Ready for some football?

 

This guy thought up all these logos? Wow. He didn't like his logo for New Mexico's team, though. Maybe they could be called the Tumbleweeds. Seems like it fits the state.

Bwutal

 

Lib goes back in time to kill Hitler. Achtung! Geshensheit.

Davy Crockett nuclear artillery piece

 

With respect to the Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carrier sized Mars cycler concept, there can be no doubt about the feasibility. Several main pieces of it have been made before, or are under development now. The Starship could carry up the pieces 200 tons at a time. The Davy Crockett nuclear artillery piece could supply the massive ship with its propulsion to the Red Planet.

 

So I asked the AI to discuss some aspects of the nuclear artillery piece, and here is some of that discussion.

 

One concern is what kind of damage would it do? To something the size of a Nimitz carrier? Not that much. It could be managed, maybe even relatively easily.

 

Without further adieu, here goes the discussion.

 

Questions:

Answers in italics: 

What were the physical dimensions of the Davy Crockett nuclear artillery shell in terms of Mass?

 

The Davy Crockett nuclear artillery shell had the following physical dimensions:

 

* **Length**: Approximately 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) * **Diameter**: Approximately 4.5 inches (11.43 cm) * **Mass**: Approximately 60 pounds (27.2 kg) * **Yield**: 0.01 kilotons (approximately 40 kilotons of TNT equivalent)[note: that had to be corrected because 1% of a kiloton is less than a kiloton, so how do you end up with MORE?]

 

The small size and relatively light weight of the Davy Crockett shell made it a compact and portable nuclear artillery round.

 

What would be the blast radius of a Davy Crockett nuclear artillery shell if detonated and yielded the predicted 0.01 kiloton of TNT equivalent?

 

The blast radius of a Davy Crockett nuclear artillery shell with a yield of 0.01 kilotons (approximately 40 kilotons of TNT equivalent) would be relatively small. Here's an estimate of the blast radius:[Note: it should be 40 tons.  Big difference.]

* **Immediate Blast Radius**: 30-50 meters (100-164 feet), causing severe damage and destruction within this area. * **Partial Damage Radius**: 100-200 meters (330-660 feet), where buildings may collapse and trees may be knocked down. * **Light Damage Radius**: 200-400 meters (660-1,312 feet), where windows may break and vegetation may be scorched.

Keep in mind that these estimates are approximate and can vary depending on the device's yield, the surrounding terrain, and atmospheric conditions.

The small blast radius of the Davy Crockett shell was a deliberate design feature, intended to allow it to be used in urban areas with minimal collateral damage.

What would it take to fully contain the blast radius of a half-kiloton nuclear explosive device?

Fully containing the blast radius of a half-kiloton nuclear explosive device is extremely challenging, if not impossible, due to the intense energy released. However, here are some hypothetical measures that might help to mitigate the blast effects:

1. **Blast doors or barriers**: A thick, reinforced door or barrier, such as a blast door made of steel or reinforced concrete, could potentially contain the blast wave. However, the door would need to be extremely robust and capable of withstanding the intense pressure and heat.

2. **Airlocks or pressure-resistant enclosures**: A sealed airlock or pressure-resistant enclosure could help to contain the blast wave and prevent the release of radioactive materials. However, the enclosure would need to be designed to withstand the extreme pressure and heat generated by the blast.

3. **Water or sand barriers**: A large body of water or a sand barrier could help to dissipate the blast wave and reduce the damage. However, the barrier would need to be massive and strategically placed to be effective.

4. **Geological containment**: In some cases, a nuclear device could be detonated underground, potentially containing the blast effects within a geological formation such as a salt dome or a volcanic rock formation. However, this would require a very specific and controlled environment.

It's essential to note that even with these measures, there would still be significant risks and uncertainties associated with containing the blast radius of a nuclear device. The primary goal of nuclear safety is to prevent the detonation of nuclear devices in the first place.

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these measures?

STOP

Comment:

The dimensions of the cycler are such that the blast could be partly contained so as to maximize its effect, and to extract as much energy as feasible from it. Perhaps a nozzle could be constructed?

The previous discussion was about the size of the yield and the number of bombs. Such a small device would require many 100k bomblets. This seems a lot, but its mass would be less than it would take less than to fill up the superheavy booster one time.

Davy, Davy Crockett. King of the wild frontier!

The demise of the Democrats?

 

Dems in a death spiral?

Comment:

My thought is that the root causes of the problem need to be fleshed out.

What are the root causes?

