Sorry, but you are spouting nonsense. The only thing that acts like you are describing is a corner-cube reflector, but it will only be reflecting the incident energy, without any focusing. No "time reversal" of the waveform; the leading edge of the wave will still be the leading edge. You can make a phased-array radar act this way, but that will only be radar responding to returns off a target. Phasing the wavefront is "aiming." Radars do not have the power for physical effects on target.
This is evidence that Google provides bullshit. Most of this citation is mumbo-jumbo. There is optical wavefront control, but this is effected by controlled distortion of a key mirror in the optical train. The only system physically capable of making such an intercept was YAL-1A, and it was canceled, decommissioned, and scrapped by President Obama in 2012-2014. Radar is inadequate for laser targeting. There is no "time reversal." Since I have been working in this technology since the 70s, and specifically with YAL-1A, I am simply repeating facts.
You are all operating on the basis of a groundless myth. If that was a missile, it corresponds to an SLBM launched from a submarine on a northbound trajectory from Puget Sound. I have analyzed this photo, from where it was taken and the azimuth of view. So, it was going in a much different direction than Hawaii, and such missiles are not intended for nor capable of intercepting aircraft. My surmise was that it may have been an attempt to provoke a strategic incident with Russia. (There are no anti-aircraft systems that have the range or guidance to engage an aircraft over the Pacific from the Puget Sound.)
Why/how was it shot down? Because Bangor, WA is the western home port for ballistic missile submarines, McChord Air Force Base is close at hand, and this may reveal that the DoD has a fail-safe policy of keeping the sub base under constant patrol to counter exactly this kind of event, be it sabotage or accident. An air-to-boost-phase interceptor missile is well within current technology and might be a very secret capability. Thus, whitewash, forget, and maintain the secret.
When I see "the Jews" as a target of criticism, that is quite enough to understand that collectivism is at work. If it were only that some trouble-makers are Jews, then the whole fact of them being Jews would be irrelevant---but it never is.
Posing questions as though there were only one answer is another tipoff. Especially when there are answers available which are rejected out of hand.
I have a questioning mind, which I am directing at a guilty pleasure: Jew hatred. Don't arrogate to yourself the title of Questioning Mind when you travel with unquestioning company.
You are not missing anything. There is nothing there to miss. It is merely another Rorschach blot for us to read into our prejudices.
I do not accept any freely chosen bargain to be a compromise of liberty, otherwise there would be no trade and no free market. Money is an asset like any other, and can morally be traded or rented. My understanding of the Bible is clear, and you have no refutation.
Your ideas of me are self-serving fantasy and I won't comment further.
"The Jews." That's all I need to know about a collectivist view. I've read Mein Kampf. I've also read his "other book." I've read countless personal biographical accounts and histories of his main henchmen.
Asking questions in search of reinforcement is not sincere.
Well, there is the right to lay down the law against theft, assault, murder, and trespass. The border between law and freedom is delicate. The free market hinders no one's freedom, nor do contracts. There is little freedom if there is no obligation to fulfill bargains.
But getting our hands dirty cleans the soul.
"Should" according to who and where? You are evading the fact that this is an Old Testament injunction to be followed by Jews among Jews. It does not apply to Jews lending money to Gentiles ("foreigners"). It completely does not apply to Gentiles. Are you a Jew? Do you want to alter the Constitution to forbid interest-bearing loans? If you don't, and you are willing to let a free market prevail, then you are sounding a trumpet at the mountains. The mountains don't care...and neither do I. You can wear your righteousness on a shirt, for all the good it will do you.
No one is exploited who has the freedom to make financial arrangements to their own purpose and preference. Banks are not sending out dragoon squads to bring people in to be creditors. It is perhaps pointless to explain to you that sometimes it makes more sense to obtain an asset first, to gain the means of increasing income, and thereby repay the asset over time. It sounds like that arrangement is beyond your ken.
Casting scorn on "usury" is NOT a purpose of this site.
The number has been tallied as around 6 million Jews. If you want to pettifog over the exact number, be my guest, but it alters nothing. The events happened. It is an entirely believable circumstance that once the number was published, it was simply repeated. How do you know that any were wrong? If all you have are questions, then all you can prove is nothing. Your position is to disbelieve something terrible, testified by witnesses and evidence, without any reason for disbelief.
How does this get you closer to anything? This is your conception of making a point: get snarled up in a trivial detail and miss the big picture. Nothing changes if the number was some other number.
Mushroom clouds are evident in every explosion that sends up material into the sky, particularly conventional explosions and volcanic eruptions. These were chemical explosions; no nuclear characteristics. Speckles are delayed detonation of secondary munitions (like in big aerial firework displays). You see them in big Ukrainian explosions of ammo dumps.
