Slashdot Mirror

And they just completed Ardent Sentry, a drill where 4 simultaneous catastrophes occur in the US/North America... May 10-16.

Ardent Sentry
And the Command and Control Structure of the JTF-CS

The JTF-CS was the ones running the Live Fly exercises on 9/11/2001.

Names, please? Name one terrorist caught or one attack averted due directly or indirectly to the NSA having these phone records.

Can I have an estimate of how many lives have been saved so I can weigh that against the loss of privacy and/or potential abuses?

That's ok, I'll wait for the answer...


Here's one example:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/milleni um-plot.htm

You can Google for the rest yourself.

Its been around and been commercial. The AVLIS program at Livermore Labs was a commercial venture. The problem has been that there is so MUCH enriched uranium around that you can't sell the stuff even if you make it very cheaply. Overview article at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-laser.ht m

The guys at the CIA running the US effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan defined victory for the muj as survival. By that measure the Iraqi freedom fighter^H^H^H terrorists are winning.

Rumsfeld is a kook and his vision for a new US military is bankrupt.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021129 -sbct.htm

The Iraq war is about profiteering.

The article misses an important point, I think. It speaks about the full spectrum of US involvement in Iraq as if it were all one affair. The invasion was successful in that American forces rapidly toppled the Iraqi government and defeated those Iraqi forces that presented resistence. That was a purely military operation, and the American technology that was designed for high-intensity conflict worked quite well.

The long-range goals of a peacemaking operation are often unclear; therefore, these operations are best terminated by prompt withdrawal after a settlement is reached, or by rapid transition to a peacekeeping operation (see Chapter 4) . Unless the peacemaking force has the necessary power, both military and political, to compel a lasting settlement, it may find itself attempting to govern in the face of opposition from both parties. Extrication from such a situation may be difficult and the force may leave the area having made the situation worse than it was before it intervened.

Low-intensity insurgency/counterinsurgency operations have always been markedly different than all-out war. Technology is not the force multiplier that it is in high-intensity operations. The most important factors in the success of counterinsurgency operations are political. Troops on the ground are constantly engaged in diplomacy, as the article demonstrated. But soldiers and marines do not conduct their negotiations in a vacuum. If the larger political context is not positive, soldiers confronting insurgents are fighting an uphill battle.

In Iraq, the locals know the physical environment. They know the cultural environment intimately. They know the individuals and organizations that influence a particular area. Regardless of sectarian schisms, they share a common religion. Technology gives occupiers no advantage in dealing with these advantages enjoyed by insurgents. Getting involved with the locals and making them feel comfortable often requires taking some risks in order to demonstrate good intentions. The American approach, which emphasizes technology and force protection above all else, may actually hinder the development of trust between locals and American forces.

The larger issue is that while Saddam placed his trust in generals who only gave him news he wanted to hear, the Secretary of Defense seemed to feel that American warfighting technology would win the war and somehow obviate the need for occupation of Iraq. As we have found out, the miscalculation was enormous.

See for example this discussion of IEDs used against the troops in Iraq.

not to nitpick either, but those Russkie defence systems are useless against most US weapon systems that rely on the kinetic penetrator concept (though they MIGHT snap the rod of a TOW missile, the latter being the cheapest weapon of choice here).

If you're going to nitpick, you might want to know what you're talking about, first :-)

The earliest generations of Eexplosive Reactive Armor (ERA) were not effective against Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot weapons (APFSDS, KE weapons, aka long-rod penetrators), but later generations of Soviet ERA were (and are) quite effective against KE weapons. Kontakt-5 "Heavy ERA", for instance, utilizes a hinged flyplate which snaps off the front the penetrator and induces significant yaw (tumble) in the remainder. This loss of length reduces the KE penetrator's ability to defeat the passive armor underneath the ERA (hypervelocity long-rod penetration is proportional to rod length, see Anderson's and Odermatt's publications. It is common practice in penetration studies to normalize penetration figures to P/L (the ratio of penetration depth to penetrator rod length)). Kontakt-5 was first fielded in 1985, so ERA that protects against KE weapons has been with us for a while.

The most modern APFSDS use a segmented rod which minimizes the impact of this kind of ERA, but ERA has advanced in the meantime too. The very latest design, the ukranian Nozh ERA uses linear shaped charges to cut the penetrator, potentially in multiple locations down its length, and also induces yaw.

Also, the TOW missile uses a shaped charge to achieve penetration, and is not a KE penetrator. It has no "rod" (unless you're talking about the spur for the detonation probe, which sticks way out in front so that the shaped charge can detonate an optimal distance from the target). TOW missiles are vulnerable to Drozd, ARENA, and all of the various flavors of ERA used today, qv:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/tow.htm

-- TTK

The rest of the world spends $500 billion, while the US spends $466 billion(not counting the cost of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afganistan.) So what is it like to see the world through eyes? I doubt you even have it open.