Democrats have attached themselves the radical fringe of the party---the Cultural Marxists. The only play they have left is the Hitler, racism, fascism angle. It should by all rights be the last gasp of a dying ideology, which is Marxism. However, when their economic theories didn't pan out, they went after the culture. The rotten fruit of that effort is the identity politics and victimolgy. There are the oppresors and the oppressed. The colored peoples, the homosexuals, and even the criminal class are all oppressed. The white man is the devil who makes it all happen.

It has to be all attached to Marxism because Marxism is about this very thing. In the old model, the capitalists oppress the working class. But if the working class isn't interested in revolution, then perhaps some marginalized folks are. That's the culture angle.

If the Marxists were really interested in helping these people, it may be a positive thing. But they need victims, so the left has to invent and sustain their victimhood. Consequently, they never can leave their victim status; because if they do, what further need do they have for the Cultural Marxists? Problems do not get solved, they just get exploited for their political value.

If the so-called "moderates" would separate from the Marxists, they'd rescue what's left of the party. But even that is based upon a fallacy. Marxists don't improve anybody's lifestyle but their own. It was that way in the Soviet Union, a mostly white country.

Marxists like to say that people don't vote their self-interest. However, Marxists DO. On that count, the Marxists aren't lying. They DO vote for their own self-interest. The problem with it is that it only represents a small minority of people on the margins. The rest depends upon phony victimhood. The solution is to stop seeking victimhood, and make what you can with what you've got. The old tried and true "American Dream".

A question that I wanted answered

I wanted to know what kind of velocity could be obtained if an object of the size of a Nimitz sized aircraft carrier had a nuclear bomb exploded next to it (in space). Here's the question posed to the LEO AI:

 

can you calculate how much acceleration would be applied to an object of mass of 100,000 tons if an explosive of the equivalent of 1 kiloton of TNT would explode near it?

 

And the answer:

 

To calculate the acceleration, we'll need to consider the force exerted by the explosion and the mass of the object.

The force exerted by the explosion can be estimated using the TNT equivalent formula:

1 kiloton TNT = 4.184 x 10^12 Joules

Assuming the explosion is instantaneous and the object is initially at rest, we can use the impulse-momentum theorem to relate the force and the momentum of the object.

The momentum of the object is given by:

p = m * v

where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v is the velocity.

The impulse-momentum theorem states that the impulse (force x time) equals the change in momentum.

Since the explosion is instantaneous, the time is negligible, and we can assume the force is applied for a very short time.

Let's assume the force is applied for a time of approximately 0.1 seconds (a rough estimate of the time it takes for the shockwave to reach the object).

First, we need to convert the mass of the object from tons to kilograms:

100,000 tons = 90,000,000,000 kg (approximately)

Now, let's calculate the force exerted by the explosion:

F = Δp / Δt

where F is the force, Δp is the change in momentum, and Δt is the time.

Since the object is initially at rest, the change in momentum is equal to the momentum of the object after the explosion.

The momentum of the object is:

p = m * v

where v is the velocity after the explosion.

We can estimate the velocity using the equation:

v = Δp / m

Now, let's plug in the values:

Δp = 4.184 x 10^12 J / (9.81 m/s^2) ≈ 4.26 x 10^9 kg*m/s

m = 90,000,000,000 kg

v = 4.26 x 10^9 kg*m/s / 90,000,000,000 kg ≈ 4.7 m/s

Now, let's calculate the force:

F = Δp / Δt

F = 4.26 x 10^9 kg*m/s / 0.1 s ≈ 42.6 x 10^9 N

Now, let's calculate the acceleration:

a = F / m

a = 42.6 x 10^9 N / 90,000,000,000 kg ≈ 0.0045 m/s^2

So, the acceleration applied to the object would be approximately 0.0045 m/s^2.

Note that this is a rough estimate and the actual acceleration may vary depending on various factors such as the shape and size of the object, the distance from the explosion, and the surrounding environment.

Would you like me to elaborate on any of the assumptions made in this calculation?

Comment (9:26 AM):

I stopped here.

Actually, I wanted delta-v, which would have been 4.7 m/s.  You'd need a lot of mini-nukes to get that mass moving...

I'd say a rough guesstimate of a thousand in order to get it from the far side of the moon to an Aldrin orbit for an Aldrin Cycler.

Maybe you'd want a smaller cycler or be prepared for a lot of fireworks. 

12:00 PM:

 

It looks like you might be able to optimize this based upon how much mass and delta-V you want. A bigger explosive yield would generate more velocity, and so would less mass.

