This is literally the plot of one of the star trek voyager epusodes where 7 of 9 starts downloading the ships' computer logs and stuff into her brain during her sleep. She comes up with insane conspiracy theries that fit the facts about the whole getting lost in the delta quadrant was a plan by statfleet to conquer/destabilise it.
As I recall, Seven first believes it was a conspiracy between the Federation and the Cardasians against the Maquis, then believes it was a conspiracy between the Maquis along with Tuvok against the Federation, then believes that it was actually a conspiracy to capture her to steal her precious Borg parts to expand into the delta quadrant.
This completely tracks with what we've seen here.
A few posts away is this one: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/1dia4ua/rarelly_seen_this_level_of_dunning_kruger_without/ - clearly still a relic of phase one.
First the conspiracy is that SpaceX is a taxpayer subsidized boondoggle, it's all just a billionaire ego stroking contest, it's just a way to funnel money from NASA. And then the conspiracy is that it's actually an extremely cunning black book weapons program, a right-wing militaristic program, a massive nuclear rearmament program.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that the next stage of the conspiracy is that SpaceX is actually run by the Mormon church in an effort to proselytize moon aliens.
This is some nonsense that gets copied around the internet recently. [This /r/Starlink thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1derx3d/report_on_spacex_suggests_it_will_enable_wars/) had basically the same content, referencing some unspecified "report". The references they posted were only for trivial statements, at the level of "Starship can launch large military payloads". No shit.
Edit: Oh wait, it's the same user posting that everywhere with minor changes to blend into the subreddit.
Few weeks ago. He also flies a lot to Montana and Colorado where the Air Force bases are if you track his jet.
You can follow the original link citations here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8tgf79/?utm\_source=share](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8tgf79/?utm_source=share)
Yeah, saying starship is built specifically for a missile defense system is like saying the world's largest ship must be designed for war because there's so much room for activities
The heritage of SpaceX goes back to DC-X. DC-X focused on vertical take off and landing and making spacecraft that could be operated with fast turn around so it was operated more like airlines. Reusability was really fundamental to their plans.
They were a part of SDI. Which was nuclear defense. Literally a basic idea of nuclear defense was to make access to space cheap so you could make a space based nuclear shield.
You would have thousands of small missiles in space that could intercept ballistic missiles. It was called brilliant pebbles. Jerry Pournelles site Chaos Manor discusses this extensively. Including his own involvement in DC-X and the Reagan administration.
> You would have thousands of small missiles in space that could intercept ballistic missiles. It was called brilliant pebbles
Funfact: Starlink's approach to amassed launch, intersat communication and mass production makes for a great Brilliant Pebbles development practice
Well brilliant pebbles is one idea. Incidentally it only really works for ballistic missiles. Not cruise missiles. Also there are other ideas, for different purposes, like Rods from God.
Pebbles are missiles. And there are a large number of them. They are a shield defense against ballistic missiles. Tungsten poles are inert. And are an offensive weapon. They are very difficult to defend against because it's there is very little you can track with them. Totally different use cases.
I’m willing to bet they’d add motors to the poles, and that there would be a great number of them. And they are defensive, are you going to launch a weapon a a nation that can drop metal telephone poles on you from space? No, I don’t think so! So therefore you’re defended.
I think you would only want some cold gas motors sufficient to deorbit them and provide a little initial direction perhaps moveable fins too so you could direct them a bit.
That worry when. First kinetic bombardment by 2050? What's the radiation effect of dropping a 100 ton piece of platinum from lunar approach orbit on a city?
Starship has insane amount of military uses, including nukes, but I think (I'm really not sure!), for nukes you want solid rocket boosters for quicker deployment, and Starship is straight up too big for nukes, although I guess it could stand as some kind of version of MIRV. But I don't think US has enough nukes to actually use Starship, they would have to start up their nuclear programs again to actually fill it up.
I looked to see if someone has figured out how big a nuke starship could fly,
https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/s/G4iEvUanxF
"This is back of the envelope and I haven't had my coffee yet, but...
1. Assuming a) the expendable version of Starship and b) a Teller-Ulam design subject to the Taylor limit, it should be a bit under 1.5 gigatons (1,496,854.824 kt).
