Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
On the one hand, the Space Force sounds like kind of a stupid idea, should really be stuff the Air Force does, and seems like a cheap and quick distraction from yet another unfortunate news cycle full of the usual self-inflicted wounds.

On the other hand, any US Marines that are inducted into the Space Force are going to be, by definition, Space Marines. So we'd have that going for us.

If in the unlikely event the Royal Marines get there first, we'll have Royal Space marines

 Ouze wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The policy to be able to existed right? Its just that it was rarely enforced up until the current administration?

Long answer here, but essentially simply border crossing - a misdemeanor - was not usually criminally referred. As such there were no routine, widespread separations of children.

What's change was the Zero Tolerance policy of current administration.

That laws been on the books for quite some time.

You can't put the children in detention centers...because, WTF would you do that?

You can't simply release the family on a promise to come back to immigration court when actual laws were broken...

The actual safe measure that keeps the family together AND remain kosher to our current laws is to deport the families back home. If some of these are legit asylum case, then they can be deported to their neighboring country and go through the port of entry to claim asylum (which is the international norm). The problem here (with respect to asylum requests in many of these cases) is that requesting asylum often is demanded when caught illegally crossing the borders...which complicate things quite a bit because it takes much longer to adjudicate.

Basically, Trump can either direct the DOJ to use prosecutial discretion and choose NOT to enforce the laws on the books, which is fraught with perils as border states may sue the Feds (like we've seen in the past)... or, Congress can get their asses together and pass laws to address this.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Yeah, as I understand it we are really, really good at knocking man made things out of orbit from Earth, with ASATs, and the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (I love everything about that name!)

This is relatively easy once you have orbital ballistics sorted out. Things orbit in a very constrained way so once you are there it is stupidly easy to hit something. And because it is space a simple nominal impact is likely to take it out. The bigger issue is the debris you will cause by doing so. If it is in the main orbital area of satellites and create millions of bits of debris you are likely to take out more than just the target satellite. The most effective weapon in space is a tonne of iron filings scattered all over the place.

What advantage could be gained from a Space Force right now? Orbit seems both very well covered, and a remarkably dangerous place to put troops.

It's also relatively pointless. Give a soldier any type of ballistic weapon (say an M16) and they might be able to shoot one person before they are spinning uncontrollably or flying off at a fair rate of knots in the opposite direction because of physical conservation laws.

 whembly wrote:
If some of these are legit asylum case, then they can be deported to their neighboring country and go through the port of entry to claim asylum (which is the international norm).

The problem currently being that it appears Asylum seekers presenting themselves at ports of entry are being actively turned away/strung along for days or weeks being told "the port of entry is at capacity" without any explanarion or reason, while claims on what Asylum can be sought for are being narrowed. Essentially they're being told "No Entry" without actually having an official "No Entry" policy.

 Whirlwind wrote:

What advantage could be gained from a Space Force right now? Orbit seems both very well covered, and a remarkably dangerous place to put troops.

It's also relatively pointless. Give a soldier any type of ballistic weapon (say an M16) and they might be able to shoot one person before they are spinning uncontrollably or flying off at a fair rate of knots in the opposite direction because of physical conservation laws.

Do recoilless rifles not work in space?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

What advantage could be gained from a Space Force right now? Orbit seems both very well covered, and a remarkably dangerous place to put troops.

It's also relatively pointless. Give a soldier any type of ballistic weapon (say an M16) and they might be able to shoot one person before they are spinning uncontrollably or flying off at a fair rate of knots in the opposite direction because of physical conservation laws.

Do recoilless rifles not work in space?

Recoilless rifles don't have no recoil, just less recoil.

And they legitimately might not work, due to the effects of the vacuum on the powder, firing mechanisms etc. Though gunpowder contains its own oxidizer, so you would get an ignition.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Do recoilless rifles not work in space?

Recoilless is a misnomer. Basic physics says every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you flick a Malteeser away from you in 0g you'll be pushed with an equal amount of force. Recoilless just reduces the recoil, it doesn't eliminate the forces (otherwise your projectile wouldn't make it out of the chamber).