Example 1: End of day, tank destroyed by IED. Never meant to claim all the crew will be killed in every attack. Just that even the most armoured tanks can be destroyed by IEDs.

Example 2: Here is the full page of Sept 05 casualties. See # 17, 18, 19. Agreed all casualty info is pretty vauge, but having the entire tank crew of an M1A1 killed "when an IED detonated near his M1A1 Abrams tank during patrol operations" should at least help get across the point that even M1A1s can be taken out by IEDs.

Example 3: Not sure... I downloaded it and it showed the attack.... Not sure what when wrong. Anyway, it doesn't show the aftermath of the attack but shows what they are up agaist as it does show the explosion and what at least seems to be tons of tank pieces tossed into the air.

IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank

Not really true. True for the REALLY unsophisticated IEDs, but they have IEDs that nothing we have can defeat. DoD is urgently working on this now, but the amount of high explosives (and shape charges) they are using in close proximity even an M1A1 cannot withstand.

example
example
example

Chekc out the current budget (summary), it gives you an idea of how nasa needs much more funding and how a lot of it is being squandered on the shuttle and the ISS.

Nasa Budget 2007 proposal:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget

Nasa 2003 - 2008 budget request
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/budget /fy2006-nasa/index.html

"One aircraft dropping two precision-guided bombs sufficed to destroy
a power-generation station's transformer yards. During the Second
World War, in contrast, the Eighth Air Force found it took two full
combat wings, a force of 108 B-17 bombers (flying in six combat
boxes of 18 aircraft each), dropping a total of 648 bombs (six
1,100-pound bombs per aircraft) to guarantee a 96-percent chance of
getting just two hits (the minimum necessary to disable a
power-generating plant measuring 400 by 500 feet). Thus, by the time
of the Gulf War, a single strike airplane carrying two smart bombs
could function as effectively as 108 World War II B-17 bombers
carrying 648 bombs and crewed by 1,080 airmen. Further, using the
number of bomber sorties in the Second World War required to
disable just two power stations, the coalition disabled the transformer
capacity of every targeted power-generation facility in Iraq."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/1999/air-power-v2-5.pdf

Oh, and the Carrier fires...

This is a little outside the 30 year limit, but very important to the discussion at hand

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/cv-59.htm
"On July 29, 1967 the USS Forrestal was operating off the coast of Vietnam, when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. The bomb exploded, causing a massive chain reaction of explosions fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike. Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on lower decks. This was the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS Franklin (CV-13) was bombed in WWII: 134 lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Forrestal was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. A Zuni rocket was accidentally launched on deck (due to an electrical problem), hitting a parked A-4, and igniting its drop tank. The fire then spread to other aircraft, and bombs began to explode on deck. The fire burned for 13 hours, killed 134 crew and caused the loss of 21 aircraft, some of which were pushed overboard before the fire reached them. 7 holes were blown in the flight deck. Repairs took 7 months, requiring complete removal and reconstruction of the aft section of the ship down to the hangar floor. This was the worst carrier fire in postwar years. The ship has carried the nickname "Forrest Fire" ever since. Films shot during the fire are still show in the course of basic training for all sailors"

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Oriskany was operating off Vietnam at the time of the fire. Two sailors were storing flares in a space at the starboard forward corner of the hangar deck. One of the flares lit accidentally, and the sailor threw it into the locker and closed the hatch. The locker contained 650 flares, which quickly lit. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the ship and killed 44 men. The entire forward section of the ship from the hangar floor up was gutted."

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/
"Enterprise was operating off Hawaii at the time. The sequence of events was similar to the Forrestal fire, starting with a rocket overheating due to exhaust from a flight deck vehicle and "cooking off". The rocket hit another aircraft, which ignited and touched off a flight deck disaster. The fire was put out within 4 hours. Damage, although severe, was less extensive than that caused by Forrestal fire. The nuclear powered USS Bainbridge was one of Enterprise's escorts, and according to one of her sailors she vastly surpassed her rated speed of "30+" knots while racing to the carrier's aid. The next day the frigate escorted the carrier into Pearl Harbor, and the atmosphere was said to be not unlike prevailing mood when the previous USS Enterprise (CV 6) returned to Pearl Harbor the day after the Japanese attack. "

There have been a good number

USS Cole
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy /ddg-67.htm
"At 11:18 on the morning of October 12, 2000, as USS Cole (DDG 67) was refueling in Aden Harbor, Yemen, suicide bombers detonated an explosive-laden boat directly against the port side of the ship. The resulting blast killed 17 Sailors, wounded 37 others, and tore a hole forty by sixty feet in the ship's hull.

In the aftermath of the explosion, the crew of USS Cole fought tirelessly to free shipmates trapped by the twisted wreckage and limit flooding that threatened to sink their ship. The crew's prompt actions to isolate damaged electrical systems and contain fuel oil ruptures prevented catastrophic fires that could have engulfed the ship and cost the lives of countless men and women."

