Who's new
Who's online
Online users
Recent user registrations
Registered Users
Defense (Really Important)
Wed, 05/21/2008 - 02:04 — Firefool125
Okay, i mean a seastead can basically be a considered a free state that has no ties to any of the currently existing worlds governments and so this raises some serious issues about the overall safety of a seastead community. The real issue that I have questions about is defense from currently existing world governments who decide to remove the potential "terrorist/criminal/god knows what else" threat that a seastead community might theoretically pose (a bunch of blarney if you ask me but hey people are by definition stupid and so the governments could probably get away with it). Or the governments could just decide that a seastead is not a free entity and so they have the right to claim it. Personally, a seastead is an incrediblly innovative and brilliant idea that has the potential to bring great good into the world, is very vulnerable to external influence (covert raids that were actually "negotiations") due to the fact that a sea stead will not have the resources or the man power for a standing navy.
Here is a list of proposed ideas for the defense of a seastead community (feel free to add any other methods to the list if you feel that it is necessary)
- Alliance with a large nation with a standing military: this i probably one of the more plausible ideas but it would involve loosing some of the liberties that are the main reason for some to move to a seastead
- Surface-to-Air missiles and Surface-to-Surface missiles: the Surface-to-Surface missiles would be the kind that skim along the waters edge and maintain a low altitude, this idea is incrediblly expensive though and would cause some nations to perceive the seastead as an autoatic threat and some to perceive the seasteads as a "terrorist cell" which decreases national security.
- Have every individual on a seastead armed with close combat weaponary (pistols, rifles, knives and the like) and have a little rudimentary training with each
Defense
A lot of military infrastructure is becoming electronic in nature. If we wait a few years and then fill up seasteads with computer security experts and hackers, well, that'll be an army all on it's own. Remember the little country of Estonia and how Russia recently defeated it in a recent internet war, devastating Estonia's infrastructure? Have internet, will travel.
Seasteads, like many small independent communities, could easily fund themselves by serving as independent Internet Servers and engaging in ebusiness, then using the revenue to buy more satellite bandwidth, computers, and Seastead property... ad infinitum.
The best defence
The best defence a seastead can have against nation-states tagging it "threat", is to develop economical ties with the people and corporations inhabiting those nation-states. Not only does it create wealth for sustaining the growth of seasteads, but it also makes a lot of rather important or influent people onshore more or less dependent on your continued success at sea.
However, such ties may also render seasteads vulnerable to economic sanctions, which would give tyrants everywhere a foothold for imposing unwanted regulations. Have a look, for example, at what happened to tax havens in 2001-2002, following 9/11. The main rulers of the world WILL come to an agreement together to abuse seasteaders if they ever get the opportunity. I would advocate aiming for self-sustainance and smuggling against such a threat, but they both have an impact of economic efficiency, so that would hamper growth.
Bulk size, in both land acreage and population, could also help defend against this threat, but it's a very long shot. The same goes for that "Teleforce" thing: it's hardly even hypothetical.
Let's also remember one point of dynamic geography, which is that onshore foreigners will (should !) be tempted to migrate in. That could make "cultural ties" possible, but could also be frowned upon by governments not so eager to have their taxpayers leak away.
Live video broadcasting
heavy weapons
Well aside from political considerations and avoiding the appearance of aggression, here's a couple points on weapons:
HorseapplesA cunning warrior
Horseapples
A cunning warrior can make any target far more trouble than it's worth. It becomes a battle of logistical value. There's no point in investing millions and millions of dollars in taking down a tiny independent state. Also, losing soldiers of any stripe creates negative publicity... something any politician is highly allergic to.
Put it this way, an Oberon class diesel submarine, sank the Nimitz in wargames. That's a totally obsolete and ancient submarine.
Even a remote threat to an ACC carrier is enough to make anyone think twice. With an ACC on station, you're suddenly dealing with massive logistical issues deploying any sort of warfighter and thier equipment/craft.
You can only get so many Navy Seals and thier rubber duckies into a submarine, esp in blue water conditions... and if the water is shallow...
In a nutshell :
There is no substitute for cunning.
Whatever the cost of
Whatever the cost of destroying the target, there are people who will try if they want to, because they are not the ones who bear this cost. If you're not the one who pays for your own follies, you tend to become very wasteful.
