Slashdot Mirror

I'm sure that we may even have a means of making replacement navigational signals via high flying aircraft if GPS satellites go down. Of course knowing China, they'll fly their trash into that too.

The one off the coast of Georgia that you're thinking of was a B-47. Here's a list of accidents by the US Military. http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm I don't know if anyone has published a similar list for the USSR/Russia or any of the other nuclear powers.

"How the fuck do you lose a goddamn hydrogen bomb?"
"Uh, you crash a plane containing hydrogen bombs."

More here: http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm

The B-52 was returning to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base at Goldsboro, North Carolina, after flying the southern route of the SAC air alert missions (code named "Chrome Dome"). It was attempting its third refueling of the mission with a KC-135 tanker from the American base at Moron, southwestern Spain, near Sevilla. Although the official report of the cause of the accident was not released to the public, it is believed that while attempting to dock at 30,000 ft above the Spanish coast, the nozzle of the tanker's boom, which was supposed to hook up with the B-52's orifice, struck the bomber, ripping open the B-52 along its spine and causing aerodynamic stress which snapped the bomber into pieces. Flames spurted through both planes and the KC-135s 40,000 gallons of jet fuel ignited, killing its four crew members almost immediately. Four of the seven crew members of the B-52 managed to eject and parachute to safety.

From the above source: "[the second most serious nuclear weapons accident on record - MILNET]" (it also goes on to describe a similar accident at Thule).

Um... Notice how very few Israelis are actually disagreeing with that assesment? Victory isn't making piles of rubble. If you look at the larger picture, this was a victory for Hezbollah without a doubt.

There was no way Hezbollah, some rag-tag little militia, was supposed to be able to stand up the IDF.

What happened is that Israel got hit very hard. They lost a lot of soldiers, and worse a lot of tanks.

Hezbollah was able to fight the ground forces of Israel to a standstill,

Sure, Israel destroyed a lot of infrastructure with a little "shock and awe" air power. Doesn't really do much other than harm the citizenry and piss them off. In the end, Israel couldn't do what mattered, and that's occupy the land that was and still is controlled by Hezbollah.

Make no bones about it. Hezbollah lured Israel into a fight at the time and place of their choosing,

...handed Israel an unexpected spanking, and sent them packing without giving up much of anything.

At the strategic level, this was a stunning victory for Hezbollah and all the nations/groups that oppose Israel. It would be very foolish to view it otherwise.

I'm absolutely correct no matter what you say. Setting aside that fact, the very public presence of The Donald has left everybody with the impression that he does run the military. From Bush's spleen, to the Donald's brain, to the troops on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.

SecDef is absolutely in the chain of command.

POTUS - SecDef - unified commanders - everyone else.

The Joint Chiefs are on the side, as advisors.

Now...does SecDef have the 'authority' to order a private around? Technically, yes. Obviously, no, that doesn't happen.

Anyway, the wings in the decorations are feathered ones, not very usefull to fly with planes also, so if "wings" is just an agreed symbol about flying it doesn't matter if it makes sense for non-atmosferic fly.

On the Earth's surface, much of the nuclear device's energy is transformed into blast and thermal effects by a complicated set of interactions with the atmosphere. See Effects of Nuclear Explosions.

We've had smaller nukes than that since the late 1950's. Our AIM-26A and AIR-2A air to air missiles typically had 1.5 nuclear warheads. Some of these had the even smaller 0.25 KT warheads.

More Info:

http://www.milnet.com/aamtab.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm16.htm

http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/genie .htm

Your computer emits EMPs?

No wonder the BXA classifies encryption as a munition!

( Cue Keanu Reeves: Whoa! )

Just one minor point:

detainees that haven't been declared POW's anyone?

I've heard statements like this a lot, and believed them until I actually did some research and read up on the Geneva convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) and other applicable war laws (ie War Powers Act of 1973).

There are some very high standards that enemy combatants must meet in order to have the right of POW status. If they don't meet all of them than a country doesn't have to give them POW treatment. The factors are:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. ... one can very easily argue that al queda/ taliban fighters didn't meet all of these requirements.

The only thing I wonder about the detained prisoners is if we met the requirements in this passage: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Did we ever give the detainees a tribunal to confirm that they're not POW's?

--
On a related note, don't go into the "but Congress never declared war" argument unless you can point out *exactly* where it says in the geneva convention that you need a declaration of war. I read "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict" which seems to make it unnecessary. And the war powers act cited above gives congress the power to give the president specific wartime powers without a formal declaration of war (see "specific statutory authorization" under section 2(c)).

I just want to say that I hate the bush regime and their attitude towards international and domestic affairs (esp the OHS) as much as the next whiny liberal ;) ... but it seems that all the claims of bush's war acts violating international and domestic law aren't entirely accurate. Both sides of a debate need to be well-informed for it to get anywhere. Perhaps the laws of war need to be reformed, but we're not really breaking them.

You misremember this. In fact, McVeigh is commonly called a 'terrorist' to this day. (Though he's a caught terrorist, and thus not really that important in this day of supposedly uncaught terrorists.) Possibly you don't live in the US, though, it may differ elsewhere.