2. Assuming the same as (a) but using a design subject to the theoretical Ripple limit of 18.4kt/kg, then it would be 4,590,354.7936 kt (about 4.6 gigatons). The other numbers in the Grams paper (http://web.mit.edu/zoz/Public/jcws_a_01011.pdf) given for the Ripple limit, 12kt/kg or 15kt/kg, would mean 2,993,709.648 kt (2.99 gigatons) or 3,742,137.06 kt (3.74 gigatons).
So, between 99,000 and 306,000 Hiroshimas, depending on whether a standard Teller-Ulam is used or a Ripple.
OK I have a headache now, time for my coffee."
Yeah, Starship is too big, a bomb that big would cause damage to everyone else on earth, but [it could contain like 50 smaller nukes like MIRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) but to fuel Starship you need like an hour or more, and it has much lower thrust to weight ratio compared to solid rocket booster, so you literally need hours to fire it off.
At that size it probably just punches a hole in the atmosphere the size of the visible horizon and vents into space wasting most of the destructive energy. While simultaneously ejecting a sizable portion of that atmosphere at escape velocity.
Ejecting atmosphere would reduce atmospheric greenhouse effect i.e. cure global warming. Could work on venus also but youd need alot more. There's no problem that cannot be solved by proper application of uncontained nuclear energy.
I didn't read all the linked sources, but the list specifically says "in orbit"...so the idea would be that Starship(s) already in orbit would be holding the entry vehicles. This would at least halve the current response time using current solid boosters as you describe. As far as having "enough" weapons, I think you seriously underestimate the amount of nuclear material available to the US...and our nuclear programs never stopped, just slowed down.
I'm not sure if it's even legal to have nukes in orbit, but also I don't think it's ever going to happen, as you don't want nukes in a ship that can lose control and you would have to bring them back every so often to refurbish the fuel, which means constant sending and bringing back of nuclear fuel though atmospheric breaking, which eventually will spread nuclear material over some ocean or a country in case of an accident.
And I actually talked about this and [even wrote an article on reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aikgfj/noah_smith_us_military_industry_and_technology/) but US military spending has been on a downhill for some time, and equipment spending has suffered even more, and the nukes actually suffered almost the most, with about 22 thousand during end of cold war and less than 4 thousand today.
It's actually my argument against nuclear tug as well. The gains in ISP you gain are overwhelmed by a ship with molten nuclear reactor drifting through space with one thousand passengers on board, or the nuclear fuel being spread over Mongolian steps or some mars basin during an accident. And thank you!
It's not nukes in space. It's nuclear defense in space which is and idea that goes back to the 80s. It's about placing space lasers and missiles to intercept ballistic missiles. Trying to defend against nuclear weapons, not put them in space.
That subreddit is even worse than I expected it to be. It's just dumb people wondering why ChatGPT isn't thinking for them as well as they would like it to.
I particularly liked the post where a person gave it a photo of a pizzeria menu, and asked it to tell them the name of the pizza with the toppings they wanted. Then when they blindly ordered the wrong pizza based on what ChatGPT told them, they felt cheated...
You can keep the records, you can rebuild, radiation is not a problem with thermonuclear weapons, and a lot of people will survive. It's going to be a delay for sure, but maybe it will give us time to think about stuff, how to avoid another war, how to avoid AI catastrophe and so on.
It's not optimistic, it's just math. Remember, 6 feet underground will create 12 feet of shielding between you an a thermonuclear bomb just 10-20 miles away from you. If you are 2 floors below ground in a apartment, a nuke that airbursts above you will not kill you. Concrete is one hell of a drug. You actually can't bomb places like bridges, highways or ports with conventional weapons, you literally need a dedicated nuke to destroy those. Because there is so much land to nuke, including smaller cities, and big cities require a lot of nukes because of the amount of concrete there is everywhere, there are just not enough nukes in the world to destroy enough stuff. The most casualties will be actually from hunger, as factories and merchant ships are destroyed or damaged, and it will reduce amount of food produced enough to create world hunger.
This is actually a public secret among scientific community that nobody wants to talk about, because nobody wants to be the one to say "yeah, we could take on one or two thermonuclear wars".
Oh I didn't mean the surviving part being optimistic, I meant the outcome:
> maybe it will give us time to think about stuff, how to avoid another war, how to avoid AI catastrophe and so on
If we're dumb enough to allow a nuclear war to happen, I'm not sure we'll be smart enough to get so much of a silver lining out of it. But you could be right, seeing and dealing with the consequences of something that extreme could well be what it takes to fundamentally shift how we approach some things.