Opinions are like...
Who's going to invest millions? Who says they are going to board you with SEALs? All they have to do is sink you from over the horizon.
You have no chance against a professional navy. A platform on the water that can only move with or barely faster than the current is a sitting duck. Your only defense against the power of a government is public opinion, and economics (including lawsuits).
ahem
it depends entirely upon the structure you are defending, you're making some key assumptions which I have workarounds for.
I can build a place pretty close to impenetrable to torpedoes, if you want to know how, find a private channel.
missiles are a challenge but not insurmountable, goalkeeper could probably deal with anything aside from a total and utter saturation attack, which again, comes back to logistics and costs, because the assets being defended are so small.
I'd like to see even US NAVY brass justify a dozen live tomahawks for testing and live fire exercises, even the US Navy has limits. Closer in ASMs may be cheaper, but not by much and they have a limited warhead size. A metre of steel reinforced concrete is pretty hard to bust.
Multiple free fall LGB's would probably ruin your day though, those can be dropped with some scary accuracy, as a few mosque minarets in Iraq can attest to...
Stopping good ole fashioned shells from someone like the New Jersey would also be an issue unless you have a really good 4" radar guided gun to deflect them... but even then a full salvo of nine would perhaps not have enough flight time to intercept them all sufficently... unless of course you have no offensive systems yourself and she sails up to iron sights type range... then you're just flat out screwed.. :)
No force is infallible, no defence is infallible either but there are ways and means of frustrating even the US, Royal and Russian Navies.
Hear hear. Anyone who claims
Hear hear. Anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty the outcome of any future potential conflict is well, wrong. Not to mention demoralizing to their own forces in case they happen to be on the side predicted to lose, and criminally arrogant in the case they´re on the side predicted to win.
Pirates
I don't understand why the threat of Piracy is so blithely dismissed. Violent crime is the only real physical threat to a technology advanced society of silicon valley millionaires. I think it is the word "pirate" that makes people so dismissive - like we are thinking of Johnny Depp with an eye-patch. Modern pirates are simply the same criminals as we would encounter on land in any remote place. Armed men with access to military grade weapons (often they are part of military or paramilitary forces) led by smart, motivated professional criminals who know exactly the value of their target and how to capitalise on it. Rape, pillage and murder are just unpleasant side effects in their eyes to the pursuit of material gain. Kidnapping is an obvious target as well as removal of computer and communication equipment, fuel, water/air craft and any other technology that is otherwise hard for these types of groups to obtain.
"Maritime piracy is back on the foreign policy radar screen. Reported attacks against commercial ships have tripled over the past decade, increasing last year alone by 40 percent.1 Nearly two-thirds of thew attacks in 1999 occurred in Asia, with 113 of the 285 reported cases taking place in Indonesia's waters and ports. The risk of attack is increasing with 90 percent of the world's trade moving via ship and 45 percent of all shipping moving through the pirate-infested waters of Asia. Clearly, piracy is becoming an increasing threat to global trade." http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1379.cfm
Only a well equipped and well organised para-military force could be relied upon to negate this threat, and the existence of such a force introduces some very old world problems around the morality of mercenaries, the relationship of military service to social power, and the costs of a standing navy, into this idealistic societal concept.
The threat of governments trying to "take down" this off-shore threat is laughable. It is very unlikely (Why do we assume the Seastead community is going to be seen as a threat? What are we planning on doing? An why bother with a military assault when you can simply blockade supplies, close bank accounts and stop any flights to/from those communities) and if it occurred it is completely unstoppable by force, so it should be ignored. If anyone serious, any member of the G8 for example, had any reasonable proof of "terrorists" or "criminals" being supported or protected by a Seastead community they wouldn't think twice about sending a couple of gunboats out to pick up all the inhabitants and take them off to jail - where many would probably be repatriated to whichever home country claimed them. Any amount of real military hardware (stinger missiles et al) would only increase the use of force, and the idea of a Tesla weapon is so ridiculous I can't believe someone even brought it up. At the risk of giving this idiocy undue notice, if such a "death ray" existed, that existence itself would be more than enough excuse for any major power to reduce the Seastead to matchwood.
The best suggestion for protection from states is the use of positive PR, including constant web feeds. Of course getting a G8 member to recognize your sovereignty is the real key to security.
