Slashdot Mirror

It is an impressive development. But, so far, kudos largely to the Russian.

The BrahMos, a derivative of the Yakhont, was developed by a joint venture between India's Defence Research and Development Organisation and Russia's NPO Mashinostroyenia. Yahont is supersonic (Mach 2.5) with a range of > 300km. The modificiation to 280 km is mainly to bypass the nonproliferation treaty. Any missile with range > 300 km are considered to be strategic and Russia does not want to get into hot water by exporting that openly and thus enter the joint development.... It is reasonable to expect that the Indian contribution is more on the target recognition, seeker head rather than the aerodynamics side... They still have quite a long way to catch up. There are lot of know-how (processing technology, material selection etc) to be discovered.

Many of the developed countries have huge defense industries that recuperate a part of the cost of research by selling weapons in international market. India has probably lacked behind many developed countries in arms exports and hence, the cost of defense research comes more from taxpayer's money....

For statistical purposes, according to The Fedaration os American Scientists' Arms Sales Monitoring project, the United States has exported more than $152 billion worth of weapons to states around the world since 1990. Many of these sales have been to repressive and/or unstable governments.

Gamma radiation is emitted by the fission reaction and resulting product nuclei, not by the EMP mechanism. IIRC, EMP is actually caused by asymmetric gamma flux in a nuclear device accelerating electrons in an asymmetric pattern.


You're right - most ground-based or low altitude nuclear explosions have a symmetrical EMP flux, causing them to effectively cancel out. (Unless you happen to be within the blast radius, then you've got bigger problems)

A few high-altitude explosions over the pacific in the 60's caused havoc to (early) electronic stuff and power grids over a thousand miles away.

A quick google shows a mention of this

The fact of the mater is that a revolver can fire more rounds per second than an Assualt Weapon", the AKS just has more rounds to fire, and I have seen a revolver fire 16 rounds in under 4 seconds

even an M-16 cant beat that.

Cyclic Rate of fire: 800 rounds per minute

ooh and one more article by Morland. anon cause karma can bite me

You also obviously never cracked a book or else you would know that the French helped Saddam build a plutonium-enriching facility, which Israel destroyed for fear Saddam would have nuclear weapons within the decade. We'll never know for sure how much we owe Israel for doing that. They got their hands dirty and took the criticism of the world for it, just like the U.S. had to do in Iraq.

Actually, you can buy hi-res images of Area 51.

A ship a sea, absolutely. However, bandwidth varies wildly by platform. Carriers (and a few others) have Challenge Athena which is some serious pipe.

On the other hand, pierside, even the smallest ships quite often have T1 quality connections or better. While there are still excellent shore-side firewalls, a poorly managed shipboard network can be badly exploited.

All the Army Watercraft are not navy!
The Army Transportation Corps (wo)man the tugboats. They handle the ship to shore transport of equipment and supplies.

Not sure of the numbers now, but back in the 80s, the US Army has more watercraft than the Navy, more aircraft than the Airforce, and more grunts than the Marines.

Check FAS.org for more info on the "Army's navy"
Another good place for information on the Transportation corps is Ft Eustis

Egypt:
$1.2 billion - 24 F 16C/D Block 40 aircraft; 28 F110-GE-100B engines; 24 AN/APG-68 radar; Block 40 upgrade configuration to include integration capability to employ the HARPOON, Heads Up Display, Multiple Boresight Indicator, Egyptian Identification Friend or Foe, and Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System. Associated equipment, support, training, and services. (4/12/1999)

Saudi Arabia:
$9 billion - 72 F-15XP aircraft, 24 aircraft spare engines/modules, 48 sets of navigation and targeting pods, 900 AGM-65D/G MAVERICK missiles, 300 AIM-9S and 300 AIM-7M air-to-air missiles, 600 CBU-87 bombs, 700 GBU-10/12 bombs, missions planning systems, spare and repair parts, support equipment, technical documentation, technical and logistics services, personnel training, design and construction of supporting infrastructure and other related elements of logistics to ensure complete program support (9/14/1992)

United Arab Emirates:
$6.4 billion - 80 F-16 Block 60 Desert Falcon combat aircraft, with AMRAAM, HARM and Hakeem (UK) missiles (7/10/2000)

LPD-17 class ships (Landing Platform, Dock) are not themselves amphibious, but transport amphibious craft such as LCACs (Landing Craft, Air Cushion) and other vehicles used in amphibious operations.