Mag boots and core strength. Problem solved.

 Henry wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Do recoilless rifles not work in space?

Recoilless is a misnomer. Basic physics says every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you flick a Malteeser away from you in 0g you'll be pushed with an equal amount of force. Recoilless just reduces the recoil, it doesn't eliminate the forces (otherwise your projectile wouldn't make it out of the chamber).

Not technically true. Recoilless rifles aren't truly recoilless, but the vast majority of it is simply the exhaust gasses that are thrown from the back of the weapon, as it's essentially just a big rocket launcher (this also has the side effect of shooting a nice big jet of fire out the rear end). There's actually some slight forward recoil on the things, as the vacuum of the round leaving the tube pulls the whole thing forward.

 Henry wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Do recoilless rifles not work in space?

Recoilless is a misnomer. Basic physics says every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you flick a Malteeser away from you in 0g you'll be pushed with an equal amount of force. Recoilless just reduces the recoil, it doesn't eliminate the forces (otherwise your projectile wouldn't make it out of the chamber).

What about stuff like anti-tank missiles with water counterweights? There's recoil, it's just acting on the water, not you.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


It's also the most morally disgusting action the US has taken this century and I wouldn't be surprised to see it remain as such even when the century is over. Hell short of Jim Crowe laws level policy I'm having trouble thinking of anything the US has done post civil war that's this bad. At least in Japanese internment camps they didn't separate the families.

Have we all ready forgotten about "Extraordinary Rendition" to black sites that allowed torture or do you think this is worse than that? Just curious.

 djones520 wrote:
Mag boots and core strength. Problem solved.

Spacecraft hulls aren't made of magnetic materials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Do recoilless rifles not work in space?

Recoilless is a misnomer. Basic physics says every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you flick a Malteeser away from you in 0g you'll be pushed with an equal amount of force. Recoilless just reduces the recoil, it doesn't eliminate the forces (otherwise your projectile wouldn't make it out of the chamber).

What about stuff like anti-tank missiles with water counterweights? There's recoil, it's just acting on the water, not you.

The force acting on the water pushes the water backwards, into something else (back of the water container) that gets pushed backwards. On Earth you have the benefits of stuff like friction to keep you in place. No such luxury in space.

Can we make a post thanking Manchu for modding this thread? Manchu, dakka's own masochist.

To the topic.
Saw the Ministry of Propaganda's interview with Our Leader. While I agree with the positions, they literally have nothing to do with the immigration system now splitting kids.

Look I have a stickie note. That should take care of an immigration bill. What's the damn deal?
1. If you are here now, you are added to the list of people on the citizen track.

2. Budget for border control X500%.

3. H1Bs revamped for real need.

I'm out. (Drops Mike)

 whembly wrote:

and go through the port of entry to claim asylum (which is the international norm).

Apparently, as part of the Zero Tolerance policy, the US is taking those people's kids too. The basic premise goes something like this:

The administration has promised to prosecute all fraudulent asylum claims. If the boarder agents suspect the claim is fraudulent, they remand the person to Federal Prison to await trial. Their children are thus unaccompanied minors, and off to the Child Internment Camp you go. When the judge rules that the person is not, in fact, committing fraud, then it can take two to eight months for you to get your children back, if they haven't been handed off to human traffickers by ORR.

These people are in the country legally. The Trump administration, in a move as subtle as a whore in church, has blamed Congress for 'forcing them' to hold these children hostage, effectively, in order to get Trump his wall. I'm not joking.


Maybe someone should let ol Don know that America does not negotiate with Terrorists?


And if Jeff Sessions want's to quote scripture on this, let me break out some Matthew: 25, 34-40

Jesus of Nazareth wrote:

Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my father: take the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in unto you.
I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink?
And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in unto us? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.

I do disagree heavily when in comes to separating children and parents at the border. I'd prefer if they were kept together.


However...….. Immigrant activists have been stating for years that those that are caught crossing the border illegally should be treated the same as any other suspect being processed through the system (as in they should get lawyers). Be careful what you ask for. Now you are being treated like any other detainee, as I can think of no other person being processed for a crime that gets to keep their children with them, especially if they were potentially putting their children at risk.

