Slashdot Mirror

I'm wondering about this, first of all it depends on the range of the missile radar and firing range, lets have an example: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-9.h tm

It says:
Speed: Supersonic Mach 2.5
Range: 10 to 18 miles depending on altitude
Length: 9 feet, 5 inches (2.87 meters)
Diameter: 5 inches (0.13 meters)

They also have a picture with a hot girl handling one of those.

That gives v=850.72500m/s s=16093.44m t=18s

I should give you some credit in that short an amount of time gut feel says that you won't get through the hull. The sensor is also actively cooled this makes heating up the electronics harder. But I have no clue about this, so my gut is not properly tuned to the problem.

They are talking about a 150kW laser so it could be assumed that it is a continuous laser (this may not be the case though). Even if you would get reflectivity of 90 percent you have to deal with 15kW for a couple of seconds. If you heat 1 kg of Aluminum for 18s with that, your temperature change would be 300K (dead electronics). Of course there is conduction too so you will get less, but don't forget you may have to deal with more heat if reflectivity goes down i.e. 50% -> 1500K (Al melted ~900K ago). (simple math: P*t=c*m*dT)

I think they have a good chance to shoot down your missile with the 150KW laser, with the 15KW prototype laser they may have trouble.

Notice that the ablative system may add weight and decrease range. BTW, the whole laser system decreases missile range, and moves the enemy closer in, or gets the pilot a bit more peace of mind.

There is no good information out there on what kind of laser they are thinking of, any ideas?

I think they spend our money on something interesting. If it fails it will still be a great remote popcorn toasting machine, or an awsome cooling system for that Longhorn running processor could come out of it.

See the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual for basic information, and then talk to your company's security officer.

And what's an area defense system?

It's to protect objects spread over a wide area, as opposed to a point defence system, designed to protect one particular object -- such as Phalanx, which is supposed to destroy missiles that are about to hit your ship.

Here you go.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

Sorry, but the fact they (Japanese) used live humans as petri dishes for deadly bacteria then jumped on them to squeeze out all the blood so they can infect more people and breed more bacteria, somehow, even today, doesn't help at all the cause of those who go around saying "oh the poor Japanese, we shouldn't have bombed them, they are so innocent"

I think it was the Japanese goverment the sealed the fate of it own people when they attacked US. If I send someone from my family to beat up a police officer, I will pretty much seal his/her fate and mine, in other words we'll both be screwed - really long jail times. Same with Japan, it is the one that killed its own people ultimately. The children could die of hunger, die fighting americans in rice fields or they get nuked. Japan sentenced them to death, we just picked the method of execution.

Historians might as well stop asking the question "Why did we nuke them?" and ask the question "what in the hell was Japan thinking when it attacked U.S.?"

Why doesn't the same apply to the people who worked for the Mitsubishi arms plant in Nagasaki? Most of the town employees where working at the plant building weapons and ammunition to kill Americans. They could have chosen to be farmers, or say teachers, instead they most likely did support the goverment policy and the war against us.

You are right, the children weren't fighting yet, but the ones in Berlin were, and if we invaded Japan a lot more children would have been dead, because they would have been forced to defend "the Empire"

One thing that is always usefull to keep in mind is that it was the Japanese that attacked the U.S. What in the hell were they thinking? It is like me attacking the local police department with a baseball bat, I know I will get in trouble and end up in jail for a long time. If I get my family and friends on it, they will end up in jail for a long time too. Someone might ask me "what in the hell were you thinking?" Same thing with Japan. It was their goverment that sealed the fate of its children and elderly when they attacked U.S. It wasn't a defensive war, it wasn't even a preemtive attack, I don't think US would have ever attacked Japan unprovoked. So when they sent the battleships and the airplanes to Pearl Harbor, they technically "killed" a lot of Japanese civilians and as well as fighters.

On the other side, let's imagine that Japan would have won the war (impossible but let's try) do you think they would hesitate bombing New York, or LA or other major city because there are civilians in it? Probably not, judging by what they did in China

Yeah your right about exiting atmospheric particles - here is a pdf that talks about it. But the original point remains - nuclear explosions in Earth orbit would seriously mess with ground infrastructure.

Assuming the engine was not reusable, the erosion in NERVA would have been ok. But that was 60s reactor technology.

Newer designs used pebble-bed reactor technology with SiC coated nuclear fuel. The reactor temperature was higher, so performance was higher too. To reduce erosion further Nitrogen could be used as the reaction mass instead of Hydrogen, at a decrease in ISP. This page has some info.

Ignoring GCR etc for now.

Then there are the Orion like designs using pulsed nuclear propulsion. If there was a solar system war going on, I bet these would be developed. They would make for the best military combat vehicles because of sheer acceleration. Speed is defense. Since there are no Martians and we are not at war with them, it is just too expensive to be developed.

The alternative is laser/microwave propulsion. Given current technological developments in the areas of optics and radio, I suspect they will be our ticket out of this gravity well.

The space elevator is interesting, but it depends on materials science, which is like the slowest evolving branch of science there is.

American Geosynchronous SIGINT Satellites

Ever heard of 'em? NSA's got enough to intercept most any radio signal on earth.

