If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   That's no moon...wait, it's still the moon   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 105
    More: Obvious, Death Star, China National Petroleum Corporation, China National Space Administration, Lunar Exploration Programme Centre, lunar exploration, missiles, People's Liberation Army  
•       •       •

17992 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2013 at 6:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-05 04:24:43 PM  
"It's coming right for us! In three days."

Better put some lasers up there otherwise it's pointless.
 
2013-12-05 04:26:25 PM  
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-12-05 04:29:18 PM  
Expert claims country wants to set up missile base on satellite by 2050

If man is still alive
If woman can survive
 
2013-12-05 04:31:47 PM  
www.sitcomsonline.com
 
2013-12-05 04:37:13 PM  
www.empireonline.com
knows a thing or two about heavily armed battlestations...wait....
 
2013-12-05 04:41:27 PM  
Yay, nothing more likely to get the west increasing funding to science and space than the threat of enemies putting missile bases on the moon, even if it is nonsense.

Of course the Chinese gotta beat the Nazis first, but when they wear each other out in the fighting we can swoop in and take 'em both out in one go.
 
2013-12-05 04:43:45 PM  
31.media.tumblr.com

On the other hand....

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 04:49:18 PM  
One expert told the newspaper that the Earth's natural satellite could be turned into a giant weapon, which could be used as a military base where missiles could be directed at targets on Earth...

www.seoboy.com
 
2013-12-05 04:53:57 PM  
cbs929dave.files.wordpress.com
We will call it the Alan Parsons Project.
 
2013-12-05 05:21:08 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-05 06:07:17 PM  
I can't pay no doctor bills, but Chinese on the Moon.
 
2013-12-05 06:07:48 PM  
Dear god, this derpfest site even has a picture of the Death Star, in case the derpers forgot what it looks like.
 
2013-12-05 06:13:27 PM  
Does China want to turn the moon into a DEATH STAR?

Once again, the adage holds true.  If a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is "no."
 
2013-12-05 06:14:33 PM  
Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.
 
2013-12-05 06:15:19 PM  

foo monkey: [upload.wikimedia.org image 299x475]


I was going with H Beam Piper's story "Edge of the Knife"
He was only 60-odd years off.

Fortunately, I will have relocated to New Zealand by then.

/fark Uruguay
//University of Montevideo Social Sciences department can EABOD
///tosh-ki waja, anyone?
 
2013-12-05 06:16:42 PM  
I'm sure they want to (honestly, who doesn't?) Are they trying to or even able to... NO.
 
2013-12-05 06:17:41 PM  
'Cause satellites are just too farking easy ya know?
 
2013-12-05 06:20:09 PM  

JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.


Besides, at that range, you'd be better designing a mass driver weapon and just drop rocks.

Of course, that's globally destructive, but honestly, it makes more sense than a missile site on the 'moon'.
 
2013-12-05 06:20:55 PM  
how do you say 'the long watch' in chinese?
 
2013-12-05 06:21:25 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

So *that's* what the Death Star looks like...
 
2013-12-05 06:22:37 PM  
We like the moon!
'Cause it is close to us
We like the mooooooooooon
 
2013-12-05 06:22:43 PM  
Good luck with that. I've heard the moon is a biatchy dominatrix. Or something.
 
2013-12-05 06:23:18 PM  
Daily Mail...Opposing Views...Raw Story.  What do these 3 have in common?
 
2013-12-05 06:24:09 PM  
You put solar panels to feed a large capacitor which feeds a rail gun then you fire very large chunks of molten rock that was created by robots back towards the earth and incredible speeds.  If you do the math right you have it hit the earth wherever you want and the kinetic energy would be quite amazing.   If you struck first, you could set it all in motion and have a shotgun effect with several pieces coming in at once.

However that isn't by 2050 more like 2150.
 
2013-12-05 06:24:35 PM  

FloydA: Does China want to turn the moon into a DEATH STAR?

