Slashdot Mirror

Should we really be so shocked? Haven't nuclear weapons been present in the middle east for over 3 decades now, in Israel?

I think you're being naive here.

Many wide eye groups like this are funded by formal governments to do the dirty work that accomplishes their goals while giving them semi-plausible deniability.

It is widely rumored that the Taliban were practically created by the Pakistani ISI. The government of Pakistan is not alone in this behavior. The US and Soviet governments did similar sorts of covert support during the cold war.

At some point, however, some country is going to have an "accident" with a nuke and it's going to get used by those who have few qualms with setting it off.

The risk is real. The only question is whether the NPT is still an effective tool or whether there ought to be some other foreign policy to replace it.

Of course they wouldn't be able to keep them secret, just like the Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy has been declassified.

If anything vegatables and milk should be intentionally irradated as is commonly done in Europe to:

...reduce their vitamin content, add toxic radiolytic products like 2-ACBs, and attempt to compensate for unsafe food handling practice that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place? Not to mention increasing the availability of radioisotopes that are perfect for a "dirty bomb"?

Yes, there are ignorant folks out there who think that irradiation makes food radioactive, which is plainly wrong. That does not mean that irradiation does not have deleterious effects.

it could be as easy as determining regional weak points, and a terrorist cell can launch BLU-114/B carbon filament warheads in enough areas simultaneously to cause a cascade blackout. the technology has already been in news in Taiwan.

(man i can't wait to get that phone call from Homeland Security tonight.)

First off, the fourth amendment border search exemption does not include correspondence, and only applies to people or cargo coming into the country, which was the reason for my pretzel logic comment.

Actually, yes it does. The courts deem customs officials may also search "any trunk or envelope, wherever found," in which they have "reasonable cause to suspect"9 there is merchandise imported contrary to law. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted "any trunk or envelope" to include all international mail entering the United States. (Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606)

I call BS. I think you pulled that out of your ass. Specifically established exceptions to the 4th amendment did not enter into law until the Rehnquist court. Please cite specifically any other legislation or rulings that establish exceptions. I'm thinking you can't.

What is it with you and your inane lack of ability to do the slightest bit of searching for historically correct information. Now listen to me carefully, it's not hard to do a google search and you should at least attempt to find out if you are wrong before showing the world that you are.

FYI, the word regulated is the inflected form of regulate.

The phrase isn't regulate or regulated. It's "well regulated" (and you can add militia to it too), it's a prefatory clause, and it has the meaning I said. It's explained competently in the DC Heller case. I suggest you spend a few minute reading it before charging at windmills again.

When it comes to the DC gun case, Justice Stephens pretty much tore the ruling opinion apart with his dissenting opinion. Remember, this was a contested ruling. The right wing activists won 5-4.

Actually, no he didn't. I suggest you actually read it all, including all the references and citations. Justice SCALIA,addressed Justice Stephens dissent and actually supported his rejection of those arguments with citations not only in law, but state constitutions, english laws, and understood dictionaries as well as literature at the time the amendment was created. He even compared Justice Stephens' dissent with other provisions in the constitution which specifically mention a right held by the people and pointed to the absurdity of the clause if it were interpreted the same way. This isn't a left right political decision and it isn't some activist decision. You have been wrong about almost everything else and you are wrong here too. Again, read the fucking decision- all of it.

At the very least, no matter how much you say you think you know about civics and the law, I'm going to take a supreme court justices word over yours every time.

And Justice SCALIA, addressed those words competently and even showed how incompetent that analysis is when compared to other constitutional provisions and matters of law. Like I said, read the entire fucking opinion.

The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action as president concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.

He didn't do it of his own free will, and his past is competently indicative of his future. Or are you going to claim he was a liar until now that you somehow find one instance that he was pushed into politically advantageous?

Just ask you, you'll tell me, huh? What a laugh. You accuse ME of not paying attention that's a laugh and a half. Here is the video you linked to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2V

Do you consider general Taguba, who conducted investigation of Abu Ghraib valid source?

His reliability is irrelevant, because the argument which you created based on his testimony is a red herring. The question wasn't whether every single American citizen conducts himself in accordance with international treaties - the question was about policy.

Here is the official policy. Look at conclusion, last paragraph - it is enough to claim "necessity" to provide justification for about any treatment, event that prohibited by Convention Against Torture.

Most relevant here is article 5, talking about spies and saboteurs ... Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Well, first off, it doesn't say that they have any rights, only that they should be treated humanely. It doesn't promise them a trial, either, it just talks about how trials should be conducted if we decide to have them.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Part of the quote you removed states: "They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person ..."
Besides you are setting up a strawman here. No matter if they "have rights" or "should be treated humanely" these rules were broken. Or maybe you consider rape (see Taguba's report) or multiple detainess beaten to death humane? If so, then despite your signature you probably are an American.