NO! That is a recipe for continuation of the status quo. They BOTH need to feel the heat NOW. Otherwise the Dems will take over and think their social agenda of increasing the loss of our freedoms for different reasons was the cause of their "success" at the polls. You wind up in a perpetual seesaw resulting in the steady elimination of all rights equally between the two. You repeatedly trade bully one for bully two, then reverse and repeat.

There is nothing you or I can do to stop the pendulum of the bi-polar polity, other than convince enough people who will vote to actually change it. There was a chance at a third party with clout, but Buchanan, the Republican loyalist to the end, took the FEC money and trashed them in 2000. Demcorats still blame Nader, the fools, they should be blaming Buchanan, Perot and Ventura.

In the current circumstances, the best that can be achieved is an evenness of parties, and the abrasion that comes with it. I think that a large part of the economic boom in the 90's was due to the great friction between the parties. Neither side had enough power to suck their vigorish off of the top, and the free market that could, did. The equities traders screwed it up, but equity traders should be dealt with. If they didn't venture for capitalisation of the business, they are leeches, sucking from the valuation of the compensation provided to the producers of the product.

An Abridged Listing Why I Beat Upon Republicans Presently

The republicans have gained the upper hand in large part by betraying both their core ideology and the Dreamtime America. NeoConservatism's maturation can be traced from marxism to trotskyite CIA stooges to Scoop Jackson DemoHawks to Reagan to the Son of Bush. They have never given up the marxist trait of spewing rhetoric, the truth notwithstanding. The self-confessed American traitor, David Horrowitz calls Kerry and Fonda traitors, and is given stature within the Right. The putrescence of moral relevancy oozing from the partisan defense of a president who fixed the intelligence and the facts around his policy of familial vengence, and took America into an unrighteous conflict without contemplating the aftermath. a president who sings sweet songs of liberty and democracy, yet gives aid to dictatorial destroyers of democracy, has liasons with leaders loathsome of liberty, and goes out on ManDates with Saudi Princes who come to the USA laden with extra baggage.

When did conservatives begin to support due process of law applied inequally to humans? That is a high crime against America, yet they still repeatedly remind us that a stained blue dress is impeachable? Why not decry Blood-Stained Iraq Sands?

Bush's SCOTUS nomimee Roberts is a dangerous and activist judge who DOES NOT adjudicate using original intent, and all the country can think about is which way he'll decide on abortion cases. His assent in the Hamdi v Rumsfeld appeal is frightful. It posits that a president is above the very law that legitimises his power, stating this is a function of war power, in a war upon unstated enemies, of an indeterminate duration. Why hasn't anyone asked Roberts just what the hell he was doing during that ongoing criminal enterprise: The Reagan Administration? This is ano

Germany, the country who tried to warn the US that Curveball was a proven liar, and were angry that Powell not only included it in his presentation, but called it a "solid source" as if nobody had questioned it? The country that led the assault on the bogus aluminum tubes claim (and would know what Iraq's centrifuges would need, as Iraq had experience in building a 1960s german design)? That Germany? You're probably referring to the report that the BND leaked before the new Iraq resolution to pressure Iraq into complying with it (mostly commenting on dual-use potential)? You'll note that after that report, Germany grew only critical of the US information - often harshly. They even attempted to retract parts of their report as inspections continued - for example, the aforementioned "Curveball" mobile-labs information.

Russia? Heck, don't take my word that they found the intelligence extremely subject - take theirs. Dozens of cites in that first link, by the way.

The Bush Administration seeks changes that may destroy our national security, economic well-being, and the stability of the world order. These changes are going on way over your head - 50 miles above to be precise. The Neo-Cons aim to make outer space the new theater of war. Their blind ambitions threaten to ignite a new and ruinously expensive arms race that could destroy the international norms that have made outer space a vital and growing part of the world's civilian economy and a lynchpin of America's long-term security.

Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization undertook a study of our vulnerabilities and military capabilities in space. Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Commission until a few weeks before their report was issued, when Bush appointed him Secretary of Defense. Given this fact, little about the Commission's report will surprise you.

The Commission report warned of significant vulnerabilities in both civilian and military space assets that must be addressed. As there have not been any attacks on space borne assets to date, it is difficult to quantify how serious or how likely various threats might be. The Commission supports their recommendations with worse-case assumptions out of any proportion to likely threats. They insisting we prepare to meet a possible 'Pearl Harbor in space' where no enemy is known to exist. In their estimation, that preparation entails nothing less than the head-long introduction of weapons into space.

The world's consensus is that spaced borne weaponry is inconsistent with the "peaceful purposes" for which space is reserved by the Outer Space Treaty. However, the current legal regime does not specifically disallow weaponization of space, except for nuclear weapons and other WMD. Thus, this Administration advances an extreme interpretation that space based weapons systems are consistent with "peaceful uses" so long as they are not used for aggressive military operations. This means that development and deployment of first-strike capable anti-satellite and ground targeting weapons systems in orbit would be lawful as long as they are only used in a defensive capacity - and we all now know how flexible the concept of defense can become.

What kind of weapons might we see deployed in space? Anti-satellite weapons to destroy or disable an enemy's space assets, and systems to protect our own satellites. Space-based weapons platforms carrying lasers, particle beams, kinetic weapons, and other systems to disrupt or destroy targets on the ground or in the atmosphere. Contrary to common conception it does not include "Star Wars", the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Only sensors and command and control systems of NMD would be in orbit as the system is currently concieved.