USS Stark

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy /ffg-31.htm
"During the 1987 deployment, Stark was struck by two missiles fired by Iraqi aircraft. The fires that resulted claimed 37 lives and wounding 21. Today the only remaining sign of this tragic event is the memorial engraving mounted in the midships' passageway, which lists the names of the lost shipmates.

The frigate was heavily damaged and could only be saved by the effective help of the crew."

ARA Belgrano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking _of_the_Belgrano

On May 2 the World War II-vintage Argentine light cruiser ARA General Belgrano -- formerly the USS Phoenix (CL-46), a survivor of the 1941 Pearl Harbor attacks -- was sunk by HMS Conqueror, using WWII vintage design Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes. 321 lives were lost, although initial casualty reports were confused. In all, 323 Argentines died, half of all their War losses.

HMS Sheffield

Two days after the General Belgrano sinking, on May 4, the British lost the Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield to fire following an Exocet missile strike. Sheffield had been ordered forward with two other Type 42s in order to provide a radar and missile "picket" far from the British carriers. After the ships were detected by an Argentine Navy (ARA) P-2 Neptune patrol aircraft, two ARA Dassault Super Étendards were launched, each armed with a single Exocet. Refuelled by a C-130 Hercules shortly after launch, they went in at low altitude, popped up for a radar check and released the missiles from 20 to 30 miles (30 to 50 km) away.

In addition there were casualties due to mining in the Persian Gulf during the 1980s and Desert Storm I'm too tried to look up :)

There have been a good number

USS Cole
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy /ddg-67.htm
"At 11:18 on the morning of October 12, 2000, as USS Cole (DDG 67) was refueling in Aden Harbor, Yemen, suicide bombers detonated an explosive-laden boat directly against the port side of the ship. The resulting blast killed 17 Sailors, wounded 37 others, and tore a hole forty by sixty feet in the ship's hull.

In the aftermath of the explosion, the crew of USS Cole fought tirelessly to free shipmates trapped by the twisted wreckage and limit flooding that threatened to sink their ship. The crew's prompt actions to isolate damaged electrical systems and contain fuel oil ruptures prevented catastrophic fires that could have engulfed the ship and cost the lives of countless men and women."

USS Stark

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy /ffg-31.htm
"During the 1987 deployment, Stark was struck by two missiles fired by Iraqi aircraft. The fires that resulted claimed 37 lives and wounding 21. Today the only remaining sign of this tragic event is the memorial engraving mounted in the midships' passageway, which lists the names of the lost shipmates.

The frigate was heavily damaged and could only be saved by the effective help of the crew."

ARA Belgrano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking _of_the_Belgrano

On May 2 the World War II-vintage Argentine light cruiser ARA General Belgrano -- formerly the USS Phoenix (CL-46), a survivor of the 1941 Pearl Harbor attacks -- was sunk by HMS Conqueror, using WWII vintage design Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes. 321 lives were lost, although initial casualty reports were confused. In all, 323 Argentines died, half of all their War losses.

HMS Sheffield

Two days after the General Belgrano sinking, on May 4, the British lost the Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield to fire following an Exocet missile strike. Sheffield had been ordered forward with two other Type 42s in order to provide a radar and missile "picket" far from the British carriers. After the ships were detected by an Argentine Navy (ARA) P-2 Neptune patrol aircraft, two ARA Dassault Super Étendards were launched, each armed with a single Exocet. Refuelled by a C-130 Hercules shortly after launch, they went in at low altitude, popped up for a radar check and released the missiles from 20 to 30 miles (30 to 50 km) away.

In addition there were casualties due to mining in the Persian Gulf during the 1980s and Desert Storm I'm too tried to look up :)

CVs are designed to operate for 50 years, Destroyers and Cruisers for 25-35 years generally. There are upgrades done to the American Carriers when they go in for Refueling Complex Overhauls and Mid-Life Upgrades.

"The Navy plans 33-month nuclear refueling Refueling Complex Overhauls for its Nimitz-class carriers beginning with the USS Nimitz in fiscal year 1998. On 01 May 1998 Newport News Shipbuilding was awarded a contract by the US Navy to perform refueling and overhaul work on the USS Nimitz (CVN 68). The contract, valued at approximately $1.2 billion, was signed by Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding officials on April 30, 1998. Nimitz, the lead ship of the class, is also the first of its class to undergo this major life-cycle milestone. The ship arrived in late May 1998 and the work performance period was scheduled to last approximately 33 months. In addition to the refueling of both of the ship's reactors, significant modernization work includes a major upgrade of the island house that will involve the shipyard removing the top two levels of the island house and replacing them. This action is driven by the installation of a new antenna mast that runs down along the island and will provide for better radar capabilities. The shipyard is also integrating a new radar tower aboard Nimitz. The Navy elected to overhaul the Nimitz without adding cooperative engagement, integrated ship self defense, the advanced combat direction system, the rolling airframe missile, the AN/SPQ-9 navigation radar, a common high-band data link, the battlegroup passive horizon extension system, an outboard weapons elevator, conversion of nuclear magazines, emergency ordnance handling, and improved propellers. More than 3,200 Newport News Shipbuilding employees will be working aboard Nimitz during peak periods of the overhaul and refueling project."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/cvn-68-mods.htm

Hey. This is nothing. The Brits are planning to stick a ramjet onto an air-to-air missile. I mean, come on, that's cool, right?