In addition to that, this section only deals with captured locals. If you capture, say, a Syrian fighting in Iraq, this section doesn't apply to him.

Also, the argument could easily be made that a good percentage of the fighters are mercenaries, in which case the conventions don't apply to them at all.

That's interesting assertion. Do soldiers from UK and other countries that got dragged into this mess by USA are covered by the convention? They are also not "local" to USA-Iraq war. What about hordes of mercenaries from companies like Blackwater?

Lastly, the conventions are hopelessly outmoded. Personally I think they need to be scrapped and either rewritten or abandoned entirely. But that's just a personal opinion, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.

Unfortunately I have to agree. The conventions are good thing in principle, but in fact they are enforced only against weak countries.

Like Iraq which ratified it in 1956?

Who's fighting Iraq? The American war against Iraq lasted a few weeks - a couple months at most.

Not really. It just changed into guerilla war. This happens about every time when occupational force has overwhelming advantage but local population don't want to just roll over and die (or obey puppet regime installed by their new masters).

That should have been made obvious by the fact that the militants keep blowing up Iraqi police officers, soldiers, and government officials, in addition to torturing and subjugating civilians. Again, this is a situation which the conventions fail to address.

"Iraqi police officers"? Guess what French guerillas were doing to Vichy collaborators during WWII. And they are considered national heros nowadays.

Great source you linked to, very thorough in it's data. It's layout and readability leave much to be desired, however.

Unfortunately, despite that, you're still wrong. It *is* remotely true, though not for the reasons stated. The data you linked to even correlates with what I'm about to explain.

Air-to-air rules of engagement during the Gulf War required two separate means of identifying an aircraft as hostile. These means could be different IFF systems, visual, or anything. so long as they were separate.

Now the ROE didn't require visual contact per se, as has been stated. However if you go over that list, you will note that all BVR kills, except for one BVR kill by an F-16 on 17 January 1993 (two years after the end of the Gulf War) were by F-15s.

The F-15 was the only fighter in the coalition forces at the time of the war that was equipped with two separate electronic means of identifying an enemy aircraft.

So in effect, the ROE for everything else was "double check visually". F-15s had a secondary system they could use. The U.S. Navy was not happy about this, and complained loudly at the time that it was why the Air Force racked up the lion's share of the kills.

I don't have them with me to check now, but I'm 99% sure that these ROE are explained in one of two excellent books regarding the Gulf War either Every Man A Tiger by Tom Clancy and General Chuck Horner, (Schwarzkopf's deputy who commanded the Gulf Air War), or Prodigal Soldiers by James Kitfield.

Both are good reads regardless of where the info is from. Particularly Every Man A Tiger as it's much more air component and Gulf War-centric. Kitfield's book kind of examines how we went from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, and how much impact Vietnam had on how we fought the Gulf War. I believe it goes fairly deep into ROE, but it's been years since I've read it.

I just did some Googling, and found some confirmation here as well. Scroll down to, or ctrl+f for "Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Rules of Engagement (ROE)". It's explained there.

I'm getting besides the point though. The AC's point may be technically wrong, but in practice, it's nearly true. We've only been in *one* modern air war since 1980. The Gulf War. And during that war, all but one aircraft were required to visually ID an enemy aircraft before firing. So he or she is correct with one big exception.

"He was also responsible for the X-33;"

Yes, whatever did happen to that critter?

For that matter, whatever happened to Ronald Reagan's Orient Express?

Why has NASA spent most of the last 30 years building advanced hypersonic test vehicles which never quite seem to make it into civilian production? Are they doing test work for USAF black planes? I mean well of course they are, but might there be some kind of underlying plan they're not talking about? It's interesting to me how hypersonics seems to be one of those research topics which has been around since WW2 and never quite breaks the surface.

Do not attribute to stupidity what can be explained by paranoia, I guess I'm saying.

The causes of the X-33 program failure are the subject of considerable debate. Here are several good sources of information. You can see that the program received criticism from the GAO, and other sources. I've seen several references to the DoD effort to fund the flight test program, and that request being over-ruled by the Bush administration. I can't recall if these sources below include that claim or not, but you can probably find one or more if you use Google.

excellent X-33 overview
X-33 VentureStar what really happened?
New Mission for Lockheed Spaceplane?
X-33 and NASA's Proposed 2001-2005 Space Launch Initiative
GAO: SPACE TRANSPORTATION Status of the X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program
GAO: SPACE TRANSPORTATION Progress of the X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program
NASA Defends Itself Against X-33 Critique

I think bombing random people in Bogota probably qualifies them as terrorists. They seek political power and don't consider attacking civilians taboo. They are as much terrorists as e.g. the IRA and ETA.

