuke bit. Which leads me to another idea: By controlling the density and spread of the puffs, you could generate ablative thrust spread uniformly across the whole area of the facing side rather than concentrated at one point, and control the rate so the forces aren't enough to break it up.
It would do quite nicely for a fluffy, soggy or otherwise loosely-bound whatsit, and it would still be effective up to a point with one that had broken up. You're probably not a psychopath. We're looking at White Papers suggesting that gigadeath is inevitable and should be "enacted on our terms".
These cunts knew about this 30 years ago. As did the tobacco industry and so on. The only reason they're pissing their pants is because Mexico is about to go under and enter chaos.
Nah, you're fucked mate. You should have been pulling a bit more of the violence-unto-property before now. Film - Mad Max, Fury Road, 2: We wipe all Minds before that happens. Our Kind do Not go Mad - oh, and we also make sure of the mirror effect. That OCR error is extremely common and often amusing, but I do think "thermonuclear bum-wave" is one of its most inspired productions.
Their Law YT, Prodigy, 5: And you've no idea about the actual techniques used, we're presenting you a milk-white version to allow you to resist and not get Mind-Fucked. I have thought pretty much since not long after it happened that the fall of the Iron Curtain left us with a world that was less balanced and more unstable than before. Mutually Assured Destruction didn't just keep the US and the SU restrained from having too much of a go at each other, it gave everyone else a clear vision of the limit to which things could go if their own squabbles rocked the boat too much.
Without that disturbable equilibrium there is a sense that the possible outcome of a conflict is much more open. Further to Pigeon's reply Think Soeharto, Pinochet, Castro etc. There was always the bogeyman of the other superpower waiting to move in to override any argument for relaxed control. Post , it does seem that the super- and great- powers are gradually figuring out that their capacity to acheive their ends by military means is limited, thanks to the demonstration proof furnished by Dubya's hey, let's invade Iraq and it'll turn into a neo-liberal democracy oops clusterfuck, and Obama's smarter but still disappointing Libya intervention.
Russia's hawks still have the memory of their own Afgahnistan adventure as a restraining influence. Best case scenario, the post interregnum settles down into a 3-way, non-ideological cold war between the US, China and Russia with minimal interference in the affairs of everyone else because of the known potential for blowback, and low costs if a rival power attains some influence here or there.
Essentially a 19th century Great Game constrained by international institutions and M. In fairness, Trump's nominee for defense, Mattis, seems sane, intelligent and willing to tell Trump things he doesn't want to hear, so there are some grounds for hope that the stupidity of any military adventurism won't be too grotesque. Why should we even bother trying to read this, even if it does have useful content, if it is deliberately designed to be unreadable? He refuses to listen to experts, any experts, unless they already agree with him.
This is one of the things that worries me, so much. I find the fixation with Russia very strange. Russia has less than million people and its economy is not that big. Russia's bunch of nuclear weapons makes it unfeasible to attack Russia, but Russia's power is actually very limited. Russia has no viable means to challenge USA or present a serious military threat to NATO barring nuclear war, but that would be the end-game for everyone.
Just look at the numbers. UK and France together have much stronger military power than Russia. At the same time China has been building military capability and starting to implement a new foreign policy, but most Western politicians and pundits seem to think that to be just fine.
The only country that has a serious possibility of challenging USA and other Western countries is China. In addition, China has been very aggressive in its politics lately. But apparently that is just fine because you can make money when dealing with the Chinese. Gigadeath through walls seems to refer, in context, to mass deaths in countries as climate change bites and food supplies etc fail.
Note also the 5 eyes are intelligence agencies, I forget which ones; a surveillance state like the UK is ideally places to clamp down on dissent and attempts at saving people's lives, backed up by the xenophobic propaganda. The difference now compared to say years ago is that travel and transport are much better, so we could actually have millions of people moving a few thousand miles in order to try and survive, whereas back then they just stayed in place and died. As for Russia, the fixation isn't strange at all.
It's compounded of several things. Is it survivable without a prohibitively heavy depleted uranium nose-cone? Allow a couple of seconds for the prompt emissions to die down, then detonate a much, much bigger H-bomb inside the shaft drilled by the first charge. It's flying maybe fifty to a hundred kilometers behind the first gadget, so the effect of the initial gamma radiation pulse from the excited fragments of bomb casing on the second device's core will be negligible.