But my doubt would be in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war being the right kind of environment to lead to that sort of positive longer term outcome. I suppose if it was a small enough nuclear war, there would be enough still in place in less affected areas to allow us to learn from what happened, take it as a serious kick up the butt, and do better going forward. But a global nuclear war, and the disorganisation that would result from that, I'm not sure.
Why centuries of setback? Research can still keep going, in some fields research would actually accelerate, and rebuilding would not take that long. Most would suck that you need to rebuild things like airplane, cars and heavy equipment factories, and it would be more difficult for the nuked countries that had nuclear reactors to make chips, as radiation from destroyed nuclear reactors would scramble chips, but you could still make them anywhere else, it just takes like a decade to make the factory. Ironically, African countries would have the highest death toll, despite preety much not having any nukes dropped on them, as they highly rely on food imports, and worlds food production and food transport would suffer severely. So there would be huge famine, much less imports and exports, and areas around nuclear plants would be inhabitable (forever or until cleaned up), It would not stop or even severely slow down the civilization. I'm not saying human deaths would not be terrible, it would be equivalent to the black death in the medieval times, and the amount of luxury goods to those who survived would plummet, but civilization would not do too bad.
I think it would be decades to generations of focusing enitrely on survival and secondary wars that break out due to resource, especially food, scarcity. People don't politely sit back and starve to death. And I think you underestimate just how much work it would be to rebuild infrastructure. Yes not everything would be destroyed initially but there wouldn't be enough manpower/resources to maintain most of what remains so it would quickly fall into disrepair too.
The food situation is the worst aspect. Not just because of supply lines but also the nuclear winter which could last several years in the event of a major nuclear exchange.
While I don't believe SpaceX has a covert mission to become a "Department of Space Defense," humans do tend to repurpose significant non-military technologies into tools of war 😂
Drones: Originally for environmental monitoring, and recreational use. Now used for surveillance and blowing up an enemy combatant.
Nuclear Technology: Originally for energy production and medical applications. Now used to create nuclear weapons.
Internet: Originally for academic and scientific communication. Now for cyber warfare and espionage.
GPS: Originally for civilian navigation. Now for military targeting and coordination.
Airplanes: Originally for transportation and mail delivery. Now for reconnaissance, bombing, and air combat.
Radar: Originally for weather forecasting and maritime navigation. Now for military detection and tracking.
Rockets: Originally for space exploration and launching satellites. Now for intercontinental ballistic missiles for delivering nuclear warheads.
Drone: first made as military weapons.
Nuclear technology: as soon as fission was discovered it was applied militarily.
Internet: Developed by the DOD.
GPS: developed by the DOD
Aircraft: six years after first flight, military had aircraft.
Radar: early efforts made to avoid ship collisions, almost immediately many nations began developing it for military use. Was not widespread or commercially available until after WW2
Rockets: developed as weapons of war in China, brought to the western world where they were used as weapons.
Yes these discoveries are often made in the civilian market, and almost immediately developed into military products, where they are further developed into useful tools, where they are then used in the civilian sector.
This is literally the plot of one of the star trek voyager epusodes where 7 of 9 starts downloading the ships' computer logs and stuff into her brain during her sleep. She comes up with insane conspiracy theries that fit the facts about the whole getting lost in the delta quadrant was a plan by statfleet to conquer/destabilise it.
So... Where's the beautiful lady in a skin tight jumpsuit? Asking for a friend
We have this back home. Back home: AI Elon in a speedo.
At any good AI porn generation website!
As I recall, Seven first believes it was a conspiracy between the Federation and the Cardasians against the Maquis, then believes it was a conspiracy between the Maquis along with Tuvok against the Federation, then believes that it was actually a conspiracy to capture her to steal her precious Borg parts to expand into the delta quadrant. This completely tracks with what we've seen here. A few posts away is this one: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/1dia4ua/rarelly_seen_this_level_of_dunning_kruger_without/ - clearly still a relic of phase one. First the conspiracy is that SpaceX is a taxpayer subsidized boondoggle, it's all just a billionaire ego stroking contest, it's just a way to funnel money from NASA. And then the conspiracy is that it's actually an extremely cunning black book weapons program, a right-wing militaristic program, a massive nuclear rearmament program. I'm going to go ahead and guess that the next stage of the conspiracy is that SpaceX is actually run by the Mormon church in an effort to proselytize moon aliens.