Kim Jong-il is 68 years old. N. Korea has no ICBM technology. The nation is the poorest excuse for an enemy that the US has had in hundreds of years.

N. Korea is under constant scrutiny - we can, and would, eliminate that nation with a first strike. We don't need to develop yet another weapons system to deal with a caveman....

They haven't tested succesfully, but that doesn't mean they never will.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/Taepodong.html

David Wright at the Union of Concerned Scientists has done an excellent analysis of the Taepodong-2 based on the CSS/Nodong configuration. He calculates that the Taepodong-2, used as a ballistic missile, could deliver a one ton payload to a range of 6,000 kilometers, which would allow it to reach Anchorage, Alaska, and, with a 500 kg payload, the missile would have a range of 9,000 kilometers, putting San Francisco within range and all U.S. cities along the Pacific coast north of there.

The Threat

The Taepodongs are large liquid-fueled missiles. As currently configured, they are operated like space launchers, with long assembly times, and launched from fixed, above-ground launch pads. The missiles are expensive for a country as impoverished as North Korea so unlikely to ever be produced in large numbers. These missiles only make strategic sense if they are intended for a limited number of high leverage targets. Almost nothing is known about the accuracy of either of the Taepodongs. Even with a one ton payload, if the payload is a conventional explosive, accuracy of at least several tens of meters is needed before the weapon becomes useful in a direct military role. A conventional warhead could be used to target cities and kill civilians to terrorize a population.

A one ton payload of chemical or biological agent could have a much broader effect and the accuracy of the missile is far less critical. North Korea is known to have the ability to produce both chemical and biological agents. South Korean and U.S. military forces are well protected against chemical and biological attack so, again, the direct military effect would be limited while civilians would remain vulnerable.

The North Koreans have tested a nuclear explosive. The yield of their single test was equivalent to 400 tons of TNT, or 0.4 kilotons. This is less than a tenth the explosive power of most first nuclear tests, yet still a large explosion by conventional standards. Nothing is known publicly about the extent to which the explosive has been weaponized, for example, the size and weight of a potential nuclear warhead. Some have speculated that the small yield indicates a failed test, especially given that North Koreans previously alerted some Chinese officials of a test and predicted a much higher yield. Others have suggest that the explosion might not have been so much of a test as an experiment; The North Koreans might have approached the problem from the perspective of fitting a warhead on an available missile, they made due by designing a warhead as large as would fit on the missile, and then tested it to measure the yield. If this is the case, then their weaponization process could be far advanced. Building a heat shield for the warhead that can survive reentry is a technical challenge and the Koreans would almost certainly want to test that with a missile flight test. Even with an explosive force of 400 tons of TNT, the Taepodongs would have limited direct military application, especially in the very limited numbers and with the accuracy they are likely to have. But a 400 ton warhead would be a frightening weapon if used against civilians in a city, likely to destroy many city blocks and create a lethal cloud of radioactive fallout.

Actually NK is pretty much the optimal adversary for the ABL. Even when they get the missile to work they will have a small number. The US could pro

Orion was a fascinating concept, but the approach isn't scalable on a very important axis -- number of flights per year. Sure, you could launch a lot of payload with one launch, and that might be useful from time to time, but getting to orbit on demand at a lower cost than we can do today is more important. If we invest, at a consistent steady pace, we can build systems to reduce the cost of getting to orbit. If we invest in technologies like VASIMR, we can reduce the amount of fuel we need to haul up to LEO to get somewhere else, which has a very nice multiplier effect.

Reducing the cost of access to space will make it possible to do many things, great, interesting, useful, economically beneficial, and fun. Rather than a few trips to the Moon a year, and a trip to Mars once or twice, and then nothing for fifty years, we could have ongoing routine exploration, manned and unmanned, expanding our reach, for the same price. Focused and continued R&D is the key. We have come tantalizingly close to setting the right, attainable goals, and nearly reaching them, with the X-33, VentureStar project, which sought to develop a set of specific technologies in such a way that the end result would be a transportation system. Had we stuck with it, we would have it by now, at a cost which would have appeared to be modest by STS standards. More importantly, it would liberate substantial sums which are currently hostage to the operational budget of the STS. Other technology approaches to similar cost-per-kilo performance and reduced operational cost are possible, such as Skylon. Unfortunately, the Orion / Aries approach is not designed to meet these goals, and will never achieve meaningful increases in flight rates.

