Slashdot Mirror

Locating a carrier is not all that tough when you have satellites.

Says who? Satellites aren't magical talismans. They are limited by a number of factors, including orbital mechanics, the ability of their radar to resist jamming, the ability of their radar to discern radar decoys from true targets and the ability to conduct evasive maneuvers to avoid being targeted by anti-satellite weapons.

And what happens if Russia shares their satellite intel with China -- just like the US did with the UK during the Falklands war?

That would be an act of war. It's one thing for a nuclear armed superpower to share intel with an ally against a third world country. It's quite another thing for a nuclear armed power to share intel with someone against another nuclear armed power.

The Chinese will have that missile flying before we have a reliable defense.

What makes you think we don't have a defense now?

A 95% shoot-down rate is not good enough against a barrage of 50 missiles.

Actually I'd say a 95% shoot-down rate is very good. That leaves two or three missiles. To engage the carrier they need to overcome the electronic warfare of the battle group (ranging from jamming to the escorts and helicopters with blip enhancers that draw fire) and the point defenses of their targets. Besides, if you aren't talking about the ballistic missiles, how did those ASM launch platforms get into range?

Do you imagine Obama having the guts to take such a loss and risk another?

Do you imagine the American people demanding any less if 5,000 US sailors drown?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm

this is what I was thinking. You wouldn't be able to use it with the fire hoses, since the spray in the air would block the microwaves, but it's something to try.

ages ago:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/hunter-warrior.htm

Steve Jobs promised that closing down the Newton division would result in innovative devices --- who knew it'd take this long --- I still want a device w/ handwriting recognition and a larger screen though.

William

It wouldn't fit in the bay:

B61 - 11.8 feet (141.6 inches) long

Predator C's weapons bay - 10 ft long

The navy is already using the UAV Scan Eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle and has had a history of UAV for many years. For even longer legs they are working on the BAMS UAV http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/bams.htm a modified Global Hawk. As an aviator (well technically NFO, not a pilot) on the P-3 which is the primary martime patrol aircraft for the US (and other) Navies I can tell you that a UAV can be on station longer, much cheaper to run - using an operator or two versus 11 crew members. The future, P-8A Posidon (follow on to the P-3) will be build to work with UAVs to right off.

The grid-based system you're thinking of has already been implemented for years as UTM, MGRS, and new USNG.

MGRS is used in many technologies familiar to ground troops, such as the PLGR, DAGR, and BFT.

MGRS is used for land-navigation, as described in the Armys FM 3-25.26.

MGRS coordinates are regularly used in common radio traffic, such as the MEDEVAC request, UXO/IED spot report, and call for fire.

Many consumer GPS devices support MGRS.

The grid-based system you're thinking of has already been implemented for years as UTM, MGRS, and new USNG.

MGRS is used in many technologies familiar to ground troops, such as the PLGR, DAGR, and BFT.

MGRS is used for land-navigation, as described in the Armys FM 3-25.26.

MGRS coordinates are regularly used in common radio traffic, such as the MEDEVAC request, UXO/IED spot report, and call for fire.

Many consumer GPS devices support MGRS.

The grid-based system you're thinking of has already been implemented for years as UTM, MGRS, and new USNG.

MGRS is used in many technologies familiar to ground troops, such as the PLGR, DAGR, and BFT.

MGRS is used for land-navigation, as described in the Armys FM 3-25.26.

MGRS coordinates are regularly used in common radio traffic, such as the MEDEVAC request, UXO/IED spot report, and call for fire.

Many consumer GPS devices support MGRS.

You cold not be more right.
You probably already know this, but the situation in North Korea is so
horrible that the average north korean male is 5.9cm shorter than
the average south korean male, due to chronic famine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/05/northkorea
The government, instead of fighting of famine (or simply accepting the
foreign help), tries to stimulate people's growth with gymnastics
(this isn't present in the link above; I read it on a newspaper and
don't have a link right now).

North Korea is both metaphorically and literally on the Dark.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

Its leader, however, is a buffoon that lives with comfort, luxuries
and ostensible wealth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2009/03/090316_coreiadonorte_pizza_cq.shtml
(the above link is in Portuguese, sorry)

I don't think the USA will have any problem using conventional weapons to take out any tinpot dictators nuclear facilities - well before they have a nuke.