 

In this case, if you wanted the whole thing sent, you're going to need maybe a thousand nukes of that size. A nuke 10 times bigger would require fewer nukes---less say 10 times less in number. Therefore, a thousand 10 kiloton nukes would move it 10 times faster. It would require only 100 nukes of that size. If the mass was 10 times less, then you'd need only 10 nukes of that size. Optimization could tell you which would give the best results.

 

The real question is what could get political approval for testing to take place. You know who would be the most upset.

 

That's why it was never done. Likely why it will never be done, unless something drastic changed. In theory, you could get to the nearest star with enough of these nukes. But it would still take a long time. You might get up to about 10% of the speed of light. A trip would take 40 years one way.

 

Here's a video I watched recently on the subject of human hibernation for space travel to distant places.

 

 

 

Fixer upper idea

 

Sugar and cement make an interesting combination.

Was the FBI Behind the Oklahoma Bombing?

American Thinker, by Janet Levy: ...: It has always been hard to believe that the truck-bombing of the A.P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, which killed 168 people, including 19 children at a daycare center, was planned by just one or two perpetrators acting a...

Comment:

The theory being presented here would be called a "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy theories lie upon a foundation of trust in the authorities to tell the truth. Unfortunately, the credibility of the system is in doubt these days. So the theories will continue...

I researched the JFK assassination as closely as I could. I could not find any reason to believe the "conspiracy theories" that arose out of it. Back then, the public trusted the government. By and large, I think that trust was warranted. I'm not so sure anymore.

But that doesn't change my opinion of what happened in Dallas in 1963. It was a different time. It has taken a long time to get where we are today.

With respect to the defunct institution of slavery in America

 

There are no external links to support this post. That's because I have to recollect it from memory. There are two sources from memory, one from the web, and another from a Prime Video Series. The Prime Video Series is about World Heritage Sites, and the particular site in question was Timbuktu. I just finished watching the Prime Video episode of Timbuktu.

In the video, the narrator was quite specific about the slave trade in Tibuktu. It existed long before the Europeans arrived. Evidently, the slave traders were capturing Sub-Saharan Africans for slaves. Timbuktu exists on the southern boundary of the Saharan Desert. Consequently, any locals who were captured, are by definition sub-Saharans. They are also going to be black.

Now the web source I mentioned stated that there are a lot of Americans who seem to think that America invented slavery. This Prime Video Episode should disabuse anyone of any such notion.

By the way, it isn't just black Americans who think America invented slavery. The source mentioned also mentioned a good number of white folks who seem to think the same thing.

It should be evident to any educated person that the belief that America invented slavery was wrong. So the point is that there are way too many people in this country who are ignorant enough to believe such a thing. Not all of them are colored folks.

I suspect that this is a bit of intentional slander heaped up on the country. There's way too much of that kind of thing, and it should definitely be corrected. By the way, who controls most of the educational establishment in this country? Is it not the Democrats? Why aren't people better educated than this?

PS:

I include a link to Forbes about this subject. So this will correct the lack of external sourcing for the post.

Prime video will have the video mentioned, so I won't include a link to that.

Got a lot of views

 

There's a bunch of these parody songs, and I haven't heard a one of them until just now. How did that happen?

Next time, put it in a memo

 

Video excerpt from "The Hunt for Red October". A bit of comic relief...

This was bound to happen eventually somewhere in the world

If it succeeds, it may well be the wave of the future.

Chinese company develops humanoid robot to gestate babies, set for commercial sale in 2026 for $14,000 - https://t.co/MpBEsyXHke

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) August 18, 2025

 

Getting ready for the T-Rexes

 

He's preparing for the revived T-Rex's that are going to be bioengineered some day. Maybe.

Review of the Movie "The Arroyo"

8/17/25:

I don't think I've ever posted anything about the "obvious" connection between "The Arroyo" and "No Country for Old Men".

Next thing that is "obvious", is the question of why would they pattern it upon another movie? Perhaps Declaration Entertainment missed the boat. The reason for the movie being made was a sort of protest against the kind of movies being made in Hollywood.

Of course, it has all gotten worse. Hollywood is worse than ever.

Declaration Entertainment was going to do another movie that might have been a knock against Star Wars and Star Trek.

If Declaration Entertainment missed the boat, what might they have done differently? Maybe having a sense of humor. They took themselves a bit too seriously. Like we all do. That's our problem.

