A railgun projectile strikes a target.

The future and its enemies? The enemies should be worried.

A futuristic weapon getting a trial run by the Navy demonstrated its destructive power at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren.

In the demonstration Thursday, engineers fired the electromagnetic railgun at what they said was a record power level: 10 megajoules.

The previous railgun power-use record was about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

Railguns use electromagnetic energy to launch projectiles long distances — more than 200 nautical miles.

...

The Navy hopes the railgun will eventually replace the standard 5-inch gun on its ships. The weapon isn't expected to be deployed until at least 2020.

The railgun tested Thursday actually has a capacity of 32 megajoules, but the Navy is slowly building up the energy level in a series of tests.

...

According to the Navy, the railgun, when fully developed, will be able to launch solid projectiles at Mach 5, or about 3,700 mph.

Click on the link to find video of the railgun about midway through the article.

Thanks to Driver.

A Whole Lot of Hell: Defense Tech writes that a single destroyer armed with railguns could pretty much wipe out every strategic target in North Korea.

Maybe that's overstated. Okay, maybe it will take two or three.

I found that looking for proposition I think is true but haven't been able to establish yet: I think railgun projectiles are not tipped with chemical-explosive warheads, but rather rely on the awesome kinetic energy of a heavy metal object flying at Mach 6 or 7 for their explosive effects. Not sure of that yet; still searching.

My only evidence of this so far comes from this discussion of a railgun's statistics in the Champions/Hero role playing game, which of course I find utterly convincing.

Let's try a different approach wherein an attack is required to simply punch through hex after hex in a straight line to total up the damage done. Actually, I can see a major problem with this. the frontal area of the ship is 25*50=1,250 hexes, which means that punching a hole clean through the ship lengthwise would only do 30/1250=0.24 BODY to the ship, but would require (20+10)*2 + (8+6)*200 = 2,860 Body from a human scale attack. For comparison, that's the average damage on an 817d6+1 RKA (12,260 pts). I don't have that many dice and you still have to do that four times to inflict one BODY on the ship. This approach is not going to work, I think.

Real-world anti-ship weapons, such as mines, missiles, shells, and torpedoes all have one thing in common: the letter E, which stands for "explosives". Science-fictional weapons such as lasers and hypervelocity solid projectiles also tend to release their energy as an explosion. Let's see what happens if we use an attack with the Explosion advantage to try to destroy our quota of hexes.

5ER lists an option for RKAs which I'll be using here: subtract 2 points of damage for every hex of expansion. That will make things much easier to calculate.

We can see from the numbers in the last post that to inflict one point of BODY damage on the ship, we need to damage the component hexes of the ship out to a radius of 16 hexes, at which point the damage will be 32 less than the damage at the point of impact. To destroy an internal hex will require 14 Body. Therefore, the damage at the point of impact must be 46 Body, the average result of a 13d6+1 RKA, Explosion (+1/2) (300 pts).

On this same model, a 20d6 RKA, Explosion (+1/2) (450 pts) would do an average damage of 70 Body at the point of impact and would do 14 Body out to a radius of 28 hexes. Assuming a hemispherical damage pattern again, this would destroy 91,952 hexes for a total of 11 BODY to the ship.

It would also appear, at first glance, to pretty much cut the ship in half, but the hole in the hull will "only" be 20 hexes in radius.

Exactly. I wish the Navy would stop talking in abstract scientific gobbedly-gook like "10 Megajoules" and speak in terms that the average American can understand, like 10d6 Mega RKA + AoE Explosive Effect. Or old school, like +6 Vorpal Holy Avenger Shells.

Oooh...

Thanks to a bunch of folks for that, including Exurban Jon and Buzz.

Entropy writes like he knows what he's talking about (though on the Internet you could always be talking to a dog, of course):

They're not going fast enough for real 'explosive' effect yet. Mach 5 would be getting close, but that's with 3 times the power this one used. So how fast was this one?

Mach 8 is hypervelocity. That's when metal reacts more like liquid and you get giant meteor craters as the ground vaporizes on impact, causing the freaking dirt to explode.

