3 ms·
The passive suggestion is basically exactly what I had in my brief imagination. Would have somewhat obvious points of failure that you would have to fortify in
by taeric 2y ago
The passive suggestion is basically exactly what I had in my brief imagination. Would have somewhat obvious points of failure that you would have to fortify in somewhat obvious ways. Much like any fence technology on land.
But this discussion is largely silly; as you are arguing against it as being some sort of perfect proposal. I thought it was quite clear I don't even really mean it as a serious proposal. Just as one that goes against "first principals" being some sort of golden blessing that is bound to get good results.
- lazide 2y agoThe responses have been to my original comment that the whole idea is silly, essentially. Because these first principles are fundamental physics limitations. You seem really intent on ignoring these fundamental issues. It’s like trying to argue that habitats on the moon should try to ignore that the moon has no atmosphere. We can, but why? And if you didn’t want arguments, well this is obviously the wrong crowd hah.
- taeric 2y agoWhat is the argument, then? My point is that it seemed off because it was still trying to force a way to find stealth for large containers that have to move. Remove the need for large and movement, and you get different constraints. No need to rely on "fundamental physics limitations" to point out that it will be difficult. And yes, as you add in more constraints, you get more difficulties. So, if you want completely clandestine deployment, that will be far harder. But nobody would be surprised to learn that a military base has lots of latent defenses. Why would this be any different?