Slashdot Mirror

Once the agreement for joint American-Japanese development was reached, Washington had a change of heart. It refused to give, to Tokyo, the source code for the fly-by-wire computer program that controls the flight of the F-16.

The following summarized the American hypocrisy in 1985.

1. Washington did not want Tokyo to develop its own, possibly superior, weapons system.

2. Once Tokyo agreed to work with the Americans on the weapons system, Washington wanted to ensure that Tokyo would not have access to critical technologies: e.g. fly-by-wire computer algorithms.

That attitude from the 1985 is alive and well in 2006 -- in the form of the current dispute between Washington and London. Washington seems to want its allies to be permanently dependent on American weapons technology.

What kind of BS is that?

Both London and Tokyo should ignore Washington's hypocritical position and should promptly lock Washington out of English and Japanese fighter-aircraft development. Once Washington sees that both the English and the Japanese can develop fighter aircraft that is actually superior to American jet fighters, then Washington will treat London and Tokyo as allies on equal footing.

Right now, Tokyo is deliberating on the fighter to replace its aging F-4 Phantoms. Hopefully, Tokyo will not succumb to American pressure and will design a 100% all-Japanese interceptor.

I say take the $$$ hit and leave Europe and NATO to do whatever they want. I personally don't want any more to do with Europe. As a USian or whatever derogatory term Slashdot people like to use, I have no use for Europe.

I say a BIG F' off to all you Europeans. I'll leave you to your unassimilated immigrants, your unfunded social systems, your negative birth rates, and your own stupidity. I want no part of you whether that part may be alliances, NATO, the UN, etc. You hate me and I can't stand you. Go do what you do best. Ignore your problems, appease evil, enact protectionist legislation, and blame the United States. And, oh ya, do what you do even better, descend into irrelevance. I find it offensive that we're even still trying to be your military ally or even maintain embassies in your worthless countries. Go do business with Russia. They're your best friend. The French make GREAT planes. Putin is sooooo much better than Bush. Hell, go do business with Iran for all I care. But before you do, go hang your political cartoonists, ok?

My great-grandparents on the mother's side and my father's parent all left for a reason. Enjoy your EU and especially your unelected EC. Enjoy it, I sure as hell will while I watch from the US. Christ, Microsoft should stop selling you software after what your EU keeps doing.

I know some of the responses I'll get. "You're off your medicine." "Have a bad day?" etc And to head those off, I have NEVER been on medications in the first place. Thus, it is difficult to be off of medicines that I have never been on. And yes, a bad day I have had (ooohhh a reference to all you star wars fan boys, I spoke as if yoda I am).

And no, I cannot spell, but I can get down and boogie.

Oh yes, and my own personal set of rules requires this:

"Oh no, oh my god no, not a French plane. Oh god, no, anything but that. It's automatic surrender system is unmatched." The name Mirage was very fitting. You're only seeing things. Rafale, good god, it still has wing mount ordinance. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafael-b -colb.jpg

We better never sell you these: http://www.stargazr.us/Photo%20Gallery/f-22-raptor .jpg

If the UK wants to seriously purchase French made planes, go right ahead. It's just one step closer to PAX Americana and a hoot to boot. We should have left you all to starve after WWII; a war you allowed to start. I hope that they get the software from the French.

SEC. 217. UNMANNED ADVANCED CAPABILITY AIRCRAFT AND GROUND COMBAT VEHICLES.

(a) GOAL- It shall be a goal of the Armed Forces to achieve the fielding of unmanned, remotely controlled technology such that--

(1) by 2010, one-third of the operational deep strike aircraft of the Armed Forces are unmanned; and

(2) by 2015, one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles of the Armed Forces are unmanned.

(b) REPORT ON ADVANCED CAPABILITY GROUND COMBAT VEHICLES- Not later than January 31, 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on each of the programs undertaken by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force jointly with the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to demonstrate advanced capability ground combat vehicles. The report shall include the following for the program of each military department:

(1) A schedule for the program, including, in the case of the Army program, a schedule for the demonstration of the capability for unmanned, remotely controlled operation of advanced capability ground combat vehicles for the Army.

(2) An identification of the funding required for fiscal year 2002 and for the future-years defense program to carry out the program and, in the case of the Army program, for the demonstration described in paragraph (1).

(3) A description and assessment of the acquisition strategy for unmanned ground combat vehicles planned by the Secretary of the military department concerned, together with a complete identification of all operation, support, ownership, and other costs required to carry out such strategy through the year 2030.

(c) FUNDS- Of the amount authorized to be appropriated for Defense-wide activities under section 201(4) for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, $200,000,000 shall be available only to carry out the programs referred to in subsection (b).

wasn't Asimov's first law broken decades ago, perhaps even by the V1 which was strictly speaking a remote operated vehicle?

Or, how about an AEGIS ship itself? AEGIS ships can do about the same thing autonomously - automatically firing missles at targets that it is programmed to consider threatening.

Mind you, these systems are (well, were) almost never put into fully automatic mode - that's usually reserved for times when the fecis is hittin the fan and the operator may not have time to react.