Note: I used scare quotes around the word obvious. If it was so obvious, then why didn't I notice this sooner? No answer except that it seems dumb in retrospect.

Update, 9/23/23:

Just spent a bit of time perusing some reviews of the "documentary" about Cleopatra. I won't link to it. Just mentioning it here in the context of what Bill Whittle tried to accomplish a decade ago. It is also worth mentioning there was a movie that re-did Barbie. Yep, it was not well-received.

So there it is again. Just a whole lot of belly-aching, but doing absolutely NOTHING about it.

I tried. I contributed to the movie "Arroyo". Modestly contributed to it. If people would just get off their asses and DO something, good things MIGHT happen. But noooooooo. You've got all the belly-aching and nothing done about it. Indeed! We've got "conservatives" who would prefer to fight US than to fight Democrats!

the original post of 10/5/22 is directly below:

Hollywood Stasi, an old story

It appears that those Americans who oppose the powers-that-be cannot sustain a movement long enough for it to reach fruition. That is a fault that should be remembered first BEFORE you start bellyaching about the political left. We've been down this road many times before, yet the results seem to be the same. It is the continual drift to socialism, societal decay, and failure. The fault dear Brutus, may lie within us.

Nothing will change until there is a sustained movement that cannot be denied. This is what Paul Krugman and his ilk are so afraid of. Krugman called it "movement conservatism". There's a clue about the left that Krugman may not have wanted to be emphasized. He called it "movement" conservatism. The only kind of conservatism that the left likes is the kind that doesn't move. In other words, it is dead, or might as well be.

Hollywood can make movies that cast conservatives as villains, but why can't "conservatives" do anything about that? Oh, but there's a lot of bellyaching. You're not going to change the left, but you can certainly beat them at their own game---provided that there's still the opportunity to do so.

Declaration Entertainment attempted to do that. But the "conservatives" failed to rally behind it. Perhaps because there wasn't the perceived need. Has that changed? So you get this post on Instapundit, which is a link to somebody who wrote a post about the "Hollywood Stasi". It just seems to be in the mold of talking but not doing anything about it.

What to do? Conservatives need to get the "fire in the belly". Also, to see alternatives being brought to the market, while we still have one. As Dan Bongino says all the time, we need an alternative economy. We have to be able to impose real financial pain on the left, or there won't be alternatives to the left anymore. One way is to compete with Hollywood. Hollywood is anti-conservative. Companies like Declaration Entertainment could have provided that alternative in that economic space of making movies.

There's more to it. It is a comprehensive plan and movement that is needed. That's what the left seems to have had so much success with. They've had that success because nobody has had that fire in the belly to see it to completion.

All talk and no action is no longer permissible. Time to get moving.

Update coming:



Originally posted Mar 8, 2014



This will be a short review.  First of all, a background.  The movie was a Bill Whittle project.  It was made by an outfit called Declaration Entertainment, which I helped fund as a "citizen-producer".  As a consequence of my support, they now just got around to sending me a copy.  It is also true that I dropped out after a short term, so I didn't fund it all the way to its completion.  Okay, so the criticism can go both ways.

I went in thinking that this may have been a "jerk-off" fantasy, as so many things are in our society these days.  To my surprise, it didn't not confirm that.  However, there was an element of unreality to it that I must call out.

The good guy is injured in a manner that probably made him incapable of doing what he did in the climax.  That's the unreality.  But the unreality was necessary for the film to reach its climax.

It is true that, in the movies, the "good guy" wins.  Even today, in Hollywood movies that Whittle objects to, the "good guy" wins.  But, what is "good" and what is "bad"?  That's the rub.  It all depends upon where you're standing as to the identity of that personage.

In this movie, the good guy wins.  After all, he's just defending what's his.  Even in Hollywood, the guy here can be a hero.  Nothing out of the usual here.

I think what Whittle wants to do is to motivate people into not being sheep, and start acting like free men.  I applaud that.  The main character is a man in that mold.  Someone we used to look up to.  Today's Hollywood would make this guy into a villain because he's just too macho for today's tastes.  There's the difference, perhaps.

Today's men are driven into passivity.  Today's men are told that it's okay for them to literally be like girls.  So, it shouldn't be a surprise that that is the way some of them behave.

Yet, in this movie, the women are bad ass too.  It doesn't necessarily follow the old sex type mold.

It's an okay movie.  But it may shift a bit into the unreal mode in order to keep the hero heroic.  That's a small fault to find.  Otherwise, a movie can't be a movie without some artistic license.  People have to have their fairy tales.