The Commission report is unequivocal in its judgment that deployment of weapons in space is purely a winning proposition, enhancing the security of our space-based assets and extending the reach and speed of our military options. Military planners see a golden moment in history and they want to seize it. No other nation can deploy military space systems that could match ours, and being first to the high ground of space allows us to dictate the terms of access. We are presented an opportunity to unilaterally shift the fulcrum of the world's strategic military balance in our favor. The Commission makes it plain that they believe weaponization of space will assure U.S. military predominance and preparedness for the forseeable future.

The question we must ask, is whether we should allow it. Will the militarization of space enhance or degrade our long-term security? One obvious reason not to place weapons in space is that despite any temporary strategic advantage we might gain, proliferation and an arms race are inevitable, though not necessarily immediate. Consider the obvious military advantages conveyed by t

The only reason is that they do not have enough shovels and don't have permission to search in Syria.

Yeah. Uh huh. The administration who sold the world on WMD doesn't have enough shovels to look for them. Why don't you do yourself a favor and read Kay's testimony yourself? He had all the resources he wanted. He conclusion? We made a big, big mistake on the WMD issue (he still supports the war, though).

The fact was that these WMD's existed.

Yes, they did. In 1991.

They were used

Yes, they were, in 1982-1987. When we were supporting Iraq against Iran.

and this is documented.

Not only is it documented, but the Reagan adminstration blocked a call for ceasing weapons sales to their ally Iraq at the time.

There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.

Quite true, but there is ample *evidence* in every line of investigation. There was no documentation that Oswald shot Kennedy, but there's plenty of evidence.

Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.

The heck it did! Quit making stuff up. One thing it did call for, I may note, is a nuclear-free zone in the middle east (*cough* Israel *cough*)

Iraq had no right to ignore it based on silly "spy!" claims.

A) The majority of the Security Council was in agreement with them in that the US and British had no right to be there.

B) The US *was* spying on them, not only through the No-Fly Zones, but through the inspection teams (to the disdain of many of the inspectors, who saw it as sabotaging their work). I already gave a ref - need more?

Attacks on these peacekeepers were entirely illegal and unprovoked aggression.

1) Read the bloody resolution
2) Read France, Russia, and China's comments on the subject (the majority of the SC)
3) I already gave refs documenting the extreme examples of provocation, including direct, deliberate, admitted attempts to goad Iraq into war.

To stop these attacks alone, the allies had the right to whomp Saddam's terrorist infrascture as hard as possible.

The "terrorist" issue was well referenced in the last post (same response to your next snippet, cut out)

The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.

I *seriously* hope you're not one of those delusional "Iraq did Sept. 11th" nuts.

Blix's own reports detailed large infractions.

I bloody quoted Blix for you! What more do you need, him to tell you in person? The US media only reported the infractions and played them up. Blix himself stated that they were minor, and all of them were resolved. Now, if you want to talk about major, unresolved infractions in the middle east...

How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this.

Nothing true about it? He was bloody killed over it. He was the very reason that the Iraqi biological program was exposed. Look, deny reality all you want, but that's your own little fantasy world you'll be living in.

If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections.

In case you forgot history, they *did* welcome inspections.

Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying.

The heck there isn't! One has a goal of finding WMDs; the other had the goal of assassinating Saddam and uncovering his conventional forces and how best to defeat them.

Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain.

To complain about *spying*? Point to me the "US gets to spy on anything they want in Iraq to pursue the

Not to mention the soviet FOBS-system (or here) (Fractional orbital bombardment system) which vould put a 1 to 3 megaton nuclear warhead in low orbit and have it ready to de-obit and detonate at a specified time over any country.

Yours Yazeran

Plan: to go to Mars one day with a hamer.

Well, they certainly try. Who's the owner again?

In 1998 a jihad was declared against everyone who is basically non arabic. People have been fighting in that region for thousands of years, this time its spilled across the ocean.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatw a.htm

Anyway, the image in the NEWS.com.au article is USGS aerial photography, and the same redactions are done in the current data drop (as available via NASA's World Wind system) - so this particular censoring happened before the data got to google.

Indeed, there would be no point in censoring the commercial imagery used by google for the reactor in question, as the enemies/terrorists/Bad Guys (tm) could order the imagery themselves, presumably though some front company. So the aussies would need to persuade several vendors of commercial satellite photos, including US, European and Russian providers, to censor their images.

Note that Space Imaging don't (or didn't, at least) have a blanket list of sensitive US properties they won't photograph - the happily supplied the Federation of American Scientits with lovely images of Area 51: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm

So complaining publically about google is entirely counterproductive; they're just standing on their own stumps ;)

Through observation & reproducability science is made. Only those observations and Theories that fit them should be imparted to future Generations as Science.

The President is, and never has been, a authoritative voice in the scientific community. As it should be. If you want to know about science ask a scientist. If you want to know about the complete disregard of science for policy ask the President:

http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction =webpage&page_id=208
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.ht m
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/scientist.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bethepr.htm

Don't Even Ask about Stem cells.

You can help:
http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_calltoaction/index.php

Is the whole design of the shuttle overly fragile?

