Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Dec 1999 03:12:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
787 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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 selling metal wreckages,
> bought them unknowingly from a USSR country, and while they were entering from
> the Turkish border it had been seen that they were weapons somehow and
> immediately taken over by the government and sent to us. They had not armed
> and/or in good condition of course, but especially our control engineers
> learned much from them..:-) USSR control on these critical items seems really
> suspicious to me since then.
Oops :) Mind you, I have no doubt that they were -scrap- metal, and probably
useless as rockets (except for Guy Fawks Night/4th July type rockets :)
ds on who's "they". The US has had suborbital missiles capable of
The US can plant a Nuke anywhere on the surface of the earth. If you can
launch a satalite, then you can get a nuke to anywhere on the earth from most
anywhere else. Also, modern nuke weapons are quite light in comparison to the
average satalite, and they only have to make at mos 1/2 orbit, so Delta-V is
not such a concern (They don't 'have' to go more than 600 Km up to stay up)
> they=Pakistan (we were talking about Pakistan, right?.:-)
>
> > 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
>
> 10000 km range is very common, and I know (from Jane's) that ther are even • more
> than that, though I can't exactly remember. Besides, there are many nuke
> capable subs around..:-) What is weird to me, they generally carry more than
> one several megatons warheads, their seperation from target specified as a
> diameter of around 100m..:-) I can't imagine what is the reasioning of being
> capable of shooting someone with a nuclear warhead of several megatons from
> betwwen his/her eyes..:-)
I think Tom Clancy covered it best, His words were "At Ground 0 It doesn't
matter if a Nuke fell out of a B2 or a Zepplin"
Most Nuclear missiles do not carry multi megaton rockets. The only ones that I
know of that were targeted with _large_ nuke warheads (Technically,
Thermonuclear, as anything bigger than 20Kt is Fission-Fusion, and above about
120Kt is Fission-Fusion-Fission) was the NORAD command post in wyoming, and
the russian equivilent.
> >
> > > 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..:-)
We sent ours back in 1983. I have a fasinating book on the issue (Canadian
Nuclear Weapons, John Clearwater, Dundurn Press 1998)
> > 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.
The hard part is getting the material. Making the bomb is not all that hard.
And you thought you had it bad...we -gave- India the reactor used to produce
the Plutonium in the late 50's...
>
> I think (actually I'm 99.99% sure) that we don't have the technological
> capability, and it's not likely to have by being a country having so less
> interest in science and technological development, although we have two very
> small scale power plants and nuclear energy engineering departments in at • least
> two universties. Besides, our missile know-how is still under 500km. The
> tactical nuclear weapons, by the way, (the ones like old Sergeants and Nikes
> and Russian Frogs) are widely spread and in inventories of many armies,
> including ours, AFAIK.
If you have university level nuclear engineering deparments, you have the
ability to build a weapon. The hard part is extracting the Plotonium from the
used fuel (and yes, I am aware that you can use something other than Pu for the
fissiable material)
> A wide area nuclear conflict is said to be the end of the civilization that we
> know today, but still it's not good that knowing that you are living on a
> primary target.:-)
I'd rather be a primary target than die from radiation...
LS James Powell, Royal Canadian Navy, My Views, not my Employers (have to add
that to this topic...)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) So how do you feel about that plan to take all the decommisioned used-to-be-nukes missiles and loading them up with lots of fake meteorites for the millennium next year? (...) The problem is getting it there before the Patriots shoot it down (...) (25 years ago, 25-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