Not 'blow up the dirt'. No. I mean 'the dirt blows up'. You don't hit the dirt with explosives, the dirt it hits becomes the explosive when it's hit, and turns into rapidly expanding gas.

We're not going nearly that fast yet though. But I guess it still counts for something beyond just your basic "holy shit" forcepower...which this seems to be exceeding.

Even still it has a shitload of power, but without the explosiony goodness one would think there'd be a high chance of just penetrating the target straight through and actually doing just a little damage.

Eleven writes that these projectiles can't be tipped with conventional chemical warheads, because they'd explode on launch due either to the electrical firing (I don't know about that; it's electromagnetic, not electric) or maybe just because the sudden acceleration is not really any different than sudden deceleration, like hitting something, that can easily set off an explosive round.

It's Old: So says Fresh Air. Well, obviously we've had these in the works for a while, but the new record is fresh.

Fresh Air points to this great article by Wretchard from 2004 about these coming weapons. A must read. (By the way: Wretchard confirms the projectiles are solid darts without chemical explosive tips.)

A first-order analysis comparing the 200-mile volume of fires capability of a single hypersonic naval rail gun to the ordnance delivery capacity of a carrier air wing of F/A-18s is instructive. In the first eight hours of conflict, a single naval rail gun could deliver twice the payload, three times the energy, to ten times as many fixed aim points as carrier aviation.

He writes that such capability is not decisive, however, without a valid military doctrine behind it -- what exactly do you actually do with such firepower? seems to be his point.

I'm only being somewhat glib and sophomoric when I say don't worry, grant us the firepower and we'll come up with as much doctrine as you like to justify it.

I have to admit that the subtlety of Wretchard's point eludes me, though.

(Oh, I see: He's talking about the will to use such a ferocious weapon, or, more accurately, the lack thereof.)

Posted by: Ace at 12:51 PM | Comments (76)
Post contains 1217 words, total size 8 kb.

The High Value Target recently vaporized has been reconstructed, approximately, enough to identify him.

Egypt - Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan who was blamed for bombing a base while Vice President Cheney was visiting last year, has been killed in Pakistan, according to a militant Web site.

Al-Libi was a key link between the Taliban and al-Qaida and was one of the Americans' 12 most-wanted men with a bounty of $200,000 on his head.

It seems congratulations are in order. And Al Qaeda is doling them out.

"He was martyred with a group of his brothers in the land of Muslim Pakistan," said the Web site, which frequently carries announcements from militant groups. "Though we are sad for his loss, he left a legacy that will inflame the enemy nation and religion."

The statement included al-Libi's picture. In an earlier announcement on the same site, a banner appeared in a section reserved for affiliated militant groups and not open to public posting.

"We congratulate the Islamic nation for the martyrdom of the sheik, the lion, Abu Laith al-Libi," it said.

Let us have far more of these joyous occasions and the consequent congratulations. They're like surprise parties. The most wonderful surprise parties in the whole world.

Dick Cheney's turn-ons include sunsets,
Victorian erotic poetry, and Death.

Thanks to Doug.

Third Highest-Ranking Al Qaeda Terrorist?: So he's been ranked, but I hear that's only his computer ranking, artificially inflated by running up the score on inferior competition like Chinese prostitutes and 12 year old schoolgirls.

Against real competition from the Great Satan Conference, he didn't fare so well.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

This isn't another McCain bashing post. I don't understand the anger over McCain's line, expressed here by Mark Steyn. Though many others have sharply criticized it.

I'm getting a bit tired of Senator McCain's anti-business shtick. The line about serving "for patriotism, not for profit" is pathetic. America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined: Where does he think the money for that comes from?

Well, look. Romney has a good credential: he was a wildly successful and very canny businessman. He knows how to manage and lead and get things done.

McCain has a damned fine credential of his own: he was a patriot and hero who served his country in a time of war and stoically endured torture at the hands of "the gooks" (and on that point, having never endured torture myself, I'm willing to give him a pass).