Even tiny sums of investment and tiny prizes have stimulated technologies like electromagnetic rail launch (pioneered with a grass roots donation campaign, which funded research spanning decades, by the Space Studies Institute) and tether climbers for space elevators. Even a well-funded, focused R&D effort might not bring an Earth to orbit space elevator for a long time, but without the effort it will certainly take longer. A fascinating intermediate step would be a space elevator from the lunar surface to lunar orbit. No atmosphere or weather to contend with, shorter elevator system and smaller gravity well. The payoff would be dramatic reductions in fuel mass required to sustain a base on the lunar surface -- a huge multiplier effect.

Spending on research like this takes place on Earth. The benefits would be substantial. Now is the right time to start.

"So you are saying that dumping water from one ocean to another would potentially lead to the development of new technologies? "

"Potentially" is an important word in that sentence.

What's happened to the space technologies that have ALREADY been paid for? Do we have any idea? NASA and USAF sure seem to have invested a whole lot of money doing.... stufff... which they don't seem to want to talk about and which never quite gets 'finished'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-30
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/examples.shtml

But I'm sure it's all in the public interest.

"What happens if it becomes just as cheap to get into space as it does to fly a cargo jet around the country?"

Very little? Because you can grow, eg, corn and soy and cotton and cattle on Earth but you can't grow much in hard vacuum?

Regular readers of my comments will know that I'm highly critical of NASA. However, it's important for enthusiastic supporters of space exploration to understand that private industry, left to its own devices, is not likely (is, in fact, extremely unlikely) to fund the R&D required to build the next generation of space transportation system. Getting to LEO is a big, big project. Much bigger than the trans-continental railways. Private corporations do not have the vision required for long term investment on this scale. They have quarterly numbers to meet, impatient and risk averse investors and managers.

The entire global investment in privately funded launch programs, if combined into a single program, is probably still a bit shy of appropriate funding for a single modern system, say, the Skylon program.

What we need is rational, visionary, intelligent and consistent policy, with consistent and rational funding to back it up. Governments, funding the next generation of launch systems required to get to orbit more reliably and more cheaply (through agencies like NASA, or maybe DARPA) will need to be involved.

But they need to be directed and funded to do the job, and do it with the right goals in mind. The X-33 VentureStar program had the right goals and the right plan for reaching them. (Skylon's goals are similar.) Private industry (Lockheed Martin) was instrumental in helping to define those goals, by the way. The original long range plan for the X-33 program involved a privately operated fleet of launch vehicles, VentureStar. NASA's role was to fund initial risk reduction (technology development) in the X-33 program, and probably subsidize the initial construction of the vehicle fleet at some level (through guaranteed purchases of payload delivery).

X-33 Venture Star (discussion archive in which X-33 engineers participated)
X-33 Venture Star (more archived discussion)

A smart approach would be to fund development of both Skylon (about 12.5 tons to LEO) and X-33/VentureStar (about 25 tons to LEO). The systems are designed to fit different parts of the launch market. They should be developed jointly, so they can use common subsystems, such as compatible payload support for example. The combined systems would begin to create a private launch market, with a much more flexible delivery of payload to space.

"NASAâ(TM)s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is applying Recovery Act funds to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. These efforts are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to economic growth as capabilities for new markets are created. By developing commercial crew service providers, NASA may be able to reduce the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability. All ARRA funded activities must comply with its provisions and will conclude no later than September 30, 2010."

This is yet another Stupid NASA Trick. Are they serious? At this level of funding, which wouldn't even pay for the airlock on the Orion capsule, a private contractor is going to "bridge the gap" that NASA created? If NASA hadn't killed promising R&D programs like the X-33 (VentureStar), we would already have replaced the Shuttle with a system which reduced flight costs substantially, improved safety and reliability, has shorter turn-around times, and can fly more often. Which, by the way, is what is needed to help stimulate a growing space economy. It all depends on reduced cost of, and increased reliability of access to orbit. Constellation isn't going to provide that. COTS, (and this new bit, given a new name to keep 'em guessing) are funded at levels so low as to guarantee NASA will never face competition from the private companies which win these bids. This is not a joke, it's a charade.

If the objective were to create a private market for access to space, NASA could do this easily. All they need to do is announce that they will buy payload to LEO delivery services from the private market, at market rates. Right now market rates for a single launch of a modest payload are higher than the total size of this program.

NASA probably spent more than this on artwork and publicity for Contellation / Orion / Aeries.

