Slashdot Mirror

He probably missed a word, so that it should have been:

the US military budget wasn't bigger than the military budgets of ALL the other countries in the world combined

which still isn't exactly true. But it is pretty bloody close.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global- deployments.htm

But you probably mean actual maps.

Iran is not a nuclear power. It does not even have nuclear power stations. The threat to the world derives from US politicians presenting such countries as a menace in order to be able to launch aggressive wars.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke. htm

Iran might have a bomb right now, and will have a bomb by the end of the year. They had nuclear power in the 70s but the two plants were shut down; they probably have a few plants now.

Iran will be the only country in the ME besides Israel that have nukes.

>>>> I honestly don't know how the hell you would detect such a missile tracking you

They detect the flame out the back of the missle. Chemicals given off by the rocket motor burn across the spectrum (visible, UV and Infra-red). The optical sensors on the aircraft pick up the burning, specifically in the UV range. Sunlight in this spectrum does not get through the upper atmosphere, so it is essentially "dark". Only a few other things emit at this range are things like arc-welders, but software can be used to eliminate these to improve the false alarm rate.

>>> "As far as I knew, even military jets have no early warning of IR missiles. " Oh yes they do.

"Saved" is a bit strong, but there was a DHL A300 hit by an SA-7 over Baghdad that made an emergency landing: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/produit/29222_us. html Most man-portable SAMs would require a very fortunate shot to bring down something the size of an airliner. The traditional method used by aircraft flying in to high threat environments is a special approach, possibly combined with an automated flare ejection system releasing decoys on final approach. Naturally, this system would cause chaos on approach to most civilian airports. The system deployed on the FedEx DC-10 looks like the best solution if one believes that this is the way to go. The US military is placing its hope for protection from the full range of IR missiles in the Suite of Infrared Countermeasures http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/systems/siircm.htm but this package is far more than airliners need. The danger to airliners is from missiles with a relatively low effective altitude: an airliner at cruising altitude is not threatened by a guy with a missile on his shoulder. More info in some research here http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Dec03/SN0303.ht ml

I imagine that they would like to have a way to shoot at this very potent anti-ship missile: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/tai wan/2000/e-03-28-00-11.htm It's hard to hit an incoming missile with projectiles when those projectiles don't go much faster than the missile. Maybe this is why they want a railgun. The ability to take out distant ships or planes that might launch this missile, without using carrier launched planes or precious Tomahawks, would also be very useful.

Using the Extended Range Guided Munition 5" MK45 Mod 4 Naval guns have a range of approximately 60 nautical miles, not the 15 mentioned in the summary.

Take a look at the Spectre Gunship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130_Spooky That thing fires howitzers while on air. They aim using gyros. They would probably use similar tech for the railgun. There is also the "spooky" variant http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/ac-130u.htm

A precise "smart" weapon, even if it costs more, might end up being cheaper in the end. Take the JDAM for example. The JDAM kit costs about $18,000 and is attached to a simple gravity bomb that costs on the range of $2000 to $5000. The difference between the JDAM bomb and the simple gravity bomb is that you only need to drop one JDAM to hit a target and be assured of hitting a precise coordinate as opposed to ten gravity bombs to achieve the same effect. Not only do you have the reduced requirement in terms of units of ordinance to destroy a target, but a single weapons platform can be tasked to destroy five distinct targets on one sortie rather than being assigned to half of a target for the same sortie. See the force-multiplying effect of smart weapons yet? The rail gun sounds neat and all, but for it to be practical it's going to need to be accurate, and if the plan is to lob kinetic rounds from 300+ kilometers away, then the safest place to stand will probably be the intended target coordinates.

Unless, of course, the rail gun is shooting smart devices.... then scratch my criticisms.

I doubt the actual rounds used in a battlefeild scenario would be dumb-fire lumps of metal, for just that reason.

Some seem to think that a methane fueled plane http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/aurora.htm does indeed exist and has been zooming around for a while.

In fact, 39.63 inches long

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/gro und/m16-specs.htm

It's actually 40 inches (1016 mm) long.

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

MOAB - Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb

The GBU-43/B is large, powerful and accurately delivered. high explosive. The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb [MOAB] weapon is a 21,000 lbs total weight GPS-guided munition with fins and inertial gyro for pitch and roll control. MOAB is a guided bomb which delivers the 18,700 lb BLU-120/B warhead bomb with KMU-593/B GPS/INS. The MOAB is the largest-ever satellite-guided, air-delivered weapon in history [not the largest ever, but the largest satellite guided]. The 21,600-pound MOAB is an improved replacement for the unguided 15,000-pound BLU-82 Daisy Cutter. It is 30 feet long with a diameter of 40.5 inches. The warhead is a blast-type warhead. It was developed in only nine weeks to be available for the Iraq campaign, but it was not used in combat.

