Not quite, no. You have to consider the size of the rocket required to get there. And payload very much has to do with the capability to get there. The requirements for achieving near earth orbits vs geostat orbits are very different, and those requirements will change based on both payload size and orbit level.

The current ASAT's are very large missiles, but still borderline launchable from aircraft...specifically an F15 is a supersonic zoom climb, with initial ballistic guidance provided by the jet's trajectory.

By contrast to get even the same small warhead to geostationary, with guidance and course course correction ability, will require a rocket very similar to that used to put geostats into orbit in the first place.

And that missile they developed, was only a prototype program. even though it worked, it never went fully operational and the project was canceled.

Yes, far better to pay people subhuman wages so they have no choice but to go on public assistence than force companies to pay a living wage.
After all, corporate profits are more important than the ability of people to keep off the street.
Your viewpoint is basically that people should serve the economy, rather than the economy should serve the people.
And that's just evil.

....

Walmart and McDonald's alone account for more than 50% of all low income workers.
And the fired people would still show up because they dont just take reports from employers, but also the number of people filing for unemployment

and the thing people alwasy forget, is history and/or dcurrent example.
"if you raise the minimum wage, the sky will fall! the sky will fall!"

horse manure.
we had a higher minimum wage decades ago, and not only did the sky NOT fall, but everyone was more prosperous, the economy was the best the world had ever seen, and a person earning the minimum was actually above the poverty level. even today we can see dozens of countries with a higher minimum wage than the US (and better/more benefits, and more social support, etc etc)....and they're doing ust fine too. they sky has not fallen. but somehow we're supposed to believe that it wont work here, cause the US is somehow "special". Well that's horse manure.

lasers are pretty easy to deflect with reflective surfaces. or you could just vent a cloud of gas or vapor that will attenuate the beam (obviously you'd have only so many uses of this tactic, but essentially "chaff" for lasers). plus even though lasers are coherent, they still diffuse some over extreme distances, which amplifies the power requirement in order to actually concentrate enough energy to do damage. plus the laser source would ideallyneed to be space-borne itself, simply because having to go through the atmosphere will also sap a lot of its power, in which case the advantage goes to whoever's weapon is already up there.

as far as dodging, it wouldn't take much. it would be limited, true. but once a missle or kinetic weapon missed you, it would have a helluva time trying to re-orient; it'd likely be completely unable to unless it had a ton of extra fuel. now on the other hand, a slower speed interceptor or missile, could better handle a dodging target. but then, that gives the target more time to use its countermeasures, such as its own laser or missile to take out the incoming threat.

I think the new part here was being able to reach targets in geostationary orbits. We've long had the ability to take out the orbits closer to earth, but geostationary is typically 22,000+ miles out. I'm not sure if our weapons yet have the capability to reach those satellites.

this right here is the single most popular yet single most IGNORANT statement non-scientists make time and again.

It's "settled" because not only has no one ever come up with a better idea yet, but every observation being made only further proofs the currently accepted science.
That's what makes it settled.
That's why there's a consensus.

You are more than welcome to try and upend all of newtonian physics, or Einstein's relativity.
But you're chances of success as an obviously unqualified and ignorant layperson are around 0.0000000000000000000001%.

So is it debatable? Maybe. Depends on what your theory is. And it better be a damn good one.
Until then, yes, it damn well is SETTLED.

see wha tyou just wrote?
see that?
that right there!
THAT'S WHY YOU GET LABELED AS DENIERS.

you're as stupid as the other guy. it has been REPEATEDLY SHOWN TIME AND AGAIN.
and yet you still say things like "science is never settled" (bullspit...yes it is)..."we dont know yet" (yes, we do)..."no proof has been shown" (again, there's plenty of it)

Because you are denying obvious facts and conclusions from thousands of data points covering hundreds of lines of consistant evidence. You are not rational, you are not reasonable, this is not the realm of reasonable skepticism. not any longer. you are hit over the head with it repeatedly, its as plain as day, yet you still say you cant see the elephant in the room.

That's why you're labeled as denialists and mocked for your stupidity.

1) Nope, everyone most certainly does NOT accept that it's natural. quite the opposite. The entire relevant scientific community specifically. the overwhelming majority people even trying to "debate" it are non-expert non-scientists. the scientific community that actually studies it have already made up their mind (the 3% is irrelevent; there's always cranks who reject the scientific consensus, even for relativity and the such, and frequently in larger numbers).

2) Bullspit.

3) Again. Bullspit.

but then we don't much care about the opinions of stupid people, nor should we.
the science is settled.
you're wrong.

Liar shill is at it again.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

addendum: http://www.iflscience.com/envi...