... Immune attack

http://fas.org/immuneattack/download

THIS game if it was made in higher definition would be fantastic, I remember being intrigued while playing this game and thinking what would happen if you got professional game developers making stuff like this.

There's nothing quite like moving around your immune system and zapping bugs that really reenforced remembering stuff.

Sigh. You're wrong. Standard form 312 is perfectly enforceable, as many people who have been prosecuted and sued into oblivion have found out to their despair.

You know, the whole point behind those attacks was not to destroy the West, or wipe us off the map, or any of that rubbish.

The main demands the Al Quaida originally made were that US forces withdraw from Saudi Arabia, and for Palestine to be recognised and given equal support to Israel. That was before every fundamentalist nutjob in Islam was invoking the name Al Quaida though ( PDF here, for reference).

I'm sorry to say, no matter what the media would have you believe, these guys aren't SPECTRE. They just want to be left alone. Throw rocks at a wasps' nest, and what do you expect to happen?

warriors/ship-driver-wannabes here:

http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64b7-205.html
(read the Bleed Air section and the Prairie Air section beneath it...)

good views are in:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/prairie.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/index.html

To add to the good comments that prop is the noise introducer from other components in the shaftline, readers (who read, that is) might be interested to see this:

http://www.gibbscox.com/nsv.htm

Shock mounting in the hull helps absorb certain frequencies of noise that otherwise would be emitted.

This one has nice pretty colors for those who are visually-oriented.

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/KBay/backgroundnoise.htm

Now, for those wanting to know what a ship looks like under the stresses of the sea, and you think it's a huge honkin' piece of unbending steel, look at page 13 in:

http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wuc94/p01994.pdf

But, for all of you having wet dreams about the 16% fuel savings, keep in mind it is "UP TO", it's by NO means guaranteed. Considering volatility in fuel prices and potentially unstable regimes providing oil, some circles see smaller lightweight nuc plants as a viable alternative.

(From above: http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/ )

warriors/ship-driver-wannabes here:

http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64b7-205.html
(read the Bleed Air section and the Prairie Air section beneath it...)

good views are in:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/prairie.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/index.html

To add to the good comments that prop is the noise introducer from other components in the shaftline, readers (who read, that is) might be interested to see this:

http://www.gibbscox.com/nsv.htm

Shock mounting in the hull helps absorb certain frequencies of noise that otherwise would be emitted.

This one has nice pretty colors for those who are visually-oriented.

http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/KBay/backgroundnoise.htm

Now, for those wanting to know what a ship looks like under the stresses of the sea, and you think it's a huge honkin' piece of unbending steel, look at page 13 in:

http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wuc94/p01994.pdf

But, for all of you having wet dreams about the 16% fuel savings, keep in mind it is "UP TO", it's by NO means guaranteed. Considering volatility in fuel prices and potentially unstable regimes providing oil, some circles see smaller lightweight nuc plants as a viable alternative.

(From above: http://blog.marport.com/2009/06/ )

There's a big difference there. Back in the day, the policy used to be that surplus was sold to the people, since it was there's to start with. For example, after WWII, my dad bought a surplus 03A3 in perfect condition. Now, 66 years after it's manufacture date, it's still in perfect condition, only being fired occasionally to prove it still works.

    Civilians had no problem buying surplus weapons, demilitarized aircraft, etc. The more modern approach to the advanced systems are to destroy them when they're retired. modern aircraft don't enjoy the same fate. There are still various things that can be purchased, but it's not like the "good old days", where you could buy some decent stuff.

    I've been watching government auctions, and a lot of the stuff cannot leave base until it's destroyed. For example, there was a lot of copper wire and pipe. I believe it was several tons. A provision on that sale was that it had to be destroyed on site. We're not talking about anything that could of been of any intelligence value. Just wire and pipe. There are some vehicles that are sold in somewhat serviceable condition, but most of those are civilian vehicles used in a government capacity. Specialty government vehicles are usually in such poor shape that they're only good to tow from the auction to the scrap yard for their metal value.

    There are plenty of provisions tied to almost everything now. Consider something like the Sea Shadow (IX-529). Sure, they're giving it away for free, but that's only once the Navy considers who it's going to, and knows that it's going to be on static display in a museum of their choosing. That means you can have this cool boat for free, but you can't take it out for a cruise, and they're not going to let just anyone have it. I'd pretty much guarantee that there are no engines, or electronics on board anyways, so what you get is the shell.