(much more in article)

He concocted the idea for Instant Ramen after WWII, hoping to reduce the amount of poor nourishment for soldiers in the field.

Other than sales taxes - which everyone pays when buying non-black market goods - what other taxes do they pay?

Income tax? No. Social Security? No. Property tax? No.

Oh wait, they might pay those if they're using someone else's Social Security Number... Mmm... identity theft.

*Legal* immigrants are what have made the US the leader in almost every field. *Illegal* immigration has made the US a leader in prison populations... at least according to the DoJ studies:

As a result of IAFIS technology, CBP Border Patrol agents have arrested: 138 homicide suspects; 67 kidnapping suspects; 226 sexual assault suspects; 431 robbery suspects; 2,342 suspects for assaults of other types; and 4,801 suspected traffickers of dangerous narcotics

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/ide nt-iafis.htm and http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0003/resenp9.ht m

"First off, you assume I like bush and am a republican. In fact, neither is the case. I swallowed nothing hook line and sensor because my views are based on my own observations."

Apologies. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and so obviously passionately believes you're either with the ducks or against them... it's an easy mistake to make.

"The fact that the opposition party has chosen to play politics with a war violates the historical situation which dictated that domestic politics ended at the waters edge."

Well, I think it's more that a president of questionable legitimacy secured an unhealthy stranglehold over all three branches of government, then used this lack of opposition to take the country on a war of invasion against someone who posed no threat to the country, for since-provably trumped-up charges.

The whole "domestic politics ends at the water's edge" is generally when you're faced with... oh, I dunno... a serious and clear threat to your country, sovereignty, way of life... pretty much any threat at all, really. You know - how when you're actually under any serious threat at all you band together to fight off the attacker, then settle the differences between you later.

Politely and impotently questioning the legitimacy of a war which basically consists of wading in and beating up the military equivalent of a bunch of toddlers doesn't really constitute "clear and present danger", at least in my book.

Or do you really also buy that line about Saddam helping t3h T3Rr0Ri5ts!1!1!11!?

"I grew tired long ago of the brainless bush bashers parroting the bs from leftists in the mainstream media."

What, is this the same mainstream media that's the laughing-stock of the world for it's obsequious fawning bend-over-backwards-for-the-Whitehouse complete lack of journalistic independence?

That mainstream media?

"Bush has severe problems though probably not as much widespread as carter or clinton or bush 1 for that matter but very bad never the less."

Not as bad as Carter, Clinton or Bush I. Right.

"What happened to the yellow cake sadam had?"

What yellowcake?

But seriously... sure, they found some old remains of yellowcake Saddam had previously possessed, just like they found other evidence of Chemo-Biological-Nuclear weapon production, and briefly began to trumpet that as proof the war was justified.

Unfortunately analysis quickly demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was old remains, from around the time of Gulf War I, when Saddam was known to be pursuing WMDs... and that there was no evidence at all that Saddam had been pursuing CBN WMDs after this date.

"I don't know why I've never seen that fretting reporter all worried about the people stealing those barrel in any repeats or best of programming."

Probably because it was a non-story. Those deposits were already known about, and had been since Gulf War I. No conspiracy, just insufficient research on your part.

Think about it - if Saddam really had WMDs, or was even researching them, do you really think the media would have been able to suppress the Bush Administration from crowing about them? It would at least part-validate the entire Iraq war.

The media would have to have a stranglehold over the country more powerful than the Republicans had to suppress all mention of that. And in the previous direct confrontations between the two, it was generally the media having stories spiked, journalists indicted and pressure applied... not the Whitehouse.

"That doesn't mean it came from Niger but we do know that sadam was attempting for a second time to develop a bomb - Pollard is

As someone who grew up on a big stack of Popular Mechanics, I hate to say it, but "in-depth" and "Popular Mechanics" are two terms that haven't worked well together in a sentence for years, arguably decades. A much better source of information is www.globalsecurity.org or fas.org. In fact, looking through their section on North Korea's WMD, I see that the Popular Mechanics author basically paraphrased their write-up, giving his article all the quality and broad research base of any good internet blog.

Another nice aspect of globalsecurity and the Federation of American Scientists, is that both maintain rather extensive databases of information on weapon systems. For example, if after reading the article, I want to know how far a chemical weapon-equipped Scud could deliver it's payload, I can look that up, too.