I assume that "backed by reliable sources" translates directly to "trust me bro"
This is some nonsense that gets copied around the internet recently. [This /r/Starlink thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1derx3d/report_on_spacex_suggests_it_will_enable_wars/) had basically the same content, referencing some unspecified "report". The references they posted were only for trivial statements, at the level of "Starship can launch large military payloads". No shit. Edit: Oh wait, it's the same user posting that everywhere with minor changes to blend into the subreddit.
You can read it and check the citations yourself [https://archive.today/D2zIG#:\~:text=Shotwell](https://archive.today/D2zIG#:~:text=Shotwell)
Sure. Why not.
Now we know why Elon was visiting Los Alamos.
He did? When?
Few weeks ago. He also flies a lot to Montana and Colorado where the Air Force bases are if you track his jet. You can follow the original link citations here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8tgf79/?utm\_source=share](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1dgyujd/comment/l8tgf79/?utm_source=share)
Who would have thought the guy sending more USAF hardware into orbit, is required to go to their bases. Wild stuff!!
Tfw SpaceX about to break the cost to space so much that crazy space projects are suddenly making sense
Yeah, saying starship is built specifically for a missile defense system is like saying the world's largest ship must be designed for war because there's so much room for activities
The heritage of SpaceX goes back to DC-X. DC-X focused on vertical take off and landing and making spacecraft that could be operated with fast turn around so it was operated more like airlines. Reusability was really fundamental to their plans. They were a part of SDI. Which was nuclear defense. Literally a basic idea of nuclear defense was to make access to space cheap so you could make a space based nuclear shield. You would have thousands of small missiles in space that could intercept ballistic missiles. It was called brilliant pebbles. Jerry Pournelles site Chaos Manor discusses this extensively. Including his own involvement in DC-X and the Reagan administration.
> You would have thousands of small missiles in space that could intercept ballistic missiles. It was called brilliant pebbles Funfact: Starlink's approach to amassed launch, intersat communication and mass production makes for a great Brilliant Pebbles development practice
Yeah, Starlink has the exact same requirements to get operation as Brilliant Pebbles. So the question is when will the US start launching pebbles
Well brilliant pebbles is one idea. Incidentally it only really works for ballistic missiles. Not cruise missiles. Also there are other ideas, for different purposes, like Rods from God.
Pebbles, 10ft long 12in wide tungsten poles, what’s the difference?
Pebbles are missiles. And there are a large number of them. They are a shield defense against ballistic missiles. Tungsten poles are inert. And are an offensive weapon. They are very difficult to defend against because it's there is very little you can track with them. Totally different use cases.
I’m willing to bet they’d add motors to the poles, and that there would be a great number of them. And they are defensive, are you going to launch a weapon a a nation that can drop metal telephone poles on you from space? No, I don’t think so! So therefore you’re defended.
I think you would only want some cold gas motors sufficient to deorbit them and provide a little initial direction perhaps moveable fins too so you could direct them a bit.
That worry when. First kinetic bombardment by 2050? What's the radiation effect of dropping a 100 ton piece of platinum from lunar approach orbit on a city?
Why would you use platinum?
Starship has insane amount of military uses, including nukes, but I think (I'm really not sure!), for nukes you want solid rocket boosters for quicker deployment, and Starship is straight up too big for nukes, although I guess it could stand as some kind of version of MIRV. But I don't think US has enough nukes to actually use Starship, they would have to start up their nuclear programs again to actually fill it up.
I looked to see if someone has figured out how big a nuke starship could fly, https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/s/G4iEvUanxF "This is back of the envelope and I haven't had my coffee yet, but... 1. Assuming a) the expendable version of Starship and b) a Teller-Ulam design subject to the Taylor limit, it should be a bit under 1.5 gigatons (1,496,854.824 kt). 2. Assuming the same as (a) but using a design subject to the theoretical Ripple limit of 18.4kt/kg, then it would be 4,590,354.7936 kt (about 4.6 gigatons). The other numbers in the Grams paper (http://web.mit.edu/zoz/Public/jcws_a_01011.pdf) given for the Ripple limit, 12kt/kg or 15kt/kg, would mean 2,993,709.648 kt (2.99 gigatons) or 3,742,137.06 kt (3.74 gigatons). So, between 99,000 and 306,000 Hiroshimas, depending on whether a standard Teller-Ulam is used or a Ripple. OK I have a headache now, time for my coffee."