Romney is by no means intentionally denigrating McCain's service when he points out how his own career path makes him very qualified for the presidency. But implicitly, it really can't be taken otherwise: Yes, indeed, he was a superb businessman. But that was because he chose that path. Had he chosen McCain's path -- service to his country in the armed forces -- he would not have have had so much time to excel at business.

I think McCain's "for patriotism, not profit" is a fair shorthand for a simple idea: Yes, Mr. Romney, you surely have acquired a good resume. Perhaps I can't directly compete with many of the bullet-points on your resume. But I have bullet-points of my own which you can't match. While you chose business, I chose the Navy.

I'm not really sure how McCain could make this point without being perceived as "denigrating" Romney's career in capitalism, anymore than Romney can't quite avoid suggesting that his own experience in business is more valuable than McCain's experience as a pilot in war. Either man, by arguing his own experience is more valuable than the other's, implicitly and unavoidably denigrates the other's.

Surely Romney doesn't intend to suggest that McCain's service is somehow second-rate -- but how can he avoid doing so in urging that his own business experience makes him the most qualified candidate? Similarly, McCain really can't help suggesting that a career in business is less worthy than a career in the armed forces if he is to champion his own credentials.

Urging that either is consists of a greater credential for the presidency implies, inevitably, that the other is lesser. It is the nature of the thing and cannot be finessed.

The other McCain quote noted up by Steyn -- there are some "greedy people" on Wall Street who may need to be "punished," -- plus McCain's resistance to the Bush tax cuts as "unfairly" benefiting the rich, do indicate, together, a skepticism towards capitalism and free enterprise than we're used to seeing in a Republican nominee. McCain can talk up the Reaganite platitudes of free people pursuing their own economic dreams, but he seems to have at his heart an antagonism to the system, or at least its excesses (both real and imagined) that are far more common to liberal economic thought. His calls for a society motivated primarily by idealism and patriotism are at odds with the notion that, while idealism and patriotism are fine motivations, the central impulse that actually drives a dynamic capitalistic economy is, frankly, self-interest, or at least a local rather than national interest -- providing for oneself, and of course providing for one's family, and not necessarily devoting the greater portion of one's working hours directly to the common weal. Capitalism posits that the common weal is served best by free people making economic decisions that better themselves; McCain does seem to have reservations about this notion, and seems to pine for a society in which people skip the middleman of enlightened self-interest and work directly for the vague cause of "America."

But on the actual "for patriotism, not profit" quote -- I find it unobjectionable and, indeed, rather unavoidable, unless McCain is expected to simply say in a debate, "You've won me over, Governor. Your experience in business surely is more relevant to the presidency than my own experience defending my country."

And, let's face it, McCain could certainly make the point more insultingly, if he wished:

I'm reminded of the Kipling quote (I think) along the lines of "All men think less of themselves for having never served as a soldier." I think that's largely true, especially on the right, and I'm not sure some of the anger of McCain's line isn't partly a defensive reaction to that. Say what you will about McCain, but he is, in fact, a hero, and if it hurts to be reminded that the great majority of us are not, that's not really McCain's fault, nor even his intent. "I am a hero" always carries with it the slight "...and you are not," but all of us non-heroes ought to just accept that and give the hero his proper due.

I don't think he deserves to be president, but I do think he's earned the right to remind us of what he gave for the country.

"Greedy People:" Chad objects that McCain may be right about some "greedy people" having crossed the line of the law and needing punishment. And Chad might be right about that.

However, it seems to me that this is rather easy target of opportunity, too. Politicians are always good at pointing fingers; "predatory lenders" are the new "junk bond dealers," I guess. And as with junk bond dealers in the eighties, there are almost certainly some illegalities going on here.

Because there are crimes and criminals in every industry.

Blaming an easy target may be a good bit of throwaway bullshit on the hustings - especially for someone who doesn't economics as well as he should -- but let's remind ourselves of the nuances here.

Instapundit's nothing that the Old Evil of denying loans to bad credit risks has now apparently given way to the New Improved Evil of giving loans to bad credit risks. Oh, it's not quite reverse-redlining; redlining is an odious practice of using an external factor -- the neighborhood were one resides, which is often, of course, a racial monoculture -- to deny an individual a loan.