For more information on these ships, see .

Well, what did you expect an USofAmerican to answer?

War is their business.
Its always been their business

Now, Im likely to be modded off topic or troll or something else altogether, but think for a moment. The USA has fought INNUMERABLE wars since its inception (does anyone dare to list them....?) and is #1 (by a very long long shot) in Arms Purchases* and Arms Exports.

*
2004 USA Arms budget: $401Billion
2004 "Potential Foes"(bad guys/evil ones/terrorists/tyrants/satan's warriors/communists/leftists/whatever/anti-capital ists/opponents-of-american-plutocratic-imperialism ): $130 Billion (Includes Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cuba)
2004 "Allies": $240 Billion (Includes the 18 countries of NATO other than the U.S.; also includes Japan)

So, USA spends almost equal amounts on ARMS as the rest of the world IN TOTAL....

In 1900's, when Wrights were building their planes, why *wouldnt* they think of war? While US of Americans like to believe they are peace-loving and fair "mind our own business" nation -- and are ALWAYS surprised when characterized otherwise -- are really a nation of War-Makers .... and have been for some time. Iraq and Afghanistan are *not* aborations, are not "special circumstance" but completely business as usual.... the Wrights knew it then, but were seemingly more honest about it.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Which one of David Kay's reports? Kay's most recent report conceded that there were NO production plants manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Some work had been done in the lab on bacteria, but they had not been weaponised.

Kay's belief on Iraq trying to manufacture centrifuges to make enriched uranium is not supported by the IAEA or the American Department of Energy.

whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs,

All of which were destroyed by the UN after the first Gulf War. Even the supposed 10 000 litres of anthrax is nothing more than the maximum amount of liquid growth medium that could have been created from the missing stocks - all of which would have expired now.

The only thing that brought those inspections to an end was that the very same David Kay had allowed his inspection teams to become covers for British and American intelligence. The Iraqis objected to spies wondering around their country under UN cover (and can you name another country that refused to allow intrusive inspections? Here's a clue)

Kay's spent much of the last few years saying what a great idea it would be to attack Iraq (here and here and here and here and here and here) to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. So if they aren't found, it's David Kay who is going to look stupid. He's already had to do some serious back-pedalling on the nuclear programme, centrifuges, those trucks that were supposedly mobile labs

The BBC's 'Panorama' got some good quotes out of Kay. I recommend a read of the transcript.

But why blame David Kay, here is an assessment of Saddam Hussein's capabilities straight from the top:

'He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'
Colin Powell. (24th February 2001)

Best wishes,
Mike.

a "few vials" wouldn't really count as "mass" destruction though, would it? take a look at the amount of chemical weapons the united states stores. there's a nice map available here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

these repositories range from 2,000 to 13,000 tonnes each. and there are nine of them.

that's a lot more than just a "few vials"

(nb: i am not sure how old this map is, but the us is not committed to destroying chem weapons until 2007... the purpose is to demonstrate that wmds are have "mass")

The key is that the frequency of the local oscillator varies, so if you can detect the output of the local oscillator, you can tell to what frequency the radio is tuned. I'm oversimplifying greatly, and the article I've referred to is a pretty rough overview - if you really want to know how this stuff works, you need to do some serious studying. :'}

Yeah, and read the last section; and I quote:

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

So _that_ is why you tried to get UN approval for an invation. That failed; but USA attacked anyway.
Clearly an illegal war.