After all, the USA outspends the rest of the wolrd combined on their military.

I seriously doubt we have the will to do this under this administration. At least not until it is far to late to help.

I don't think the USA will have any problem using conventional weapons to take out any tinpot dictators nuclear facilities - well before they have a nuke.

After all, the USA outspends the rest of the wolrd combined on their military.

Ammonium Nitrate was also used in the Oklahoma city bombing. The yield was in excess of what some people might have expected too. The mixing and quality of the explosive varies its effectiveness, and hence blast radius.

Amazingly enough France doesn't have this problem because they recycle the waste.

Sorry, but reprocessing plants don't get rid of all waste. And they are plutonium factories. Prime terrorist targets. Do you think we'd let Iran have one?

Concerns have been raised about contamination both from processing, and from transporting waste to France's reprocessing center.

In point of fact, France has large problems with nuclear waste. The people in the region slated to be the waste dump are fighting it, oddly enough.

They have attempted to sweep the problem under the rug by shipping waste to Russia.

And we haven't even touched on the reactor safety issues of having a bunch of nuclear plants built by developing nations.

I know that many technophiles have a romantic attachment to nuclear power, to the idea of Mighty Science Harnessing the Power of the Atom. But its time to get over it.

I have yet to see any proof that we are running out of fissionable material.

You're unaware that the planet's supply of uranium is limited? Odd gap in your education, that.

It looks like Global Hawks are being upgraded to the MP-RTIP radar, which you can be sure is extremely better than what the U2 had (has?). http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=72692412 MP-RTIP info here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/mp-rtip.htm I am pretty sure that MP-RTIP details are classified so you probably can't find many technical details online about it.

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.

To anyone familiar with Russian methods, the solution is obvious — capture the criminals and put them into special prison, from where they'll have to work for the State in order to be "awarded" something like a pack of cigarettes, or a can of condensed milk.

They've done worse before — forcing completely innocent people to work on things like fighter planes and nuclear weapons on threat of immediate execution or slow wasting away at a labor camp, so why not do this to people actually deserving punishment?

The stupid US may be ordering its hackers to stay away from computers, but Russia would not do such a thing...

Yeah paper's great...until the information changes. As the article points out, the Army is looking for a more rugged, easily portable display. When I was a Field Artillery Surveyor, we used a Forward Entry Device, or FEDs. The thing was about as portable as an Oxford New English Dictionary and came with its own carrying case (another thing to strap over your shoulder and lug around, along with your body armor, protective mask, and rifle, and pack in 120 degree heat). To be able to put all of this into little more than an armband like a quarterback's play sheet? Yeah, screw paper.

Let me ask the resident experts: With all the different telescopes that litter the earth, how is it that we miss these types of objects coming so close to our planet? I know that space is vast (practically beyond rational imagination), but is there a way to observe a region of space encompassing several days/weeks/months with objects traveling at a certain speed? What would those costs be? (I bet it would be under 700 Billion USD)

I found this article pretty interesting about a space based constellaton of satellites using radar to track objects on the ground. How about something like this pointing away from earth?:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sr.htm

I think this would be an excellent time for the US to jump back in the lead in science and technology. Take that money going into ideologically based spending, and shove it into space systems that will have actual use. Create methods of early detection of earth impacting objects, and standby means to intercept. The "space industrial complex" could lead to high tech jobs that create a high tech industry that will attract top talent from around the world at rates that rival the early 20th century.

Actually, any piece large enough to pose a threat to anything we care about can be tracked, and by what counts as ancient technology: the AN/FPS-85 phased array spacetrack radar, for example.

That can track pieces the size of marbles? The only size reference I see is a basketball at 22000 nm (presumably "nautical miles" instead of "nanometers".).

Actually, any piece large enough to pose a threat to anything we care about can be tracked, and by what counts as ancient technology: the AN/FPS-85 phased array spacetrack radar, for example.

Most is, but 30% (and shrinking) of the state budget comes from oil and gas. I suppose that's still a large fraction.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/budget.htm

Pilots don't use speed anymore, they use modafinil (brand name Provigil). Keeps you awake but doesn't make you wig out like Dexedrine does, which is widely regarded as a bad thing when the subject is in charge of a few tons of ordnance.

