 | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) So are you the person that suggests the the USSR (rememeber that's what it was during the Cold War, or the CCCP if you prefer) couldn't have succeeded in launching an ICBM at us? (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
They could have and if they got lucky it might have detonated over a Missile Silo(1). But there is now way that had we gone to war they would have caused us a whole lot of damage. There technology wasn't up to it. Not to mention they couldn't get (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Matt Marshall wrote in message ... (...) Missile (...) caused (...) 1)The Russians first wave was targeted at the Silos not at the prez because he would be long gone and they knew that 2)They had to fly a really long way, except from the Siberian (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) So you're not saying that they couldn't have nailed us, you're just saying that they could have only nailed missile silos. I guess you'd consider any number of nuclear explosions over missile silos and the damage that would cause to the (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) It wouldn't be unimportant, sure the Ecological impacts would be horrible, but hey, most silos that I know of aren't exactly near town, and Nuclear weapons are only cumulative to a point, other than that they (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) Imagine weather-based coded launch sequences...... Launch software searches the 'net for predicted, specific weather patterns in a designated target area, i.e. west coast USA....... When, say, 80% of the region expects easterly winds, and (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Op een zekere dag, te weten Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:07:16 GMT, klom "Matt Marshall" <Matt@rapturesoft.hy...rmart.net> in het toetsenbord en schreef ons: (...) Don't underestimate the Russians! They where the first to take a sattelite into space, the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) ^^^^^ I was skimming this, paying more attention to trying to stay awake than fully read it. So I read that as "the first man in space, the first woman, the first dog, ..." and I thought, "wow, the Russians put a whole family in space. Add a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) Maybe not stupid, but have you ever heard of the ABM treaty? I believe the gist of it is that it prohibits Anti-Ballistic Missile defenses. AFAIK, we respected that treaty, even thought the Soviets did not. -- Terry K -- -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Op een zekere dag, te weten Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:02:58 GMT, klom cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley) in het toetsenbord en schreef ons: (...) Well, as far as I know, they once tried to make a family in the Mir.... 8-) That can be a fun thing to do, (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Ardjan Besse wrote in message <361e1892.24643415@l...et.com>... (...) Is that possible in zero-g? I've read that it's impossible in freefall, unless you get a head start before you jump out of the plane. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
I heard that there is a college trying to get grant money to try it out in zero-g sorry don't remember much about it most of it was related to me from my cousin. Scary thing is that they might get it. Jesse Long wrote in message ... (...) 8-) (...) (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Aren't missile silos underground to protect them from attack? So an ICBM might not even do much damage to the underground compound, right? Jeff (...) (26 years ago, 1-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
They weren't the first to have a Space Shuttle, though. Do they still use it? I assume, if they do, that's how they get to the Mir Space Station. Am I right? Jeff (...) (26 years ago, 1-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363CECBB.671140E8@aol.com>... (...) If you mean the Russians, they use their heavy launch rocket with a capsule, or they bum a ride on the US Space Shuttle. They don't use theirs anymore. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363CEBED.B9E133F9@aol.com>... (...) A ground impact would destroy it, if it landed close enough. Not all atomic weapons are programmed to be air bursts. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) My understanding (consider me the opposite of an expert) is that the silos require local human initiation of launches. So an attack doesn't have to destroy the missile in the silo, it just has to cook the operators in the bunker. Seems like if (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <363e0fa2.9016510@lu...et.com>... (...) Local is a very relative term. Local can be a hundred miles away, in terms of what the Air Force was capable of doing. Actually, they had a lot of redundant systems, and could (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
It's uhh frozen, literally. They keep it in Siberia I think. Personally I think the Russian who decided that had a wee bit too much vodka(1). They did have it up for sale once and it is technically superior to our own shuttle. Jesse Long wrote in (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
But the first launch of the shuttle Buran (Blizzard) launched during a blizzard! Jeff p.s. - What Capsule do they use? Soyuz? Or a new one I haven't heard of? (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363E8913.DB8CDBE4@aol.com>... (...) Soyuz. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! (URL) in Deja News! (URL) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if this makes me feel better or worse about America's nuclear capabilities. Technically, it sounds 'cool', assuming it would actually work right under field conditions. But any discussion of making it easier to launch nukes gives (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <363efd9e.2257101@lu...et.com>... (...) To the best of my knowledge they decommissioned the auto-launch missile right before they declassified it (about five years ago), so it's not in use anymore. As for the rest of the (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote (...) Was it just "war games" or didn't they have a sub 50% launch rate from manned sites in trials? Like, half the time the boys would choose not to set the thing off? So there was some incentive to have (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) I think that's because theirs was built after America's. US shuttle design was firmed up using mid-70's technology, as well as some stuff left over from the 60's. I'm not saying theirs isn't good, but it takes quite a bit of cash to finance (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Well the actual figures aren't available but I'd guess somewhere to 80% 90% would launch. I mean these guys had several backups in case one did decide to cop out right? Also if it's not authorized to launch fairly quickly isn't there a call to the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Actually thee design if I recall cost lest to run than our does. I'm willing to bet that china(scary thought) could do it, or Japan but I think that it was more of safety thing because they auctioned off around the time those capsules didn't slow (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ... (...) Just War Games, AFAIK. Although I do know that they ran test firings a lot to make sure that people would actually turn the keys when they needed to. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
|
(...) Probably the easiest and sure-fire method would be for all sides to agree to detonate their weapons in-situ. No need to worry about launch failures, etc. (26 years ago, 7-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