...or were we limiting the discussion to wheeled robots?

wasn't Asimov's first law broken decades ago, perhaps even by the V1 which was strictly speaking a remote operated vehicle?

Or, how about an AEGIS ship itself? AEGIS ships can do about the same thing autonomously - automatically firing missles at targets that it is programmed to consider threatening.

Mind you, these systems are (well, were) almost never put into fully automatic mode - that's usually reserved for times when the fecis is hittin the fan and the operator may not have time to react.

...or were we limiting the discussion to wheeled robots?

Nobody has ever invented a WMD that can stop an invading army. Precisely! That is why the Iraqis never used them against the Iranian Army! Oh wait...

This is going to be slightly off-topic. Fair warning, mods.

You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat

1. That's because he's actually a Republican, and he's going to be replaced this year by the fed-up netroots. Lieberman was one reason Gore failed to get enough votes to overcome the fraud in 2000. And what power? The Republicans control congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch. What power do Democrats have at all?

2. Fear is what motivates wingnuts. You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward. He's afraid of the terrorists, and so, like the Republicans who control the Congress at the moment, he's willing to give away our civil rights to the terrorists in exchange for some perception -- any perception, however false -- of safety. This is really important to understand, everyone. The wingnuts are AFRAID. The Shrub administration runs on fear.

A successful Democratic candidate in 2008 will be one who stands up and says "we are the heirs of Patrick Henry; we will never stand down in the face of a threat to our domestic tranquility. To the terrorists, I say: we will find you and root you out; we will never submit to your tyranny-by-proxy and to your threats. We will not surrender our civil rights."

3. Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything? If Karl Rove was a Democrat, some demented wingnut such as yourself would have long since assassinated him. Bush's approval rating is now far below Clinton's approval rating at any time during the Clinton presidency, and yet you don't see anyone firing bullets at the white house.

If there's anyone you should want to "punch in the throat," it should be Osama bin Laden. Where's your enthusiasm for that, where's your passion for finding and killing the real enemies of the state? Why is it all aimlessly pointed at harmless centrist targets like Hillary? Why not Laura Bush, who actually did kill someone (accidentally, mind you, according to the police record)?

4. I don't understand why Hillary sends all you wingnuts into incoherent rage. Discounting the tinfoil hat fairytales Limbaugh spews, she's a great match for the right wing: she has your sense of professional ethics and morality. Loves to pander to the rich and powerful. Loves to be right-wing. Will give away civil rights at the drop of a hat. Loves Iraq as a US colony. About the only thing you shouldn't like about her is her stand on healthcare, but she's flexible like her husband, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. She's hardly the moral beacon that this country will really need after eight years of the corrosive Shrub and his Halliburton-fellating cronies.

BTW, I juxtaposing the lab gas with nuke heat:

Nuclear Weapon Thermal Effects:

Special Weapons Primer; Weapons of Mass Destruction:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/thermal.htm
-----------

Temperature of a Nuclear Explosion:

The Physics Factbook
  Edited by Glenn Elert -- Written by his students
  An educational, Fair Use website

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/SimonFung.shtm l

----------
Nuclear Weapons Effects--An Overview

  by Wm. Robert Johnston
  last updated 8 March 2005
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/effectsum. html

Bon-therma-tit...

Yup. It sure is a good thing that nations like Islamic Republic of Pakistan don't have nuclear weapons. That would mean the end of the world.

"The NSA is made up of very smart and capable folks. Give them a budget and incentives, and they can probably do a pretty good job of sticking their noses into the public's affairs.

The NSA's motivations are political.

Bright they may be, but the NSA is primarily a politically motivated org that answers to the president. It would be more appropriately know as the NSC (Non-Suborned by the Constitution).

Full faith and credit should also be given the NSA for their integral role in the creation of al Qaeda.

Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, should get his notice as the originator of the plan to trick the Soviet into their own Vietnam, and to use the radical Arab fundamentalists as a blade to bleed them. Reagan's NSA should get their proper attribution for expanding upon this sanguineous plan.

"Under President Reagan, the NSC staff assumed a role beyond that of an advisory or coordinating body: It at times became operational, taking on primary responsibility for the execution of the Iran and contra covert operations."

Walsh, Iran/Contra Report,
Chapter 1: United States v. Robert C. McFarlane

And who can forget the words of the ole gimper himself:

"These Islamic fighters in a faraway land have given new meaning to the words 'courage,' 'determination,' and 'strength.' They have set the standard for those who value freedom and independence everywhere in the world."

Ronald Reagan
Statement on the Fourth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

On a more contemporary note, GW Bush's NSA has been alleged to have pulled an end-around the CIA station chief in Rome, violating the logical protocols which were in place at the time, accepting the dubious Niger Yellowcake to Iraq story from the Italian Intelligence Agency, SISMI, first hand, and then sourcing it into the prewar claims.
(The Italian paper "La Repubblica", ran a good 3-part expose. There is a good English translation available: 1 - 2 - 3 - (decent mirror starts here.)

The NSA was left unscathed by the Silberman/Robb Commission, that one hit wonder recognized for their top 40 silver bullet, "Blaming it all on the CIA".