Yes, because unlike every previous (and subquesent) operational space-vehicle, it's also an airplane. That means it must be lightweight and have long thin wings to catch air. Imagine a low-speed collision between the strongest airplane (the A-10) and an average tank (like the M1A2)- there is no question about which will survive that crash.

Good, safe landers have the areodynamic qualities of a rock: difficult to damage, but impossible to manuver. The parachute landing will be somewhat random, and you'll just have to cope with a long walk back. On the other hand, the Shuttle was (for distorted reasons) built with opposite charactistics: it can be steered to any landing spot you wish, but is so fragile that any small mistake will mean complete destruction.

Wisely, the proposed shuttle replacement will give up on steerable re-entry, regaining the durability of 1960s-era craft.

Is the whole design of the shuttle overly fragile?

Yes, because unlike every previous (and subquesent) operational space-vehicle, it's also an airplane. That means it must be lightweight and have long thin wings to catch air. Imagine a low-speed collision between the strongest airplane (the A-10) and an average tank (like the M1A2)- there is no question about which will survive that crash.

Good, safe landers have the areodynamic qualities of a rock: difficult to damage, but impossible to manuver. The parachute landing will be somewhat random, and you'll just have to cope with a long walk back. On the other hand, the Shuttle was (for distorted reasons) built with opposite charactistics: it can be steered to any landing spot you wish, but is so fragile that any small mistake will mean complete destruction.

Wisely, the proposed shuttle replacement will give up on steerable re-entry, regaining the durability of 1960s-era craft.

If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.

Here is a bit of a writeup.

Still, since wi-fi operates in the GHz range, your useful communication depth would be quite limited.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use

all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Then from Resolution 687:

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution

I don't know how it could be more clear than that- the use of all necessary means was explicitly given to achieve the goals of 687, which were for Iraq to stop supporting terrorists and to get rid of all of their WMD programs.

This is what you are not hearing:

I never said they were in compliance! Show me where I did. I infact stated that their failure to comply was inevitable, due to the condiditons required for compliance. It is not a mater of moving goalposts. The problem is that the onus was on Saddam to prove he was WMD free. This is imposible to do.

And here is where you are not hearing me. The UN didn't just say to Saddam "Prove you don't have WMD". Instead, they they asked "What happened to the 331 tonnes of precursors for Tabun that you imported?" or "What happened to the 160 aerial bombs filled with Sarin agents that you declared to the UN". Every single subject in the Unresolved Disarmament Issues document ends with a bulleted list of actions that Iraq could take to help resolve the issue. These are clear and simple requests, such as "Provide the name and present location of the Air Force officer that wrote this document about Mustard Gas" or "Tell us why you had a 700,000 Dinar credit balance with foreign chemical suppliers in 1988". Failure to comply was not inevitable! Iraq was not in compliance because they chose not to be.

Violation of a resolution doesn't mean a severe threat.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed those resolutions precisely because Iraq posed a threat.

There are a lot of counties with WMD, Iraq didn't have signifigant amounts (yeah, they could have begun making it again... so could anyone).

Other countries were not under international orders to disarm their WMD.

Our allies also told us he was buying yellow cake in Africa. Inteligence is a highly foulable art form, forgive me for being sceptical.

Allies told us he was seeking uranium in Africa, and this has been confirmed by multiple sources.

As for how long to wait. I don't think it is morally OK to attack anyone because of their ability to attack. In short, I don't think preventive warfare is OK. If it is OK to attack a nation because it has the ability to attack you, and even a demonstrated willingness to attack others, think of what that means if the shoe is on the other foot. Iran and North Korea are justified in attacking the US by the moral standard we hold ourselves to.

That said, if an attack is eminent, war is no longer preventative, and is thus justifiable. So to use the Pearl Harbor analogy. If we had intel that said an attack on Pearl was coming soon. I would wait until there was a wave of bombers in the air coming toward Pearl, then scramble intercepters.

Ok- so when is an attack imminent? At what point did th

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use

all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Then from Resolution 687:

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution

I don't know how it could be more clear than that- the use of all necessary means was explicitly given to achieve the goals of 687, which were for Iraq to stop supporting terrorists and to get rid of all of their WMD programs.

This is what you are not hearing:

I never said they were in compliance! Show me where I did. I infact stated that their failure to comply was inevitable, due to the condiditons required for compliance. It is not a mater of moving goalposts. The problem is that the onus was on Saddam to prove he was WMD free. This is imposible to do.

And here is where you are not hearing me. The UN didn't just say to Saddam "Prove you don't have WMD". Instead, they they asked "What happened to the 331 tonnes of precursors for Tabun that you imported?" or "What happened to the 160 aerial bombs filled with Sarin agents that you declared to the UN". Every single subject in the Unresolved Disarmament Issues document ends with a bulleted list of actions that Iraq could take to help resolve the issue. These are clear and simple requests, such as "Provide the name and present location of the Air Force officer that wrote this document about Mustard Gas" or "Tell us why you had a 700,000 Dinar credit balance with foreign chemical suppliers in 1988". Failure to comply was not inevitable! Iraq was not in compliance because they chose not to be.

Violation of a resolution doesn't mean a severe threat.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed those resolutions precisely because Iraq posed a threat.