But the general point holds -- those who once railed against lenders for not giving a chance to bad credit risks are now railing against them for granting them that chance... with consequences that should have seemed more obvious than they apparently did.

Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 1119 words, total size 7 kb.

With video if you want to watch.

Jiggity tipped me to the local station that ran this last night and I've been looking for a video clip since. Glad someone finally put it up. It's not earth-shaking, but I do enjoy them being told to shut up.

Meanwhile, in one of the most absurd lies Hillary has yet uttered, she insists that she can "control" Bill Clinton. Oh, yeah. She's been on the ball with that for years, huh? She's really got her man p-whipped, doesn't she? Short leash on that hound.

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Hard-hitting piece.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about RomneyÂ’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And itÂ’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (RomneyÂ’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isnÂ’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

But what about his national security record? ItÂ’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think itÂ’s fair to say that McCainÂ’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

Add to that Robert Novak's column stating that he has "multiple sources" for McCain's statement that, had he been president, he would have nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court -- but not Alito.

That was the background for conservative John Fund's Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' " In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (147)
Post contains 644 words, total size 4 kb.

You know how it is. You're at the local pub, pounding suds before a roaring fire, gazing boozily into the flickering flames, and BAM.

Epiphany time.

"Why, hey there, look at the poker sitting amongst the coals," you mutter to yourself. "It's glowing a delightful cherry red, innit?"

And then, naturally, you pull down your pants and ask your friends to brand your ass.

Always seems like a good idea at the time, doesn't it?
Heh, I know, I know. If I had a nickel for every....look, just don't ask.

Thanks to Eddiebear.

Posted by: LauraW. at 06:56 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

That's apparently before Giuliani dropped out and endorsed McCain, but I think most of Giuliani's people will go to Romeny, endorsement or not.

The polls suggests a slight edge here for Romney picking up Giuliani's voters...

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Giuliani voters had a favorable opinion of Romney while 53% said the same about McCain. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of GiulianiÂ’s voters believe McCain would be at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Sixty-one percent (61%) are that confident about RomneyÂ’s electability.

McCain's always been a very known quantity. Either you liked him or you didn't. Effectively he's the incumbent, and late-deciders break for the challenger. I don't think an endorsement changes that.

Four points? In California? Very doable. Guessing at a 3:2 Romeny: McCain break, about 15% supported Giuliani, that's... hmm, three net points right there or thereabouts.

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Excellent response to those suggesting we ought to just fall in line behind the preening peacock from Arizona.

Correction: I wote it was Goldstein; it's not, it's Karl. Thanks to Allah for the tip and the correction.

Posted by: Ace at 07:04 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

The debate is on.

Someone should tell John McCain that holding up newspaper endorsements to defend himself against charges of holding un-Republican thoughts is...unwise.

This is a really good debate... [Ace] and you should watch it in rebroadcast if you've missed it. I have to rewatch it myself to dig up the good bits.

From what I saw -- and I'm not sure I saw enough of it to judge -- but McCain seems to have dug up a damaging quote by Romney refusing to take a position on the surge in December 2006. Romney's answer seemed to be he waited for a briefing by Fred Kagan before deciding upon his position, and, immediately after hearing the plan from that surge promoter, supported it.

McCain flip-flopped on whether he would vote for his own bill should it come up again, after initially evading answering it.

Romney Response [Ace]: I just asked for a clarification of Romney's response on the quote I mentioned above; I imagine the Romney folks will have it out soon.

In the meanwhile, before they've addressed that directly, they've offered this response to McCain -- that McCain himself proposed benchmarks that would end the war, well short of the goal of victory, if not met.

In 2007, Sen. McCain Suggested Setting Benchmarks In Iraq Which, If Not Met, Might Mean The End Of Our Mission In Iraq

In January 2007, Sen. McCain Suggested Setting Benchmarks For Success In Iraq. "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement. Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects. McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. 'They'd have to be specific and they (the Iraqi government) would have to meet them.'" (Margaret Talev, "McCain Suggests Iraqi Government Meet Benchmarks," Knight Ridder, 1/25/07.)