Pirates can be dealt with.If
Pirates can be dealt with.
If said pirates know that any Seasteader they are likely to encounter is trained to British Infantry standard or better and will in all likelihood, have a gun of equal or better quality/potency than thiers, they will think twice.
Pirates are opportunists, they wont take on a hardened target unless you severely piss them off. Even then, most come from less than well equipped bases and supply chains. If a SS can shrug off an RPG shot and keep firing back vigourously... they'll run. They'll find easier pickings.
Citizens and their governments
As long as people don't renounce their passports, or offer too much of a FUCK YOU to the nation state governments, in any real bother people's own governments will send commandos to come and rescue them, as happened recently to those french folks who's yacht was attacked by pirates.
That's the fundamental backup and probably always will be. And that's a good thing.
Realistically the most any
Realistically the most any commuity is going to need is a few small arms for a local milita to protect themselves against criminal elements, larger commuities might want some mounted light machine guns or at most some surplus 20mm autocannons.
If you need CIWS, stingers etc your trying to fight a military force so your screwed anyway.
U-boats
Main problem seems to me underwater defence. If they just sink you with torpedos, what good will those cameras do for example. It might be even be hard to prove somebody atacked you. Let alone who did it.
Underwater cameras. Even a
undersea threats are you
undersea threats are you only real problem, they can be countered to a degree by shallow water, which is much harder to hide in. mines are still very effective weapons for a fixed installation.
if you can get a hardened goalkeeper or phalanx system in place, the only other real threats you have to face are free fall carpet bombing and THOR systems (orbital bombardment which no-one will currently admit to having).
so basically what i am
so basically what i am getting is that the best way for a seastead to survive would be to have strong economic ties with one of the global super powers so that, while yes the amount of freedom will be decreased, it will not be decreasd by much and it will also have an insurance policiy against any foreign intervention in the seasteads affairs other than its main economic partner
Tiny Bubbles Defense
Here is an idea that I had about 10 years ago when I was first thinking about floating structures as a possible strategy for creating better (or no) government.
It occurred to me that a semi permanent buoy structure with an extensive anchoring system could put just about anything it wanted to down on the ocean floor for the sake of defense.
Now I had heard theories that one explanation for the Bermuda triangle was that edge of the continental shelf collapses regularly and releases huge quantities of methane. When this methane bubbles out of the sea it changes the density of the water and many ships are no longer buoyant enough to float - sinking immediately. It can also take down airplanes, as the engines tend to ignite the clouds of gas and go boom.
So if you could arrange to pump large quantities of methane gas under attackers, you might be able to easily neutralize them in a very novel way. Any gas would almost certainly have the same effect on ships, so it does not necessarily have to be methane if you are only worried about boats.
The Seastead design that Andrew House created a few years ago might lend itself well to a cheaper version of this defense. For ships actually trying to dock with the seastead, if the top of the flotation section released gas (and/or maybe pipes extending out from it a ways) the buoyancy of the seastead might not be seriously effected, as the flotation section would be below the gas release. However, the floating dock would sink, along with anyone trying to climb onto it and any boats that were trying to attach themselves to it.
I think this might be enough of a defense to seriously deter piracy, though it obviously wouldn't be stopping missiles or torpedoes.
-- Sean Hastings
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
I doubt you could
I doubt you could economically create enough gas to do such things. You are talking about phenomenal amounts of gas plus a fixed deployment system.
Smart mines would work far better.
Sailors would probably respond rather favourably to radio hails where you state that thier hulls are covered in autonomous mines which will make big holes in thier ships unless they comply with you requests to power down thier offensive systems, cut engines to 1/8th and come into port to stand down from hostilities. Deadly force can be used as a deterrent.
Missiles and torpedoes can be stopped. The latter can be stopped by denying delivery systems access to points close enough to deploy said munitions.
cool idea
I think it's a valid critique that getting that much methane together wouldn't be as cost-effective as - say - an attack helicopter. But I saw the show on the Discovery Channel too, and from what I recall the only reason methane was discussed is that it - and not other gasses - tends to accumulate in quantity on the ocean floor.
If one could seastead in a place where methane already existed in great amounts, perhaps some controlled detonations on the ocean floor would be a cost-effective defense.
