[ExI] diamandis commentary

Sun May 24 15:03:40 UTC 2026

Hi Jason cool, thx, very astute commentary.  With the use of the term
battleship, adversaries focus on anti surface ship technology.  The good
guys launch a ship which is merely a decoy, with nothing inside, costing
very little and with no humans aboard.  This might reveal what
countermeasures the bad guys have and where they fired from.

Clearly the US military has mastered information camoflage.  This leads to
otherwise-intelligent people posting uninformed nonsense in public fora
mostly intended to express disdain for its CiC.

spike

On Sat, May 23, 2026, 4:15 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2026, 6:37 PM Gregory Jones <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
>
>> Jason ja to all thx.  The military is not filled with idiots and crazies.
>>
>
> Exactly, I agree. The idea and need for this ship class (if that's what it
> is) surely came from the Navy or intelligence planners.
>
>   The things they do make sense, as does the scenarios you suggest.
>> Eventually the battleship was going to reappear with modern capabilities
>> and defenses.
>>
>
> Yes, part of the motivation may come from changing threats and missions
> (away from the war in terror to deterering near-peer adversaries), and part
> may be from technological advancements like hypersonic missiles, which can
> defeat most conventional defensive missile systems, thus leaving our ships
> largely defenseless against them. The only defense then would be to have a
> greater offense.
>
>
>> Aside regarding the military, it has developed some mysterious technology
>> we still don't know about even after it was apparently used.  I have still
>> not heard a plausible explanation for how they managed to capture Maduro
>> with no US fatalities nor loss of aircraft.  That discombobulator business,
>> no.  Any ideas?  That was damn impressive.  Was that some kind of AI
>> infiltrator which gave the bad guys false or contradictory information?
>>
>
> I too was extremely impressed and surprised by the result. As to how it
> was done all I have are speculations. But a lot can be explained by
> conventional publicly-acknowledged tools.
>
> The EA-18s can blind air defense systems, while taking out the power to
> the site blinded enemy soldiers (assuming they lacked night vision). And
> when you can't see you can't shoot. It's possibile a discombobulator was
> used, there are companies who have been working on related systems for many
> years (LRAD, Active Denial System). So I could see some offshoot of those
> efforts being used in this raid.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2026, 3:22 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 23, 2026, 4:01 PM Gregory Jones via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I recognize a cover story.  We don't know what the budget is covering
>>>> for.  But we do know the navy will not build an antiquated system on orders
>>>> of POTUS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you look at modern naval ships, perhaps a majority of their missile
>>> load is setup for defense: anti missile missiles like the SM-2, SM-3, and
>>> SM-6. The more defensive missiles ships must carry the fewer offensive ones
>>> they can carry (like tomahawk missiles).
>>>
>>> The motivation for a "battleship" is to have a large ship that can carry
>>> a large number of very long range hypersonic anti-ship missiles, in order
>>> to take out enemy ships (or enemy missile launch systems) before they have
>>> a chance to launch their anti-ship missiles.
>>>
>>> The navy uses the analogy: shoot the archer rather than shooting down
>>> every one of their arrows. And this can be cost effective as a force
>>> multiplier, as it frees up magazine space in the rest of the surface ships
>>> to carry more offensive missiles.
>>>
>>> For example, if their standard load out can go from a 2/3 defensive load
>>> to a 2/3rd offensive load by including one of these "battleships" in the
>>> task force, then you can double the effective number of ships in that task
>>> force (you've at least doubled their offensive capacity and so can get by
>>> with half as many ships).
>>>
>>> Historically a battleship was a ship with the biggest guns and therefore
>>> the longest range. They could engage enemy ships before the ships with
>>> smaller guns could even pose a threat. That is the same idea here, the only
>>> difference is that with modern weapons the range can be thousands of miles
>>> rather than 20-30 miles with battle ships of the past, but the analogy and
>>> purpose is the same: have greater range so you can shoot them before they
>>> can shoot you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have an idea however.  When guided missiles came into being in the
>>>> early 1950s, the fighter jockey Chuck Yeager suggested retrofitting an old
>>>> B747 with dozens of sidewinders and sparrows along with advanced radar.  In
>>>> that spirit a battleship could ride on a light, fast narrow keel, carrying
>>>> missiles such as vertical launch patriots, laser defensive  systems,
>>>> drones, etc.  It wouldn't look like what we think of as a battleship.
>>>>
>>>> spike
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2026, 12:05 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I display my experience in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> For some evidence of which of us is demonstrating a lack of knowledge
>>>>> here: who precisely have you been speaking with on this branch of this
>>>>> thread?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 2:46 PM Gregory Jones <spike at rainier66.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > John that battleship is a cover story.  You display and parade your
>>>>> gullibility.  s
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sat, May 23, 2026, 11:16 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:09 PM Gregory Jones <spike at rainier66.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> > 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.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "We have a definite design, but we can't tell you much about what it
>>>>> >> is, only that it isn't exactly what you think it is" often means
>>>>> >> they're planning something quite close to what one thinks it is
>>>>> based
>>>>> >> on what little they have said.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> They said "battleship".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260524/08ffbe44/attachment-0001.htm>