There are a lot of counties with WMD, Iraq didn't have signifigant amounts (yeah, they could have begun making it again... so could anyone).

Other countries were not under international orders to disarm their WMD.

Our allies also told us he was buying yellow cake in Africa. Inteligence is a highly foulable art form, forgive me for being sceptical.

Allies told us he was seeking uranium in Africa, and this has been confirmed by multiple sources.

As for how long to wait. I don't think it is morally OK to attack anyone because of their ability to attack. In short, I don't think preventive warfare is OK. If it is OK to attack a nation because it has the ability to attack you, and even a demonstrated willingness to attack others, think of what that means if the shoe is on the other foot. Iran and North Korea are justified in attacking the US by the moral standard we hold ourselves to.

That said, if an attack is eminent, war is no longer preventative, and is thus justifiable. So to use the Pearl Harbor analogy. If we had intel that said an attack on Pearl was coming soon. I would wait until there was a wave of bombers in the air coming toward Pearl, then scramble intercepters.

Ok- so when is an attack imminent? At what point did th

Burt Rutan aside, I wonder what NASA would have done with that money had it not to worry about keeping contactors happy.. Granted the X-33 turned into a fiasco, but maybe had they concentrated on a manned version things may have worked out better.

The truth is the shuttle is coming to the end of the line. While it is a great piece of engineering, parts are no longer being manufactured and it is costing a fortune to keep it running. I wouldn't kill it for either of the previous reasons until a reasonable replacement is found. The catch is that there is no reasonable replacement and that the shuttle is likey to be grounded full time in 10 years with no replacement - this is a big problem. It is starting to sounds like the Concorde.

If they had continued with development of the X-33 instead of turning it over to the Air Force and canceling the NASA development work, we would probably have a replacement by now. Instead, it will take probably a decade and substantially more money to bring a replacement vehicle to fruition from this point.

I suspect that politically, the manned space program is dead here in the US, given the huge budget deficits and slipping technology base.

There is the possibility that a superior insulating technology will be arrived at quickly and the remaining few shuttles might fly again, but I wouldn't bet on it. There is too much to be gained politically by stabbing the wounded for that to be allowed to happen.

http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/h980618-prc8.ht m

I had read in a news article during one of the noteworthy accidents, although I don't remember for certain which one but I think it was the Kursk, that sounds of the accident had been recorded by SOSUS but not noticed immediately because the stations were no longer manned full time. While I'm not surprised that the system is being expanded, it also seems logical that there would be less need to monitor, for example, the GIUK gap as closely as during the cold war.

I would be interested in finding out more about their status, but unfortunately, the FAS SOSUS entry has not been updated recently. It did mention, however, several stations, including Keflavik, Iceland had been closed.

This array would likely be able to do it's share in submarine tracking, but only as piece of a larger system.

Part of the adventure of sonar detection is that low frequencies, especially the 30-100Hz range, travel thousands of miles with very little loss. This trick to long range submarine detection is listening for sounds from pumps, fans, etc, in those low ranges. Next, you need a wide baseline to triangulate a position. The SOSUS arrays covering the Greenland-Iceland-Britan gap covered hundreds of miles.

Now comes the problem of sound ducting. The temperature and salinity gradients of seawater can steer sound in much the same way as a mirage is from bent light due to temperature gradients in the air.

The Fata Morgana mirage, also called Looming, is a prime example of a sonar problem. By eye, you see a mirror image of a distant, even over-the-horizon object reflected as if by a mirror -- the temperature inversion layer. By ear, you care only for the direction of the sound, but now the problem is "which mirror?" As the sound curves up to the sea surface, it reflects back down, then curves up once again, and reflects again, at about 33 mile intervals. This is called a Convergence Zone.

These complexities go on and on, and require a wide range of sensors by depth and distance to detect and resolve the location of a sound source. The computers come in handy to do the filtering ID work, so you don't mistake a squid or a beluga for a Typhoon or Krasnodar...

I think SOSUS is manned, but by reservists, its slowly fading away not because the mission has dwindled, but because its obsolete.

Its been supplanted by IUSS(Integrated Undersea Surveillance System) which is monitored by regular Navy personel.

Lockheed has a $100-150 million dollar contract for Phase II IUSS which I think is coming online any time now.

There are still plenty of submarine threats in the world and the U.S. isn't going to stop tracking them anytime soon.

Better Area51 pics

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/index.html

These guys seem to have it figured out.. I don't think they'll tell you the secret though.

...pretty much everyone signed the NPT. Including N. Korea and Iran. There are provisions for a country to back out of it, but N. Korea is the only country to ever do so.

No country has the ability to defend against a nuclear attack. Not just the USA is in that position.

The reason I found it so funny was because I had the *exact* same discussion of this plot hole with my friends when we were last watching Star Wars

In deep space, you have to aim the parabolic antennae at the destination. Presumably, "subspace" transmissions would behave the same way.

Thus, all the Star Destroyer (or whatever) has to do is notice which direction the antennae was aimed, and go That Way.

How do you miss an enormous plot hole like that?

It's called a plot device. It's also why laser cannons aren't radar controlled, like the CIWS in service since 1979, the AMRAAM, in service since 1991, and the AGM-84 Harpoon, around since 1977.