When actors, orgs and/or segments of the US government, in the dispatch of their official duties, act covertly and extra-Constitutionally, they are rogue, and a criminal enterprise. They should be identified as such, their intelligence, and their stated altruistic rationalizations notwithstanding.

That public men publish falsehoods
Is nothing new.
That America must accept
Like the historical republics corruption and empire
Has been known for years.

Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things anger you.
Watch the wheel slope and turn,
They are all bound on the wheel,
these people, those warriors.
This republic, Europe, Asia.

Observe them gesticulating,
Observe them going down.
The gang serves lies,
the passionate Man plays his part;
the cold passion for truth
Hunts in no pack.

Robinson Jeffers, "Be Angry At The Sun"

1.) The Mig-25 did turn out to be a lot more lackluster than first thought, but it was worse at low altitude than high, so a low altitude run probably stands a better chance of getting through.
2.) Francis Gary Power's U2 was shot down at 67,000 feet by SA-2 surface to air missiles.
3.) ECM helps more if the plane is hard to see in the first place (stealth or low altitude)
4.) The Valkyrie was limited to a 5000 mile range by it's fuel thirst, and could not carry additional weapons externally. I don't know if it could mid-air refuel.

The B-52 is still in service because the airframe has held up well and it has shown itself to be very versatile. It can carry dumb bombs, ALCM's, SRAM's, Harpoons, JDAM's, or even just ECM gear. There were concerns even from the limited testing about the long-term durability of the XB-70's airframe. FAS has a good write-up about the Valkyrie, along with some sexy pictures. The most incredible part is it was built way back in the 60's, and there's still nothing quite like it (Hey Boeing, where's my SST you promised?).

FYI: The NSA on how to redact from MS Word and PDF.

This conversation, however, is about one thing: spying on our enemies.

Actually, No, this conversation is about spying on US citizens.

You know, Americans, with rights guaranteed by the constitution. Various laws have been enacted by Congress, giving the government the tools needed to wiretap foriegn and domestic targets. The current administration's opinions about whether these laws apply to it, are troubling to say the least. It was troubling to hear the AG give his LEGAL ADVICE that we do not have to adhere to the Geneva Convention, and then later say that the NSA's (WARRANTLESS, and Without Judicial Oversight) Domestic Wiretapping is legal, needed and appropriate is nothing short of sickening.

Right, Left, Center, Whig doesn't matter, Policies of this Administration are flawed in every area, certainly enough to cause dissent in his own party, and inflame those outside it. Military Decisions, Domestic Policy, Emergency Management, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Policy, Enviromental Policy, Natural Resource Management, Economic Stimulus, Foriegn Policy, Diplomacy, Education, Scientific Research, Wiretapping, Torture. This Nixonian list literally goes on and on. There is so much, the opposition can't even focus on one thing before the Lt Commander-In-Chief shoots a 78 yr old man wearing a bright orange hunting vest, who apparently resembles a quail at 30 yards.

Gonzalez http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/ag012406.html

FISA and NSA Links http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept

This conversation, however, is about one thing: spying on our enemies.

Actually, No, this conversation is about spying on US citizens.

You know, Americans, with rights guaranteed by the constitution. Various laws have been enacted by Congress, giving the government the tools needed to wiretap foriegn and domestic targets. The current administration's opinions about whether these laws apply to it, are troubling to say the least. It was troubling to hear the AG give his LEGAL ADVICE that we do not have to adhere to the Geneva Convention, and then later say that the NSA's (WARRANTLESS, and Without Judicial Oversight) Domestic Wiretapping is legal, needed and appropriate is nothing short of sickening.

Right, Left, Center, Whig doesn't matter, Policies of this Administration are flawed in every area, certainly enough to cause dissent in his own party, and inflame those outside it. Military Decisions, Domestic Policy, Emergency Management, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Policy, Enviromental Policy, Natural Resource Management, Economic Stimulus, Foriegn Policy, Diplomacy, Education, Scientific Research, Wiretapping, Torture. This Nixonian list literally goes on and on. There is so much, the opposition can't even focus on one thing before the Lt Commander-In-Chief shoots a 78 yr old man wearing a bright orange hunting vest, who apparently resembles a quail at 30 yards.

Gonzalez http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/ag012406.html

FISA and NSA Links http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept

Amazing that the /. community has become so patently biased against technology and its uses. ;-)

Also amazing that /. folks seem to have failed to research all that has happened in the past (you know those who fail to learn from the past are destined to relive it). If you are wondering how long we have known that the US (and other governments) have been engaged in quite an impressive searching for needles in a haystack exercise??.

Has anybody checked???

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6929/1.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

This information has been publicly available for more than a decade. I know for a fact I was reading about it on MOSAIC, the original browser, because I had some X screen captures of some of this same stuff from the early 1990's (yes pre Clinton). So, I would think it would be no surprise that we had the capability. So why all the "Ooooh evil big brother??" comments. Let alone blaming one administration 10-15 years later for deciding to use the capability.