Once again, the adage holds true.  If a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is "no.the article is stupid and the entire publishing staff should be rounded up and killed painfully"


FTFY.
 
2013-12-05 06:27:03 PM  
Hey China! You might wanna check whose flag is on the moon. We claimed it. No take backs.
 
2013-12-05 06:28:02 PM  

Jument: FloydA: Does China want to turn the moon into a DEATH STAR?

Once again, the adage holds true.  If a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is "no.the article is stupid and the entire publishing staff should be rounded up and killed painfully"

FTFY.


Well that's true of all Daily Fail articles even if they don't have a question mark in the headline.
 
2013-12-05 06:28:35 PM  

shanrick: Expert claims country wants to set up missile base on satellite by 2050


Nope. International treaty already set says the moon is free to be shared and explored by all nations -- peacefully.

/Jument: article is stupid and the entire publishing staff should be rounded up and killed painfully"
 
2013-12-05 06:28:35 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-05 06:28:57 PM  

hardinparamedic: [31.media.tumblr.com image 454x500]

On the other hand....

[i.imgur.com image 310x310]

Found this one today

img.fark.net
 
2013-12-05 06:29:03 PM  
Isn't there an international treaty preventing any country from claiming any territory on the Moon?
 
2013-12-05 06:31:03 PM  

JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.


The value of putting a missle base on the moon would be in second or "revenge" strike capabilities. Basically so your opponent couldnt hope to launch a surprise attack and destroy your ability to retaliate.
 
2013-12-05 06:31:19 PM  

JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.


Yeah, this. If you're going to put crap in space for orbital bombardment, wouldn't it be better in, y'know, *orbit*?
 
2013-12-05 06:32:04 PM  
It's outrageous that they would make this anouncement of their hostile intentions just two days before the anniversary of their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Talk about a tin ear.
 
2013-12-05 06:32:05 PM  

threadjackistan: JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.

The value of putting a missle base on the moon would be in second or "revenge" strike capabilities. Basically so your opponent couldnt hope to launch a surprise attack and destroy your ability to retaliate.


Subs are cheaper, by several orders of magnitude
 
2013-12-05 06:32:51 PM  

buckler: Isn't there an international treaty preventing any country from claiming any territory on the Moon?


Like the Chinese care about that?
 
2013-12-05 06:34:04 PM  

stratagos: threadjackistan: JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.

The value of putting a missle base on the moon would be in second or "revenge" strike capabilities. Basically so your opponent couldnt hope to launch a surprise attack and destroy your ability to retaliate.

Subs are cheaper, by several orders of magnitude


This.  And far more likely to hit what they're aiming at.
 
2013-12-05 06:35:08 PM  

FrancoFile: buckler: Isn't there an international treaty preventing any country from claiming any territory on the Moon?

Like the Chinese care about that?


I'm amazed you can type up a response without accidentally choking to death on your mouse.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-12-05 06:37:02 PM  
The Moon is a bad place to attack Earth from.
 
2013-12-05 06:37:56 PM  
t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-12-05 06:38:16 PM  
Sorry China, no can do. We already got our flag on it. ALL OURS!
 
2013-12-05 06:39:55 PM  

fusillade762: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x396]

So *that's* what the Death Star looks like...


That's a typo.  They meant Dogstar.

userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-12-05 06:40:19 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-05 06:42:55 PM  

ZAZ: The Moon is a bad place to attack Earth from.


dd-b.net
 
2013-12-05 06:45:36 PM  
Were Chinese on the Moon, we copied your Harpoons...
 
2013-12-05 06:46:30 PM  
Well, that explains the poor quality of the blueprints.

static1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-12-05 06:47:37 PM  

TomD9938: It's outrageous that they would make this anouncement of their hostile intentions just two days before the anniversary of their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Talk about a tin ear.



Germans aren't from China!
 
2013-12-05 06:48:15 PM  

Infernalist: stratagos: threadjackistan: JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.