Thanks to uppers the pilots are going longer, stronger, faster.

A six-month ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas ended last week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7799593.stm Israel killed several Hamas members, Hamas responded with rockets, Israel responded with airstrikes and an invasion. This seems to be the same tactic Israel has been using for thirty years:

The article is a little unclear on the circumstances. Israel killed them becuase they were on the way to kidnap Israeli soldiers. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5089940.ece

What "tactic" is that?

There have also been talks of the US selling the Israelis our C-RAM (Counter - Rocket, Artillery and Mortar) systems (based on the naval Phalanx CIWS). It would take one to two dozen of them (Depending on if you wanted redundant backups) to completely cover the Gaza strip, from the outside. This would allow Israeli to intercept rockets, artillery and mortars before they ever leave Palestinian airspace. I find it a tad interesting that a few months before Israel gets near immunity to rocket attacks, they get 'fed up' and invade.

according to this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm Those things have only have 60-70% accuracy at shooting projectiles down. And even then, there is damage from shrapnel , and it really doesnt seem to be in active use anywhere in the world yet.

And even so, if you could go buy it at Wal-Mart and it would magiclally vaporize 100% of incoming projectiles, Israel should just let Hamas shoot at will until Wal-Mart gets it in stock?

Executive Summary: If we militarize space, it will probably cause the end of civilization as we know it. But we must militarize space, because America is the only righteous power with the foresight necessary to risk the very survival of human kind.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1989/DCA.htm

With each succeeding generation, mankind has increased the effectiveness of his weapons until, with the recent development of thermonucear weapons, he is capable of destroying civilization. We have progressed to the point, Stine argues, where we can no longer live by the Neolithic Ethic and must, therefore, develop a new ethic. Stine writes:

"It will take centuries of worldwide education -- using near-earth space as a location for communications satellites capable of beaming information to any spot on Earth for the education of humans everywhere -- before the Ethic can be changed, before the memories of past wrongs are erased by time, and before the fires of vengeance can be damped."

Stine contends that a new ethic for a world of peace, cooperation and unity can be developed. But until then, people are going to fight. We need to investigate all technological possibilities and prepare the weapons, the counter-weapons and other safegaurds as they become technologically feasible. But we need to do so with a purposeful goal -- to deter war in the hopes of buying time to transition to the new ethic.
            Thus far there are no weapons in space. Thus far no battles have been waged in space or for dominion over space. Thus far the military use of space has contributed greatly to the knowledge that prevents adversaries from misjudging each other. The best way to avoid war is to employ those systems, in space as well as terrestrially, which contribute to the policy of mutual deterrence -- a policy which has worked over the past 35 years.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/w87-design.jpg

:-)

Wrong on every point. My reference is not to emotion but to fact.

Ok, let's go to the Merriam-Webster and look at your use of the word "fact". The closest definition to what you're describing is as follows:

Fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

This means that most rational people will view a "fact" as unvarying from person to person. "The sky appears blue on a clear day in most of the world" would be a factual statement. However, you didn't assert what many would call "fact". Here, let's look at your original post a line at a time.

This is likely to be an extremely unpopular view but there are very legitimate reasons for a state to seek limits in the distribution of news, and limits to what its citizens communicate to outsiders.

Why, sir, would a government seek to deny simple truth to those under its control? We're talking about factual occurances here, not gossip mags or celebrity gossip. If 100 people die on a bridge because the officials in a certain province have been lax in bridge inspection, it would stand to reason that they may have failed to inspect OTHER bridges in that province. If citizen safety is TRULY the aim of a government, then why not warn those citizens if a hazard exists?

As for communicating with outsiders, can you be more specific on what subjects would be better held from "outsiders"? Other than military secrets, I'd be interested to find what information you feel would be SO hazardous to the citizens {not the government} that outsiders shouldn't recieve it.

Using the bridge example above, do you believe that information should be suppressed in order to maintain civil order? If you do, can you accept the idea that many other people would not consider your view to be "objective reality", if just for the fact that a large majority of people would disagree?

Those of you raised in the west or who have lived your lives mostly in the west may not understand or remember the reality of living in weaker states.