If you believe the Federation of American Scientists (note: link to support page, but just because they don't have a seperate "who we are" page), then as of 2000-04-04, Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons. However, if you prefer to get your information from FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" then yes, Taiwan has acquired two nuclear warheads (this isn't Free Republic's research - this allegation comes from one "Jason Blatt" who appears to work/worked for the South China Morning Post - but I couldn't find the original article there...). Brought to you by google and the words 'taiwan', 'nuclear', and 'warhead'.

If you believe the Federation of American Scientists (note: link to support page, but just because they don't have a seperate "who we are" page), then as of 2000-04-04, Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons. However, if you prefer to get your information from FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" then yes, Taiwan has acquired two nuclear warheads (this isn't Free Republic's research - this allegation comes from one "Jason Blatt" who appears to work/worked for the South China Morning Post - but I couldn't find the original article there...). Brought to you by google and the words 'taiwan', 'nuclear', and 'warhead'.

>>second, china built the three gorges dam. they
>>power. and, it is impssible to defend from air or
>>missile attack. we could take it out in about 10
>>minutes. and they're fscking toast.
Please forget about it... It is a blind spot that somehow developed, first from critics within China who opposed the building of the dam (I don't think it is a good idea environmentally, but we are talking about military at this moment...), then spread to the newsgroups to Taiwan and blow out of proportion.

First, the three gorges dam is about 1000km inland... A Tomhowk cruise can only do 880km/h
The closest US base is not right next to China. I don't know where does the 10 min respond time come from... Also, whether you can use cruise missile to destory a gravity dam which is enforced with with 100 m of solid concrete is another question...

More importantly, the main "advantage" of bombing three gorge dam is the potential to kill tens of millions downstream by the subsequent flood. If the tactic is successful, I recommend everyone run for the nuke bomb shelter. Other than a first strike nuke attack, there is another very likely trigger for a nuke war: massive killing of civilian population by whatever mean. Just imagine Canada bombed New York with thermobaric bomb or whatever non-nuclear and killed 5 million people thru the initial blast and subsequent fire... Do you think US will think twice before using nukes?

A combination of AAA, Autonomous Advanced Algorithms and SAM systems, Secure Authority Message, designed to bring down any hostile airborne WLAN sniffer. Available in both US and Russian flavours.

A combination of AAA, Autonomous Advanced Algorithms and SAM systems, Secure Authority Message, designed to bring down any hostile airborne WLAN sniffer. Available in both US and Russian flavours.

So far, I believe, nobody has lifted (or at least admitted to lifting) a critical mass of fissionable material into orbit or beyond.

The Soviet Union did many times.

Link blatently stolen from a previous poster in this story.

While looking up the previous USA space fission reactor, I came across this interesting site: Nuclear Powered Space Missions - Past and Future.

The most interesting information here is about the accidents - which there have been a surprisingly large number of, including an incident in 1978 where a 20-25% of a Soviet fission reactor re-entered and was scattered across Canada.

I think the cruise missile approach is pretty scary. It's seems pretty hard to defend against. A model airplane (as with a suicide bomb truck) you can see coming and shoot down. But a compact metal cylinder travelling at 600kph carrying a 10kg warhead plus a load of unburnt jet fuel? Launched from 10 miles away and programmed to follow a deceptive path?

What do you do? Install CIWS on every vaguely military western compound in the world?

References:

1. Classification guidelines
2. More info on FOUO
3. Document marking guidelines
4. EO 12958, which gives the authority to classify information

You should remember that the men and women who defend this country do so largely without public knowledge of their activities and methods, for obvious reasons. They do so often at the expense of an orderly family life, friends they can confide in, and even their lives. They have strict rules by which they must follow, and make obligations which last them for the rest of their lives, even if they leave public service. A polygraph from time to time means nothing to them, nor did it to me when I was an applicant. If you're going to criticize polygraphs, or the people that take them, go right ahead, but please give some privacy to the hiring process for people who are out there risking their lives on your behalf.