Think about it geeksters. Now that a group of governments have cooperatively the capability to get ~90% all of communications on the earth, capture them, statistically analyze them, and escalate on some heuristic rule based basis to a human most of the electronic communications on the face of the earth, what does this cooperative do? They honestly wouldn't be able to avoid having the phone numbers on both ends, they in the case of modern cell technology even have the location on cells, certainly ANI info, certainly country codes, area codes, billing information, etc. They would also have a nicely digitized voice record of the conversation. And I would hazard could decode this speech > text and then keyword search the voice call to some reasonable degree of accuracy. The idea that they could do this for hundreds of languages, dialects, and accents, and even have some ability for voice printing is pretty no brainer. And further, I hope none of you believe that there are enough humans to work this without some massive filtering done totally automated.

Now, how do I determine the ruleset to abide by the law, in whose country (since it is a cooperative), and on what basis do I determine the relevance of the statistics used? How do I train my operators (the eavesdroppers) to ignore what calls (when a particular message is escalated) despite that parameters of it's content may have far exceeded some notional statistical threshhold for further examination of its content?

Is it the idea that they might listen to your conversations with a paramour the offensive part? Is the offensive part really that you may be reaching some other threshold? Is the offensive part that some of the posters might have some other guilt thing going on? Do those of you out there believe that FISA, or for that matter posse comatatis really means that National Technical Means cannot be used to find you to zero in on your potentially questionable behavior in some other way? Only the worst national security issues are ever going through FISA anyhow. Anything found by ECHELON of less serious character (but still reaching some threshhold) is most certainly, very quietly, and with multiple levels of indirection (never traceable back to ECHELON, it's called plausible deniability in the black world) passed to law enforcement as an anonymous tip from which to start an investigation (never as evidence). The thought that somehow you are safe from this kind of stuff is the worst kind of self denial. Members of congress found otherwise, and tried to protect themselves, NOT US, from faceless bureaucrats like J.

The G forces from acceleration are just increadable, artillery shells with terminal guidence are do-able;
Laser-guided Copperhead artillery shells withstand 10,000 G.
Experimental circuits developed for railgun launch withstand 100,000.
  To get to orbit I doubt that there is any propellant that would build enough pressure before the projectile left the tube; even if there was there would be no tube that could contain it.
If there was a material that would work for the tube, it probably would be better used as an elevator ribbon. Stapping a rocket motor onto the base of the projo, just means more tube preasure to get the same muzzle velocity.

500,000 muslims in one place chanting "Death to America"?

I just got an idea:

12 x B-52s http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm + 612 CBU-58s http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-58.htm = 397,800 responses to that chant. And then another 12 B-52s drop leaflets saying "Who the fuck wants to be next?"

500,000 muslims in one place chanting "Death to America"?

I just got an idea:

12 x B-52s http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm + 612 CBU-58s http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-58.htm = 397,800 responses to that chant. And then another 12 B-52s drop leaflets saying "Who the fuck wants to be next?"

http://www.fas.org/ has a good summary of various cannon launched concepts at http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/05/980500-bull.h tm

The most likely concepts are 2+ stage rockets, using the cannon (railgun, conventional, etc.) for primary acceleration. Yes, a large amount of energy is lost to frictional heating as soon as the rocket leaves the barrel, which is why it is essential to place the gun at a high altitude and appropriate launch angle.

The economic advantage of this method is it reduces the amount of fuel the vehicle has to carry by delegating the initial acceleration to ground-based resources. At the very least you could get rid of the SRB's, which weigh 589,000 Kg each, and possibly the EFT as well. That's over 1.9 million kg you do not need to launch.

http://www.fas.org/ has a good summary of various cannon launched concepts at http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/05/980500-bull.h tm

The most likely concepts are 2+ stage rockets, using the cannon (railgun, conventional, etc.) for primary acceleration. Yes, a large amount of energy is lost to frictional heating as soon as the rocket leaves the barrel, which is why it is essential to place the gun at a high altitude and appropriate launch angle.

The economic advantage of this method is it reduces the amount of fuel the vehicle has to carry by delegating the initial acceleration to ground-based resources. At the very least you could get rid of the SRB's, which weigh 589,000 Kg each, and possibly the EFT as well. That's over 1.9 million kg you do not need to launch.

NEGATIVE STABILITY. All previous aircraft designs had been aerodynamically stable. That is, the center of gravity was well in front of the center of lift and the center of pressure (drag).

To illustrate the difference between stable and unstable designs, take a shirt cardboard and, holding it by the leading edge, pull it rapidly through the air. It will stretch out behind your hand in a stable manner. This is a stable design Now take it by the trailing edge push forward from there. It will immediately flip up or down uncontrollably. That is an unstable design.

The downside of aerodynamic stability is that the aircraft is nose-heavy and always trying to nose down. The elevator must therefore push the tail down to level the airplane. But in addition to rotating the airplane from nose-down to level, the elevator is exerting negative lift; that is, it is pushing the airplane down. In order to counteract this negative lift, the wing needs to be made larger to create more positive lift. This increases both weight and drag, decreasing aircraft performance. In pitch-up situations including hard turns which are the bread and butter of aerial combat, this negative effect is greatly magnified.