But Trump's defining characteristic is Amongst his business underlings, Trump was notorious for agreeing with the last person he spoke to. One exec was able to get his proposals accepted by simply being the last person in the office and thus the last person to get in Trump's ear as he wandered late at night.
He's an intellectually lazy narcissist, dependent on others to do his thinking for him. It would be more true to say he refuses to listen to experts, any experts, unless they flatter him and make him look good. Not much of an improvement, granted, but it does mean that the ratio of fringe cranks to sane, principled professionals around him matters.
You could extend that to a convoy of warheads in line astern. The debris from the main explosion, now with a higher surface area to mass ratio to catch radiation energy, form an expanding cone aimed at the earth, and subsequent explosions at the centre line accelerate the fragments laterally into a wider cone, where hopefully most of it misses the Earth.
You lose a few warheads to debris, but if you don't need to match velocity, don't need complex orbital assembly etc. Some of the nuke's destructiveness is wasted. No idea how much heat such devices throw off or how far or what direction such heat would travel in space vacuum - but probably a hell of lot of energy would be completely wasted therefore power efficiency calculations would be completely off.
BTW, I am not married to the idea of lasers or anti-nuke for this scenario How tunable are lasers in terms of frequencies?
BTW - nice name So does this mean that you feel that Earth's destruction is 'inevitable' given a massive asteroid heading towards it? Of course, if you put the nuke into the comet, then you can get a nice steam explosion How tuneable lasers are depends in part upon how they are made, but I think we can get the wavelengths to heat water or rock best without any trouble at all. Everybody can't join; there isn't enough for everybody to achieve that rate of consumption. Climate change is an existential threat. There are two classes of responses to the dilemma.
The first one allows free movement of persons and pushes for more efficient tech and a basically egalitarian outcome; something like the current standard of living but achieved much more efficiently. Note that the core limits are agricultural, not industrial. Le Guin noted a long time ago, the utility of robot wheat or plastic spinach is very low. This would involve a whole lot of political change and no really rich people. You can't get the necessary social structures AND have an ongoing fight about who's richest.
It's entirely possible to suppose that this is the policy of the Permanent Government. Since there's approximately half of fuck-all being done towards implementing the first class of response. It's also entirely possible to suppose that it's not so much policy as inertia; it's really, really hard to change modes of social organization and going on doing what we've been doing achieves one of the second class of responses. I think the second class of response rests on future expectations which are in error; it supposes a slow failure of agriculture and a very slow rise in sea level.
Neither of these are likely. Repeat as necessary with more swarms if the beat up asteroid is still a threat. It is much more likely to be driven by a combination of inertia and aversion to short term costs. And because it is driven by inertia, the lines are not quite where you drew them. Negative impact in South America and possibly Australia is pretty minimal low population relative to resources , so they do fine even if not "necessary" in your scenario.
America may act to minimize problems in Mexico out of self interest. Russia also is likely to do OK given that it will be less affected by climate change and is relatively lightly populated. China could go either way given projected population decline and increasing integration in global economy. The catastrophe in this scenario will be Africa,the Middle East outside of Israel, and possibly, the Arabian peninsula this one may already be in process , Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia. Absent climate change, increased efficiency and slowing population growth might make this outcome avoidable.
Uncontrolled giga-migration in an exodus from Black Flag regions is potentially chaotic and bad for business. So where are the natural walls to contain it? I'm sure there are others. For a little while there we had opening borders and free-er and cheaper travel. There was a brief window when it was comparatively easy to do things like drive from London to Delhi to Lhasa to Beijing or Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. It wasn't even very dangerous.
Sadly, those days are probably gone. A french person I know, their dad drove the family on long summer road trips around Europe in the 's, even made it to Egypt, through the Balkans. I can't quite imagine people doing that now, although I suppose some might. Of course flying would be more common now as well. The lot of you are not being nearly bloody-minded enough. If black-flag regions and mass migrations happen, you set up a micro-climate in the equatorial deserts with mirrors-shades, solar cells and evaporators - Ain't nobody going to bother your industrial complex with it's abundant power, harbor and climate control if walking there is fatal.