If you feel that I'm a government shill, I invite you to apply for a position at the NSA, CIA, or DIA. It doesn't even have to be in Operations. I know for a fact that the government is looking for highly talented people like you.

I not sure how you got it into your head that you're an authority on this subject, but you're 100% wrong.

I didn't claim to be any kind of authority, I'm just writing what I know from my own experience and research. My original post was from memory, but this time I did some quick Google searches to backup my claims with some evidence. Anyone could learn this information on their own. However, I do know a few things about GPS:

• I've used several civilian GPS receivers, from handheld models for hiking or hunting, to a marine model mounted on a boat for fishing, to aircraft mounted models. In a geography class I took in college, we did some labs to observe variation in GPS readings, both over time at one location, and at the same time at different locations. It was very interesting.
• I'm a surveyor by trade, and have used different types of differential GPS surveying, like post-processing, telemetry-based, and now real-time kinetic.
• I'm an Air Force veteran, and have training and field experience with the Rockwell PLGR handheld (the term handheld being used very loosely) GPS receiver, which can decode the P signal when using the decryption key. (Read this [scroll down to multi-color highlighted paragraph] to see how carefully the key is protected.)
• While I was in the Air Force, I took the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) course called: Mapping, Charting and Geodesy for the Warrior (scroll to bottom of page).

I still don't claim to be any kind of expert on GPS, but I probably know more than your average person.

I'm not about to give out anymore information than is publicly availible on the 'net, but I suggest you start with those two sites. The Zyfer site has a number of highly informative PDF's.

My point is that they DO give out military GPS receivers (and codes, duh) for select non-military applications. The first site was one which sells these revievers.

Did you actually read any of the PDFs on the site you reference? The very first PDF on the page has this to say:

• Under FEATURES -> GPS Reveiver:
  • Standard 8-channel C/A
  • Optional SAASM PPS (for approved users)
• Under the model description: the FEI-Zyfer GSync can provide you with either Standard Positioning Service (SPS) GPS or the very latest in GPS technology SAASM PPS GPS receivers (for DoD authorized users only).
• Under SPECIFICATIONS -> Reference Options: Standard GPS (SPS C/A) 8 channel, (L1)
  SAASM GPS (PPS, C/A P-Y) For approved users (L1/L2)

So the evidence you're citing actually undermines the point you were trying to make.

If you look at the lists on that second page, you can see a list of projects which have these recievers.

The projects listed on that page are DOD projects. Obviously, the corporations manufacturing the devices need access to the decryption key to test their products. But, like all defense contractors working on classified projects, every employee who needs access has to obtain the appropriate DOD security clearance.

That you'

The interesting thing is that, as the Russians plug the holes in their nuke shield, the USA dismisses its equivalent deterrent. The Peacekeeper. This is a large MIRV missile which was forbidden under later treaties. But ever since the USA stepped down from the ABM treaty, Russia has threatened to develop MIRV versions of Topol-M. Hence the USA is dismissing its most recent deterrent. Which by the way, is less survivable than Topol-M since it is only silo-based. The railroad version was never put into use AFAIK. Topol-M is silo, railroad and road based. It has more survivability because the bases are mobile.

Topol-M also features a maneuverable warhead to evade anti-missile systems by presenting a non-ballistic terminal trajectory.

The Russians also have better anti-missile systems in the shape of the S-400 Triumf. Some of their anti-missile systems can also be fitted with tactical nuclear warheads to ensure a better kill ratio.

This means the USA's nuclear deterrent now mostly consists of the submarine launched nukes (i.e. Trident).

