[ExI] diamandis commentary

[Gregory Jones]

John it would serve you well to get up to speed on the concept of the cover
story.  Modern battleships don't carry what we think of as guns.  The
concept you claim has been abandoned has morphed into a form we may not
recognize as a battleship.  It's architects have not revealed what it looks
like or what it does.  They have revealed what it isn't however.  This is
both intentional and highly effective.  Cover stories have value, both in
business and warfare.  spike



On Sat, May 23, 2026, 9:43 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:49 AM Gregory Jones via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > John the ballroom doesnt use federal money so that one is irrelevant.
>
> Then why is Congress debating using federal money for it?  See
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3px2x96eeo among other sources.
>
> >  Regarding ultra expensive battleships, do you know why modern
> battleships are ultra expensive?
>
> To be fair, most modern large naval ships can be described as "ultra
> expensive", and the Trump-class design is projected to cost maybe
> 1.5-5 times a modern aircraft carrier (the closest modern equivalent)
> such as the Ford-class.
>
> ...if you believe the initial projections.  One of the complaints is
> that they're cramming so many new and unproven systems in, this would
> wind up like the Zumwalt-class destroyer: costs ballooning far past
> initial estimates, only a very few if any actually get built (3
> Zumwalts, vs. the initial design for 32), and if any do they'll get
> repurposed to some other mission rather than serve what they were
> designed for.
>
> > Why do you suppose modern battleship designs exist?
>
> They generally don't.  Almost all navies have abandoned the concept.
>
> > How do you suppose modern battle drones are deployed and recovered?
>
> In a naval context?  From smaller ships, and/or ones more specialized
> to that role.  A ship whose primary purpose is drone carriage and
> deployment is not a battleship.
>
> > What defensive systems do you imagine?
>
> Given as it is "Trump" class, minimal.  Not none, but Trump would not
> be satisfied with a design that emphasizes active defenses over
> offensive capability.
>
> > How do you suppose they can get into places carriers and ancient
> battleships such as the Missouri cannot go?
>
> Generally, they can't.  Which is part of why the concept has been
> largely abandoned.
>
> Gun battleships just don't have the range, compared to missile
> cruisers.  Even with railguns or (especially) directed energy weapons
> (which are far less capable at over-the-horizon shots), to take an
> extremely simplified example: if my missile cruiser stays out of range
> of your battleship, I may need to fire a lot of missiles to get past
> your defenses but, if I do so, I can eventually sink your battleship,
> while your battleship is utterly impotent to so much as scratch my
> missile cruiser's paint.
>
> Presumably, Trump's supporters do not actually want an impotent
> "Trump-class" ship.  (Trump's detractors might claim it's an accurate
> representation - impressive at first glance, utterly weak once you
> consider how the rest of the world works - but the ones designing this
> appear to be among his supporters.)  But that's what a modern
> battleship would be, despite appearances.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260523/741aa006/attachment.htm>