As someone who grew up on a big stack of Popular Mechanics, I hate to say it, but "in-depth" and "Popular Mechanics" are two terms that haven't worked well together in a sentence for years, arguably decades. A much better source of information is www.globalsecurity.org or fas.org. In fact, looking through their section on North Korea's WMD, I see that the Popular Mechanics author basically paraphrased their write-up, giving his article all the quality and broad research base of any good internet blog.

Another nice aspect of globalsecurity and the Federation of American Scientists, is that both maintain rather extensive databases of information on weapon systems. For example, if after reading the article, I want to know how far a chemical weapon-equipped Scud could deliver it's payload, I can look that up, too.

Kim Jong Il has almost zero funds, and yet retains power by personality.

Kim's funds may be insignificant in absolute terms; but relatively speaking, while the rest of North Korea is totally dark, he has enough money left over after his cognac, Segways and iPods to fund a nuclear program.

The effect of money is more insidious and less visible than “blind devotion;” instances:

• the Catholic church (in the middle ages),
• Hollywood.

Aside from any code with the purpose of fascilitating a "shutdown" of the plane, the code for the radar data processing is what the US is most concerned to keep a well guarded secret. Also, 90% of the code for the F22 is written in Ada. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/f-22-avionics.htm

Notice how that implies that they were, yet, WMD's? Not the ones we were looking for, but WMD's none-the-less.

A WMD must be, by defintion, capable of mass destruction. The chemical agents Iraq produced had a limited "shelf life" - about 5 years. Anything left over from before 1991 was past its sell-by date by 1996.

The Iraq Survey Group concluded: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

What Iraq had, had the same relation to WMD as the gooey melted mess in the back of my fridge has to a head of lettuce.

We haven't failed in Iraq. Our current offensive is failing but we have not yet failed. But the way things are going, with the majority of Americans complaining about the war instead of supporting it, we aren't far from failure.

BS. The invasion is a failure. We have not achieved any of the (constantly changing) goals cited by the administration. We did not stop or harm Al Qaeda by invading Iraq, in fact we've helped them, giving them great recruiting motivation. We didn't eliminate a threat posed by Saddam Hussein to other nations, because there wasn't one.

As for the idea of creating a stable democracy in Iraq via an invasion, that was doomed from the start. Like trying to scuplt a bust of Pallas with machine-gun fire, it's simply the wrong technique for the job. And redoubling your efforts only makes more of a mess, and makes it unlikely that there's enough left to work with if you did stop and try to do it right.

That the majority of Americans are finally realizing that they've been had is not the reason these goals can't be achived; the reason that the majority of Americans are realizing that they've been had is because these goals can't be achived.

The capacity with which wars may be waged across continents and oceans adds the danger that enemies, keen on our apparent weakness, will be able to swiftly and effectively attack us.

The only nations capable of waging effective war against the U.S. are the nuclear powers. (Neither Al Qaeda, not the insurgents in Iraq, are a "nation", and our conflict with them is not a "war", not a conflict between states or putative states.)

Terrorist groups can hurt us, sure, especially with the possibility of one of them getting a WMD, but no military victory is going to change the motivation of a terroist group.

In September of 2001, everyone knew that we had the world's most powerful military. It didn't help.

And we have an enemy that has no desire but to kill us all. Not to defend or to dominate, but destroy. They are encouraged and their ranks surge with every victory.

Their ranks surge with every innocent killed by Americans. Hell, their ranks surge with every insurgent killed by Americans, since in the eyes of many the insurgents are valiently and rightously defending their home against brutal invaders.

You can't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it; and when gasoline fails as a fire extinguisher, it is not smart to say, "Oh, we obviously didn't use enough! Pour on more, that's sure to do the trick!"

For what it's worth, The maker of the Silly String brand, Just for Kicks Inc. is in Watertown, N.Y., about a 10 minute drive from Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army /10mtn.htm http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/about/hist-10mtn.as p And, no, we should not have invaded Iraq. We knew it then, we know it now.

> The plots at the bottom of this page give a good feel for how much progress we've made in the past 3-1/2 years.

Here is the link.

I'm not one of those "rah rah U-S-A" guys but let's look at the FACTS for a moment.

world GDP is ~$60 trillion. The US's GDP is ~$12 trillion. So I'd say the rest of the world's production capacity is only 4x that of the US's, not 10x.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2001rank.html

The US spends at least $460 billion/yr on it's military whereas the rest of the world spends $500 billion/yr. So the US is fairly on par, though it's military spending is heavily weighted towards high tech, capital intensive combat systems.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spend ing.htm

Sounds like the makings of a good fight. But the rest of the world doesn't have integrated command and control, and the US DOES. So it would take awhile...the US would have to convert all it's production into making bombs and would have to conscript all it's males and then go after the other countries one by one, but it could be done. Central governments are easy to destroy with bombs. The difficult part would be in actually holding the territory if any people remain alive. To save money and time it would be logical to make some judicious use of nukes, then carpet most of the rest of the planet with chemical and biological weapons, as the United States has the most advanced CBW program on the planet and converting our chemical and pharmaceutical industry to making them would be easy.

