Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!

Weps

Regular
  • Content count

    1,477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Raffle Tickets

    0

About Weps

  • Birthday 05/06/1988

Extra Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    37°53′50″N 086°00′00″W
  • Occupation
    CWU, Inc
  • Interests
    Amateur Radio, Radiation Hobbyist, Electrical Engineering, Military History & Current Events
  • Contributed
    $20 (US) to Open Carnage
  • Raffle Victor
    Five-time

Contact Methods

Computer Details

  • Name
    Warscribe
  • Central Processor
    Intel Atom N570 @ 1.66GHZ x 2
  • Graphics
    Intel GMA 3150
  • Memory
    1.0 GiB
  • Storage
    Seagate GoFlex 1TB
  • Power Supply
    2200 mAh, AC 120/230V (40W)
  • Case
    Coal Black
  • Display
    10.1in 1024 x 600 CrystalBrite
  • Keyboard
    Acer FineTip
  • Mouse
    Logitech M185
  • Operating System
    Linux Mint 17.3 Cinnamon 32-bit

Recent Profile Visitors

8,757 profile views
  1. EIS Council: The Catastrophic Effect of an EMP Attack or Severe Solar Storm EIS Council Library EIS Council EPRO Handbook
  2. Nearly everything in Russia is state-owned or is in some way controlled by the state. primarily to prevent insolvency and partly to ensure influence and direct involvement. (The same applies to China in a similar system of partly or wholly government-owned/influenced companies, like NORINCO.) I wouldn't doubt the Russian's have helped North Korea develop, as well as the Chinese. Both stand to gain immensely from a destabilized Asia, in particular concerning the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan, in the short and long term. I also have no doubt the Norks would have eventually achieved miniaturization and multi-stage devices in a decade or two, but as ST has pointed out...the Norks advancements are far too rapid for domestic development alone. What took the US (and NATO, in particular the UK and France) over a decade of development and testing, with nearly unlimited resources and the collective brainpower of the most qualified and educated minds in their respective fields in the West, the Norks did in less than a year's time. The only possible conclusion is that the data was provided by a third-party national actor who's had the means and information themselves for decades. As Russian and China are two of the main economic and import partners for the Norks and both hold a long standing relationship with them...they're by far the most likely. In regard to Iran, it's been a well established the Iranians have been present at Nork launches and tests. The existence of a mutual assistance partnership in weapons can assuredly be implied. Iran receives a massive amount of military and economic support from Russia and to a point, from China as well.
  3. Agreed, retasking is not the norm, mostly reserved in cases where a satellite series isn't equipped with certain sensor types. From what I understand, in the latest mission OTV-4 the X-37 was equipped with a number of XR-5A Hall thrusters to provide feedback for Areojet Rocketdyne.
  4. No, I was speaking towards the cost-saving value of recon aircraft across the board, not solely the X-37, as compared to retasking recon satellites. I was primarily commenting with the abilities of the SR-71 and U-2 in mind (as well as like aircraft). At first glance I'd say you're more than right, because I was carried away with making a general point regarding recon aircraft, rather than commenting on your point concerning the X-37. However, for shits and giggles I looked into sat retasking details. Factoring in reduction of life-span (or total loss of the satellite), retasking costs, and possible loss of intel...the cost of retasking can range from as little as $1,000,000 to as great as $500,000,000 depending on the factors involved. In the case of the X-37 possibly acting in a recon role, what it does provide that is a tough thing to monetarily quantify over that of the value of a recon satellite would be ease of repositioning and what would be the true ace in the hole, a scalable payload of more advanced senor suite than what is on-board orbiting recon sats. That the X-37 is a reusable platform provides a number of benefits in military ISR applications. The X-37 is more than capable of preforming a multitude of congruent missions, ranging from as simple as thermal efficiency testing to preforming advanced hyper-spectral imaging reconnaissance. Why risk retasking a sat, with a known loss of platform life-span, possible loss of the platform, known loss in thruster fuel capacity, and associated retasking costs....versus a repositionable, flight-capable relaunchable platform that is scalable with advanced modular sensor suites over existing in orbit sats? I mean, $100M launch every 224 to 717 days or ($1M to 500M) retasking cost w/ associated platform mission capability loss, while risking the loss of an $1B platform?
