But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't believe a sonic boom can do that
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: > > the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message > to intelligence agencies that "You will notice we sent the asteroid's little > brother in a controlled > shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've > made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons > -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an "act of God" > propaganda." This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff > based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy > weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very > difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. > > > Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out > loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and > the US? > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it > did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? > > A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of > ammunition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition> which, like a > bullet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet>, > does not contain explosives <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive> and > uses kinetic energy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy> to > penetrate the target. > > Stewart > > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > > James Bowery wrote: > > At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the > confirmation I need to summarily reject the "sheer coincidence" explanation > with just the two events. > > > It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that > something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks > affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot > prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many > undiscovered rocks in space. > > > I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. > > By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation > that is at least as plausible as "sheer coincidence" then one has to > behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have > witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological > ramifications. > > By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline > demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, > whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the "sheer > coincidence" hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. > > I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an > artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the "sheer > coincidence" hypothesis. > > Apparently you missed it: > > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg77055.html> > >