B.S.
More solar energy lands on the planet in one hour than the entire world uses in a year.
As such the amount we actually need to capture and store is miniscule.
A solar array 158 miles square could power the ENTIRE WORLD.
We're talking 0.03% of the area of north africa.
Obviously it's more practical to spread the array out, to save on transmission cable...
and you REALLY need a smart grid for it to work most practically (our patchwork system is a mess)...
But even so, it's possible we could turn just one county in Arizona into a massive solar array, the US would be energy independent for all time.
We could spread arrays around the globe to provide continuous power at all times...or we could just make every home and building energy independent.

Point is the future of planetbound humanity is solar.
And that STILL leaves room for wind (a solar derivitive), tidal, etc. We could eliminate most hydropower, restoring river ecosystems.

Someday fusion may be practical...but it isn't yet (and no, the lack of funding doesn't help), and won't be for some time.
But solar is here. Today. Now.

We could do it, NOW

Point is, the notion that there isn't enough to go around, is pure stupidity.

Here.
Have a cookie.

what works for you may not work for others, as others may have reasons or other issues that preclude what works for you.
shortly, you cannot speak to everyones situation and to do so is extreme arrogance.
thus, this potential treatment is a huge boon to those people.

of all the plot devices and changes that have occured in the history of comic books, those paragons of serious literature, THIS is the one that people finally get upset over?

it's comic books. we've seen our heroes go through hell (literally in some cases) only to die when convenient. in fact we've seen HUNDREDS of heroes and villains die only to be resurected, replaced, cloned, imperonsated, have someone else adopt the mantle, etc. we've seen magic be manifested in science fiction based stories, or vice versa. we've seen absolutely ridiculous origin stories. weve seen gender swapping before, we've seen various orientations before. we've seen she-hulk created because "hey, wouldnt a female hulk who sleeps around be cool?". there's both a superwoman and supergirl. How many "Robins" are we up to now?

Come on. there are so many things we could talk about in terms of comic book story plotting, and character deveolopement, or anything else related to comic books that could be described as lazy, or pandering, or gratuious, or any other negative viewpoint that we frequently heare from non-comic book fans... ...BUT THIS IS THE ONE that you finally say is too far?

It's comic books.
Get over it and just enjoy the show.

this is the new tactic: don't like something? bar any funding frm being used for it.

They don't like global warming, so they passed a bill barring hte military from doing its job and making plans to study and deal with emerging security threats as a result of it...yes, Republicans directly harming national security over global warming, because of their corporate masters.

They don't like global warming, so they also passed a bill barring the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Energy from doing its job and studying and pursuing projects designed to mitigate or deal with the effects of global warming, such as rising sea levels and changing weather patterns....yes, Republicans directly harming state and local economic activity, waterfront developement, reservoir planning, crop irrigation, etc, over global warming because of their corporate masters

there's many others.
And now we can add this to the list: They don't like net neutrality, they're passing a bill to block the FCC from doing it's job and fostering economic growth and development of the internet by maintaining a level playing field on open internet, in order to favor current already established interests....so yes, Republicans hurting economic growth and competition because of their corporate masters.

no, they arent the same thing, and "progressivism" is not an ideology, but an attribute, a direction of society, not a school of thought or system of government. "i dont see where progrssivism succeeded" ... because you've seen it so long you dont even see it any more.

reigning in the power of the king and granting the citizenry basic rights (Magna Carta): progressive
creating a nation under ideals of liberty: progressive
ending slavery: progressive
expanding the right to vote to women: progressive
reigning in corporate excesses, busting trusts, regulating banks: progressive
expanding the vote to minorities: progressive
creatign social safety net: progressive
creating rules to protect the water we drink and air we breathe: progressive
expanding equal rights to LGBT community? progressive

So where is progressivism working? Everywhere it's ever been done, currently that's most of Europe, and to a degree, in the US on some issues).
conservatism is by definition the holding back of society to maintain the status quo, and progressivism the opposite.
As such, both are constantly shifting political forces, and not political philosophies you can nail to a wall for all time.

further food for thought: both socialism(and its kin) and social democracy were created in responce to the excesses of rampant uncontrolled capitalism ("the gilded age"). the difference being social seeks to end it entirely by taking over control of it, while social democracy simply tries to reign in those excesses through regulation, polishing its sharp edges while still channeling its better qualities towards the service of society.

much like the famous quote concerning democracy, capitalism is a rotten system that is ultimately self-destructive....yet still better than the alternatives. so if you can control those excesses, and steer it away from its self-destructive tendencies, you can make it serve society, instead of letting it force society to serve capitalism.