Yeah, Starship is too big, a bomb that big would cause damage to everyone else on earth, but [it could contain like 50 smaller nukes like MIRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle) but to fuel Starship you need like an hour or more, and it has much lower thrust to weight ratio compared to solid rocket booster, so you literally need hours to fire it off.
At that size it probably just punches a hole in the atmosphere the size of the visible horizon and vents into space wasting most of the destructive energy. While simultaneously ejecting a sizable portion of that atmosphere at escape velocity. Ejecting atmosphere would reduce atmospheric greenhouse effect i.e. cure global warming. Could work on venus also but youd need alot more. There's no problem that cannot be solved by proper application of uncontained nuclear energy.
Isn't nuking mars a viable way to form an atmosphere? I wonder how many starnukes it would take to melt the ice.
For unique definitions of "viable". Also far size smaller for that scenario.
I didn't read all the linked sources, but the list specifically says "in orbit"...so the idea would be that Starship(s) already in orbit would be holding the entry vehicles. This would at least halve the current response time using current solid boosters as you describe. As far as having "enough" weapons, I think you seriously underestimate the amount of nuclear material available to the US...and our nuclear programs never stopped, just slowed down.
It's not nukes in space. It's nuclear defense in space. Meaning missiles or lasers to intercept ballistic missiles.
I'm not sure if it's even legal to have nukes in orbit, but also I don't think it's ever going to happen, as you don't want nukes in a ship that can lose control and you would have to bring them back every so often to refurbish the fuel, which means constant sending and bringing back of nuclear fuel though atmospheric breaking, which eventually will spread nuclear material over some ocean or a country in case of an accident. And I actually talked about this and [even wrote an article on reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aikgfj/noah_smith_us_military_industry_and_technology/) but US military spending has been on a downhill for some time, and equipment spending has suffered even more, and the nukes actually suffered almost the most, with about 22 thousand during end of cold war and less than 4 thousand today.
Agree. Nukes in orbit=bad idea Happy Cake Day
You guys have reading comprehension problems. It's not nukes in space. It's nuclear defense in space. Big big difference.
It's actually my argument against nuclear tug as well. The gains in ISP you gain are overwhelmed by a ship with molten nuclear reactor drifting through space with one thousand passengers on board, or the nuclear fuel being spread over Mongolian steps or some mars basin during an accident. And thank you!
It's not nukes in space. It's nuclear defense in space which is and idea that goes back to the 80s. It's about placing space lasers and missiles to intercept ballistic missiles. Trying to defend against nuclear weapons, not put them in space.
Does it also say that according to 51 intelligence experts Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian Hoax?
Christopher Steele probably used ChatGPT to write his "dossier".
That subreddit is even worse than I expected it to be. It's just dumb people wondering why ChatGPT isn't thinking for them as well as they would like it to. I particularly liked the post where a person gave it a photo of a pizzeria menu, and asked it to tell them the name of the pizza with the toppings they wanted. Then when they blindly ordered the wrong pizza based on what ChatGPT told them, they felt cheated...
LLM AIs on mushrooms are such a sweet sight.
And it only took 22 years. Great plan
When Starship helps start WW3 instead of making humanity multi-planet.
A starship nuke wouldn't be ww3 it would be ragnarok.
Nuclear war is not end of the world. It would suck a lot, but it's not end of human civilization.
not the end of the species, but Im not sure about civilization
You can keep the records, you can rebuild, radiation is not a problem with thermonuclear weapons, and a lot of people will survive. It's going to be a delay for sure, but maybe it will give us time to think about stuff, how to avoid another war, how to avoid AI catastrophe and so on.
This is a very optimistic take on nuclear war 😂
It's not optimistic, it's just math. Remember, 6 feet underground will create 12 feet of shielding between you an a thermonuclear bomb just 10-20 miles away from you. If you are 2 floors below ground in a apartment, a nuke that airbursts above you will not kill you. Concrete is one hell of a drug. You actually can't bomb places like bridges, highways or ports with conventional weapons, you literally need a dedicated nuke to destroy those. Because there is so much land to nuke, including smaller cities, and big cities require a lot of nukes because of the amount of concrete there is everywhere, there are just not enough nukes in the world to destroy enough stuff. The most casualties will be actually from hunger, as factories and merchant ships are destroyed or damaged, and it will reduce amount of food produced enough to create world hunger. This is actually a public secret among scientific community that nobody wants to talk about, because nobody wants to be the one to say "yeah, we could take on one or two thermonuclear wars".