The value of putting a missle base on the moon would be in second or "revenge" strike capabilities. Basically so your opponent couldnt hope to launch a surprise attack and destroy your ability to retaliate.

Subs are cheaper, by several orders of magnitude

This.  And far more likely to hit what they're aiming at.


Would you all kindly STFU
How are we gonna get a good old-fashioned 'Space Race' going again with that kinda attitude?!

CHINKS ON OUR MOON!
WE CANNOT ALLOW A MOON MISSILE GAP!
BACK TO THE MOON FUTURE!

 
2013-12-05 06:52:15 PM  
I'll be long dead by 2050.

You young farkers can farking deal with it.
 
2013-12-05 06:57:36 PM  

Infernalist: FrancoFile: buckler: Isn't there an international treaty preventing any country from claiming any territory on the Moon?

Like the Chinese care about that?

I'm amazed you can type up a response without accidentally choking to death on your mouse.


Huh?

You must have me confused with someone who believes in geopolitical theory instead of reality.

/I like France
//I don't always like the French
 
2013-12-05 06:58:36 PM  
Ground control to Maj. Wong.
 
2013-12-05 07:02:36 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I can't pay no doctor bills, but Chinese on the Moon.


We have a winner!
 
2013-12-05 07:05:26 PM  
I know treaties can be broken...but isn't China a signatory to the non-militarization of the Moon treaty?
 
2013-12-05 07:07:57 PM  
But where could they possibly get enough people to build and populate such a station?
 
2013-12-05 07:08:47 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x273]


Came for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-12-05 07:10:08 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Would probably look like this...
 
2013-12-05 07:20:04 PM  
So they could only attack us at night?

Yeah like that's even remotely efficient!

Stupid Chinese.
 
2013-12-05 07:20:26 PM  
Tanstaafl.
 
v15
2013-12-05 07:33:33 PM  
The world powers really should get together and fire some nukes at the moon. Everyone on earth could cheer with one voice, "We have nuked the moon!!" Earth pride!!

/at least it would take our minds off of killing each other
 
2013-12-05 07:36:44 PM  

tinyarena: Would you all kindly STFU
How are we gonna get a good old-fashioned 'Space Race' going again with that kinda attitude?!
CHINKS ON OUR MOON!
WE CANNOT ALLOW A MOON MISSILE GAP!
BACK TO THE MOON FUTURE!


Agreed. If it takes threats of weaponizing the Moon to jump start better space exploration then I'm all for it.
 
2013-12-05 07:38:17 PM  

Rapmaster2000: fusillade762: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x396]

So *that's* what the Death Star looks like...

That's a typo.  They meant Dogstar.

[userserve-ak.last.fm image 480x480]


You can't be sirius.
 
2013-12-05 07:38:18 PM  

Mr. Fuzzypaws: "It's coming right for us! In three days."

Better put some lasers up there otherwise it's pointless.


This. Also, those missles cost 100,000X what it would cost to keeps them on Earth Errf.
 
2013-12-05 07:38:21 PM  
What would be the point of a missile base on the moon? It can't hit anything on Earth or even in orbit around Earth. There's nothing out there.

The moon looks big and close, but it's 250,000 miles away. That's far. It took three days for Apollo astronauts to get there. That's three whole days of just drifting through empty nothingness, from one planet to its satellite.

To give you some sense of scale, if the Earth is a marble, the moon is a small pea and is orbiting from about a foot away. 12 inches between a marble and a pea..... which is really really far when you consider that we are the size of an atom at that scale. Our furthest geosynchronous satellites are only about one inch away. Except for a few science probes, there is nothing out there beyond that.

So what would be the point of weaponizing a region of space that is over 200,000 miles away from the furthest object of interest?
 
2013-12-05 07:39:08 PM  

tinyarena: Infernalist: stratagos: threadjackistan: JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.

The value of putting a missle base on the moon would be in second or "revenge" strike capabilities. Basically so your opponent couldnt hope to launch a surprise attack and destroy your ability to retaliate.