  5. Most long-haul US derived GEOINT, IMINT, and MASINT is collected via recon satellite by the NRO, however aircraft do provide a handful of capabilities and visual perspectives that satellites are unable to, which is why the SR-71 was brought out of retirement in 94' and why the U-2 is maintained with the latest aerial recon suite. Recon satellite retasking isn't a cheap, nor easy affair. Any alteration to a satellites scheduling costs lots of cash, burns precious thruster fuel, and can result in the loss of intelligence and reduction of system life-span. What made and still makes ISR aircraft viable platforms are; senor/payload system flexibility, ability to meet time-sensitive requirements, ease of deployability, and relatively low cost compared to the cost of sat retasking. The loss of an U-2 or even an X-37 is inconsequential compared to life-span reduction of something like an KH-11 series satellite. The cheapest ISR assets by far are drones, but to maintain minimal size and weight requirements on-board ISR and ECM are limited. At the end of the day, it's all about redundancy and not keeping all your intelligence collecting assets in one basket. What makes the X-37 unique is it is classified within the USA series.
  6. Information so far is;
  7. There is no prerequisites outside of age and citizen for someone to assume office. Simply because someone may not share any political ideology with you doesn't mean they're "unsuited" for office. Trump is no more "unsuited" for office than any of the other candidates who stood a chance of being being elected. What's interesting is you assume my position is out of a sense of support for "Trump" because he's "Trump" and not out of a sense that he is the POTUS. I do not agree with Trump on a number of issues, but he is POTUS...just as I didn't agree with Obama on a number of issues, but he was POTUS. My question is, is Trump simply just proving a point and playing silly games...or he is the boogieman he's portrayed to be? I guess an instance in his past where he made light of running for President and joking there was a contingent "stupid" enough to vote for him supersedes anything he's said after that point? I mean, this is just an academic exercise for me. The man is POTUS, only three things would change that...I don't foresee any of those things happening. If folks want to fantasize otherwise, they're welcome to it.
  8. I'm willing to play some "Devil's Advocate", so let's indulge some fantasy; If for some reason, be it sudden death, impeachment, or resignation that Trump's Presidency ends abruptly...the line of secession would be followed. There are no special elections, there is no picking a new President, there is no "the other person that lost gets a turn", the result would be the VPOTUS being sworn in as POTUS. That means Mike Pence would become President, the same Mike Pence who is further Right-Leaning than Donald Trump, like a LOT more Right-Leaning. Pence would continue on with Trump initiatives, while also enacting some of his own initiatives.... I mean, if that's a road that folks that are Anti-Trump want to take a ride down...that's their prerogative.
  9. If you were a Psychologist or Psychiatrist I'd take you a bit more seriously on that commentary, but that's not the case. I have no idea what you consider noteworthy, but I consider items such as th VA Accountability Act, INSPIRE Women Act, Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act, Rapid DNA Act of 2017, Veterans Educational Assistance Act, Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act, ect... to be rather noteworthy. Again. If you were a Psychologist or Psychiatrist you may have a point, but I disagree wholeheartedly. I take approval ratings with a hefty grain of salt. Eisenhower's approval rating was 30% in his first year and rose to the 80% by his third year and maintained a rating about 60% for the rest of his Presidency...Truman started with a 90% rating, maintained a rating about 50% until his last year in office where it dropped to 25%. George W. Bush's ratings spiked up from 55% to 90% in the months following 9/11 and maintained a level about 50% until 2006. Every Presidency is marred with these kinds of events...much of the loss for Trump is not caused by him, but due to grandiose political statements by council members "in protest" or due to outside pressure from various groups. Reagan didn't even have anyone from his original staff when he entered his second term. Carter's entire lower Cabinet and Senior White Staff tendered their resignations in 79'. As I said before, I take polls with a grain of salt. I'd also question where their supposed "embarrassment" stems from.
  10. Trump is no less equipped than any other industry mogul. An individual doesn't become a global real-estate mogul being intellectually shallow and emotionally compromised. The claim that he's accomplished little is rather ridiculous, as Trump sets his goals, not others and he's attained a number of his campaign points. Enjoying himself? He's the President, not a carnival goer. All Presidents care about opinion, because all President are politicians...because opinion is how one gets reelected. If you're basing his support on media perception, that benchmark is hopelessly biased and would spin Trump donating his entire empire to cancer research as a negative. I'm highly skeptical of the claim he's lost significant support, as well as the claim he's not gotten anything done.