The Chinese don't invade countries, going all against the UN, without a single thread of evidence for the alleged cause, like it happened in Iraq ("Weapons of mass destruction") and has it happened in Vietnam.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that in 1981, the USSR was doomed. How old are you? were you even alive in 1981? Did you hear about the Moscow Olympics of 1980?

Maybe I'm buying into undeserved hype, but when I think back to the beginning of the 1980's, I remember a very strong USSR which was very much the threat to the world stage and to the US in general. Maybe it was all a sham, but me and the rest of the American Public don't recall it that way.

Even if you believe Scott Shane, this doesn't answer the question of Why the Soviet Economy was crumbling. "But it's the specter of SDI that apparently had become a major fixation in the minds of both the Soviet strategic defense hierarchy as well as Gorbyachev himself." from "The Fall Of The Soviet Union: Whys And Wherefores" http://www.raleightavern.org/lovell.htm kinda points towards Reagan's SDI as one of the reasons for this Economic collapse. Another point made was that something like 15-16% of Russia's GNP was being spent on defense by the end of the 1980s. by contrast we were spending something like 5-6% of our GDP http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative- size.php and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/mo-budget.htm.

so, care to say that the USSR was going down anyhow? It sure didn't feel like that to me in 1981.

Ira

The real selling point to countries like Australia is that they get more advanced versions of the software, electronics, and sensors -- the parts responsible for lethality and survivability to a very large extent -- which are one of the real strengths of US military R&D.

The US has no competitor at the very high-end of the quality/effectiveness market

On December 3rd, U.N. Security Resolution 794 authorized the U.S. led intervention "to use all necessary means to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia as soon as possible." The US Army participated in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia from 03 December 1992 to 4 May 1993. On 09 December 1992 the United States Marines came shore in Mogadishu and quickly established an expeditionary infrastructure to facilitate security and the delivery of food to the starving Somalis. On December 11th, the Marines established a Civil Military Operations Center (CMOC) and collocated it with the U.N.'s Humanitarian Operations Center (HOC). By doing this, the CMOC quickly became the national focus point for NGO/U.S. military coordination.

-Eric

...when your power goes out, you can still get on with your life.

In the big black-out in the northeastern U.S. in 2003, people who absolutely relied on Internet access/email/etc. were suddenly paralyzed. The withdrawal symptoms were sad to watch. If you really want to interrupt the Internet, forget DoS attacks: just cut the power.

Anyway, I make my living online, but I'm offline more than not. I don't want to be efficiently working ALL DAY LONG; I want to work when I have to, and spend the rest of the time with my spouse and kids, doing non-electronic things. Cook. Draw. Read. Hike. Camp. Wrestle. Play chess or poker with real material objects. Take a nap.

We don't need to do that - the tech exists to coat radiators with a catalytic coating that will clean the air as you drive.
http://www.engelhard.com/documents/1999-01-3677.pd f

If they took the money they spend on sucking up to oil companies (and car companies http://www.evadc.org/news.html ) and handing over pollution credits to them http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/4682 9/article.html http://www.houstonmopars.org/noscrap.html and trying to kill the hobby of automotive work... ...then we could easily have a state full of NEVs (Negative Emission Vehicles) - the state could retrofit existing vehicles with the new radiators.

But the politicos would never do that, just like Arnie et al pussed out on the big solar bill that he could have signed when he first took office http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=36390 - it would have put California far ahead in terms of distributed solar PV usage. No politicians have the guts to do something on the order of the "National Defense Highway System" http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/nd hs.htm , Rural Electrification System, Golden Gate Bridge, Hetch Hetchy, etc.

Percentages don't show raw hard numbers though. Sure the percentage of the GDP of some country might be larger... but in dollars spent the US is still on top, and thats what you should look at when comparing countries.

2004 Expenditure in the United States: $466 billion USD.

I don't care if its a smaller percentage than Greece (6.12 Billion USD), because $466 billion USD buys a whole hell of a lot of bombs.

You need to meet the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. link

In particular, the LRA abducted numerous children and, at clandestine bases, terrorized them into virtual slavery as guards, concubines, and soldiers. In addition to being beaten, raped, and forced to march until exhausted, abducted children were forced to participate in the killing of other children who had attempted to escape.