Interesting
Methane ice on the sea floor is much more abundant than once thought, mainly because it dissolves when the conditions are perturbed so it wasn't noticed until recently: it stays solid only if the temperature stays low enough and pressure stay high enough. Apparently the thought of voluntarily disrupting this stability has enjoyed some popularity in fiction: it's in the main plot of one Clive Cussler's book and also in animes Zoids and Code Geass (in which a whole fleet of warships is sunk this way).
RE: Cool Idea
What you've apparently forgotten from the program was that the release of methane from the seabed resulted in a (actually a large number of) fish kills. The next problem would be the possible suffication of the inhabidents of the seastead or death in a methane explosion. Not cool.
Conventional Defence
I completely agree. I intend
I completely agree.
I intend to get some basic training with assualt rifles when i decide to leave my current sphere of monopoly of force: i think many people will do something simimlar.
Ten people with assualt rilfles fighting from higher ground for their lives: id like to see the pirate that feels like attacking such. Uninvited boarding will be nearly impossible for them, the only card them might have is threatning to sink us: although i suspect that will be harder than you think, way out of range of your average pirate. And what good would it do them?
Another thing: people all seem to be considering one seastead at a time. There may be a time when there is only one seastead, but i hope to see my community quickly grow to dozens of them. Thats hundereds of assualt rifles for you, and at that point we could easily throw in some RPG's and heavy machine guns. Bye bye pirates.
But if conventional navies / airforces start to attack, we are fucked for the forseeable future. We might ramp up the cost of doing such a little, by carrying around some torpedos or AA missiles, but it would take a while before that would become affordable. Staying under the radar is what we should aim at, initially.
basic training with assault rifles
The four golden rules of firearms:
Useful information besides the 4 rules:
All other details are just that. The particular operation of most firearms is extremely simple to figure out. They mostly operate on very simple principles. Maintenance of any particular model may be more or less complex. Mechanical accuracy of most (modern) firearms is far better than the practical ability of the average shooter. Proficiency only comes through practice. Rate of fire is far less important than accuracy.
More seriously, these 4 rules at the top must become ingrained habit if you are ever to handle a firearm. The other thingds I have listed out are matters for further consideration and study. There are implications of implications to each of them. The ethics and legality of escalation of force are a field of study all in itself.
Some recommend resources are the books by Lt. Col. David Grossman (U.S. Army, Ret.) and Gavin DeBecker, available at amazon.com among other places.
*claps* listen to the guy,
*claps* listen to the guy, the knows what he's talking about.
~~~~~~~~~
some additions :
1) provided you have the ammo supplies, two rounds are almost always better than one, a 'double tap' is almost always a good idea
Incapacitation of your target is not guaranteed at any time but anything to tip the odds in your favour is a good thing, very few guns you are likely to use in combat negate the value of a second shot, most are quick if not semi-auto actions and light in the recoil dept. So provided you have the rounds, spend em.
2) aim - spray and pray is called suppression fire in a general direction, thats to pin someone down or prevent them from firing at you or your comrades who will hopefully be able to get into a position to kill your enemy with an aimed shot.
3) practice and train - marksmanship is an art and a skill to be polished if you intend to rely on it for your life, common sense which unfortunately few have, so I guess it makes it 'uncommon sense' but anyhoo...
4) count your rounds - an empty gun is a bad club
~~~~~~~~~~~
some other good rules for more domestic situations
1) Keep your guns locked up when not in use.
2) Separate guns and ammo, keep the locked up in separate and discreet locations, keep your clip magazines full if you wish but leave them in your ammo storage container. Guns without ammo are very poor quality clubs.
3) If you have your guns out and others are present, they are one of two things, a) trained to know how to make a gun inert (clear the chamber and remove the ammo/bolt from the gun), b) leaving right now. you can respect pacifists and still give them a good understanding of how to stop guns hurting someone.
4) Put them away clean, always.
Peasant Militia
Yes, aside from technology for security (such as the sinking dock idea Sean proposed), small arms are probably the best for security. A machine gun turret (.50cal?) or AA platform could be installed on a solo seastead platform, or on the outer rim platforms of a conglomerate of seasteads, fairly cheaply (considering the cost of the actual platform it protects).
Furthermore, as a "nation" all of the citizens would most likely have to be trained militia and security forces hired from within the population may be necessary to maintain 24/7 diligence and internal as well as external security.