Can you please define "weaker states"? If you mean militarily, Switzerland spends less than Vietnam does, with a total population of 7.6 million. Vietnam, on the other hand, has ready for military service more than DOUBLE the population of Switzerland. That's right, the Vietnam military has more people available to it than the population of Switzerland. Even Vietnam's present standing force of 500,000 is more than the entire population of Luxembourg, and FAR larger than Luxembourg's army of 800.

...and yet Switzerland's Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of information for each citizen. They spend less on the military than Vietnam, have fewer people available for the military, and enjoy more freedoms. Same with Luxembourg. Are they somehow less "safe" than the Vietnamese? If you think so, why?

Not all states are the same, and not all populations are the same. Conflicts are everywhere.

While arguably "fact", it in itself doesn't seem to universally justify censorship. Wisdom is the answer to conflict... wisdom that might be hard to gain without access to all available information.

You're getting the reactions here about censorship because most of the world's population disagrees...which might not make your assertation of "fact" as convincing as you'd hoped.

No way, blame it on USS Jimmy Carter SSN 23 http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001397.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-23.htm

I didn't know that [...] only Indians can be named Haji. Aren't you being racist by assuming that names are tied to race?

A) Because of the outsourcing of tech jobs to India, the "cheaper Indian tech worker" is a stereotype - especially in tech circles.

B) Haji is a racial epithet for all people with brown skin or of non-Christian belief. It is a blanket term for "the other" or "them", and is used by US military personnel in Iraq like "gook" was used in Vietnam, "Kraut" in Germany, and the way the "N word" is used in the United States by rednecks: As a way to dehumanize and demoralize.

I will assume you were ignorant of this second fact, but have a hard time believing you didn't know the first.

Manufacturing a fictional cheaper coder named Haji for the sake of discussion may not have been willfully bigoted, but to claim that your fictional Haji was anything other than a person with brown skin insults the intelligence of everyone reading this thread.

Of one thing you are correct: Nationalism and Racism are not (strictly speaking) the same thing. Xenophobia has many shades, but they all divide the world into "us" and "them".

I don't believe there was any malice in your choice of names. If only you said "If Bob next door can write a app and sell it for $1.99 that you want to write and sell for $29.99...", but you didn't. You used a stereotype and an epithet to create a "them" to compare someone to and got called out on it.

Man up and move on. Don't dig any deeper.

"I don't know why you're assuming that the goal of the test was to show the system worked perfectly and could not be fooled."

Because we've seen articles like this before. A quick glance through http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nmd-test.htm mentions "successful" tests in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2006.

1999: "We shot down a missile!"
Critics: Fine, but real missiles have decoys.
2001: "We shot down a missile! We had to put a radio beacon on it so we could figure out where it was."
Critics: Fine, but real missiles have decoys. And no radio beacons.
2002: "We shot down a missile with some decoys! Okay they were terrible decoys, but still."
Critics: Fine, but get some better decoys.
2006: "We shot down a missile!"
Critics: Fine, but real missiles have decoys. And I'm having deja vu.
2008: "We shot down a missile!"
Critics: Did it have decoys?
"Well, no, they failed to work..."

I don't think North Korea has a lot of computers at all. They don't even seem to have many light bulbs: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark.jpg

this ONE government mandate to secure our borders

World Wide Military Deployments
Rest-of-World (all but USA) 146,507
United States 393,569

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/deploy.htm

CC.

That is what they did during the WWII. They had merchie converted to carry 5-inch guns and torpedo tubes. When the U-boat came close, remember back then they didn't have good sonar so most of the kills where visual kills so they had to come in visual range, they would open the canvas covers and open fire on the U-boats. I think a RAM launcher and 25-mm cannon would put these craft and ships out of order quickly.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-38.htm
However the better method is to put an blockade on the Somalia coast. Any boat or ship going in and out of the blockade will stopped and checked. Hey, we (the USA) did this to a nuclear armed country why not a much simpler armed pirates?