Oh, and don't forget heat seekers like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and IR targeters like the M1. Abrams, since 1980.

There are more, and I've not even mentioned non-US systems, but you get the picture.

And how can we forget Noise In Space? Just tonight on SG:Atlantis, when a ship blew up, you could hear the explosion on other ships.

What ever happened to, "In space, no one can hear you scream."?

The reason I found it so funny was because I had the *exact* same discussion of this plot hole with my friends when we were last watching Star Wars

In deep space, you have to aim the parabolic antennae at the destination. Presumably, "subspace" transmissions would behave the same way.

Thus, all the Star Destroyer (or whatever) has to do is notice which direction the antennae was aimed, and go That Way.

How do you miss an enormous plot hole like that?

It's called a plot device. It's also why laser cannons aren't radar controlled, like the CIWS in service since 1979, the AMRAAM, in service since 1991, and the AGM-84 Harpoon, around since 1977.

Oh, and don't forget heat seekers like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and IR targeters like the M1. Abrams, since 1980.

There are more, and I've not even mentioned non-US systems, but you get the picture.

And how can we forget Noise In Space? Just tonight on SG:Atlantis, when a ship blew up, you could hear the explosion on other ships.

What ever happened to, "In space, no one can hear you scream."?

The reason I found it so funny was because I had the *exact* same discussion of this plot hole with my friends when we were last watching Star Wars

In deep space, you have to aim the parabolic antennae at the destination. Presumably, "subspace" transmissions would behave the same way.

Thus, all the Star Destroyer (or whatever) has to do is notice which direction the antennae was aimed, and go That Way.

How do you miss an enormous plot hole like that?

It's called a plot device. It's also why laser cannons aren't radar controlled, like the CIWS in service since 1979, the AMRAAM, in service since 1991, and the AGM-84 Harpoon, around since 1977.

Oh, and don't forget heat seekers like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and IR targeters like the M1. Abrams, since 1980.

There are more, and I've not even mentioned non-US systems, but you get the picture.

And how can we forget Noise In Space? Just tonight on SG:Atlantis, when a ship blew up, you could hear the explosion on other ships.

What ever happened to, "In space, no one can hear you scream."?

The reason I found it so funny was because I had the *exact* same discussion of this plot hole with my friends when we were last watching Star Wars

In deep space, you have to aim the parabolic antennae at the destination. Presumably, "subspace" transmissions would behave the same way.

Thus, all the Star Destroyer (or whatever) has to do is notice which direction the antennae was aimed, and go That Way.

How do you miss an enormous plot hole like that?

It's called a plot device. It's also why laser cannons aren't radar controlled, like the CIWS in service since 1979, the AMRAAM, in service since 1991, and the AGM-84 Harpoon, around since 1977.

Oh, and don't forget heat seekers like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and IR targeters like the M1. Abrams, since 1980.

There are more, and I've not even mentioned non-US systems, but you get the picture.

And how can we forget Noise In Space? Just tonight on SG:Atlantis, when a ship blew up, you could hear the explosion on other ships.

What ever happened to, "In space, no one can hear you scream."?

The reason I found it so funny was because I had the *exact* same discussion of this plot hole with my friends when we were last watching Star Wars

In deep space, you have to aim the parabolic antennae at the destination. Presumably, "subspace" transmissions would behave the same way.

Thus, all the Star Destroyer (or whatever) has to do is notice which direction the antennae was aimed, and go That Way.

How do you miss an enormous plot hole like that?

It's called a plot device. It's also why laser cannons aren't radar controlled, like the CIWS in service since 1979, the AMRAAM, in service since 1991, and the AGM-84 Harpoon, around since 1977.

Oh, and don't forget heat seekers like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and IR targeters like the M1. Abrams, since 1980.

There are more, and I've not even mentioned non-US systems, but you get the picture.

And how can we forget Noise In Space? Just tonight on SG:Atlantis, when a ship blew up, you could hear the explosion on other ships.

What ever happened to, "In space, no one can hear you scream."?

Both of these suffer from the same problem. They loop through the same type of fuel (electricity). This is never going to work. It's too inefficient when we are talking about large scale deployment.

In theory though, they could still be more efficient than the internal combustion engines. See the following article on modern diesel engines, and note the projected fuel cell efficiencies which include fuel production.

Having said that, the modern diesels look like a serious contender to FCs, since they are already available, are competitive in efficiency, and yield well to hybridization. Once cleaner diesel fuel starts rolling in look out!

...that The Gipper was buddy buddy with China and made an under the table deal with them to *not* pursue any SDI projects until after Ronnie cashed in his chips.

Well you know the kid doesn't live in the US, otherwise he would have allready been recruited by the US. Read here: http://www.fas.org/irp/wwwinfo.html (be sure to turn the volume up on your speakers). Usually though, instead of just recruiting kids, they want them to get a masters degree in engineering or computer science (or both) first. They will hire off the street if the virus code is of sufficient quality though. I'm sure someone has already contacted him. Made an offer. A nice older gentleman in a suit with polished black shoes, a quiet, unassuming manner, and eyes that seem to dart around, noticing everything around him. A man who doesn't mind walking down a lonely dark alley in a bad neighbourhood at night. He might even do it for fun.