Congress is letting themselves get played by Trump, who is able to tell them that they cannot pass any bills while at the same time successfully blaming them for not passing any bills.

Both chambers are refusing to pass, or even just vote on, any kind of bill that Trump doesn't approve off or said that he won't sign. After 6 years of the GOP proclaiming Congress an equal branch of government to the White House with important oversight functions over the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch has basically turned itself into some weird parliamentary system where no bill will proceed without authorization by Prime Minister Trump. If Presidential Approval is required for any kind of Legislative Action, and if we cannot pass any bills that POTUS won't sign, then how the hell did we end up with 14,852 ObamaCare Repeal Bills under President Obama?

Congress needs to put on their big girl and big boy pants, tell the executive branch to feth off, resume their role as an equal branch of government who checks and balances the Executive Branch, and pass some fething bills. If Trump doesn't sign them, then they can go back to saying that they did their job and go back to passing more bills. But by not even giving him a bill to veto, Congress can't even go back to their old tactic of "we send the President a [bullcrap] bill, but he didn't sing it. We did our job, he didn't do his".

With the immigration bill, there is a bipartisan bill in the House that has the votes to pass. But Ryan won't let it get any votes, which goes back to another issue I have with the House: The Speaker of the House should not be the Speaker of the Majority Party. Ryan represents Pelosi the same as he represents every member of the GOP in that chamber. The Majority Party and the Minority Party both have their own leaders who are responsible for making sure that the members of their parties vote in line with the party interest and all that jazz. But the Speaker of the House should represent the agenda and the interest of the ENTIRE House, not just their own party. Both parties are guilty of treating what should be a non-partisan office as a leadership office within their respective parties.

Maybe it's time for someone to finally appoint someone from outside the House as speaker.

 d-usa wrote:
Both chambers are refusing to pass, or even just vote on, any kind of bill that Trump doesn't approve off or said that he won't sign. After 6 years of the GOP proclaiming Congress an equal branch of government to the White House with important oversight functions over the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch has basically turned itself into some weird parliamentary system where no bill will proceed without authorization by Prime Minister Trump. If Presidential Approval is required for any kind of Legislative Action, and if we cannot pass any bills that POTUS won't sign, then how the hell did we end up with 14,852 ObamaCare Repeal Bills under President Obama?

Congress needs to put on their big girl and big boy pants, tell the executive branch to feth off, resume their role as an equal branch of government who checks and balances the Executive Branch, and pass some fething bills..

While I generally agree with you on the topic, when Congress did pass those 14,852 bills that Obama wouldn't sign they were panned as being a complete waste of time (both by the media and members of this forum).

 cuda1179 wrote:

While I generally agree with you on the topic, when Congress did pass those 14,852 bills that Obama wouldn't sign they were panned as being a complete waste of time (both by the media and members of this forum).

Because the majority of those bills were a complete waste of time. They were things Republicans pushed through specifically so they could claim Obama was being an obstructionist.

That's d-usa's whole point. They spent so long crowing about how they're his "equal" and that they're the ones who put him into check, but now that the shoe is on the other foot--nada.

I like how you cut off the very next sentence that addressed your point...

But by not even giving him a bill to veto, Congress can't even go back to their old tactic of "we send the President a [bullcrap] bill, but he didn't sing it. We did our job, he didn't do his".

They don't even have a talking point of pretending to address the issue. Trump has all the talking points in his pocket.

 cuda1179 wrote:

However...….. Immigrant activists have been stating for years that those that are caught crossing the border illegally should be treated the same as any other suspect being processed through the system (as in they should get lawyers). Be careful what you ask for. Now you are being treated like any other detainee, as I can think of no other person being processed for a crime that gets to keep their children with them, especially if they were potentially putting their children at risk.

And if they were all committing crimes, you might have a point: but we're not waiting for that, are we? This is my beef with this is that the US has been taking the kids of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AS WELL. People who followed all the rules, and were treated as criminals ANYWAY.

This smells a lot like red meat thrown to the 'Base" to get them fired up for the 2018 election cycle.

