Unpleasantness removed from Missiles and Beams thread

[Nanook]

As described above, the problem with missiles is that they are either slow (compared to interstellar starship speeds) or their fuel requirements are too huge to be practical.

And this is where the logic is a bit faulty.

It's not faulty; it is correct.

The only way that your argument holds up is if you fire the missile as an inactive slug. Which is the same as firing a slug. Or if some new propulsion system is developed that has far more compact fuel than current chemical rockets....

And you're assuming it wouldn't be?? Come on, we're talking about the distant future here, with lightspeed ships, railguns that work, super powerful lasers, shields, etc. And you don't think that missile tech would keep pace? Faulty logic indeed.

[DrBullwinkle]

It is not faulty logic and it is not based on weak assumptions, either, Nanook, as your statements are.

It is physics. That's the way it works.

• (at least until our understanding of physics changes.)

[Nanook]

It is not faulty logic and it is not based on weak assumptions, either, Nanook, as your statements are.

Have it your way, but applying 20th/21st century technology to the far future seems illogical to me. Who, 100 years ago, could've conceived of railguns and lasers, or spaceships, for that matter, other than someone writing science 'fiction'? So which assumptions are weaker, those that try to imagine missile tech advancing at the same rate as other weapons tech, or those that assume missile tech won't advance while other tech does?

It is physics. That's the way it works.

• (at least until our understanding of physics changes.)

That's a bit condescending, don't you think? You have no idea about my knowledge of physics. And for the record, our understanding of physics is in constant change, sometimes by little bits, occasionally by much bigger bits. So the assumption that our understanding of the subject won't change in the next millenium (time frame of the X games), seems a bit weak to me.

Besides, what we're really discussing are advances in technology, not necessarily basic physics.

[DrBullwinkle]

That's a bit condescending, don't you think?

Yes, it is. Intentionally so, because *you* started the condescension. I was just feeding back what you dished out first, in order to make a point.

• (And I *do* know that your understanding of physics is not strong -- your comments to me make that clear.)

[Nanook]

That's a bit condescending, don't you think?

Yes, it is. Intentionally so, because *you* started the condescension. I was just feeding back what you dished out first, in order to make a point.

• (And I *do* know that your understanding of physics is not strong -- your comments to me make that clear.)

Ok, that's it, enough with the personal attacks. As I said, you know nothing about what I know. I was only attacking what you said, and you decide you need to attack me personally. And you know very well that personal attacks are not allowed on these forums. So since you can't actually come up with a real counterargument, other than claiming I don't know physics (which I do, btw, having advanced degrees in a couple of physical sciences, and having been a working research scientist for many years), then this discussion needs to terminate.