The interesting thing is that, as the Russians plug the holes in their nuke shield, the USA dismisses its equivalent deterrent. The Peacekeeper. This is a large MIRV missile which was forbidden under later treaties. But ever since the USA stepped down from the ABM treaty, Russia has threatened to develop MIRV versions of Topol-M. Hence the USA is dismissing its most recent deterrent. Which by the way, is less survivable than Topol-M since it is only silo-based. The railroad version was never put into use AFAIK. Topol-M is silo, railroad and road based. It has more survivability because the bases are mobile.

Topol-M also features a maneuverable warhead to evade anti-missile systems by presenting a non-ballistic terminal trajectory.

The Russians also have better anti-missile systems in the shape of the S-400 Triumf. Some of their anti-missile systems can also be fitted with tactical nuclear warheads to ensure a better kill ratio.

This means the USA's nuclear deterrent now mostly consists of the submarine launched nukes (i.e. Trident).

They have solids as well. For e.g. the *very* interesting Topol-M. There are a bunch of older Soviet era solid rockets as well. There are still many storable liquid propellant ICBMs and other old ICBMs in the Russian arsenal, but they are being progressively replaced by Topol-M.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Aircraft status: "oh shit!"

The pilot made it back, sucseeded in landing, and the aircraft was repaired to full flightworthy status. Altough, I'm not sure on the 48 hour turnaround time.

A similar story is here

I also saw an article on another A-10 that was on almost constant missions during Desert Storm and saw a tremendous amount of action. When the ground crew finaly got her in the hanger for maintence they they went over her and counted over 1,400 impacts on the outer skin from weapons of various calibers, from small arms to AAA.

The only A-10 that I heard of being shot down, was during Gulf War II. Where a doomed A-10 was running a mission near the airport in Bagdad and got nailed with a lucky shot from an Iraqi firing a RPG (an anti-tank weapon, mind you).

For more information on A-10s go here and here.

It doesn't seem to have gotten much better. There is a reason the A-10 is in the US inventory; helicopters are flaky. Their slow at low altitude, big and soft. Rifle bullets will break things and make a mission very unpleasant.

with minor corrections:

It doesn't seem to have gotten much better. There is a reason the A-10 is in the US inventory. Helicopters are flaky, the're slow at low altitude, big and soft. Rifle bullets will break things and will make a mission very unpleasant.

Here's a link and another for no paticular reason

Nah, I don't have a link to that picture (I've got it on CD, but I'm not sure if I can redistribute it). But I did dig up some more info... I think it was the TARPS program (photo gallery), but it might have been an improvement on it. My image was 4x+ more detailed than this one - altitude, slant angle, and camera all play a big role in determining this. It wasn't really my project, but I got the picture because my computer was the only one that had enough RAM to hold the entire image at once. It might have been a similar program, like TARS and ATARS (see how I'd get confused?!) - we were just a subcontractor that handled the recorder interface and didn't get a lot of mention in the press.

Nah, I don't have a link to that picture (I've got it on CD, but I'm not sure if I can redistribute it). But I did dig up some more info... I think it was the TARPS program (photo gallery), but it might have been an improvement on it. My image was 4x+ more detailed than this one - altitude, slant angle, and camera all play a big role in determining this. It wasn't really my project, but I got the picture because my computer was the only one that had enough RAM to hold the entire image at once. It might have been a similar program, like TARS and ATARS (see how I'd get confused?!) - we were just a subcontractor that handled the recorder interface and didn't get a lot of mention in the press.

Nah, I don't have a link to that picture (I've got it on CD, but I'm not sure if I can redistribute it). But I did dig up some more info... I think it was the TARPS program (photo gallery), but it might have been an improvement on it. My image was 4x+ more detailed than this one - altitude, slant angle, and camera all play a big role in determining this. It wasn't really my project, but I got the picture because my computer was the only one that had enough RAM to hold the entire image at once. It might have been a similar program, like TARS and ATARS (see how I'd get confused?!) - we were just a subcontractor that handled the recorder interface and didn't get a lot of mention in the press.