[---]

The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments

Religious fanatism is always bad - and the name of the current popular god is of no importance. I always get a kick out of hearing Bush saying "God bless America" after having done a speech about those evil moslems (sorry, terrorists - they all are, right? sigh) and their god Allah ... can someone please tell him it's the same god ... ?

They go up about 800-1200 km, then come back down on the other side of the planet or within 6,000-plus miles of thier launch site. An ICBM is going approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/lgm-30_3 -specs.htm

Since we're on suborbitals, Sprint was a pretty cool system for missile interception. Sprint was a marvel of aeronautics and space technology reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds. Built by Martin Marietta, it was designed to operate at hypersonic speeds in the earth's atmosphere; at its top speed, the missile's skin became hotter than the interior of its rocket motor and glowed incandescently. To make the launch as quick as possible, the cover was blown off the silo by explosive charges; Then the missile was ejected by an explosive-driven piston. As the missile cleared the silo, the first stage fired and the missile was tilted toward its target. The first stage was of very short, almost explosive, duration. The second stage fired within 1 - 2 seconds of launch. Interception at an altitude of 1500m to 30000m took at most 15 seconds. The electronic components of the Sprint were designed to withstand accelerations of 100 times gravity. The missile was 27 feet long, consisted of two stages, and used solid fuel. Sprint carried an ER nuclear warhead of a few KT.

Now the NASA has gotten into 'competition' maybe they could review some older 'decisions'.
Big Dumb Boosters over the shuttle?
EELV's over the shuttle?
EELV's over the CLV?

Pehaps this is only sour grapes that the Clinton administration failed to capitalize on setting up a war that would ensure Al Gore's Whitehouse instead of George Bush's. After all, look at how many statements were made about the dangers accumulating in Iraq before George Bush became President:

February 1, 1998: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

February 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton

February 17, 1998: "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 Bill Clinton

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

February 18, 1998: "If a soldier's life needs to be lost let it start with mine." - an un-named American GI expressing his support for President Clinton's policy on Iraq.

February 26 1998: "A democratic Iraq is certainly in our interest, but it is above all for the sake of the Iraqis that we must replace Saddam." - Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., said in floor speech.

February 26 1998: "Saddam's feet will be held to the fire. We'll see if he complies. If not, we'll thump him." - Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. and senior Democrat on the House National Security Committee

October 9, 1998: "We 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. - Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others.

November 10, 1999: "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

October 10, 1998: Senator Kerry speaks for quite some time about the burgeoning Iraqi threat http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress /1998_cr/s981010-iraq.htm

In some areas, russia's tech is way ahead of 'western' tech -
Mach 2.2/3.0 supersonic multistage ramjet/cruise antiship (destroyer killer):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/moskit.htm
Underwater supersonic rocket torpedo (carrier killer):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/shkval.htm
1988 soviet 'shuttle', buran, "Although the first orbital flight of Buran was unmanned, it demonstrated much promise. The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing."
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/buran/
The truth is out there; The lies are in your head ....

In some areas, russia's tech is way ahead of 'western' tech -
Mach 2.2/3.0 supersonic multistage ramjet/cruise antiship (destroyer killer):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/moskit.htm
Underwater supersonic rocket torpedo (carrier killer):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/shkval.htm
1988 soviet 'shuttle', buran, "Although the first orbital flight of Buran was unmanned, it demonstrated much promise. The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing."
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/buran/
The truth is out there; The lies are in your head ....

What you describe won't work. Your satellite would orbit Earth once a day, backwards.

What you are looking for is to position your satellite at the Earth-Sun Lagrange point (hard-core space geeks will gripe that it should be orbiting L1, but let's keep it simple). That's much further away than geo-sync, so you won't get very good views of specific targets on Earth.

However you'll get one heck of a good view of the whole Earth. That's what Triana was suposed to do. A webcam for our planet, streaming live 24h/day. Unfortunately Triana was Al Gore's pet project. The spacecraft was designed, built and tested when the Democrats were in power. Then George Bush 'won' the election. Out of spite, Triana was ordered removed from the launch schedule. Due to politics, it is quietly rusting in a storage container.

BTW, the launch which Triana was scheduled to ride was STS 107, Columbia's final flight.

We will have open source cruise missiles navigation systems when sun open sources solaris.

The US navy's Aegis combat system runs sol.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/shi p/systems/an-sqq-89.htm

A government agency of any size will be able to afford radar to track our sattelites. These provide much more accurate and instantaneous data than what individual video observations can provide.
Here's a report on the NOSS sattelites with a wealth of information about the sats that no amateur could ever get.

While individual terrorists probably don't have the resources (beyond heavens-above) to track sattelites, they probably aren't moving things obvious enough to matter anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some good MOAB links (be sure to check out the various links on these pages):

http://bbsnews.net/bw2003-03-11a.html

More technical details about MOAB on this page:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/moab.htm

And the biggest bomb of them all (other than Gigli):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba

Negative. Daisy Cutter bombs are not FAE - Fuel Air Explosives.