Re:Maybe 4 bombs (Score:5, Informative)
by BigDogCH (760290) on Thursday July 07, @09:31AM (#13002483)

True, but lets not include Iraq in "the war on terror". According to the U.S. state department, Iraq was the only county in the middle east which did NOT have any al Qaeda connections.

.
.
.

At least the polls are starting to show that Americans have started to figure out that Bush is evil,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- V-

USAMA BIN LADEN,

.
.
.

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

.
.
.

You mean he went http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm> and the FBI busted down his windows!!??!?! Jesus. Take the paranoia level down a few notches. The FBI is not waiting outside your window waiting for you to glance at porn or say something mean about Bush so they can crash through your window. Further, if the guy did anything illegal, it was probably run a warez FTP server.

If you really want to take paranoia all the way, even if there are honeypot documents on the web, you can probably safely assume that you are not going to be able to google for them. Further, even if such a honeypot existed, if your average American stumbled into it, it would at worst result in a quick security check on your name, at which point they would realize you are a stupid pasty kid in the basement with about as much capacity to build a nuclear bomb as my dog.

No, if you want to get in trouble using someone else's open WiFi connection, throw up a warez FTP, or even just download a pile of copywrited music.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/

It's all in the exceedingly numerous reports from the last decade and a half. Sorry, there no single article or url that says "Lookee, Iraq had WMD that are now unaccounted for! Whee!" The fact of the matter is that the entire international community, including the intelligence capabilities of the US, the UK, most of the nations of Europe, Russia, and the UN itself agreed that Iraq had NOT provided proof that all of the weapons that it was known to be in possession of were destroyed, and indeed, that Iraq was never in full cooperation with UN inspectors. That the US did not *find* any said weapons after the invasion - a time at which we finally had the necessary control and capability to properly search - does not mean they never existed, or that they perhaps hadn't left the country long ago (e.g., to Syria), and also doesn't change the fact that Iraq was never in compliance, and never accounted for the weapons that were determined to be missing. This missing WMD amounted to over one thousand tons. Not a barrel or two here and there. Hundreds of tons of things like Sarin. Not just "possible WMD" or "WMD constituents" or "traces"...but real, WMD that Iraq was known to physically possess, but now cannot account for. If anything justifies the WMD argument, it's that not that we did not find any WMD, but WMD we know Iraq had is just fucking *gone*. Now who's got it? No better argument I can think of to have acted sooner...

You're also forgetting that the 700,000-some tons of non-WMD banned weapons (long range missiles, aircraft, etc.) that WERE found after the US invasion are merely symbolic of Iraq's defiance of the previous decade's worth of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions - resolutions that were FINALLY being enforced, unfortunately, without the rest of the Security Council members for whom the resolutions were apparently utterly meaningless.

Also, remember the recent WMD reports that you and others like to prance around with all the time concluded that no WMD were *found* in Iraq, and that further searching would not be productive. None of them conclude that no weapons *remain*, and indeed, none can say where the unaccounted-for weapons are.

Linq

Plus, Steven Aftergood has been publishing CRS reports for a while now. Here's what he has to say on why the CRS won't release 'em in the first place:

"CRS HAS NO PUBLIC MISSION"

Why aren't non-confidential Congressional Research Service reports automatically made available to the public? At first glance, the policy appears to reflect institutional arrogance or reflexive secrecy on the part of CRS and the Congress. But there is more to it than that, congressional officials say.

CRS repeatedly stresses that it works for Congress, and only for Congress.

"CRS assists every Member and committee," said Director Daniel P. Mulhollan in May 23 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. "All of our work is confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the needs of the congressional community. CRS has no public mission." By insisting on this point, CRS is distinguishing itself from the larger and higher-profile Government Accountability Office. More subtly, CRS is repudiating any comparison with the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was dismantled by Congressional Republicans in 1995, an event that is seared in the consciousness of CRS officials.

What CRS is saying is that it has no institutional agenda of its own aside from support to members of Congress, and that, unlike OTA, it takes no position on disputed policy matters.

CRS believes that its uniqueness as a congressional support agency, which constitutes its central claim to continued funding, would only be diluted by direct interactions with public consumers.

"Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS Director Mulhollan said in a written statement yesterday.

And the current congressional leadership apparently agrees.

"CRS has received clear indication from its oversight committees that no change in the current policy is authorized," Director Mulhollan wrote yesterday.

"It is important to recognize that while the restriction on public access to CRS products is frequently characterized as CRS 'resistance,' the reality is that the policy is a congressional one," he noted.

In any case, "As CRS obtains no copyright in its products, little can be done to discourage the trend toward further public availability of CRS products brought about without the permission of a Member or committee."

A 1999 CRS memorandum outlined several reasons why it believed direct public access to CRS products would have unfavorable legal and institutional consequences.

See "Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written Products," March 9, 1999:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html

Plus, Steven Aftergood has been publishing CRS reports for a while now. Here's what he has to say on why the CRS won't release 'em in the first place:

"CRS HAS NO PUBLIC MISSION"

Why aren't non-confidential Congressional Research Service reports automatically made available to the public? At first glance, the policy appears to reflect institutional arrogance or reflexive secrecy on the part of CRS and the Congress. But there is more to it than that, congressional officials say.

CRS repeatedly stresses that it works for Congress, and only for Congress.