Subs are cheaper, by several orders of magnitude

This.  And far more likely to hit what they're aiming at.

Would you all kindly STFU
How are we gonna get a good old-fashioned 'Space Race' going again with that kinda attitude?!
CHINKS ON OUR MOON!
WE CANNOT ALLOW A MOON MISSILE GAP!
BACK TO THE MOON FUTURE!


fark the space race. Let someone else make the advances, we can steal it from them. Make the NSA earn their goddam pay
 
2013-12-05 07:43:01 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

CNSA expert Newt Ginglich?
 
2013-12-05 07:44:09 PM  

Ishkur: What would be the point of a missile base on the moon? It can't hit anything on Earth or even in orbit around Earth. There's nothing out there.

The moon looks big and close, but it's 250,000 miles away. That's far. It took three days for Apollo astronauts to get there. That's three whole days of just drifting through empty nothingness, from one planet to its satellite.

To give you some sense of scale, if the Earth is a marble, the moon is a small pea and is orbiting from about a foot away. 12 inches between a marble and a pea..... which is really really far when you consider that we are the size of an atom at that scale. Our furthest geosynchronous satellites are only about one inch away. Except for a few science probes, there is nothing out there beyond that.

So what would be the point of weaponizing a region of space that is over 200,000 miles away from the furthest object of interest?


I literally just explained that. Others pointed out flaws in the idea, but the line of thought behind it is in the thread.
 
2013-12-05 07:54:44 PM  

FloydA: Does China want to turn the moon into a DEATH STAR?

Once again, the adage holds true.  If a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is "no."


Try ending one with an exclamation mark.  The answer is still NO.
 
2013-12-05 07:56:45 PM  
Well, we know what we must do.  We have the technology. The time is now. Science can wait no longer. Children are our future. America can, should, must, and will blow up the moon.

/cause you don't mess with God's America
 
2013-12-05 07:57:59 PM  

shanrick: Expert claims country wants to set up missile base on satellite by 2050

If man is still alive
If woman can survive

In the year 7510, if God's a-coming, He ought to make it by then.

)
 
2013-12-05 07:59:40 PM  
why are these guys holding up a banner in front of a TV? Is that one of those new 'banner aware' TVs?
i.dailymail.co.uk

I'm sure the TV really appreciates their effort.
 
2013-12-05 08:01:14 PM  
If the Chinese Communists are first to put missiles on the moon, Jesus will retroactively be baptized Mormon.

Then you'll all be Mormons.

Think about that.
 
2013-12-05 08:05:45 PM  
Also:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-05 08:10:52 PM  

Finger51: why are these guys holding up a banner in front of a TV? Is that one of those new 'banner aware' TVs?
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x418]

I'm sure the TV really appreciates their effort.


LOL !!1!
Thread over man, thread over
In fact, I think you took out half the internet with that one!
 
2013-12-05 08:15:25 PM  
The moon is an extraordinarily hostile environment.  NASA explored the possibility of sending a long term rover to the moon like they have sent to Mars.  They gave up after realizing that it would die in a matter of weeks and they couldn't do anything to prevent it.  Lunar dust is hard enough and sharp enough to etch aluminum and it is electrostatically charged so it will be attracted to anything we send up there.  It will get into any moving parts and grind them to a halt.

The missiles would take days to reach the Earth.  You would have to slow the missile, put it into earth orbit and then control the re-entry.  If you didn't the warhead would vaporize no matter how much shielding you put on it, re-entry speed would be way too high.

This story  is complete science fiction created by people with no back ground in the subject.

That does not necessarily mean that China won't try it.  Politicians don't know science and often don't listen to those who do know it.  But if China does try it there will be much laughter at NASA and the DOD.
 
2013-12-05 08:28:27 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Also:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 288x475]


Heh.  Just re-read that over the weekend.
 
2013-12-05 08:29:47 PM  
My dog wants to eat an entire brontosaurus.

Does not mean he could, or that its even possible, but that's what he wants, so..... Panic!
 