"Contrary to some published reports, the BLU-82 is not a 'fuel air explosive,' a type of weapon that disperses an aerosol cloud of fuel and ignites a blast that can cause overpressure of 4,000 pounds per square inch. Fuel air munitions are made in sizes from 500 to 2,000 pounds."

From this article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011107 -attack01.htm/

More information here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/blu-82.htm/

Even more information here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/dumb.htm/

(I think that perhaps I should spend less time on the intarwebs...)

Negative. Daisy Cutter bombs are not FAE - Fuel Air Explosives.

"Contrary to some published reports, the BLU-82 is not a 'fuel air explosive,' a type of weapon that disperses an aerosol cloud of fuel and ignites a blast that can cause overpressure of 4,000 pounds per square inch. Fuel air munitions are made in sizes from 500 to 2,000 pounds."

From this article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011107 -attack01.htm/

More information here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/blu-82.htm/

Even more information here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/dumb.htm/

(I think that perhaps I should spend less time on the intarwebs...)

Negative. Daisy Cutter bombs are not FAE - Fuel Air Explosives.

"Contrary to some published reports, the BLU-82 is not a 'fuel air explosive,' a type of weapon that disperses an aerosol cloud of fuel and ignites a blast that can cause overpressure of 4,000 pounds per square inch. Fuel air munitions are made in sizes from 500 to 2,000 pounds."

From this article:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011107 -attack01.htm/

More information here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/blu-82.htm/

Even more information here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mun itions/dumb.htm/

(I think that perhaps I should spend less time on the intarwebs...)

Why is it that My Lai is mentioned all the time but the Tet '68 mass killings by the Communists in and around Hue are never mentioned?

During the months and years that followed the battle, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Hue containing nearly 3000 civilians. In some of the mass graves victims were found bound together; some appeared tortured; others were even reported to have appeared buried alive. Estimates vary on the number executed, with a low of a couple hundred to a high of several thousand. Commonly villiage leaders who had not shown satisfactory Communist leanings during the time the Republic of South Vietnam ruled the area were murdered.

The NLF set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Hue, and was charged with removing the existing government administration from power within the city and replacing it with a revolutionary administration. Working from lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements" previously developed by VC intelligence officers, many people were to be rounded up following the initial hours of the attack. These included South Vietnamese soldiers, civil servants, political party members, local religious leaders, American civilians and other foreigners. These individuals, according to VC documents captured during and after the siege, were to be taken out of the city and held and punished for their "crimes against the Vietnamese people".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hue
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy /cg-66.htm

At My Lai between 350 and 510 civilians were killed, so the Hue/Tet killings were much bloodier and more orchestrated, so why is My Lai always brought up when the Communists killed more?

I don't think that a drug like this will be used to facilitate war crimes because a Military needs discipline and rape/murder goes against discipline. An Army is a mob and shows some mob behaviors which are tempered in a military unit by training, routine and dispiline, the US military, NATO, Russian, Israeli and those militaries which closely follow these doctrines will not allow a drug which breaks down the discipline to be dispensed.

Here's the technical reference: "Electromagnetic Non-contact Guide System for Elevator Cars", Morishita, M., Akashi, M., Toshiba Corporation, Japan.

There have been some "ropeless elevator" proposals, including ones where linear induction motors drive the elevator cars. The most elaborate proposals involve multiple cars per shaft and switches, like a vertical railroad. This would cut down the amount of building space devoted to elevator shafts considerably. Mitsubishi did some R&D in this area back in the 1990s, but there's no working hardware yet. There's been some military R&D in this area for shipboard weapons lifts, but that's more like a conveyor system. Eventually somebody will probably build such a system, but not yet.

Incidentally, the limit on elevator speed is human tolerance for changes in air pressure. 8 meters per second (downward) appears to be the comfort limit. The Sears Tower elevators were originally set for 9 m/s, and a broken eardrum was reported.

Also, when did China become a global threat like Nazi Germany? They're using their economy as their weapon, unlike other superpowers I know...

China is a more benign threat to be sure. But it's not economic might they are threatening to use if thye do not get thier way with Taiwan, and they are very powerful militarily and growing moreso.

Turbo-Jet (same turbo jet power as turbo-prop, but little or no "bypass" air. The main purpose of the intake fan is now to pressurize air at intake for combustion with jet fuel. Thrust comes from) can provide substantial power at high velocites. TurboJets are the big muscular loud as hell engines used on fighter planes.

Turbojet engines don't have any fans, so there is no bypass at all. They only have compressors and turbines. Probably the only aircraft the Air Force still flies with turbojets are T-38s and (maybe) some KC-135s that haven't yet been retrofitted with turbofans. (I thought the B-52 was still flying on turbojets, but this page and this page say otherwise...you learn something new every day.)