The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened.

NEGATIVE STABILITY. All previous aircraft designs had been aerodynamically stable. That is, the center of gravity was well in front of the center of lift and the center of pressure (drag).

To illustrate the difference between stable and unstable designs, take a shirt cardboard and, holding it by the leading edge, pull it rapidly through the air. It will stretch out behind your hand in a stable manner. This is a stable design Now take it by the trailing edge push forward from there. It will immediately flip up or down uncontrollably. That is an unstable design.

The downside of aerodynamic stability is that the aircraft is nose-heavy and always trying to nose down. The elevator must therefore push the tail down to level the airplane. But in addition to rotating the airplane from nose-down to level, the elevator is exerting negative lift; that is, it is pushing the airplane down. In order to counteract this negative lift, the wing needs to be made larger to create more positive lift. This increases both weight and drag, decreasing aircraft performance. In pitch-up situations including hard turns which are the bread and butter of aerial combat, this negative effect is greatly magnified.

The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened.

NEGATIVE STABILITY. All previous aircraft designs had been aerodynamically stable. That is, the center of gravity was well in front of the center of lift and the center of pressure (drag).

To illustrate the difference between stable and unstable designs, take a shirt cardboard and, holding it by the leading edge, pull it rapidly through the air. It will stretch out behind your hand in a stable manner. This is a stable design Now take it by the trailing edge push forward from there. It will immediately flip up or down uncontrollably. That is an unstable design.

The downside of aerodynamic stability is that the aircraft is nose-heavy and always trying to nose down. The elevator must therefore push the tail down to level the airplane. But in addition to rotating the airplane from nose-down to level, the elevator is exerting negative lift; that is, it is pushing the airplane down. In order to counteract this negative lift, the wing needs to be made larger to create more positive lift. This increases both weight and drag, decreasing aircraft performance. In pitch-up situations including hard turns which are the bread and butter of aerial combat, this negative effect is greatly magnified.

The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened.

Most of the suckers (such as the Predator) are satellite-controlled which means the remote control is from above, which makes it hard to jam from the ground. The communications are also frequency-agile and skip the jammed channels, so it's hard to jam all the bands they use for a long period of time.

Incidentally, the UCAVs fly pretty high and have optical sensors. I wonder if they can pick up radiation sources, especially since they may want to detect Osama Bin Laden using his two-way radio. Does anyone know? Google shows nothing. Anyway, you'd rather have a lot of them than one super-duper UCAV because you can task them in support to many different missions.

This all reminds me of the time they wanted to use Chinook (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-47.htm) helicopters at the US Army Aviation Center to blow the ground fog away from the heliport so everyone could fly.

It didn't work.

Unless you're going to go all economic nationalist and argue that the US should control its own corporate destiny the national security implications are pretty much nonexistent.

Unless you're going to go all economic nationalist and argue that the US should control its own corporate destiny the national security implications are pretty much nonexistent.

War Is A Racket

It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
----

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with ever

Read up on where the Ruskies have been spending their defense dollars. Functional anti-ABM missiles is very possible.

Sunburn/moskit/Brahmos http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/moskit.htm

The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. The missile takes only 2 minutes to cover its full range and manufacturers state that 1-2 missiles could incapacitate a destroyer while 1-5 missiles could sink a 20000 ton merchantman. An extended range missile, 9M80E is now available.

http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/antiship/3m80.a spThe missile is armed with a conventional 300 kg penetrating warhead containing 150 kg of high explosive, or (in the Russian Navy) a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. Even with a conventional warhead, 3M-80E missile is large enough so that one hit from a single missile could seriously damage or possibly even sink a U.S. Navy major surface combatant, a hit from one or possibly even a few conventionally-armed Moskit missiles might not be enough to halt flight operations on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier because of the carrier's much larger size and its high degree of compartmentalization. A nuclear-armed 3M-80E Moskit, however, could easily destroy a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier (and any other nearby ships), even if the warhead detonates at some distance from the carrier.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india /brahmos.htmIndia expects to significantly enhance its long-range strike abilities with the BrahMos cruise missile, jointly developed by New Delhi and Moscow. The supersonic missile -- which derives its name from the Brahmaputra and Moscow rivers in both countries - has a range of almost 300 km and is designed for use with land, sea and aerial platforms. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is reportedly considering the possibility of fitting the BrahMos on its Su-30 combat jets. The production will commence by end of 2003 for induction in the year 2004.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/04/16/stories/20050 41602941400.htmBrahMos is essentially an anti-ship supersonic cruise missile that flies at a speed of 2.8 to 3 Mach (2.8 to three times the speed of sound). It can take out targets 290 km away.

http://www.brahmos.com/Brahmos web page SS-27 / Topol-M / RS-12M(1|2) http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/ss-27_russia .htmlhe Russian SS-27, or Topol-M, is an intercontinental-range, ground-based, solid propellant ballistic missile. It represents the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology, incorporating modern fuel and warhead designs, as well as being capable of being launched from both missile silos and Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Current Russian accounts stress that the SS-27 is invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Yuriy Solomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology and designer-general of the Topol family of missiles, has stated that the SS-27 will be the foundation of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal by 2015.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu. htmThe single-warhead RT-2UTTH Topol-M is an advanced version of the silo-based and mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missile. The SS-25 Topol is generally similar to the American Minuteman-2, while the more sophisticated SS-27 Topol-M is comparabl

sure:

Here's one about how one got progressively more inaccurate.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm

Here is a degradation of the original claim of 25%:
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1992/59740945-59743599 .htm

And here's a more accurate final assessment:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/rp911024.ht m

better?

sure:

Here's one about how one got progressively more inaccurate.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm

Here is a degradation of the original claim of 25%:
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1992/59740945-59743599 .htm

And here's a more accurate final assessment:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/rp911024.ht m

better?

sure:

Here's one about how one got progressively more inaccurate.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm

Here is a degradation of the original claim of 25%:
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1992/59740945-59743599 .htm

And here's a more accurate final assessment:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/rp911024.ht m

better?

Looking at the most recent FISA report to congress, it doesn't look like it's too difficult for law enforcement to get over 1700 FISA warrants in a single year, without a single one being denied. There's a special 11-judge panel that approves these things. It seems to me you could essentially have a department of people in the NSA filling out forms with names and numbers and get as many of these approved as you needed.

How easy do you want it to be ? In order for someone at the NSA to get a FISA warrant, they have to provide what, 8 pieces of somewhat unique information ? Here's what's outlined in the law:

1) name of officer
2) some indication that the request is approved by the executive branch ( I'm going to guess that's *really* a no-brainer )
3) why the agent thinks the person or facilities being targeted are agents of a foreign power
4) "a statement of the proposed minimization procedures"- boilerplate
5) "description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance" - again, a template could be used in most cases.
6) ertification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense = you need your boss' boss' stamp.
7) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance - again, boilerplate unless you're going into someone's house.
8)a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons - could just as easily be boilerplate "none that I know of". Is the judge going to turn it down if it's wrong? They approved over 1700 of these last year alone.
9) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter - again, boilerplate could be used "as long as it takes, additional operatives could be detected, bla bla"
11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. Again, serious boilerplate material.

The only possible way that this could be looked at as "difficult" is if the agency in question isn't used to making such requests and/or lacks the resources to do so. Somehow, I think that's not the case here, and again, how easy do you want to make it ? You think question (3) above is asking too much ? You want to grant wire taps because someone "would like to see if I hear anything suspicious" ?

Of course, I'm not going to change your mind here, I don't think- you've decided already that you do nothing wrong and don't mind Big Brother listening in on your phone calls. You're sure we have *excess* civil liberties in the U.S.

More oddly, you *really* think more survellance by the government could have prevented a few guys from hijacking a jet ? That's a fantasy. Even if that particular group could have been caught, someone could have done it- the failure was

What if it works? What if this wire tapping is actually effective and it's being properly briefed to other branches of the federal government so it's not soley overseen by the executive branch?

The FISA law was established in 1978. At the time it was designed for the US to monitor Soviet spys in the US. It was an era of rotary phones. Today It's way more complicated and dynamic with satellite, wireless and Internet communication. Today people have way more control over how information is distributed and how quickly the self identifying nature of those communications are changed. Getting to my point and question, what if Al Queda knows about FISA (it's no secret), how does the NSA track operratives that change their email address every 30 seconds? What if these legal attacks are successfull and the NSA has to chase down these dynamic identifiers but can't effectively do their job because they have to follow FISA? What if Al Queda knows this and even with communications outside the country they simply CC some random US email to implement some FISA protocol?

If you agree that intelligence agencies should act with alacrity in these situations is not the oversight of congress enough? Or, should the administration keep IP logs etc... that might number in the thousands let's say, retroactively to FISA so they might obtain the 1000 warrants for that tracking?

A related power to the use of force is the ability to gain intelligence about the enemy so one might use that force as effectively as possible. Presidents since at least Franklin Roosevelt have used the authority driven by the use of force to intercept communications by members of the enemy. Do you believe the authority given to the President does not allow him to order such taps in communication regardless of a non wartime law? If your answer is "no", then it might interest you to know that the FISA review board themselves believe it does, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802 .html.
We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Bush also pressured an awful lot of people into bending intelligence reports to sound the way he wanted them and interpred Intelligence information in the way that suited his political goals. To me that is lying albeit in a roundabout way. I have read some of the pre-invasion reports on Iraqi WMD capabilities used to justify the invasion and that were made public. They don't exactly tell lies but they do seem to be written in such a way as to make them easy to misunderstand. I suppose it depends on how you define lies. Did he go on television and tell outright easily provable lies? You tell me:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source, Now revealed to be crap.

"We've [learned] that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases."

Source, Direct Bush quote, Now revealed to be crap.

"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who]"

Note the present tense, those WMD's that Saddam supposedly controlled at the time those words were spoken have yet to be found. The rest of the statement is true.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein [had] an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

At the time those words were spoken and used to justify the invasion the US administration was already well aware of reports by the IAEA that there were no indications of the Iraqis having a significant nuclear weapons making capability. I wonder why that wasn't mentioned in the next breath?

