[ExI] The Doomsday Clock

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Sat Jan 28 22:25:54 UTC 2017

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:41 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> As I understand it, the system calculates where a rocket will land, then
> makes a decision on whether or not to use a THAAD.  Usually that decision is
> no: THAAD is an expensive bird, one you probably wouldn't want to use to
> shoot down an unguided potshot with small payload.

Okay, then:
* North Korea launches a nuke at California.
* Mr. Trump inserts himself in the loop and says, "No THAAD; it's
going to land out in the desert, and we're keeping our assets to
protect important stuff."  (He would be contacted over any potential
international incident, and thus have an opportunity to do this.)
* This becomes public knowledge, either before or soon after the nuke lands.
* It lands anywhere near Los Angeles - which is sometimes referred to
as a desert, even though "urban" is a terrain type despite being

> A more effective
> approach would be deterrence by return fire.  If Hamas manages to hit
> anything that really hurts, the Israelis would likely carpet bomb the area
> from which is was fired.

Hamas has learned to fire from hospitals, schools, and other places
which, when carpet bombed, make for great PR.

>>...Hitting a missile with a missile, when the incoming missile makes no
> concessions to make the outgoing missile's job easier, is difficult.
> Staging a series of successful tests, especially after the program's funding
> was already cut for failed tests, is much simpler.
> _______________________________________________
> The army fires the targets, so they know the system's capabilities and
> weaknesses.  We do not.  The bad guys do not.  They do know what will happen
> if they decide to try their luck.

LM (and those in the military looking forward to cushy jobs with LM,
if not already on LM's payroll) sets up the tests.  That's like the
tobacco industry setting up "scientific" studies to "prove" tobacco is
harmless and nonaddictive.  The same sorts of biased experimental
setups, measurement errors, and data fabrication are likely to occur.

For trusted experiments, those conducting the tests would need to have
no personal stake in the outcome, to a high enough degree of
probability.  Unfortunately, this pretty much excludes the US military
(given the long-established "anyone who helps us look good, we'll
reward later", such that any given participant could be considered to
be aware of and counting on subsequent payback, or under the orders of
someone who is).

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list