2013-12-05 08:32:11 PM  
www.bbcamerica.com

I for one do not intend to go to bed by the light of a communist moon!
 
2013-12-05 08:39:14 PM  

some_beer_drinker: [www.empireonline.com image 355x400]
knows a thing or two about heavily armed battlestations...wait....


That's no moon.
i.imgur.com
It's a space station.

--Salman Rushdie

 
2013-12-05 08:45:53 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Also:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 288x475]


Can't top "Mutineer's Moon".
 
2013-12-05 08:50:41 PM  
The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. The treaty was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, and entered into force on 10 October 1967. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to the treaty, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. The treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and shall be free for exploration and use by all the States.
The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, claiming that they are the common heritage of mankind. Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object. The State is also liable for damages caused by their space object.
 
2013-12-05 08:52:01 PM  
In case no one else pointed it out, both the US & USSR had the exact same idea back in the 50s, but by the end of the 60's both gave up on it. Why?

   The ludicrous cost to establish such a base.
   The ludicrous cost to maintain such a base.
   Ludacrisimages.starpulse.com
   The fact that the base would spend something like less than 25% of it's time in a near optimal position relative to intended targets.
   The aforementioned excessive flight time, giving the intended target plenty of time to launch terrestrial based missiles.
   The aforementioned excessive flight time, giving the intended target plenty of time to shoot down the incoming missiles.
    The aforementioned excessive flight time, giving the intended target plenty of time to gloat and party while the other guys were turned to molten glass by missile launched from subs or trains or airplanes or underground silos.

But yeah, it's really real and China's really gonna' do it so let's all wet our pants.

God I hope they try. I would love to see them bankrupt themselves.
 
2013-12-05 08:55:45 PM  

WelldeadLink: Satanic_Hamster: Also:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 288x475]

Can't top "Mutineer's Moon".


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-12-05 08:57:28 PM  
China signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty. If they even tried this, they'd become an international pariah state within hours.

Besides, we have farking LASER weapons. Any missile launched from the moon would be zapped long before it arrived.
 
2013-12-05 09:01:53 PM  
Does the moon have a health care program?
 
2013-12-05 09:06:11 PM  
Let's sell it to them for 17 Trillion.
 
2013-12-05 09:11:02 PM  
Ishkur: What would be the point of a missile base on the moon? It can't hit anything on Earth or even in orbit around Earth. There's nothing out there.

The moon looks big and close, but it's 250,000 miles away. That's far. It took three days for Apollo astronauts to get there. That's three whole days of just drifting through empty nothingness, from one planet to its satellite.

To give you some sense of scale, if the Earth is a marble, the moon is a small pea and is orbiting from about a foot away. 12 inches between a marble and a pea..... which is really really far when you consider that we are the size of an atom at that scale. Our furthest geosynchronous satellites are only about one inch away. Except for a few science probes, there is nothing out there beyond that.

So what would be the point of weaponizing a region of space that is over 200,000 miles away from the furthest object of interest?


"What would be the point..."  Where's your sense of adventure! There are worlds to conquer out there.  Don't you want to look up, one day, and say, "Dude, there are farking nukes on the moon, man!!"  And you're talking to your daughter.  Well, don't you?
 
2013-12-05 09:19:14 PM  

threadjackistan: I literally just explained that. Others pointed out flaws in the idea, but the line of thought behind it is in the thread.


Yeah, like I read the entire thread.

Although an outer space Dead Hand deterrent makes a lot of sense for purposes of mutually assured destruction, there is absolutely no point to putting it 11 times further than it needs to be, under the duress of another gravitational body where it would take orders of magnitude more power for it to get here. Otherwise, why stop at the moon? Let's arm Mars or Cruithne, so we can retaliate a year and a half after our civilization has been turned to ash.
 
2013-12-05 09:32:08 PM  
Mooninites are already there.
 
2013-12-05 09:38:09 PM  
I've got a bad feeling about this.
 