No, I'm repeating what's been reported. You're assuming facts not in evidence, and according to Sam Waterson, that's a no-no. The Federation of American Scientists has a good write-up on it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf. Page 2 lists some quotes on what the wiretapping encompasses.

Page two contains nothing about the direction of the calls. You specifically stated "It's a similar circumstance here, except that the originator of the call is outside the country". What page of the CRS report indicates that only inbound call were tapped? That's why I accused you of making shit up. And I stand by that until you can point to a reliable source on the direction of the calls being tapped.

IMO, they probably don't want to jump through any more hoops than is absolutely required, especially hoops they saw as irrelevant.

So you aren't going to try and claim that they actually obeyed the law, but rather that it's OK for them to break the law? Because judicial oversight is required if you want to spy on US citizens. Just so you are clear. You appear to be supporting the position that the President is above the law? That this country is under the rule of men, not the rule of law? If the president decides that killing you and raping your mother is in the country's best interest, it's OK as long as he puts his cowboy hat on first? I know that sounds extreme, but you are claiming that there is no law that limits the behavior of the President and that his power is limitless. If you think there is a limit, where is it?

First, you're just plain making shit up. You don't know that they were only hitting inbound calls. That level of detail about the program hasn't been revealed. If you can point to a reliable source, I'd love to see it.

No, I'm repeating what's been reported. You're assuming facts not in evidence, and according to Sam Waterson, that's a no-no. The Federation of American Scientists has a good write-up on it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf. Page 2 lists some quotes on what the wiretapping encompasses.

What we do know is that FISA covers domestic surveillance of foreign targets and the administration did not follow the rules found in FISA. The question I want answered is: Why is the administration evading the legally mandated judicial oversight FISA requires? FISA was passed to make what the administration is doing legal, as long as they allow judicial oversight. Why don't they want that oversight?

IMO, they probably don't want to jump through any more hoops than is absolutely required, especially hoops they saw as irrelevant. Reference how many administration officials (and some outside the administration) are saying "We had the authority under the authorization to invade Afghanistan, when Congress said 'all force'."

It's not uncommon in history for Presidents to site executive privilege on a number of items, this is probably another case of that. After all, even Bush supporters (which I guess I am, more often than not) agree that the man's a cowboy who likes doing things his way. His rationale could be as simple as "I'm the President, I have the authority, I'm not giving up that authority to no one, no how." Simple arrogance, nothing more.

What the hell, it's a slow day now that I've trained the Solaris guy how to babysit autoyast...

Here, read this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

Specifically Page 2: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out some of its parameters, telling reporters that it involves 'intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the communication is outside the United States' and the government has 'a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.' The aim of the program, according to Principal Deputy 3 Director for National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, is not 'to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent [terrorist] attacks.'"

Now, the AG might be lying, but that's up to you to prove now. Good luck!

Looks like 3-5 psi is probably a better estimate.

It's not like India has Nuclear Weapons or a space program. I mean they all still live in stone huts. Why should they be seen as a modern nation?

Understanding the argument that the administration is making requires more thought than you have apparantly given it. The argument is pretty compelling, actually--I would go so far as to say that critics of the program have no Consititutional leg to stand on.
 
All case law involving such issues in the past supports the Bush administrations position. Furthermore, the Clinton administration and the Carter administration (the same Carter who signed FISA) asserted the article 2 inherent authority of the executive branch to conduct such operations without a warrant. The Constitution, you might recall, gives the President the authority--as Commander in Chief--the RESPONSIBILITY to protect the United States against enemies foreign and *domestic*.
 
The biggest point that you don't seem to understand is that this isn't domestic spying. It falls under the umbrella of signals intelligence, which has been held by courts time and again to be a military operation. It necessarily involves a known al-Queda operative on one end of the call, and necessarily involves one party on foreign soil.

If you go back and read the debate at the time FISA was being drafted and debated, you'll see that many felt that FISA unconsitutionally restricted executive power. It was only after assurances that it wouldn't infringe on the execute branches article 2 authority that it was passed.

Try to sound a bit more educated before talking about this stuff in the future. If you're going to use all of this hyperbolic rhetoric, maybe you could actually make some sort of argument as to why you think it's illegal? I noticed that you, like everyone else who adopts the infantile "Bush is a fascist" line utterly fail to substantiate your assertion. WOuld you care to do so at this time?

For your reading pleasure... begin with the 2002 FISA Court of Review opinion... the friggin' FISA court itself wrote the opinion, which notably includes this line: The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.. It elaborates extensively... go read it: here.
 
The most interesting part of that opinion is that the FISA court itself seems to imply that not only could the warrantless easedropping be done for intel gathering, but that it could be used to prosecute as well... without a warrant.

What was your argument, again? I'm referring to the technical merits of your argument... what were they? Do you know anything about the issue at all? I'm serious.

I believe this is what you are looking for.

The relevant part being...

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

The part about Truong, refers to the case United States v. Truong. It was decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980.

