Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Dec 1999 01:33:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
952 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:39:47 GMT, "Selçuk <teyyareci>"
<sgore@nospam.superonline.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:47:22 GMT, "Selçuk <teyyareci>"
> > <sgore@nospam.superonline.com> wrote:
> > > Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message
> > > I think they just realized that world ruled by money, not the god.
> Your English is much more challenging then even the native English speakers. I
> can't understand this sentences at all..:-(
That's probably _because_ I'm not a native speaker.
Okay, let me rephrase that.
"Even though that is a sad thought, it happens to be truth" (or
possibly even TRVTH..)
> Yeah, I know. A third worlder with nukes, its even more frighthening, huh? (1)
Yeah. At least the US won't be taken over by junta number x tomorrow.
See Ivory Coast, which was until recently consodered a "stable"
country. The former USSR, on the other hand, is a lot more worrying
than Pakistan right now.
> But it is not that recently I think, since I remember that Turkish-American
> relations gone bad (late 80s?) because we were selling electronical equipment
> to Pakistan to be used in having nuclear capabilty. We had a brotherhood like
> relation with Pakistan started in early 80s since both leaders of date from our
> country and Pakistan was feeling eachother very close, most probably both being
> militaristic dictators who came to rule by a military interruption..:-) I don't
> know the recent affairs, but I think this relation still continues. So do not
> fear for Turkey, fear for yourself..:-D
Fall-out waits for no man... That stuff goes far. Remember Chernobyl?
The fallout made crops from all over Europe dangerous to eat.
Chernobyl is as far as I can tell a minor accident compared to a
modern-day nuke.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were respectively Uranium and Plutonium bombs
of approx 10 kiloton blast.
Due to the way fission nukes work (they bring two or more subcritical
masses of fissionable material together by an explosive device, to
form a (barely) supercritical mass (subcritical = doesn't explode of
own accord, critical = sustained non-explosive chain reaction, as seen
recently in japanese refinement plant, supercritical = boom), you
can't just increase the amount of material in them for more blast.
By making the bomb more or less efficient with the same amount of
material, you can make it have a blast of between approx 10 kiloton
TNT and 20 Megaton TNT. For fission bombs, which most likely is all
that the third-world nuclear powerslike India, Pakistan, Israel, etc.
have, 20 megaton is the limit. I'd expect Pakistan to be capable of
between 100 kiloton and 1 megaton or so, based on that one test which
was 100 kiloton IIRC.
To make a long story short, a 100 kiloton bomb makes for a lot of
radioactive fallout. Plus half a continent blasted completely clear of
working microchips due to the EMP (nukes tend to generate funky
electromagnetic fields which tend to conk out anything electronic not
inside a Faraday cage. That's commercial life down.).
Not a pretty scenario, even if it is unlikely.
> Actually, when I were still a rocket engineer (in 1996) they only had missiles
> around 500km range. Is it changed now? Additionally, their most potent enemy,
Depends on who's "they". The US has had suborbital missiles capable of
delivering nukes to Moscow or Sydney from US soil for quite a while,
as I understand it at least. I doubt something like Pakistan or India
would have it, though. But they don't need a lot of range to Mutually
Assure Destruction, and a piece of glass that large is bad, except
when it's shaped to an exact sphere and has a high-res optical
receiver in the middle (that would be a telescope reference. Rather
huge.).
> By the way, you still continue being a pretty well third worlder, independent
> from you have the nukes or not. And if you are a sucking third worlder, you
> start even sucking more after spending this much money to such vital things(?)
> like nuclear weapons. I laughed hard when I read last year in a newspaper that
> our navy wanted a carrier. What the heck is they dreaming to do with it is out
> of my imagination, but I really really know very well how they could afford
> it...:-((
As much as we might like otherwise, having the capability to defend
yourself is in many cases simply not an option. Not when you go
against the US or China.
Currently it makes very good economic sense for us second-rate
Yurrupans to let the US defend us, and it makes good economic sense
for the US to defend us. Happy happy joy joy.
> (1) As being just another third worlder, Turkey is one of the biggest nuclear
> weapon storages of the world but fortunately (for the rest of the world..:-)
> they are not under control of us, but under control of US..:-)
Heh. I wonder just _how_ many countries actually have nukes or not. I
know the Netherlands wouldn't have any trouble at all making a few if
we didn't think it would get our arse kicked by the States. You know
those Pakistani we wer talking about? Their chief nuke-builder was
trained here (admittedly, in the art of refining Uranium rather than
building the things, but that turns out to be the hardest part). Big
scandal back in the seventies. We also have (for the time being) one
nuclear power plant left where we can easily produce plutonium.
We could _probably_ even produce an H-bomb. They're not _that_
difficult, I am told - essentially stick a container of hydrogen
around a conventional fission nuke in _just_ the right way, and
ka-boom.
We also used to have a lot of US nukes stationed here. Of the 5 core
nuclear capabilities they had here, 4 have been dismantled. But
there's still a base somewhere where rapidly aging nuclear missiles
are being stored, because the US doesn't really want to go through the
trouble of reimporting them and dismantling them. So we've got this
area of land somewhere where you _will_ be shot with extreme prejudice
if found.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) It's Ok then,..:-) (...) Yeah. again when I was a rocket scientist, once we took delivery of trucks load of abondoned missiles and missle parts from the former USSR which were having a strange story. a Turkish trader who were buying and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) It's Ok then,..:-) (...) Yeah. again when I was a rocket scientist, once we took delivery of trucks load of abondoned missiles and missle parts from the former USSR which were having a strange story. a Turkish trader who were buying and (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) Nope. Between 1.5Kt and 20-40Kt for a straight Fission weapon. Dirtyness has very little to do with the weapon itself. If the bomb is a airburst, then it will be relatively clean, if it is a ground burst, it will be dirty (it takes the crap (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Your English is much more challenging then even the native English speakers. I can't understand this sentences at all..:-( (...) Yeah, I know. A third worlder with nukes, its even more frighthening, huh? (1) But it is not that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