That is what they did during the WWII. They had merchie converted to carry 5-inch guns and torpedo tubes. When the U-boat came close, remember back then they didn't have good sonar so most of the kills where visual kills so they had to come in visual range, they would open the canvas covers and open fire on the U-boats. I think a RAM launcher and 25-mm cannon would put these craft and ships out of order quickly.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-38.htm
However the better method is to put an blockade on the Somalia coast. Any boat or ship going in and out of the blockade will stopped and checked. Hey, we (the USA) did this to a nuclear armed country why not a much simpler armed pirates?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010325-a51.htm

It did with this airplane: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-26-pics.htm

Not exactly a fighter or bomber, but it has interesting applications for reconnaissance.

rj

Its been done before here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050113-iraq-deaths.htm

Further, combat costs more than base/garrison in that there are a lot of vehicle casualties that would not otherwise occur. We use some expensive vehicles, and soldiers are trained to be somewhat cavalier about expending/consuming material to preserve life and limb. In other words, they treat the equipment more roughly than when in garrison.

Beyond that, some garrisons are heavily subsidized by the host country. Specifically, Japan compensates the US for base costs, more than the differential between US and Japanese cost, IIRC. I think Korean forces are also operated on a slight "profit". You might not want to count that, since I don't think we've reduced our Japanese or Korean garrisons - I think the troops all came from European or American garrisons.

Lastly, you maybe need to add in costs of security for non-DOD operations. This is a bit questionable, since our previous position was to have NO embassy/diplomats in country, and now we do - we've expanded ops, you gotta expect addtional expense.

They should protect the international reputation of their country before the local reputation of their king.

Everybody likes a Robocop reference.

More weighing on my mind is the interaction between the following forces:

1. Reduction in manpower costs spur adoption by the military.
2. Reduction in manpower spurs the deployment of under supervised robot teams.
3. Trapping and reprogramming of robots becomes a more viable means of using the expensive hardware against their (former) owners.
4. Cheap ways of disabling these robots will provide a financial model of warfare that allows countries with weak budgets and manpower to do billions of dollars of damage.

The USA's military spending is about 25% greater than that of the entire world combined. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm Guess who's going to be losing these new, expensive weapons?

It makes you wonder what great ideas and discoveries are lying hidden in old journals that no-one ever reads.

That's pretty much why the word discover was used during the Renaissance -- scientific belief at the time was that the classical civilizations had already learned how the world worked, but the knowledge was lost in the middle ages, and science simply "removed the cover" that was veiling this knowledge. Any in many ways they were right -- the Greeks had invented the steam engine and napalm, and the Babylonians had electroplating devices -- but the knowledge was lost with the collapse of those civilizations.

Imagine the 2.4 metre mirror from the HST, but pointing towards Earth. Now imagine several of those on-orbit at any one time.

You mean like five? Or is it four? http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-12-flights.htm

Or even if it's ten, we've really got the place well covered, right?

> Do you know for certain what they have up there?

Yes; KH-12.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-12.htm

Imagine the 2.4 metre mirror from the HST, but pointing towards Earth. Now imagine several of those on-orbit at any one time.

Why are all posts so anti-chinese?

Because they're an authoritarian government that lies all the time?

Name one non-authoritarian government, or even one that tells the truth.

This is almost old hat for Russian and American astronauts (or cosmonauts or whatever). Any country could work with those two space programs and complete a space walk on their own. I wouldn't be surprised if the ESA has already done this as well and I just haven't heard of it. In other words, the third or fourth country doing this isn't a great step forward for all humankind, it's one more country catching up to where other countries were decades ago.

In addition, China's extra space capacity isn't a good thing. Space so far has been nothing but a wagging match between Russia and the US, it's been relatively free of military conflict. If we want space to become something other than a place to conduct science and take some pictures, then increasing China's space capabilities is a great way to start.

China is letting the West know that the militarization of space is a game that they can play as well. The technology required to put a human in space isn't anything to sneeze at. Considering that China's economy was a failure in the same period that we had the Apollo program, it's one of the many signs that they are ready to become the worlds most powerful economy.

We'd do well to recognize real threats, like resource wars involving the militarization of space between world powers, and have some diplomatic summits to address these issues now before they are species threatening. This would require serious politics, which I'm afraid isn't possible in America, especially with viewpoints like the one you just presented.

Russia is going to present their draft UN resolution against the militarization of space on September 29th. It will not be covered in a major way by any American news organization.

Here's an interesting paper from 1989 discussing the topic. It's conclusion: the world must develop a new ethic towards war -- someday -- to avoid the destruction of every major civilization, but until then, the US needs to build weapons for placement in orbit. I'm not sure the writer realized what he was saying.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1989/DCA.htm

This is government and business at its absolute worst.