If that is true, the world is even more cynical than I feared. Please for the love of the maker, someone please tell me this is not true.

 Easy E wrote:
This smells a lot like red meat thrown to the 'Base" to get them fired up for the 2018 election cycle.

If that is true, the world is even more cynical than I feared. Please for the love of the maker, someone please tell me this is not true.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-separates-18-month-old-mother-months

Sorry, Amigo, it's not just illegals they're doing it to, but pretty much anyone seeking asylum. Some of these people are not even being charged with a crime, they're just taking their kids.

Cynicism is the last refuge...of the informed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Cynicism is the last refuge...of the informed.

I thought Mar-a-lago was the last refuge of the coward?

I mean, seriously, this man is using children as effective hostages to force Congress to do what he wants. That's low.

Mexico will pay for this wall. And if they don’t we’ll take their children away from parents until Americans will pay for this wall.

 Easy E wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


It's also the most morally disgusting action the US has taken this century and I wouldn't be surprised to see it remain as such even when the century is over. Hell short of Jim Crowe laws level policy I'm having trouble thinking of anything the US has done post civil war that's this bad. At least in Japanese internment camps they didn't separate the families.

Have we all ready forgotten about "Extraordinary Rendition" to black sites that allowed torture or do you think this is worse than that? Just curious.

I do. What these children are going through is as psychologically damaging as torture (it is, in essence, mental and emotional torture) on top of being not only innocent of any wrongdoing. Further it is entirely impossible for them to be anything but innocent. Torture of suspected/confirmed terrorists is also terrible, unjustified, and entirely at odds with American values not to mention basic human decency. This is worse.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
Well, I should clarify, he said America needs a "space force" and the military needs to get on to making that branch of the military.

But that's Trump being Trump, as for now he has to get rid off the treaty and then there are still huge technological and financial obstacles to anything effective.

Russia already has a space force though, despite being a signatory of the same treaty. As do the Chinese. There is a lot you can do without breaking the treaty. The biggest military benefit of space is not in weapons, but in communications and intelligence satellites. The main task of any space force is the defense of their satellites and the destruction of enemy ones (which also means that space force soldiers never actually go into space, despite the name). I also think that is why Trump is calling on this now. The US has been a lot slower than Russia and especially China to enhance its anti-satellite warfare capabilities. I suspect that the Pentagon and Trump want to close this "space missile gap", which is why Trump is calling for a 'space force' now. So yeah, it is not as silly as it might sound, and neither would it break international treaties. Quite the contrary, I think setting up a dedicated 'space force' would be very much in US interests.

Relevant article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/06/18/trump-embraces-space-force-as-russia-china-threaten-critical-orbital-systems-of-u-s/#3ae83ad9eece

 d-usa wrote:
Mexico will pay for this wall. And if they don’t we’ll take their children away from parents until Americans will pay for this wall.

But will you make Mexico pay for having to take care of their children?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And if Jeff Sessions want's to quote scripture on this, let me break out some Matthew: 25, 34-40

Jesus of Nazareth wrote:

Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my father: take the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in unto you.
I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink?
And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in unto us? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.

Which is, of course, DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!1!1!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cynicism is the last refuge...of the informed.

I thought Mar-a-lago was the last refuge of the coward?

I mean, seriously, this man is using children as effective hostages to force Congress to do what he wants. That's low.

You quoted my post but it has nothing to do with your post.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

However...….. Immigrant activists have been stating for years that those that are caught crossing the border illegally should be treated the same as any other suspect being processed through the system (as in they should get lawyers). Be careful what you ask for. Now you are being treated like any other detainee, as I can think of no other person being processed for a crime that gets to keep their children with them, especially if they were potentially putting their children at risk.

And if they were all committing crimes, you might have a point: but we're not waiting for that, are we? This is my beef with this is that the US has been taking the kids of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AS WELL. People who followed all the rules, and were treated as criminals ANYWAY.

Wait, so totally innocent people are sometimes drug through the mud of the legal system even though they haven't actually committed a crime? Huh, i guess illegals really are being treated like criminal defendants.