"CRS assists every Member and committee," said Director Daniel P. Mulhollan in May 23 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. "All of our work is confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the needs of the congressional community. CRS has no public mission." By insisting on this point, CRS is distinguishing itself from the larger and higher-profile Government Accountability Office. More subtly, CRS is repudiating any comparison with the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was dismantled by Congressional Republicans in 1995, an event that is seared in the consciousness of CRS officials.

What CRS is saying is that it has no institutional agenda of its own aside from support to members of Congress, and that, unlike OTA, it takes no position on disputed policy matters.

CRS believes that its uniqueness as a congressional support agency, which constitutes its central claim to continued funding, would only be diluted by direct interactions with public consumers.

"Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS Director Mulhollan said in a written statement yesterday.

And the current congressional leadership apparently agrees.

"CRS has received clear indication from its oversight committees that no change in the current policy is authorized," Director Mulhollan wrote yesterday.

"It is important to recognize that while the restriction on public access to CRS products is frequently characterized as CRS 'resistance,' the reality is that the policy is a congressional one," he noted.

In any case, "As CRS obtains no copyright in its products, little can be done to discourage the trend toward further public availability of CRS products brought about without the permission of a Member or committee."

A 1999 CRS memorandum outlined several reasons why it believed direct public access to CRS products would have unfavorable legal and institutional consequences.

See "Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written Products," March 9, 1999:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html

Plus, Steven Aftergood has been publishing CRS reports for a while now. Here's what he has to say on why the CRS won't release 'em in the first place:

"CRS HAS NO PUBLIC MISSION"

Why aren't non-confidential Congressional Research Service reports automatically made available to the public? At first glance, the policy appears to reflect institutional arrogance or reflexive secrecy on the part of CRS and the Congress. But there is more to it than that, congressional officials say.

CRS repeatedly stresses that it works for Congress, and only for Congress.

"CRS assists every Member and committee," said Director Daniel P. Mulhollan in May 23 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. "All of our work is confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the needs of the congressional community. CRS has no public mission." By insisting on this point, CRS is distinguishing itself from the larger and higher-profile Government Accountability Office. More subtly, CRS is repudiating any comparison with the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was dismantled by Congressional Republicans in 1995, an event that is seared in the consciousness of CRS officials.

What CRS is saying is that it has no institutional agenda of its own aside from support to members of Congress, and that, unlike OTA, it takes no position on disputed policy matters.

CRS believes that its uniqueness as a congressional support agency, which constitutes its central claim to continued funding, would only be diluted by direct interactions with public consumers.

"Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS Director Mulhollan said in a written statement yesterday.

And the current congressional leadership apparently agrees.

"CRS has received clear indication from its oversight committees that no change in the current policy is authorized," Director Mulhollan wrote yesterday.

"It is important to recognize that while the restriction on public access to CRS products is frequently characterized as CRS 'resistance,' the reality is that the policy is a congressional one," he noted.

In any case, "As CRS obtains no copyright in its products, little can be done to discourage the trend toward further public availability of CRS products brought about without the permission of a Member or committee."

A 1999 CRS memorandum outlined several reasons why it believed direct public access to CRS products would have unfavorable legal and institutional consequences.

See "Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written Products," March 9, 1999:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html

Plus, Steven Aftergood has been publishing CRS reports for a while now. Here's what he has to say on why the CRS won't release 'em in the first place:

"CRS HAS NO PUBLIC MISSION"

Why aren't non-confidential Congressional Research Service reports automatically made available to the public? At first glance, the policy appears to reflect institutional arrogance or reflexive secrecy on the part of CRS and the Congress. But there is more to it than that, congressional officials say.

CRS repeatedly stresses that it works for Congress, and only for Congress.

"CRS assists every Member and committee," said Director Daniel P. Mulhollan in May 23 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. "All of our work is confidential and focuses solely, directly, and specifically on the needs of the congressional community. CRS has no public mission." By insisting on this point, CRS is distinguishing itself from the larger and higher-profile Government Accountability Office. More subtly, CRS is repudiating any comparison with the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was dismantled by Congressional Republicans in 1995, an event that is seared in the consciousness of CRS officials.

What CRS is saying is that it has no institutional agenda of its own aside from support to members of Congress, and that, unlike OTA, it takes no position on disputed policy matters.

CRS believes that its uniqueness as a congressional support agency, which constitutes its central claim to continued funding, would only be diluted by direct interactions with public consumers.

"Over time, CRS products might come to be written with a large public audience in mind and could no longer be focused solely on congressional needs," CRS Director Mulhollan said in a written statement yesterday.

And the current congressional leadership apparently agrees.

"CRS has received clear indication from its oversight committees that no change in the current policy is authorized," Director Mulhollan wrote yesterday.

"It is important to recognize that while the restriction on public access to CRS products is frequently characterized as CRS 'resistance,' the reality is that the policy is a congressional one," he noted.

In any case, "As CRS obtains no copyright in its products, little can be done to discourage the trend toward further public availability of CRS products brought about without the permission of a Member or committee."

A 1999 CRS memorandum outlined several reasons why it believed direct public access to CRS products would have unfavorable legal and institutional consequences.

See "Congressional Policy Concerning the Distribution of CRS Written Products," March 9, 1999:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/policy.html