2013-12-05 09:40:44 PM  

BalugaJoe: Mooninites are already there.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
TWX
2013-12-05 09:45:04 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Also:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 288x475]


I read the Dahak books, they were pretty good. Hopefully he'll write a few more, if he ever reaches a good point to take a break in Honor Harrington and Safehold...
 
2013-12-05 09:46:27 PM  
Has anyone considered the problems with reentry? It's extremely difficult to get a space craft to safely land. Imagine a missile.
 
2013-12-05 09:51:46 PM  
So, they're looking for a place to store their Dongs?
 
2013-12-05 10:08:34 PM  
Way to piss off the moon aliens China.
 
2013-12-05 11:00:56 PM  

durbnpoisn: Has anyone considered the problems with reentry? It's extremely difficult to get a space craft to safely land. Imagine a missile.


It's a sloved problem. The "RV" in MIRV means "reentry vehicle". An ICBM does have sub-orbital flight phase, which why they have the range they do.
 
2013-12-05 11:28:47 PM  
Mr. Fuzzypaws [TotalFark]

"It's coming right for us! In three days."

Better put some lasers up there otherwise it's pointless.

We'd get some time as a heads up, but would have absolutely nothing that could stop it.
 
2013-12-05 11:31:48 PM  
buckler

Isn't there an international treaty preventing any country from claiming any territory on the Moon?
How exactly would a nation that can't even put a man in LEO enforce said treaty?
 
2013-12-05 11:57:30 PM  
img.fark.net
Wax on, wax off
 
2013-12-06 01:26:25 AM  
"The expert, from the China National Space Administration's Lunar Exploration Programme Centre, told a Chinese newspaper that the moon could be used as a military base from which to fire missiles at the Earth.
The alleged plans have been likened to the creation of the Death Star in the Star Wars films, a fictional space station capable of destroying planets with its giant laser and home to a huge army led by Darth Vader."

Could've saved a lot of space by saying 'someone is an idiot'.
 
2013-12-06 01:36:41 AM  

thamike: [www.sitcomsonline.com image 385x275]


some_beer_drinker: [www.empireonline.com image 355x400]
knows a thing or two about heavily armed battlestations...wait....


real_headhoncho: One expert told the newspaper that the Earth's natural satellite could be turned into a giant weapon, which could be used as a military base where missiles could be directed at targets on Earth...

[www.seoboy.com image 300x195]


farkingismybusiness: [cbs929dave.files.wordpress.com image 300x223]
We will call it the Alan Parsons Project.


Lol lol lol

3.bp.blogspot.com
I pitty the fool who doesn't get this
 
2013-12-06 05:22:27 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6insZjCfU

just for old times sake...boy this brings back alot of good memories. well...memories of some sort....fark it. i cant remember anything past last week.
 
2013-12-06 08:33:04 AM  

OnlyM3:
How exactly would a nation that can't even put a man in LEO enforce said treaty?


Okay, so if we pretend this whole thing is a valid concern in any way, several countries could probably put people on the Lunar surface, but you don't have to be on the Moon to enforce the treaty, as long as the country trying to weaponize it is still on Earth.
And if nothing else worked, lots of countries could launch conventional weapons at any military installation anyone tried to build out there. Keep in mind that it would be extremely difficult to keep construction secret and nearly impossible to defend the site, so everybody would have ample time to prepare a reponse.
 
2013-12-06 11:01:57 AM  
Wrong moon... If you want to turn one into a Death Star, you want Mimas!

d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net
 
2013-12-06 12:21:30 PM  

Infernalist: I'm amazed you can type up a response without accidentally choking to death on your mouse.


Pure genius and gold all wrapped up in one (a chocolate "Pirate Coin"..?  No.  Oh, so much better..)..

/consider it stolen..  :)
 
2013-12-07 12:23:49 AM  

RobSeace: Wrong moon... If you want to turn one into a Death Star, you want Mimas!

[d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net image 418x418]


All you need to do is dust off all that space powder from the old laser dish.
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report