"For instance, a single X-ray laser module the size of an executive desk which applied this technology could potentially shoot down the entire Soviet land-based missile force, if it were to be launched into the module's field of view." - Edward Teller

GlobalSecurity has a list of communications systems that the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers have.

# LF through HF Receive,10 kHz - 30 MHz
R-1051 H/URR; twelve receivers
R-2368 H/URR; three receivers
# HF Transmit; 2-30 MHz
AN/URT-23D; nine transmitters
# VHF Transmit and Receive, 30-162 MHz
AN/GRR-211; two transceivers for non-secure voice
ANNRC-46A; two FM transceivers for secure voice
AN/URC-80 (V)6; one transceiver for bridge-to-bridge communications
# UHF Transmit and Receive, 220-400 MHz
AN/URC-93 (V)1; two transceiver for Link 4A
AN/WSC-3 (V)7,11; fourteen transceivers
AN/WSC-3 (V)11, have-quick transceiver
# SATCOM Transmit and/or Receive
AN/SSR-1A; one receiver for fleet broadcast
ANNWSC-3A (V)3; five transceivers for digital voice
# Infra-Red, Transmit and Receive
AN/SAR-7A; two IR Viewers
# Land Line Terminations, Transmit and/or Receive
AN/SAT-2B, one IR Transmitter
Single Channel DC Secure TTY
# Telephone Special Communications Channel
AN/USQ-69 (V)7; OTCIXS
AN/USQ-69 (V)8; TADIXS
AN/SYQ-7 (V)5 and AN/USQ-69 (V)6; NAVMACS/CUDIX
AN/USQ-83 (V) and AN/USQ-125 (V); Link 11
AN/SSW-1 D; Link 4A
AN/SRQ-4; HawkLink (LAMPS MK III)
AN/ARR-75 Sonobouy antenna

A Blackberry operates on the 850/900/1800/1900 MHz GSM network.

It deeply warms my heart that your offended.

Stop back by again and I will do my best
to take it to the next level next time.

In the meantime you can ponder on this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/kh-101.htm

Paragraph # 5 is for you.

With Russia soon to be staging these in Cuba and Venezuela,
and the average citizen has no clue, the next Cuban missile
crisis is not far away.

On the bright side they are only 300-500 Kilo-ton warheads.

This is very true, I own a 30-06.

It is a very scary weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, I hope on my life I never have to in anger or defense.

1,000+ yards "effective" range with the right scope.

And yes, that is over half a mile.

The 50 cal BMG is well over a mile.

The diff is you can buy a 30-06 at a rural Wal-mart for $250.

But lets consider that humans are only humane when law
enforcement stands ready to kill them on the spot.

The didn't call it the Wild West due to the women.

Peace is a VERY temporary state in human nature:

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

We are moving towards another World War 'right' now.

Most ppl are too busy with their favorite diversion to notice.

The Russian's however are ready:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/yamantau.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/kh-101.htm

This is very true, I own a 30-06.

It is a very scary weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, I hope on my life I never have to in anger or defense.

1,000+ yards "effective" range with the right scope.

And yes, that is over half a mile.

The 50 cal BMG is well over a mile.

The diff is you can buy a 30-06 at a rural Wal-mart for $250.

But lets consider that humans are only humane when law
enforcement stands ready to kill them on the spot.

The didn't call it the Wild West due to the women.

Peace is a VERY temporary state in human nature:

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

We are moving towards another World War 'right' now.

Most ppl are too busy with their favorite diversion to notice.

The Russian's however are ready:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/yamantau.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/kh-101.htm

And why does it have to be contactless for ANY of the proposed applications? .

It seems safe to assume that your do not live upstate.

The NEXUSborder ID card costs $50 and is acceptable at only about sixteen border crossings nation-wide. NEXUS

I don't get it. I actually DO live upstate... Not everyone here drives to Canada often enough to justify the $50.

Besides, what does the nexus card have to do with anything? How does RFID make the nexus card better. Since you have to stop to use the card, wouldn't it have been CHEAPER, just as EASY and WAY MORE secure to use a barcode or a magstripe system?