The USN has been using nuclear reactors for decades. They've pretty much concluded that nuclear power is too expensive for everything except aircraft carriers (submarines are another matter, nuclear affords them the ability to stay submerged for months, unlike all other forms of propulsion). Recent developments may change this: fossil fuels are getting more expensive, and current reactor designs don't require refueling (which is horrendously expensive, since you have to cut open the ship). Still, nuclear ships require expensive personnel (nuclear engineers).

Reactors with the kind of output power the Navy needs, are pretty big. Count on 1000+ tons. See FAS for more info.

Happy now dickshit?

The DOD table followed a fact sheet published by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in April 2004, which stated: "Among the nuclear-weapon states, China...possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal." Since Britain has declared that it has less than 200 operationally available warheads, and the United States, Russia, and France have more, the Chinese statement could be interpreted to mean that Chinaâ(TM)s nuclear arsenal is smaller than Britainâ(TM)s.

Link

"The central limits in START I are a limit of 1,600 strategic offensive delivery systems (launchers for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers) and 6,000 attributed warheads"
91139: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I & II): Verification and Compliance Issues

Yup. I'm not sure where the OP got the 200-300m notion.

Go ahead, bomb your city and see what happens.

I stand slightly corrected. According to this:

"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. This was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.[4]"

So, it was started by Ford, and confirmed by Carter.

It does appear that Carter was a major proponent of this and escalated this position: warning, pdf file

There are two historical examples.

The first is Ukraine, which inherited some fraction of the Soviet stockpile, which they turned over to Russia in exchange
(IIRC) for Russia assuming Ukraine's portion of the Soviet Union's international debt and various treaty obligations.

The second is much more interesting, and less widely known -- South Africa. The Apartheid South African government developed a nuclear capability in the 1970s, primarily as a deterrent (they only ever had a few bombs), and made it known through secret channels that, were the Union of South Africa threatened militarily (e.g. by Communist forces in Angola), they were prepared to strike back hard. The government later joined the NPT, and dismantled their nuclear capability, and no longer have an arsenal. They do still have the capability and materials, of course.

There was a good write-up in "Foreign Affairs" magazine several years ago, and the FAS has this on the topic (which doesn't exactly match my summary above, so I may have mis-remembered it...)

On the DOE side of things, hard drives don't get wiped, they get shredded.

I thought they got "lost" behind photocopiers first? Joking, joking!

(No, we won't ever let you forget it.)

I seem to have struck a nerve, so be it, I think I am in better company as regards what happens once you have a large permanent standing army, rot, corruption then tyranny and dictatorship set in, and human misery knows no bounds then. Here's a few quotes:

James Madison: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." and.."A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Patrick Henry: "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?"

"[The Declaration of Independence] listed the colonists' grievances, including the presence of standing armies, subordination of civil to military power, use of foreign mercenary soldiers, quartering of troops, and the use of the royal prerogative to suspend laws and charters. All of these legal actions resulted from reliance on standing armies in place of the militia."

source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp

General Smedley Butler: "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." source: http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

General and then President Dwight Eisenhower: "Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence

^ As one article puts it, referring to information Seaborg gave in a talk: "The obvious choice for the symbol would have been Pl, but facetiously, Seaborg suggested Pu, like the words a child would exclaim, 'Pee-yoo!' when smelling something bad. Seaborg thought that he would receive a great deal of flak over that suggestion, but the naming committee accepted the symbol without a word." Clark, David L.; Hobart, David E. (2000). "Reflections on the Legacy of a Legend: Glenn T. Seaborg, 1912â"1999" (PDF). Los Alamos Science 26: 56â"61, on 57. Retrieved on 2009-02-15 http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818011.pdf

"Yep. I reckon an American pilot in a Boeing could have just flipped a switch and fixed all that. They'd all be relaxing with cold ones as we speak."

Airbus have a rep for not letting the pilot control the plane or giving back control at the last and worst possible moment. But we don't know if the Brazilian crash has anything to do with this.

I'd like to see a computer know to, and successfully land in the Hudson though!

The argument about "Fly by wire" vs "manual control" may be inconsistent with the fact that the US has the longest serving fly by wire aircraft in his inventory now, and the article states "[...]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."
Granted, military aircrafts are very different from large commercial aircrafts, but I suspect that it will be very difficult to pin down the cause of the accident on computers per se. After all, Fly by wire is 70's technology, incorporated in aircrafts built to withstand EMP pulses from nuclear explosions....

on the other hand, it could be a fault in the software logic.

A few automated stations around the world that would observe the sky for moving objects automatically and record anything about the unidentified ones ...

