[ExI] diamandis commentary

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:56 PM Gregory Jones <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

*> John since you are feeling self confident enough to advise the military,*


*The Navy doesn't want a Trump class battleship! Trump wants a Trump class
battleship. I know very little about naval strategy, but I know a hell of a
lot more than that brainless bozo. *

*John K Clark  *





Even before WW2 battleships were obsolete.  But a modern battleship doesn't
> look a bit like those devices any more than they resemble the Vasa.  They
> don't resemble the sketch you may have seen either.  That one was likely AI
> generated.  It is clear the cover story did what cover stories do.
>
> John since you are feeling self confident enough to advise the military,
> how do you suppose they pulled off the Maduro raid without harming either
> him or Mrs. Maduro, all with zero u.s. fatalities?  Was it the
> discombobulator?  How would you have done that?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2026, 10:33 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:11 PM Gregory Jones via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>> *> John it would serve you well to get up to speed on the concept of the
>>> cover story.  Modern battleships...*
>>>
>>
>> *There are no modern battleships. And I doubt there ever will be because
>> a hyper expensive "Trump Class" battleship will never get finished,
>> although they'll probably waste a few billion dollars before the project
>> gets canceled due to massive cost overruns. But even if we had a fleet of
>> them today they wouldn't help us win the Iran war that He Who Must Not Be
>> Named started because they wouldn't be able to open up the Strait of
>> Hormuz. For the price of just one battleship you could make at least a half
>> a million intelligent drones and probably more, each one capable of
>> destroying a ship. The president likes battleships because he thinks they
>> look cool, but he's trying to re-fight World War II in the age of AI. And
>> even during World War II battleships were obsolete.  *
>>
>> *John K Clark*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20260523/5736a10d/attachment.htm>