Sen. McCain Suggested An End To The Iraq Mission If Benchmarks Weren't Met:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.

McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

(Margaret Talev, "McCain Suggests Iraqi Government Meet Benchmarks," Knight Ridder, 1/25/07).

McCain's claim that he has been unwavering seems rather overstated. And here are his own words stating that he supported benchmarks which, if not met, would end the US engagement in Iraq.

I don't find that to be a shocking position, myself. I've always thought McCain was less a hero and more a politician -- a hero once, to be sure, but he's had plenty of time to adapt to his chosen profession of politics. And many conservatives were scrambling at that hour as to what to do in Iraq.

But it seems that his claims that Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal, or benchmarks which would compel withdrawal if not met, are entirely off-base. No statement from Romney supports such a scheme, whereas a statement from John McCain himself does.

When the war seemed about to be lost -- and his own political future imperiled -- he did talk up hard benchmarks, not soft ones used only as a guide-post. I think he was probably not giving us Straight Talk here, and was grasping for some formulation that might appease anti-war sentiment, but he did go further in his statements on this front than Romney did.

And for him to criticize Romney for hedging at the war's darkest hour when he himself hedged even more seems, well, par for the course, actuallly.

The Media Parrots... are all chirping about the McCain attack and how he alone stood up, unbowed, at the moment of truth.

They really should check their email boxes.

Incidentally, was I dreaming or did Janet Cook actually ask the sort of questions someone should ask Republicans at a Republican debate? They were good questions designed to elicit differences on issues important to Republicans.

She should be invited to do more of these.

Romney's Response: I got this from the Romney people. It just restates what I thought Romney's take was.

Fred Kagan briefed Governor Romney on the surge in early January of 2007. Gov. Romney supported the surge on the same day that President Bush announced it: Jan 10, 2007.

So McCain, who advocated benchmarks for withdrawal in January 2007, is knocking Romney for not supporting the surge affirmatively before it was actually proposed as a policy -- in December 2006.

Trust the media to continue to get this one wrong.

Hmmm... Jim Geraghty crunches the numbers and finds that rumors of Romney's political death have been greatly exaggerated. After Mega Tuesday...

That would put things at about McCain at 500+ (needing 1,191 to be the nominee), Romney at 325, Huckabee at 230 or so.

Dude. That's barely ahead at all.

In Fairness... now that I consider it, it's likely that McCain was mixing that sop to anti-war sentiment in his call for more troops. So he was saying, in total, give the surge a chance and I'll consider hard benchmarks; if it doesn't work, then we pull out.

That's an understandable way to sell it. Still, I don't think McCain is as clean on this as he seems to believe. Apparently Romney's answer to the timetables/benchmark question should have been a firm no -- this is what McCain contends -- but in fact, when asked about it himself, McCain supported hard benchmarks.

Video of the exchange at Stop the ACLU.

Posted by: Slublog at 05:14 PM | Comments (162)
Post contains 1126 words, total size 7 kb.

Oprah cast as a god-queen because, see, she's "the closest thing we have to a living deity." I guess some might say we actually already have a living deity.

This guy... it's annoying because he's a one-trick pony with the cutesy ironic-heroic portrayal of celebrities and yet he gets attention for it. I don't object to this politically -- what do I care if he half-mocks, half-glorifies nitwits like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey?

But I object because it's easy, stupid, shallow, and gimmicky, like so much modern art of outrage is, and yet he's feted for this stupidity.

Oh, pish-posh! His cheeky ironic-heroic portrayals present interesting questions about our celebrity culture!

Really? Like what? Which "questions" are being posed here? And man, the observation that celebrities serve the same shared-mythos function in our society of the gods of Greece is, well, not exactly fresh.

Whatever. I guess I can always console myself with my Life Motto that sustains me in times of anxiety and fear, We're all going to die so who gives a rat's ass?

Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.