  11. Out of 45 Presidents, only one has ever resigned and that was due to Watergate, which involved the uncovering of a massive and extensive political clandestine and illegal activities, resulting in a Constitutional crisis that was deeply investigated and highly publicized. Unless you know something no one else does...the likelihood of Trump resigning is extremely low. Today's media is a far, far cry from the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The most today's media has to offer is gonzo, yellowistic journalism. I prefer my news to be without political potshots using hyped up current events to harangue a President and obfuscate public information.
  12. Barring death or impeachment (that isn't contested or acquitted), he'll serve a four year term.
  13. Well it's good to see the media ramping up the hyperbole. Trump isn't shutting anything down, it would simply be a veto on the appropriations bill....a veto Congress can overturn with a 2/3rds vote. The article is also misleading, prior to 1980 funding gaps never lead to a total governmental shutdown, this changed primarily due to a more strict adherence to the Antideficiency Act. Prior to 1980, under the Carter administration, under a Democrat controlled Congress and House, on four separate occasions a funding gap occurred that caused a partial government shutdown. With the NAFTA renegotiation and the POTUS' ability to place tariffs without needed approval from the House/Congress, Mexico won't have a choice, it'll end up paying for the wall in one way or another. You do realize Presidents serve for a term of four years...
  14. Interesting commentary regarding a geopolitical threat that's been on the rise since 1970, but was either ignored or was a complete policy failure for previous administrations. I'm sure this entire North Korean mess is just Trump's fault, like all the other issues that pre-date his Presidency.
  15. I think this runs deeper than just North Korea. The Norks rhetoric suddenly increased to eleven when late last month the border dust-up in the Sikkim/Bhutan region between China and India kicked-off. Both India and China have been slinging more heated rhetoric and increasing threats back and forth more than normal in these last few days, with lots of hardware and mechanized units being deploy to the region by both countries; with the Nork threat against Guam coming just within hours of the Chinese implying they would initiate some "kinetic movement" in response to the whole Dokhlam situation (A Nork strike on Guam would be very beneficial to Chinese interests in the region as well). I think Trump's threats are aimed at the Kim Regime, but also as a veiled threat towards China. Mostly because China wouldn't allow a US lead NATO campaign against North Korea, solely because the Chinese can not allow the US/NATO to establish a base beyond the DMZ in a defeated Best Korea, within visual range of the Chinese Mainland. In effect North Korea has served as a buffer zone for them, which explains their continued acceptance of the Kim Dynasties flagrant and psychotic actions over the past 50 years. There is a growing consensus among defense pundits that we've been courting India rather heavily in recent months, to influence favor in hopes of an alliance or pact with them, formal or otherwise. The idea being, India has the numbers to soak up massive causalities in a ground war with China, while the US has the air and naval power covered. The only wildcard in the deck is Russia, due to the BRICS alliance and their very large border demarcation with China, but feelings are that due to the recently development of rather frosty attitudes among Russia and China, Russia may ver well be indifferent about any movement against China, military or otherwise (especially if India sides with the US). Personally, I partially agree with the assessment that Russia would be indifferent. Russia has been vying to gain access to US markets, to help modernize and integrate their own. They have a rapidly growing middle-class, who're eager to work and with their new lease on capitalism and their rising industrial capabilities could become quite the economic powerhouse in the next two decades or so. China is direct competition for them in that regard, but with the Chinese out of the picture in a major way, it would pave a path for them to establish that economic and trade relationship with the US. With the "collusion" rhetoric aside, a working relationship with the Russians would be very beneficial in terms of US foreign policy and as their military an diplomatic weight would aid drastically in combating terrorism on a global scale and to help stabilize conflicted regions, like Africa (which the Chinese are quickly moving in on). Trump has one of the best military minds of our lifetime as SecDef. I don't think Mattis would let Trump do anything drastic, unless it was warranted.