So my vote is "yes the US could destroy all the other governments but without killing all the other people it could not hold the territory." The US does clausewitzian warfare better than anyone else but when it comes to counter-insurgency it sucks...as the occupation of Iraq shows us.

And anyway this all belies the point the US through a balance of military and economic force controls the entire planet besides a few hot spots and China....maybe Russia.

The USA spends 466 Billion of the entire world's 900 billion dollar expenditures on military. China alone has more soldiers than USA has regular people, but that doesn't necessarily count for much in modern warfare.What you say is true, but it's not all of the truth. USA spends 466 billion on weapons. How much do the Iraqi insurgents spend? A fraction of a fraction of a fraction, when compared to USA. Yet USA has their hands full trying to control the situation in Iraq.

Money is not everything.

Buying is easy, shipping is not.

That is, unless they plan to smuggle the goods into North Korea through the invasion tunnels they dug into South Korea.

Of course, this is just for our benefit. Why do I say that, you ask? Look:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/image s/dprk-dmsp-dark-old.jpg

North Korea is DARK. Other than their dictatorial leadership, they have no electricity to power fancy toys.

The man drives BMWs and Caddies, rides a Harley, sips fine cognac and drinks good scotch, plays with cameras, and relaxes in air conditioning, and his country looks like this.

I think if I could choose to stab anyone in the world in the face, he'd be a finalist for sure.

First of all I agree with you that in USA vs rest of world the USA would _probably_ lose, but it's not as clear cut as you propose... nor would that actually be the scenario. We do need to worry about the US military, and yes, from a global standpoint.

The USA spends 466 Billion of the entire world's 900 billion dollar expenditures on military. China alone has more soldiers than USA has regular people, but that doesn't necessarily count for much in modern warfare.

Simply put in a conventional (modern) military engagement between USA and the rest of the world, there would be no winners. Our entire planet would be totally messed up, billions would be dead.

But even that isn't the likely scenario... some countries would undoubtedly side with the US, and the game of diplomacy would begin (which is what happens in nearly every war). Try to think of the world as a big ol' Risk board game right now. Then put yourself in the shoes of a born again Christian who is driven by faith (and thus has a moral excuse for his actions), and has significantly more little army figurines than most other countries combined.

In such a scenario, there's no clear cut winner -- like I said before, everyone will lose.

If you really believe what you just posted, then you are the one who's blinding yourself.

Even a THOUSAND TIMES the lethal dose of .5 mCi would be a mere tenth of a milligram.

At 9196 kg/m^3 ~= 9 mg / mm^3, that's about a hundredth of a cubic millimeter, assuming it was given in elemental form.

The sheer quantity of alpha radiation it produces also explains why it's used in satellites - "The power density of polonium is unique and made it attractive as a power source. One pound of polonium-210 occupies a volume of approximately 3 cubic inches and produces heat at the rate of 3.6 x 10^8 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per minute or about 64 kilowatts of electric power."

1. The nuclear technology at North Korea does not come from China, but from Iran.

Iran and North Korea are beneficiaries of the Pakistani AQ Khan network. He hawked a Chinese plan for a nuclear weapon. Are you ignorant are do you choose to be obtuse?

2. Chinese government publicly denounced North Korea's nuclear test

The Chinese are duplicious, siding with and opposing the world community where it suits them. This is not new. Without China there would be no North Korea or Kim Jong Il.

3. Hong Kong is not in Europe and never was a part of UK but colonized in the Opium war

Yes, very successfully colonized, prosperous, and well administered. If that was conquest the world needs more. And that was thrown away because...?

I grew up in central Washington State; i.e: desert. If you're worried about saving the desert then I'd be a bit more upset about Hanford, the Yakima Training Center and, well, Yakima itself.

degenerated into the Crazy Olympics

Degenerated? "Crazy Olympics?"

It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea all the way.

North Korea has the:
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Runner Up
and "Miss Congeniality"

With the recently added events, they could be in an even better medal position next year.

I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.

degenerated into the Crazy Olympics

Degenerated? "Crazy Olympics?"

It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea all the way.

North Korea has the:
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Runner Up
and "Miss Congeniality"

With the recently added events, they could be in an even better medal position next year.

I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.