In which it states

"The executive branch, containing the State Department, the intelligence agencies, and the military, is constantly aware of the nation's security needs and the magnitude of external threats posed by a panoply of foreign nations and organizations. On the other hand, while the courts possess expertise in making the probable cause determination involved in surveillance of suspected criminals, the courts are unschooled in diplomacy and military affairs, a mastery of which would be essential to passing upon an executive branch request that a foreign intelligence wiretap be authorized.

The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by urging that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.

In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review noted:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 was caught by wiretapping.

Most of the discussion of inherent presidential authority occurred before FISA. FISA was implemented in order to reign in the abuse of government surveillance which had taken place for decades.

If the president has an inherent authority to violate FISA, then the FISA court itself is unconstitutional and should be disbanded. Methinks that is not the case and will not happen.

Here's some good reading for those interested in this topic:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

There was no purpose for the Bush administration to bypass the FISA court. Clinton had some justification, since the FISA court did not oversee physical searches, but Bush had no justification whatsoever. He had the option of obtaining warrants up to 72 hours after the fact. He claims this wasn't fast enough. This is a very difficult story to believe.

According to http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sup_01_50_10_36.html, physical searches have been covered by the FISA since 1978 (in the original draft).

In http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj122205.p df it states on page 2 (in paragraph 3) that, "All the other courts have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrentlass searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." It does differentiate between *purely* domestic and foreign; however, this is not considered purely domestic as it is a wiretap on domestic-to-foreign telephone calls. This comes from a review in 2002. It also references court decisions from 1967 and 1972.

But in the same treaty those states that have nuclear weapons are required to dispose of them, so USA is breaking that treaty.

Which treaty you looking at?
TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

I'm just waiting for the Flat Earthiers and "conservatives" to explain why the government should run search engines to wade through the phone calls of citizens without warrant; or, will it be the normal "six degrees of separation from Bin Laden" explanations.

Sorry mods, someone has to say it. Give my karma points to the American citizens.

Anyway, the French government may have something interesting to add to this. Google had two kids on a mission to inform, who happened to realize that if the Internet is a popularity contest, the winner would be the most link-able. The government's may not have had the insight to develop Page Rank, but I'm sure they've spent many years trying to translate voice to text. I'd imaging the world governments might also be able to do a good bit of image recognition. Don't you think the US has this, or something close, on their droids. Some of this government technology, if it exist (and I have to believe it does and the NSA is using it), could be very profitable when added to a search engine. And if France has already developed it, then maybe they will have a step up on the competition.

Also, has anyone else every gotten bugged out by the name gmail? Though I know better (or not), I can't help but get spooked sometimes. It seems that it could somehow relates to GovernmentMAIL. Ok, that's just silly. At least I know I earned my -1 karma mod this time.

at least they're building search engines and space exploration vehicles instead of nuclear weapons.

You do realize, don't you, that France is a nuclear power[0], and sold[1] to Iraq 12.5kg of 93% U-235 and "research reactor".

And lets not forget the direct German help[2] in creating Iraqi chemical weapons.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of _mass_destruction
[1] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq .htm
[2] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.htm l

at least they're building search engines and space exploration vehicles instead of nuclear weapons.

You do realize, don't you, that France is a nuclear power[0], and sold[1] to Iraq 12.5kg of 93% U-235 and "research reactor".

And lets not forget the direct German help[2] in creating Iraqi chemical weapons.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of _mass_destruction
[1] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq .htm
[2] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.htm l

IIRC some of the solid core nuclear thermal rocket designs were supposed to have good enough thrust to weight ratios to escape Earth's gravity under their own power (e.g. DUMBO).

Is this the report you're thinking of? DUMBO was indeed a paper design intended to show that the engines could be lighter and more powerful. Even so, I don't think the design was ever sufficient to reach orbit. Project Timberwind continued the work for the StarWars project and had a thrust to weight of 30:1. In comparison, the Space Shuttle Main Engines have a 73:1 thrust ratio and they still need assistance from the higher thrust SRBs. (The SRBs provide 71.4% of the Space Shuttle's thrust during liftoff, each providing 3,300,000 lbf vs. the 400,000 lbf each SSME generates.)

The only reliable way to overcome the thrust-to-weight problems that plague the NTR engines is to run the reactor so hot it melts the uranium fuel. As you can imagine, anything that can melt Uranium can melt most materials we have available. The solution to this problem is the Gas Core Nuclear Rocket which relies on the "nuclear lightbulb" concept to keep the reactor gasses from interacting with the walls of the engine. I've spoken with a former NASA Nuclear Propulsion engineer on the issue, however, and he's very concerned about whether the concept is feasible or not. It seems that there's a lot of research that still needs to be done on the subject. It's a wonderful dream, however. :-)

Besides those, you have nuclear pulse propulsion (e.g. Orion), which most definitively would have a good enough thrust to weight ratio.

I do believe we were talking about NTR engines, but Orion can certainly attain orbit. The only problem (which is also one of the reasons why the Orion was never built) is that the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 made it illegal to launch an Orion from inside the atmosphere. This relegates it to being a space-only engine, and/or a useful craft for Moon or Mars launches.