Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Dec 1999 23:26:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
997 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 02:39:19 GMT, "Selçuk <teyyareci>"
<sgore@nospam.superonline.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
>
> 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.
Sold for scrap metal would suggest to me a few options: these things
were so outdated they figured it's OK since every secret service in
the world would have stolen at least one once (apparently not the
case, as you learned stuff :) ), or the government of ex-part-of-USSR
figured damn the torpedoes, we need cash _now_.
What I can't figure out is why they didn't end up sold on the black
market _with_ warheads.
>
> By the way, we (Turks) done it well(!) We still didn't loose our stability(!)
> after three juntas in 60 years. Further, we have 2-3 digit inflation for
That many? Man, I can see why y'all want to come live in the
Netherlands.. less earthquakes, too.
> decades (25 year?) but still don't know what a hyper inflation is..:-)
Isn't that sortof the definition of hyper inflation? How do you people
stay in business? How do old folks survive their old age? (hoping the
answer isn't "not"..)
> Wow! Actually I'm also aware of all these (I've read several books having
> titles nuclear danger and the like) and it was a joke only, but your geekness
I suspected as much, what with you being a rocket scientist and all. I
just figured I'd explain my reasoning for the folks at home. After
all, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist! (..to read Lugnet)
> is so top notch that I haven't seen anyone in Lugnet borders at your calibre
> yet..:-) At least, your geeknes/age coefficient must be a record breaking one.
Hehe. I know people who are way geekier than me, though.
It's the way my memory works - I pick up broad information about
anything like I've got a memory, and details too, but usually the
middle ground between the two goes missing. I suspect it has something
to do with interestingness.
> 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
20.000 would be the maximum, since that's half the circumference of
the earth. They could probably go further, but there's no point. The
US, as well as the USSR (That would suggest Russia probably has the
capability now, though nothing's certain), and probably China, can
dump a payload anywhere in the world from wherever the secret bases
are.
The trick is getting there before the early warning system warns the
targets. That's also why the US was so pissed at Cuba - too close for
their early warning system to have any effect.
> 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..:-)
Suicide mission. Though if they dive deep they should be able to
withstand the blast from very close.
> Trying to have a defense capability against former USSR, US or China is of
> course just a very long shot, that's sure, so the main concern for a country
> like us is the possible regional conflicts, so I can understand more than 400
> figter planes, a considerable airlift capability and about 5000 MBTs
MBT? Is that a soldier, a rocket.. Wait.. it's a tank, right?
> considering the inventory of the same of our very nice and kind neighbours, but
> a carrier?..It's just a big stretch, especially considering 25% of the budget
> is already a little bit stretch.
25% of the government budget to defense? Ouch. That's a lot. I mean,
ours is a bit too low (at less than 5%, IIRC), but 25% is definitely
too high. On the other hand, one does what one must. I don't think
you'd be happier if Iran invaded.
> I wish our country would have been established on a much more stable
> geographical place.
Stable in what sense? You could always move to the San Andreas Fault
if you want geothermally more stable...
As an aside, is it just me, or are there more earthquakes/volcanic
activity/the rest lately? Sunpot cycle acting up?
> 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
If you've got nuclear power plants, you have Uranium. If you have
uranium, you can make a nuke. I mean, the US did it in mid-1945. They
didn't have very advanced technology then. I mean, the whole thing is
simply a ball of uranium with a bullet-sized piece missing and a
bullet-sized piece of uranium. It can't be very hard to make once you
know the principles of the thing, let alone the specifics (and you
guys have quite an efficient secret service from what I hear. You
probably have the plans already.)
> 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.
Really? I wouldn't expect even Tac-nukes (~100 ton or so?) to be
available to non-nuclear powers.
> > 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.
By US soldiers, I might add. even the guards are bloody foreigners.
Probably with diplomatic immunity.
>
> 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 like being a target. Unless I can be somewhere very remote (ie,
Greenland, or maybe (ObShot) Texas) from primary and secondary
targets, which isn't very likely.
Jasper
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