The junior Kim has vowed 'complete liberation of the peninsula', a task left 'half-done' by Kim Il-sung. He is apparently determined to become 'the president of a unified Korea' through armed force.-- Hwang Jang-yop (former Worker's Party Secretary) Speaks

This robot was featured in Slashdot some time ago, back when it was just an idea. A lot of people went into hysterics about it, but I think the robot could be a Good Thing for the South Korean military. The DMZ is the most heavily-armed border in the world. There was never a peace treaty between the Koreas, and it occasionally gets hot on the DMZ. Watching a static border like the DMZ seems well-suited to a robot sentry, and I'm sure South Korean soldiers wouldn't mind much if they didn't have to run as many live patrols along the wire.

I had similar results. The Poisons Handbook link didn't work for me. I also added an essay on this whole documents matter.

The Al Queda Handbook
The Terrorist's Handbook
Dragunov Sniper Rifle Manual (et al)
Media and Government exaggerations

Global Security has an article from 2005: "Chemist Derides Qaeda Germwar Skills Touted by Manual." The article says the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook is bunk.

Here's one: During the invasion, why did you elect to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry rather than the Weapons facility at Al Qaqaa?

Rumsfeld: Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

The US soldier fatality percentage is the same for the current Iraq War as for the entire WW2.

WW2 (5 years)
American soldiers
16,113,000 serving
292,000 battle deaths
1.8% dead

Operation Iraqi Freedom (3 1/2 years and counting)
American soldiers
133,000 deployed
2,461 hostile deaths
1.8% dead

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001747 .html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_or bat.htm
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Piracy -- yes, real swashbuckling, murdering, thieving, skullduggery -- is far more prevalent than the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ pirates.htm
Maybe the touch of his noodly appendage was misconstrued; it MIGHT have been referring instead to a decrease in the numbers of eyepatches and peg-legs per capita...

Iran does have a lot of Uranium. See here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines .htm

I also think that al-Qaida would vote G.W.Bush: Never ever have the recruiting possibilities have be better, never ever have the arguments of al-Qaida being existant better. Never ever have the means and possibilities of getting money from the Arab world being better due to high income on oil and an general feeling of being waged an undeclared war against from the U.S..

It was brilliant the way Al Qaeda tricked the US into occupying all of its nicely equipped and well supplied training bases in Afghanistan, not to mention the way it bogged the US down with all of its supplies, mountains of documents, large numbers of prisoners, and weapons. And the physical training they are getting by running away will no doubt always be useful. And I can't help but think of all the US Treasury officials who gave up weekends because they were forced to freeze the accounts of Al Qaeda members, suppliers, and sympathizers. They also cleverly got around the problem of Afghanistan's government only being recognized by 2 countries, the funny looks you might get with an Afghani passport, by tricking the US into removing the Taliban government. Of course that did create a problem with finding enough ballots for all of the Afghans to vote.

They are being fiendishly clever in Iraq as well, forcing us to use up precious bullets, killing at least 4,000 foreign fighters in the process. And just because Bin Laden claims that the war in Iraq is "greatest battle of Islam in this era" doesn't mean it has to be important to the US. After all, with the Iraqi Army almost up to full strength, and growing more proficient, day by day, you have to wonder about the hatred of the US when Muslim soldiers are killing Islamist extremist terrorist who are killing Iraqi Muslims who used to be killed by the thousands by Saddam, but not any more, so I guess its fault of the US that fewer Muslims are being killed... and voting.... I think that is supposed to be bad.

Never ever have allies of the U.S. being more alienated from the U.S., making "divide et impera" the most easiest ever. Never ever was the danger of the own population being in favor of U.S. so minimal.

Your point about US allies is well taken. If it wasn't for the 34 or so countries that have had forces in Iraq as part of the coalition, the fact that NATO is running the Afghanistan operation these days, including commanding US troops in addition to 36 other countries, or that the US is part of the Six Party talks over North Korea, or that the US is coordinating with European powers over Iran, it is hard to say when the US would ever talk to any other country.

If only the world hadn't turned against the US before 9/11.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/ dprk-dark.htm (DMSP image of Korean Peninsula at night.)

As for tubes, as soon as Korea is reunited, or even if China annexes N Korea, they will have bright shiny new InterTubes and every N Korean will have a cell phone in a couple of years considering the enterprising nature of both their border states.

The fertilizer theory is interesting, there's some speculation that the Ryongcheon disaster was because of an exploding cargo of fertilizer, so they would have experience with the power of this stuff. Although the latest news point towards nuclear, but they might have just put some radioactive material in the mix for good measure.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuke-tes ting.htm

has lots of good info, read up