GEODSS has been operational since the mid-1980s, doing just that. Pairs of 40-inch telescopes automatically scan the sky. The controlling computers have a star atlas and know what's supposed to be where. Everything else gets reported. They can even detect a completely black object if it occults a star.

Some of the GEODSS sites have lasers to illuminate satellites. One telescope is used to aim the laser beam, while the other takes a picture.

This is useful for finding satellites and near-earth asteroids. But there are only three GEODSS sites (there were once seven, but budgets have been cut), they only operate at night, they're all in remote high-altitude locations with low cloud cover, and the telescopes only have a 2 degree field of view. So they're not likely to pick up aircraft-like targets. GEODSS is for finding stuff in orbit and beyond.

War is hell, the bathroom is that way.

In response to Senator Brownback (R. Kansas)

ALBERTO GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
Source

Maybe you meant to say "authorization to use military force is hell, the bathroom is that way."
/The last time the USA declared War, it ended with two nukes killing 200,000 people

You make it sound as if the US is the only country doing this. European nations have a history of spying on US corporations going all the way back to the 1960s (particularly France, although a lot of nations are guilty of this). If anything, the US has shown remarkable restraint, since we basically ignored allied spying until the end of the cold war. It's only in the past decade or two that we even considered retaliating, as evidenced by excerpts from the Congressional Record.

Talking about this probably? http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Thank you for the correction. It's a bit overkill to say I "don't have the slightest clue" what I'm talking about. Airspace over New York City and Washington DC was restricted by Operation Liberty Shield. The restriction put in place then is still in effect for Washington, but apparently the restriction around New York city was rescinded. Sorry I wasn't accurate as to the current status, as I'm not a pilot.

The op-ed page of the local fishwrap had another suggestion; Every US-flagged merchant ship should have a Phalanx gun with a Navy operator. When the pirate ship approaches, the navy man turns it into wood chips and fish chum in a few seconds. Bingo, no more pirate problem.

There's still a big USAF black budget, and it doubled during the Bush years. The question is whether much useful is coming out.

If the US was operating the SR-71 Blackbird, an aircraft that is using 25% of it's engine power, to *cruise* at mach 3 almost 40 years ago I would have little doubt that it's replacement is at least twice as fast. One thing is for certain I doubt we will know what the actual capabilities are for another couple of decades.

This replacement aircraft is allegedly the SR-91 Aurora. I recently watched a documentary by a reporter from a Jane's Defence Weekly who showed weather satellite image of a 'doughnut on a rope' contrails starting at Groom Lake, extending across the United States, over the Pacific Ocean and out of camera range of the the satellite. The conjecture is that the aircraft has been in service for many years and powered by Pulse Detonation Engines. Estimates from an examination of the photo suggests the aircraft was moving at roughly Mach 8.

The development budget was apparently concealed in the budget for the B-2, who knows if it's true but I'd say that the existence of the SR-91(?) Aurora(?) if far more likely than little grey men. Then again who really knows anything in super secret compartmentalised spy world, I'm just a geek who'd one day like to see the technology involved. Here are some more links for those interested.

You ignore 30 years of history with Iraq from about 1970 to shortly before the invasion. There's evidence, for example, that if Iraq had held off for a couple of years on invading Kuwait that they would have had nuclear weapons in 1993. They also have a history of using chemical weapons both on Iranian troops and on their own people. My take is that sure in 2003, Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. But it is foolish to assume that they wouldn't restart it as soon as international pressure and observation went away.

I wasn't that familiar with that part of Iraqi's history, so I did some research. You are indeed correct that Saddam had a decent nuke program in 1992. The program would have taken at least 3 more years, so there would not be a weapon until 1995. A nuke in 1993 would only be possible if they seized the uranium that was under UN safeguards, which would have been a major incident that Saddam clearly didn't want (or he would have seized the uranium).

We are discussing the 2003 situation however. At that point all Iraqi uranium was safeguarded. Why would the UN ever stop safeguarding that uranium? The IAEA was created to monitor nations like Iraq.

They had the knowledge, they probably had a good portion of the equipment too, hidden away in Sudan or Syria, along with the other military assets (primarily their air force) they routinely shipped out before any war.

Do you have any evidence to prove that the air force and other military assets were shipped to Sudan or Syria? AFAIK that never happened, but was simply implied/assumed/made up by various untrustworthy people.

This just underlines my point. Iraq had invaded two neighbors in the past 30 years. They had a long history of developing WMDs including nuclear weapons. They had used chemical weapons and killed thousands. Nobody else in your list has invaded anyone in the past 50 years or used WMDs to kill.