The JSpOC has identified a close approach between two non-maneuverable satellites in a sun-synchronous orbit approximately km altitude with a time of closest approach at JSpOC hasn't confirmed this on their twitter account here , but their format seems to be only to confirm actual events via Twitter. So, if your net goes off and there's the most beautiful asteroid shower you've ever seen from Conspiracy theorists - this is all a cover for them shooting down the infamous Black Knight satellite.
Indeed we do, regarding your last sentence, the problem seems to be the global greedy class doesn't care, and the rest of us seem to be suffering from an exhaustion of ideology and optimism. Minerva - people should remember not to actually go out and look at the nice bright lights in the sky in case they go blind. Well, Greg has a Landy and plenty of horticultural experience, and probably a decent set of shears.
Thirteen days of constant detours, shouting over who gets to use the weed-whacker and a bad decision to venture near Birmingham. Kessler wouldn't effect the internet, this is only interesting because it's likely that one of the two is military. Oh, and 'coincidentally' over Antarctica. Totally no cover story for shooting down anything else.
Non-direct link here which has some smaller digestible pieces. It is difficult to estimate the risks of warming greater than this. If you want it a bit darker, try Mercer's risk analysis for just how badly Ostriches have their heads in the sand: They're going to be a little shocked methinks:. Anyhow, P, table 26 is the one you want. I am pulling your leg somewhat - table 26 has a maximum GDP cost of 3. The humor relies on how realistic you believe this projection to be. They've the right idea, as in they've correctly 'flagged up' the zones, but their numbers are so wildly off to be hilarious.
The problem with this approach as with putting a city on the sea floor is keeping the damn thing operational and getting in spare parts. If you could build a base that could self-sustain indefinitely in a black flag zone, it wouldn't be that much harder to colonize Mars, but it's a definite trick. Personally, were I going to try to live in a Black Flag zone e. Building the supervillain's secret lair is certainly a possibility, but you've got to keep the AC in good working order without an outside source of spare parts, and that's a bit trickier.
While I agree intellectually with what you're saying, there are a couple problems China with your formulation India. Yes, I agree that everyone seems to be lining up to be in the last few hundred million standing. This is not the realm of the five year plan, this is the realm of progenitors winning the lottery, because luck is a bigger factor than planning. A bunch of the places that will be excellent to live in years, such as the Arctic Circle or various Siberian bogs, aren't all that pleasant to live in at the moment. Getting there now on the idea that your people will live there indefinitely simply means you'll do all the work of improving the place until someone comes along who is nasty enough to kill, displace, or enslave you, at which point all those generations of work will have been wasted.
Optimizing your life for years of conquest and pillage to take other people's redoubts is even more problematic, because you only have to lose one big battle for your entire strategy to die. Of course, the third problem is that there are a number of places, like North Korea and parts of Appalachia, that would be excellent, except that people have already gone and trashed them.
Bottom line is that I'm not sure what to tell you, but if someone like Putin is trying to survive climate change, he better work on getting immortal first. Otherwise, he's not even going to survive long enough to see it slip into high gear. I think you've mistaken the issue. You're not trying to survive climate change for yourself at this point. We're both too old. You're trying to make sure your descendants are well set up to survive.
The idea is not to have "a strategy," but to manuver your descendants into a safe place which will be good to farm during the next years or so. That is, not near a coast, well above any foreseeable sea level rise, and off the beaten path, preferably at the foot of some nice hills which have a good chance of channelling water their way Just make sure the genes spread. How you arrange that over the course of a dark age is a little beyond me, but valuing education and being unprejudiced seem like a good start. Colonizing Mars would be a lot harder.
Even leaving aside issues of distance and exposure to radiation en route, Mars raises issues of oxygen level and much greater extremes of temperature. And spit on the graves of the intel peeps reading this: Of course that's not all it meant - but if you're stuck in a rut and need a life-saver, there's one. Like all this modern nonsense of reanimating a dead language, you're gone and missed the fucking point of the Covenant already and so on. Want the Nasty version: None of you who are cut are within the Covenant: Canaaite War Gods love sexual and blood sacrifice.