Since all "citizens" would then be considered part of the military (or Navy, rather) this may also require certain physical and health constraints to citizenship, at least in the initial phases. Think of the early American settlers and the severe hardships they suffered. They were explorers and colonizers, but the initial group were also mostly soldiers. This is only less important because we aren't "stealing" the ocean from any indigenous groups, unless you count pirates as such.
Target for pirates?
It has been pointed out that pirates are interested in valuable cargo, poorly defended by only a few crewmen. Let me poke a few holes in this theory.
You may never be a target of human trafficking or piracy in a comfortable 1st world nation and in the highly patrolled coastal wataers of tourist destinations, but that's not what we're talking about here.
erg?
Everyone's still waiting for you to poke those promised holes in the theory.
Theory
The theory that a Seastead will not be a target for piracy? I think that is well-debunked. It may happen, it may not, but it is clear that there is no guarantee thatit won't.
...and unless you can
...and unless you can guarantee that you´ll never be attacked you must prepare for it. Anything else would be quite silly. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Aim for size
Size?
Have you ever seen an aircraft carrier in person?
Size.
I've seen islands that dwarf any aircraft carrier by orders of magnitude. TSi is in the business of building LAND, not SHIPS. Do you seriously think the US Navy could sink Antigua ?
Besides, an aircraft
Hmmm
"You could build an external tube around the spar for the torpedo to detonate against. Sort of like the grates that defend against RPG:s on tanks."
I guess breakwaters would do, too, if they are made of many independant elements instead of a single box. Having lots of spare surface of seastead relative to the infrastructure aboard would help, too.
The point is not that an
The point is not that an aircraft carrier could ram a seastead- (do you have any inkling what an aircraft carrier costs?) But that no matter how big your floating structure, it can be taken down with military force. you can't run and hide. You can barely move. Torpedoes are largely superceded by missiles, and by aircraft with precision bombs.
There is really no point in further discussion of defending a seastead again a Navy or Air Force, (feel free to continue if you wish). It's simply fantasy.
Well, it was you who
"Well, it was you who
"Well, it was you who brought up the physical size of an aircraft carrier as a factor in the striking force. Based on that one can only assume that ramming is implied :-). "
"There is another approach to fending off a Navy-class military agression, it is by damping it with sheer size. "
Sorry I let myself be dragged into this particular conversation again. I won't do it any more. It only happened this time because my position was misrepresented.
Depends on the Navy or Air Force
A SeaStead could not successfully defend itself against a major military power - the US, Russia, China, maybe Britain and France. The military capabilities of just about all other nations (including the British Commonwealth, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) isn't capable of projection of force (the ability to deliver the military to the intended location to attack an enemy).
So, don't piss off the US or Russia or China, and you're GTG (Good to Go for those not versed in military slang).
As far as defense against a lesser power, it's a matter of economics. Would (say) Britain or France really want to risk a capital asset like an aircraft carrier and it's crew in attacking a SeaStead? What would the gain be? As long as the SeaStead has a legitimate ability to defend itself (using, eg, SAM or Surface-to-surface missiles) and resist the attack (from missiles, torpedos, and the like) then it's a very difficult calculus to overcome. Say France decides to attack a SeaStead for whatever reason. They will be risking about 5-bilion Euros of equipment, and thousands of lives. For what gain? Especially if the SeaStead makes it known that the final defense is the Masada or Kobiashi Maru scenaros - they may kill everyone but they still won't get anything.
The reason that ships are often attacked by pirates off the Horn of Africa (Somali coast) is that the pirates have a pretty damned good understanding that the ships are pretty much there for the taking. Few if any standing watch personnel, no weapons to speak of (maybe a fire hose or two), and booty beyond their wildest dreams. Turn that around, and have a SeaStead that is willing and able to blow the pirates out of the water at the first sign of provocation and guess what? There will be no pirates attacking - it's too much risk for the potential benefit. The ocean magazines (Ocean Navigator, Lats and Atts, etc) are full of reports of pirates in large, established seasteads...and frequently they will run when the alarm is made, making off with a life preserver or two. You think they're going to fight a target that can defend itself effectively?