The war with Iran was supported by the US, who also supplied WMD's to Iraq for use in that war. Saddam only began the war with Kuwait because he thought that the US wouldn't mind. He offered to withdraw later, on the condition that he was allowed sufficient time to keep his defensive front intact. This was disallowed by the US. So it seems clear to me that Saddam was receptive to western concerns and there is no reason to assume that Iraq could not be kept in check.

Also, you ignore the huge difference between the Iraq of 1980 vs 1991 vs 2003. In 1991, Iraq was virtually bankrupt. In 2003, Iraq couldn't start any major war or risk one by attacking a smaller neighbour. They had no useable WMD's. So what was the justification for attacking Iraq if it wasn't a threat.

And what punishment has the US faced for violating this "international law"? It's not a law, if there are no consequences for breaking it. This is the fundamental problem with current international law.

The US has been punished for WTO violations, where the WTO has authorized retaliatory tariffs. Various countries have been punished by UN security council resolutions, by instituting sanctions or authorizing war. Obviously, countries with a veto (such as the US) can never be punished there. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is very young and their first trial has only begun this year (of course, they punish individuals, not states). It is possible for US nationals (such as politicians) to be tried by that court under certain conditions. The penalty is jail time. The US has passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizing the president to start a war against The Netherlands to free US personnel from ICC custody. It also instructs the government not to cooperate with the court (although the president can choose to do so). Of course, there have also been special courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which ha

You might want to check you're math.
The current main weapon in the United States nuclear arsenal is the W88 on a Trident II
The Trident II is capable of having 8 W88s
A W88 is a 475kt warhead which gives it an effective area roughly the size of a medium sized city.
Now remember that there are 8 of those on each missile.
Now remember that on actively deployed submarines there are roughly 400 Trident II missiles.
The destruction that a small subset of the US nuclear arsenal is capable of would be more than enough to level almost any country.
You might find this interesting btw http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/cvpmrjan/sld001.htm Yep. The windows computers are actually just "watching" stations that monitor the network, but they are connected, and therefore somehow could pose a threat. This slideshow doesn't have info on the windows computer as they are a pretty new addition to the network... but I found the info somewhere, sometime.

From what I've heard, Suse is the DoDIIS recommended Linux distro. IDK if this happened before or after the MSFT/Novell deal.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/core/dodiis.htm

Would you be surprised at this point? Israel has nukes and a secret chemical and biological weapons program. Israel has more nukes than France and are 1/10th the size in population. That is the only thing holding back the Arab states from running them over with their combined forces in this day and age. Israel is increasingly an untenable state, for the fact that when anyone who does not like them manages to get nukes (i.e. Iran) a single 100kt nuke would be enough to cripple the country and 10-20 to make the entire country glow like the surface of the sun. Israel is too small to have nukes, they are undeclared and have unknown capabilities in range and destructive power. I am more scared of hard right wingers in Israel coming to power than Iran at this point as the constant disregard for human life in Palestine shows that Israel would do anything to survive and that could mean doing crazy shit like targeting Europe or the United States if we attempt to force a 2-state solution.

The newer AIM-120's can be truck mounted. Not trivial, but it works.

From the webpage: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/09/fr091406.html Other ships that are currently available for donation include: (1) Patrol Combat ex-CANON (PG 90), Philadelphia, PA. (2) Guided Missile Destroyer ex-CHARLES F. ADAMS (DDG 2), Philadelphia, PA. (3) Destroyer ex-CONOLLY (DD 979), Philadelphia, PA. (4) Destroyer ex-EDSON (DD 946), Philadelphia, PA. (5) Submarine ex-TROUT (SS 566), Philadelphia, PA. (6) Guided Missile Cruiser ex-TICONDEROGA (CG 47), Philadelphia, PA. (7) Aircraft Carrier ex-RANGER (CV 61),Bremerton, WA.

No, he's not, he's bringing-up both types in the same reply.

He casts-off RTGs immediately because their power output sucks, and then he dismisses naval fission reactors because (1) they're huge and (2) you need a way to remove the waste heat.

Unfortunately, efficiently creating mechanical/electrical energy from heat requires a large temperature differential. Once you've used-up all the energy you can and the temperature drops, the remaining energy is waste heat, and must be removed from the system. Naval reactors work well in this situation: they have an unlimited supply of cool water to remove waste heat. But on a cable in space, the heat has nowhere to go, except perhaps along the cable (who knows if cable material would make a good heatsink).

As long as this puppy and these guys are in operation, I doubt the aliens will miss us, although the information content of radar beams may call our intelligence into question!

As long as this puppy and these guys are in operation, I doubt the aliens will miss us, although the information content of radar beams may call our intelligence into question!