It's not a subtle fable. This being a seriously geeky sci-fi comment section, I would expect a lot of amusing lethal-to-occult-plants invention of the sort that in the US is called "mcgyvering" , by all involved. Not writing ideas down though - did plenty of that in the Laundry devices contest.
We're sure you thought you were being clever when you latched onto the prurient madness of Kellogg and his anti-masturbatory cereal with that whole "If they're all skin-less, they can't do the horrors of the Bangladesh massacres" [Pro-tip: Enacting blood sacrifice without consent on those who don't believe? Make it a good response, or we'll skin the rest of your hides [sorry, that's part of the theatre - the WildHunt are coming, and so Skinning people is kinda a jokey nod to what they do to your Minds]. It was an unsubtle reinforcement of non-UK heritage to this account and a joke about Americans not understanding the size of the UK You missed the joke.
String trimmer says "strimmer" in Australia. Agreed on consent btw. GM has deeply upset me for many years. I've never heard 'strimmer' before.
Through it by train, perhaps - road - forget it. South America might be in a better place if massive scale deforestation and ecosystem degradation hadn't been pursued as government policy over decades in large part because you can't easily build a first world economy in the middle of a jungle. What passes for an agricultural sector is going to shrivel and dry up thanks to climate change; the melted tundra isn't going to replace it for high-quality grain production.
China at least seems to have some long-term management perspectives from the top down, combined with a lot of corruption and turmoil — which is what you get during large-scale accelerated development. They might come out of it as an intact superpower, albeit one looking more like Japan during the stagnation of the s than the United States. India can put a probe in orbit around Mars and build nuclear powered warships; it's developing at the same sort of speed as China, albeit very unevenly. The impact of climate change will be brutal but they have a continental interior and the Himalayas and it's hard to see the large-scale geography that causes trade winds to drop their water load over the mountains going away.
I'd be more worried about their poor cousins, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Pakistan is being destabilized by Saudi religious politics and already has nukes , and Bangladesh is a coastal plain that's going to be below sea level once the Arctic cap melts. Now, there is precedent for a densely populated coastal plain that can remain habitable even below sea level; it's called The Netherlands. But to make it work requires huge capital infrastructure investment and a particular mind-set — a combination of entrepreneurialism with a peculiarly Dutch communitarianism.
And I don't see any sign of that in the Muslim parts of the Indian subculture: It was a joke. Everything else about their scenario was believable except the driving through Birmingham bit. I guess the people proposing that solution are unfamiliar with The Raft of the Medusa then! You're underestimating the violence of the new weather patterns we're going to get.
Yeah, but they might be sucked into close orbit around the automotive black hole that is Spaghetti Junction before being spat out on a random slip road. It is true that Russian economy has not even nearly recovered from the Boris Yeltsin era kleptocracy. After the collapse of USSR almost everything that did not provide immediate profits talk about easy money was driven down. The reliance of energy exports got more important because domestic industrial base was practically destroyed.
One of the most significant failures of Putin's regime has been its inability to extend the domestic industrial base in my opinion that is quite likely the most significant failure of Putin's regime. The only sectors that have achieved comparable level with Western and Chinese are weapons and space. The impact of the climate change on Russia is, as far as I am aware, a subject of surprising amount of attention.
Both scientific and political. Some of that discussion does not agree with OGH's analysis. So is there a chance that Putin et al can be talked around to a sensible climate change policy and weened off fossil fuels? The Russian economy is too depended on exports of oil and gas for at least some time. Hence it is unlikely that they will stop exporting fossil fuels in a few years. But it does not seem to be an accident that their nuclear industry has been kept active during Yeltsin's regime even that was nearly destroyed. Sun and wind are not reliable energy sources in the North.
Very much depends on the next regime. If it consists of younger moderates like Dmitry Medvedev, then I assume that Russia would be quite easy to talk into "sensible climate change policy". But if the next regime is based on oligarchs and their favorites, then it is quite likely that they will join the "climate change is a lie"-mob. I assume that after Putin's time the power struggle will be oligarchs against state, normal law, and political institutions.