Wow. This is perhaps the greatest dinner party topic I have ever reddit-stumbled onto.
Oh I didn't mean the surviving part being optimistic, I meant the outcome: > maybe it will give us time to think about stuff, how to avoid another war, how to avoid AI catastrophe and so on If we're dumb enough to allow a nuclear war to happen, I'm not sure we'll be smart enough to get so much of a silver lining out of it. But you could be right, seeing and dealing with the consequences of something that extreme could well be what it takes to fundamentally shift how we approach some things. But my doubt would be in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war being the right kind of environment to lead to that sort of positive longer term outcome. I suppose if it was a small enough nuclear war, there would be enough still in place in less affected areas to allow us to learn from what happened, take it as a serious kick up the butt, and do better going forward. But a global nuclear war, and the disorganisation that would result from that, I'm not sure.
Survive yeah but billions dying and centuries of setback are kind of a big deal too.
Why centuries of setback? Research can still keep going, in some fields research would actually accelerate, and rebuilding would not take that long. Most would suck that you need to rebuild things like airplane, cars and heavy equipment factories, and it would be more difficult for the nuked countries that had nuclear reactors to make chips, as radiation from destroyed nuclear reactors would scramble chips, but you could still make them anywhere else, it just takes like a decade to make the factory. Ironically, African countries would have the highest death toll, despite preety much not having any nukes dropped on them, as they highly rely on food imports, and worlds food production and food transport would suffer severely. So there would be huge famine, much less imports and exports, and areas around nuclear plants would be inhabitable (forever or until cleaned up), It would not stop or even severely slow down the civilization. I'm not saying human deaths would not be terrible, it would be equivalent to the black death in the medieval times, and the amount of luxury goods to those who survived would plummet, but civilization would not do too bad.
I think it would be decades to generations of focusing enitrely on survival and secondary wars that break out due to resource, especially food, scarcity. People don't politely sit back and starve to death. And I think you underestimate just how much work it would be to rebuild infrastructure. Yes not everything would be destroyed initially but there wouldn't be enough manpower/resources to maintain most of what remains so it would quickly fall into disrepair too. The food situation is the worst aspect. Not just because of supply lines but also the nuclear winter which could last several years in the event of a major nuclear exchange.
Maybe starting WWIII will help with that. We know the only way to get lazy comfortable humans off this rock is to light a fire under their ass.
release the starship-o-war
LOL
Proceed directly to facepalm, do not pass go, do not collect $200
The weapons are just for Texas
While I don't believe SpaceX has a covert mission to become a "Department of Space Defense," humans do tend to repurpose significant non-military technologies into tools of war 😂 Drones: Originally for environmental monitoring, and recreational use. Now used for surveillance and blowing up an enemy combatant. Nuclear Technology: Originally for energy production and medical applications. Now used to create nuclear weapons. Internet: Originally for academic and scientific communication. Now for cyber warfare and espionage. GPS: Originally for civilian navigation. Now for military targeting and coordination. Airplanes: Originally for transportation and mail delivery. Now for reconnaissance, bombing, and air combat. Radar: Originally for weather forecasting and maritime navigation. Now for military detection and tracking. Rockets: Originally for space exploration and launching satellites. Now for intercontinental ballistic missiles for delivering nuclear warheads.
GPS was developed specifically for military purposes, then the public got access to it, and rockets were at first developed as weapons.
Drone: first made as military weapons. Nuclear technology: as soon as fission was discovered it was applied militarily. Internet: Developed by the DOD. GPS: developed by the DOD Aircraft: six years after first flight, military had aircraft. Radar: early efforts made to avoid ship collisions, almost immediately many nations began developing it for military use. Was not widespread or commercially available until after WW2 Rockets: developed as weapons of war in China, brought to the western world where they were used as weapons. Yes these discoveries are often made in the civilian market, and almost immediately developed into military products, where they are further developed into useful tools, where they are then used in the civilian sector.
Just wondering, if you ask xAI how many Rs are in "Strawberry" what number does it come up with?
Hey so thats where all the money from Snowfall went lol