Nah, I don't have a link to that picture (I've got it on CD, but I'm not sure if I can redistribute it). But I did dig up some more info... I think it was the TARPS program (photo gallery), but it might have been an improvement on it. My image was 4x+ more detailed than this one - altitude, slant angle, and camera all play a big role in determining this. It wasn't really my project, but I got the picture because my computer was the only one that had enough RAM to hold the entire image at once. It might have been a similar program, like TARS and ATARS (see how I'd get confused?!) - we were just a subcontractor that handled the recorder interface and didn't get a lot of mention in the press.

We have tools better suited to finding a ship or submarine than a donkey. Visit FAS and become familiar with them.

Maybe you don't know this, but the EU nuclear forces (France and the UK) that can reach the US could be taken out by a first strike.

According to FAS and the Royal Navy the UK nuclear forces consist of the four Vanguard class SSBNs. The RAF no longer has nuclear weapons, nor does the UK deploy ICBMs.

Likewise, the French nuclear option (that can hit the US) consists of four SSBNs. Neither country has ICBMs anymore.

Assuming that only half of these boats are on patrol at any time we can take four of them off the board right away. We also have the means to engage and destroy the ones at sea.

It's also worth noting that the only two countries in the world that currently have the means to detect an inbound ballistic missile (reliably and with enough time to do anything about it) are the US and Russia. These are the only two nations in the world that can't be taken out with a first strike. It should also be noted that sooner or later we will have a missile defense system of some sort -- and it will (in all likelihood) be enough to negate the EU nuclear option (all the moreso when you consider the fact that we can easily destroy at least half of the EU nuclear force with a limited first strike). Are the UK/France really ready to invest the tens of billions that would be required to build a nuclear force that can't be taken out/negated (all the moreso to go after an allied country)? I doubt it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if it really came down to it we could take out a large majority (if not all) of the EU nuclear force -- if we really had to. You can't even put a dent in ours. Assuming that some of your nuclear force survived, you'd have the ability to hurt us very badly (not counting for missile defense). We'd still have the ability to utterly destroy you. Something to keep in mind...

Of course, I would also make the point that the chances of the US/EU fighting a war anytime in the future seem pretty far-fetched and I like most of my European friends ;)

There have been ZERO reports of civil liberties violations. Now move along. There is nothing to see HERE.

Ready-made dirty bombs are driven in trucks all over the country. GREAT IDEA.

Such activities go on right now, with other equally dangerous, lesser known radioactive materials. In fact, there's a website about it. With the amount of planning one would need to hijack a truck with nuclear waste, one could very easily break into a food sterilization plant, or steal the radioisotopes from an oil well monitoring righ, or buy a stack of $6 smoke alarms. Nuclear shipments are handled pretty securely. I suggest you stop acting all paranoid about that one vactor which already had fairly adequate security, and start concerning yourself with other radioisotopes.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Who cares dude? Check out these hot MILFs. Now those are motherfuckers I'd like to 'fuck'. YEahh

2000 lb HE bombs contain only 945 lbs. H-6 or Tritonal explosive. Most of the weight is...steel, for fragmentation.

Also, 4 bombs hitting approximately the same place a few seconds apart doesn't have the same concentrated overpressure of the equivalent amount of HE sitting in one compact pile and detonated at once.

Never mind the fact that the explosion forces from bombs falling from several hundred feet have a significant downward vector that tends to drive some of the overpressure downward rather than outward. Downward becomes upward after the shockwave rebounds off the ground. Hence, a lot of the explosive force comes right back upward, not outward like a static explosive charge might have. (That's the reason for 1,000 pounds of iron in those 2,000 pound bombs: carry the lateral explosive force more effectively in the form of high-speed projectiles.)

The solution is to find ways of evolving the structures of the Internet faster than the parasites can evolve.

No, the solution is a sustained artillery barrage at several key locations.