Mind you, you might easily feel, err adrift after several pints in there Russia hasn't modernized their industry as much, but I would argue that they have largely recovered. Otherwise, the sanctions would have affected them worse. To judge Russian industrial capability, I would ask the following question: Remember that Russian industrial culture and strategy has been low-tech and easy to repair since WWII. If you try to use modern measures of industrial productivity you run into the problem that some of the characteristics of a productive manufacturing industry go against industrial Russian culture, for lack of better phrasing.
I'm not sure that a large market exists for this outside of Russia. I'm probably wrong on this, but to my knowledge, Russia is currently mostly deficient in manufacturing electronics. Interesting and took 30 seconds to confirm to my satisfaction. Opportunity to correct wikipedia available. First Star Wars movie I enjoyed since the first one in the s and was a kid then.
Kind of in a WW2 mission-movie template, even the uniforms. Tropes galore, and tech gaps are sillier than ever, but movie was not awful IMO if treated as a shallow war movie with tech that doesn't make sense. Identified a bit too much with one of the characters. Was not particularly bothered by the undead Peter Cushing, e. How to fix global warming fast: Would have to do this at a number of different latitudes because of prevailing wind patterns to ensure global coverage. Rising sea levels - GMO'd mangroves could be planted easily along new coastlines as they grow and adapt fairly rapidly to different salinity concentrations if planted as year-old shoots.
The GMOing part is necessary to adapt mangroves to shorter, lower light levels. Would benefit land and marine animals, plus provide some food leaves are edible , booze, cooking oil, lumber, etc. Plus, mangroves are good at desalinating and purifying sea water. Could also GMO some existing land trees, shrubs etc. Once the seas recede, future scientists could reverse the gene editing back to the original genome. Probably should also do this with fresh water fish -- GMO them to become salt water and warm temp tolerant.
In some countries, gov'ts already require logging businesses to replant whatever areas they've just cut down usually with some related faster-growing species. Could make for a good research study funded by such orgs: Have uni students and scientists do the planting, data collection, reporting, etc, to ensure good quality data.
Once the sea levels rise and sea water comes in contact with 'developed' land, what toxins are likeliest to be released into these waters, at what rate? Pretty much impossible to answer. A lot of industrial history. It's very important to remember that sea level isn't expected to rise as a constant slow trickle; there's been a lot of work done about how ice has melted in the past and current best understanding has it on a cycle between forty and two hundred years based on a complex set of interlocking heat circulations, significantly in the southern ocean.
Given the rate of anthropogenic forcing, forty could be an overestimate; there's no good paleoclimate model for what we're doing. It's unlikely there won't be a decade where the water comes up at least a couple of metres, though. Self-sufficiency and advanced industrial production are not the same thing.
The length of supply-chains in modern manufacturing is not your friend considering self-sufficiency. It is, however, true that Russia is less integrated to the global chains than many other countries. On the other hand, the sanctions are crafted in a way that they do not impact the Western companies as much as one might expect.
In Russian manufacturing segment major industries are: Not present numbers, but these numbers always lack behind. The interesting issue is that industrial investments in Russia have increased during the last ten years, but are still not sufficient even to maintain the existing capacity. But clearly not sufficient. Hence I am at least a bit surprised when someone says that Russian manufacturing industry has recovered from the collapse of USSR - numbers do not support that claim.
One of the main problems in Russian economy is the low productivity in industrial sectors.
The only sectors in which productivity is better than average are defense and space. One big problem is that places like the Pacific Northwest, Japan, and North Korea which climatically might become more benign, are also home to some fairly strong earthquakes, volcanoes, and the like. When you're talking about sitting still for centuries, you've got to factor the much increased chance of getting buried by a volcano.
Other areas, like northern Appalachia, have been so trashed by mountain top removal that they're no longer good places to run and hide. I'm afraid that goes for some other mountains too. It used to be we could depend on spring-fed rivers, but now, with most aquifers being drilled and drained, they're unlikely to be flowing, and if they are flowing, they may be contaminated.
The third problem is that if there are a few good spots--Japan or New Zealand say--they will be fairly obvious. As things get bad, everyone will want to get in. That's a problem for the people who are already there, whether they're refugees or not. Your refuge is only as good as your ability to keep it from being overrun. Ultimately, I'm afraid that the people who will survive are those who stayed in right refuges at the right times, and moved at the right times.