Turbofan engines have been used in fighters for at least the past 40 years. Fighters don't get the same high-bypass engines that you'll see on an airliner due to size constraints, but turbofan engines with smaller fans go back in fighters to at least the F-111, if not earlier. Current fighters powered by turbofans include the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-117. The F119 engine used in the F-22 is even capable of supercruise.

Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "

Source

We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people - their warm human hopes and loves - should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.

Source

In Dilip Hiro's book "Secrets and Lies," Hiro quotes the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz of June 24, 2003, reporting that Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: "God told me to strike at Al Qaida (sic) and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Source

Of course, perhaps you can provide some sources that state otherwise?

I think hiding the vast demolition and destruction and human rights abuses going on in the west bank and gaza and the construction of the illegal apartheid wall are the main reason for the supression of information. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe l/fence-imagery.htm

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this.

I don't know what kind of "flack jacket" you're talking about that's comprised of "rticulated ceramic/steel plates with a touch of Kevlar fabric to hold it together" but it's nothing that I've ever seen. And a flak jacket from the Korean war, that was rated to stop a .50 BMG? That's ridiculous. There isn't any type of personal body armor that will stop a 50-cal, even today (unless you consider an armored vehicle a form of personal body armor).

I'll refer you over to the Body Armor page at Globalsecurity.org. "The [pre-Interceptor] "flak jacket," constructed of ballistic nylon, provided protection primarily from munitions fragments and was ineffective against most pistol and rifle threats. These vests also were very cumbersome and bulky and were restricted primarily to military use." This adequately describes the vests used up through Vietnam and which were even issued during the onset of the current war in Iraq. On the Interceptor system, which is current issue, "The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's very fine and will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second."

The old, Vietnam-era vest would not stop a 7.62mm rifle round. Whether it would stop a 9mm handgun round I'm not sure, but there are plenty of reports of guys being killed by being shot through the flak vest. It was never intended to stop aimed rifle fire. And it certainly wasn't made from hinged solid plate! Here's a page with a photo. It was made primarily of nylon.

That the new armor system -- with plates -- can reliably stop rifle rounds is a big deal. It was not true before; I do not believe there was a personal armoring system available to the average troops in any war before this one, that would stop bullets. The WWII, Korea, and Vietnam "flak jackets" were exactly that -- to stop flak, that is, fragments produced by things exploding.

You are also mistaken about the 5.56mm round. It does too have a steel penetrator. Nonwithstanding my personal experience (fire one through several layers of 1/4" mild steel plate separated by a few inches and you can see the copper jacket and lead surround strip off, and the steel core continue), there are an abundance of references on the net. The current issue is called the M885 Ball round, it is a 62 grain bullet with a full copper jacket and lead surrounding a cylindrical steel core. It's commonly referred to as "Green tip" because the tips of the bullets are painted green to differentiate them from the older, solid-lead M193 round, which has no coloring on the tips.

You can get quite an argument going with people familiar with terminal ballistics by asking about whether the wound profile of the new M855 bullets (they're quite a bit messier than the old solid lead ones) are due to the bullets 'tumbling,' or breaking apart on impact, but it's quite well known that they have a steel penetrator, and that this was introduced principally to defeat new types of body armor. The Russians have a comparable cartridge, for similar reasons. (Best reference: http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.htm l)

Also read:
http://www.geocities.com/odjobman/r1r42.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this.

I don't know what kind of "flack jacket" you're talking about that's comprised of "rticulated ceramic/steel plates with a touch of Kevlar fabric to hold it together" but it's nothing that I've ever seen. And a flak jacket from the Korean war, that was rated to stop a .50 BMG? That's ridiculous. There isn't any type of personal body armor that will stop a 50-cal, even today (unless you consider an armored vehicle a form of personal body armor).

I'll refer you over to the Body Armor page at Globalsecurity.org. "The [pre-Interceptor] "flak jacket," constructed of ballistic nylon, provided protection primarily from munitions fragments and was ineffective against most pistol and rifle threats. These vests also were very cumbersome and bulky and were restricted primarily to military use." This adequately describes the vests used up through Vietnam and which were even issued during the onset of the current war in Iraq. On the Interceptor system, which is current issue, "The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's very fine and will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second."

The old, Vietnam-era vest would not stop a 7.62mm rifle round. Whether it would stop a 9mm handgun round I'm not sure, but there are plenty of reports of guys being killed by being shot through the flak vest. It was never intended to stop aimed rifle fire. And it certainly wasn't made from hinged solid plate! Here's a page with a photo. It was made primarily of nylon.

That the new armor system -- with plates -- can reliably stop rifle rounds is a big deal. It was not true before; I do not believe there was a personal armoring system available to the average troops in any war before this one, that would stop bullets. The WWII, Korea, and Vietnam "flak jackets" were exactly that -- to stop flak, that is, fragments produced by things exploding.