A few weeks ago I added a few comments to the Wiki about defense on all levels, from personal weapons for a militia force to defense against missiles. Keep in mind that even the most modern ship-killer missiles are designed to attack relatively thin skinned, small, fragile targets-like a warship (which are not especially well armored compared to WWII ships). What would happen to say a couple of tens of millions of tons of ferro-concrete when a 165kg warhead from a Exocet hits it? Someone with more knowledge and experience than I (I was a fighter-bomber pilot in the Air Force) should address protection from torpedos, but again - what will a couple of hundred pound warhead do against a couple of tens of millions of tons of SeaStead?
You honestly beleve that a
You honestly beleve that a seastead is going to fend of the Royal Navy? Pushing bounds of credibility a bit there don't you think.
And as a ex-air force pilot you would be aware a target thats weight of millions of tons the exocets would be out the window and bunker busters would be in.
Some helpful info:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-24.htm
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walt
Soooo, how many bunker
Soooo, how many bunker busters to sink an island the size of Antigua ? ;) Just joking - but I'm thinking that some seastead designs might end up having a lower cost/surface ratio than the cost/destroyed surface ratio of some bombs.
Size
Well, it would seem to be in the business of researching options at the moment. I'm actually with you on the idea that I would rather see new land. It also makes certain things a little more traditional and solid from a legal standpoint.
An Aircraft carrier may not
An Aircraft carrier may not be able to 'sink' Antigua, but one can certainly make it uninhabitable - and thats without resorting to unconventional weapons. A few PGM's on key infrastructure (power plants, water treatment plants/reservoirs), etc and the locals are not going to be arguing with you too much.
How bout instead of decking
How bout instead of decking a seastead out with cruise missiles, nuclear warheads and 50 cal machine guns, why not just build up your seastead crew/habitants, then keep the location of said seastead private... somewhere remote and somewhere where rats are most likely not to show up?
Also any attacks against seastead would be small, as obviously the attacker would want to salvage the stead and not blow it up like some ppl think... thus you would only need to train people in the use of small arms to successfully defend against such an attack (with adequate surveillance and so forth)
In the end, I think its best to keep such a thing at a minimal, as we're trying to avoid what other countries already are doing in terms of stockpiling weapons...
Well, because you can't hide
Well, because you can't hide something that big for very long - even from civilians. A government? Even without organic space-based technology, anyone with a credit card can by satellite photos with <1 meter resolution off the internet (SPOT, in France, for example).
defense
I don't see why the concern with torpedos i never heard of a pirate that had the resources for them in the first place. I am also looking at the sargosa sea as a location so, if your surrounded by sea weed how can a torpedo or a submarine be effective in that enviroment?
As for any Naval force I found a well stocked bar can solve a lot of problems.
As for pirates a few 50 calibler sniper rifles should keep them honest. Infrared and some sort of radar to catch the sneeky ones.
recommendation for your constitution
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a no war clause the prevents Japan from resorting to force, making weapons or maintaining military potential (which is does by the way). Any effort to defend your country will be misread by others as offensive and give you more trouble (see The Way of the Tao). Advocate peace and good relationships and it will pay off in the long run. If anothr country takes what you have made so far... do a Gandhi on them, they only own your country when you submit to their rule. Have the mental strength and training to RESIST and you will be better armed than with any gun. Remember nothing last for ever: your country or the occupation that some fear will come (it won't by the way). But you must prepare to be able to deal with it, to accept it and to be free from attachment to something you have created. Just go create it somewhere else, again. If you are worried about the money you will lose then dont do it. Worrying wont get you anywhere. Great project by the way.
I wrote a book called CHARLIE DESU, CHIKYUJIN DESU (Charlie, World Citizen) advocating Article 9 and the idea that I prefer to have no nationality. You you build your contry... I will ask my wife to give birth there. A true free child, probably not the first tough. Its in Japanese though http://www.ex1st.com/book/
HEX CITY is my contribution to terrestrial town planning http://www.ex1st.com/hexcity/
Enjoy and thanks for an inspiration topic.
Those who depend on the
Those who depend on the kindness of others will soon find out just how few and far-between the kind are, and how prolific and widespread evil is.
For the record I was never
For the record I was never trying to seriously imply that you suggested the carrier ram anything. The idea is obviously quite ridiculous. I figure I just didn´t understand what you meant when you brought up the size of the carrier, and introduced the ramming business as a joke. I guess some smileys would have been in order somewhere back there... Sorry about this rubbish discussion :-).