This is complete nonsense. Those were exclusively chemical explosions originating at ground level. (Nuclear weapons are detonated at an optimum altitude.) No nuclear flash. No nuclear fireball. No blast wave. Impressive mushroom clouds are an old story for chemical explosions; watch the tail end of Walt Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (1954) for the special effects explosion of Nemo's island, Vulcania. The "speckles" are not ionizing radiation effects (and neutrons are not ionizing radiation). You see the same thing in impressive fireworks: little incendiary components of the explosion. What you may not appreciate is that a big detonation of explosive at an ammo dump does not immediately involve all the munitions available. A lot of the small munitions are carried up in the cloud and fall out, detonating on their own, to provide flashes. I've seen this sort of thing with big explosions in Ukraine.
The Beirut detonation of an ammonium nitrate stockpile came much closer to simulating a nuclear explosion (suddenness, blast wave), but it was still non-nuclear.
Neutron bombs are still nuclear weapons and have all the same requirements and effects, only an augmentation of neutrons, which no camera technology can detect.
To bone up on the subject read "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" by Glasstone and Dolan, and watch a lot of actual nuclear detonation films.
Of a conventional explosion where secondary or small munitions don't detonate until they have already been blown to some altitude. You see this in large ammo dump explosions in Ukraine. Prompt radiation does not linger around for seconds.
There is fallout, but the amount is proportional to yield and the yield for a neutron bomb is low. To some degree, neutron radiation can induce radioactivity in normal materials.
Of course there is a "counter-argument." I gave it. It is a free-will transaction of a market commodity. No one is harmed by it, although people often complain about paying a price for anything. Should everything be free? Not likely. Should we countenance theft? I don't think so.
You are an anti-free-market nut job. You see evil all around you, while the rest of society sees it as a helpful necessity. No sin is committed. Bankers were accepted in the time of Christ, where it was expected that debts would be repaid with interest.
So, let me get this straight---you condemn all Jews because you want to live like an orthodox Jew? But you don't condemn gentiles?
This word is BS. You people only consult your prejudices and never bother to check the facts. She gave over $10 million (possibly more) to help Maui, with no repayment, along with a similar donation by Dwayne Johnson. https://apnews.com/article/oprah-winfrey-dwayne-johnson-maui-wildfires-donation-5cf7db9c2bdab098fdc723b2f36d4010
Is interest (what you call "usury") evil? Not according to the New Testament, where bankers and interest are taken as a normality of life. See Matthew 25:27-30 and Luke 19:20-23. It was forbidden only among Jews by the Old Testament, in times where the issues were desperate famine or poverty. It was allowed between Jew and Gentile. Slaves were also allowed. Are you going to say that slavery is now allowed, on the same basis that you are saying interest is not?
Money is an asset. Assets can be rented, and money is no different. Are you arguing that the neighbor who rents his apartment makes it more expensive for you to rent your apartment? You have no idea how a market works, and you have no idea that no civic ill comes from rents, for free trade is only the voluntary exchange of assets and money.
The slave ships were owned mainly by Portuguese or Muslims. That is irrelevant, unless you are working in the topic of blood crimes against a race, which is collectivism.
You have no argument, only rationalizations. Interest is not evil. Many people need to borrow money for valid reasons, at the price of repayment. You cannot condemn anyone for what they do as free citizens, for otherwise you must also condemn the creditor.
You would be arguing from ignorance. At least I am an engineer with 50 years of it under my belt---and I am not arguing omniscience. Known fact and testimony trumps argument. This has little to do with engineering.
You are quibbling over millions? You are sick, when the number is possibly much larger.
And we always come to this: you give up on all forms of logical persuasion, go into a cosplay of being a man of knowledge, and conclude with denigration and name-calling. That's your entire scenario. Pretty obvious to any observer, and boring too.
Yeah, those silly "engineering type fools" who have created the medium through which we are communicating. The irony drips.
Well, welcome to economics and the fact that money is something that can be loaned as much as a car or a carrot. There is no deceit or thievery involved. It is a free market transaction, so why are you against the free market? If you find it repugnant, don't take loans. Don't have a credit card. Live your life as pure as the driven snow. No one is stopping you or anyone else. You have no grounds for complaint.
In fact, why don't you go into business as a money-loaner, with your advertising being "I give loans without usury!" You will get lots of traffic. But how could it be a business?
Who cares about ethnic purity? I don't. It seems you do.
To the contrary, I don't have to apologize for Jews about anything. I am here to defend them from irrational hatred, as I would defend ANYONE from irrational hatred. To you, that is a bad thing? I guess so, since I must oppose you on account of it.
Nope. You get to prove that any of them are true. I've already pointed out several flaws in your reasoning. You may cite facts, but you do not draw legitimate conclusions. The main flaw in your outlook is collectivism.
Logic, by its nature, transcends its discoverers. By your remarks, you appear to have abandoned it. And your concluding remark is evidence of paranoid delusion, since I do not fit the description at all.
Are you speaking about me? Since I never insisted on ethnic purity (whatever that could mean), you make yourself to be a liar. I am not a war monger---should I be? What is "usury" in your vocabulary? For the rest of rational society, interest on loaned money is normal and morally acceptable. Excessive interest drives customers away, except those who are desperate. Thus, we have loan sharks---made possible only by those who want them.
It would seem one might draw valid inferences from observing who is nervous and withdrawn and who isn't. Their behavior response is almost like a "coming out" party.