You are also mistaken about the 5.56mm round. It does too have a steel penetrator. Nonwithstanding my personal experience (fire one through several layers of 1/4" mild steel plate separated by a few inches and you can see the copper jacket and lead surround strip off, and the steel core continue), there are an abundance of references on the net. The current issue is called the M885 Ball round, it is a 62 grain bullet with a full copper jacket and lead surrounding a cylindrical steel core. It's commonly referred to as "Green tip" because the tips of the bullets are painted green to differentiate them from the older, solid-lead M193 round, which has no coloring on the tips.

You can get quite an argument going with people familiar with terminal ballistics by asking about whether the wound profile of the new M855 bullets (they're quite a bit messier than the old solid lead ones) are due to the bullets 'tumbling,' or breaking apart on impact, but it's quite well known that they have a steel penetrator, and that this was introduced principally to defeat new types of body armor. The Russians have a comparable cartridge, for similar reasons. (Best reference: http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.htm l)

Also read:
http://www.geocities.com/odjobman/r1r42.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib

I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this.

I don't know what kind of "flack jacket" you're talking about that's comprised of "rticulated ceramic/steel plates with a touch of Kevlar fabric to hold it together" but it's nothing that I've ever seen. And a flak jacket from the Korean war, that was rated to stop a .50 BMG? That's ridiculous. There isn't any type of personal body armor that will stop a 50-cal, even today (unless you consider an armored vehicle a form of personal body armor).

I'll refer you over to the Body Armor page at Globalsecurity.org. "The [pre-Interceptor] "flak jacket," constructed of ballistic nylon, provided protection primarily from munitions fragments and was ineffective against most pistol and rifle threats. These vests also were very cumbersome and bulky and were restricted primarily to military use." This adequately describes the vests used up through Vietnam and which were even issued during the onset of the current war in Iraq. On the Interceptor system, which is current issue, "The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's very fine and will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second."

The old, Vietnam-era vest would not stop a 7.62mm rifle round. Whether it would stop a 9mm handgun round I'm not sure, but there are plenty of reports of guys being killed by being shot through the flak vest. It was never intended to stop aimed rifle fire. And it certainly wasn't made from hinged solid plate! Here's a page with a photo. It was made primarily of nylon.

That the new armor system -- with plates -- can reliably stop rifle rounds is a big deal. It was not true before; I do not believe there was a personal armoring system available to the average troops in any war before this one, that would stop bullets. The WWII, Korea, and Vietnam "flak jackets" were exactly that -- to stop flak, that is, fragments produced by things exploding.

You are also mistaken about the 5.56mm round. It does too have a steel penetrator. Nonwithstanding my personal experience (fire one through several layers of 1/4" mild steel plate separated by a few inches and you can see the copper jacket and lead surround strip off, and the steel core continue), there are an abundance of references on the net. The current issue is called the M885 Ball round, it is a 62 grain bullet with a full copper jacket and lead surrounding a cylindrical steel core. It's commonly referred to as "Green tip" because the tips of the bullets are painted green to differentiate them from the older, solid-lead M193 round, which has no coloring on the tips.

You can get quite an argument going with people familiar with terminal ballistics by asking about whether the wound profile of the new M855 bullets (they're quite a bit messier than the old solid lead ones) are due to the bullets 'tumbling,' or breaking apart on impact, but it's quite well known that they have a steel penetrator, and that this was introduced principally to defeat new types of body armor. The Russians have a comparable cartridge, for similar reasons. (Best reference: http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.htm l)

Also read:
http://www.geocities.com/odjobman/r1r42.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib

Ding ding ding!

You win the prize. It's unfortunate that more people don't come to this entirely logical conclusion. A lot of people see "flak jacket" and immediately assume that it has the magic powers of a "bullet-proof vest" (as if such a thing existed).

I found a summary of information on the armor currently being used. The good ones are the Interceptor system, which are the ones I was describing with a lightweight vest and then trauma plate inserts. With plates inserted it weighs 16.4 pounds, without plates 8.4 pounds. The vest itself will stop a 9mm Parabellum handgun round (and assorted shrapnel, which is a good thing given that bombs seem to be popular with the enemy over there), the plates are necessary for it to stop a rifle bullet. It's manufactured by Point Blank Body Armor of Oakland Park, FL.

The less pleasant ones to wear are the older, much heavier and thicker Vietnam era flak vest. Apparently these were being issued to some people (who on paper were in combat-support roles where they wouldn't be as at-risk, I think, but reality disagreed) when there weren't enough Interceptor vests to go around. It was truly a "flak vest" and wasn't really intended to stop aimed weapons fire, in the same way that the old steel pot helmet couldn't stop a bullet either, but was worn for secondary protection. I think this is the one. Having personally worn one, it's a bitch.