And I certainly don't recall a outcry to profile these groups. Round them up and arrest them., etc.

I don't see any outcry to round up Muslims, either.

And your statement makes no sense at all. You can't round up or even security check all white people, you'd put half the country in jail. Whereas you can certainly round up all visiting people from a few countries. Which no one has suggested doing anyway.

Or the shootings, assults and arsons linked to these white power Christian fundamentalist groups. Why aren't they called Christian terrorists?!?

Because they call themselves 'white power' groups and not 'Christian' groups. In fact, they really aren't Christian groups, and I don't mean in the 'anyone who acts like that isn't a Christian' sense, I mean that they really aren't associated with Christianity in any way. They may personally be Christians, but that doesn't have anything to do with it, the 'white power' movement is the white power movement, it isn't an offshoot of Christianity.

And, yes, I'm sure there are exceptions that test the rule, but that's not the point. They don't 'recruit' in churches, they don't have anything to do with Christianity except some weird historical artifacts like burning crosses. (Which would be the KKK, not the 'white power' movement, anyway. The KKK at least has some historical precedent with claiming to be Christian.)

In fact, I'm a little confused at why people think the 'white power' movement has anything to do with Christianity at all. That claim might make sense for the KKK in the forties, but that's not even the same KK as the current one, which isn't the 'white power' movement anyway.

A number of which are members of the same Christian church sect!

Which, amazingly, you didn't even manage to mention, so I'll just completely ignore this. I suspect you made it up. (And, BTW, correlation doesn't equal casuality.)

Don't even get me started about the killings, bombings, assults, arsons and anthrax scares linked to anti-abortion groups. How come they aren't called terrorists?!?

Are you talking about that guy back in January? The one who called himself a terrorist? Yeah, the media didn't want to call him one, that's what he wanted them to do.

Anyway, you should read, more ABCNews, apparently. Or maybe the miltary's list of domestice terror groups, many of which are anti-abortion terrorists. (Now, if you want to call these people 'Christian fundementalists', go right ahead. But that's rather vague, 'Christian anti-abortion fundamentalists' is more specific, and at that point you might as well leave off 'Christian', there are basically no other anti-abortion terrorists in the US.)

You can bet, that if a group talked of a need to eliminate bankers. Posted assassination lists online of key bankers, some of which were later killed. Had bombed a number of banks, set fires to others, harassed customers, sent in anthrax scares to banks...You bet the FBI would be rounding them up fast!

Um...you're an idiot. The police DID force the people who ran the 'hit lists' to take them down, and charged them with criminal activities, though I don't think they could get accessory to murder to stick in court. (Which means you need to blame the jury, not the police.)

Or how with all the school shootings, the media avoids talking about the pattern of them being middle-class white teen males? It's all kept vague and they refer how it's hard to find a pattern!

Okay, now you're simply being stupid. The reason there was a focus on 'all' the school shootings (all five of them or so) was because they were middle-class white kids. Inner-city kids shoot themselves all the time.

And one attribute shared among the shootings doesn't make a pattern when that attribute is the only reason they're linked together in the first place.

If group A has a low rate of X, then suddenly the rate of X increases (Which it didn't really, it just got more high profile), then assuming it's because they are group A is idiotic...they were group A before the rate went up. The media is smart enough to realize this.

I dont want to flame but an american did not invent the tv "Philo Farnsworth"-who?? im sorry but ill bet he was american , he did not invent the tv John Logie Baird as stated above was the inventor he was working in Dublin ( Ireland ) at the time i believe

You are absolutely correct that Philo Farnsworth didn't invent the concept of television. He invented the first all electronic television.
link

The other individual you mentioned invented a functional Television first, however it was mechanical.He later much improved on the electronic design, and for that deserves much credit, however Farnsworth did invent television in pretty much the form we use today.

, just like americans didnt invent the Computer , no the English didnt either , a German beat them all to it just before the begining of WW11

Gee I always thought Charles Babbage was English, and in every CS book that mentions the history of the computer, Babbage is credited as it's inventor. I also thought he invented it in the 1830's, long before the First World War, let alone the second, although it is true that Babbage may not deserve all of the credit for inventing the first real computer.

I found Konrad Zuse (not 'zuze'). His machines were rather remarkable. He had paper paper tape (although he used old movie film because paper for paper tape or punch cards was in short supply), he used binary, and considered using vaccum tubes instead of relays, but found relays to be more plentiful. His machine also predated the Harvard Mark I(IBM ASCC), however that machine was apparently invented independantly, and the fact that the Z3 had predated it was not found out until after WWII. All of this information is here.

However, several full fleged computers predated Zuse's machine, including Babbage's machines, and the Turnig machine.

The jet fighter was the English , who were gracious enough to lend there jet tech to America.

Gee, my history books always said it was Germany. They were at least the first to use them AS fighters during WWII.

From here
1939 First jet aircraft is flown, Heinkel HE 178 Heinkel Germany
1942 First operational jet, ME-262 Messerschmitt Germany

It kinda looks to me like it wasn't the British, but actually the Germans who deveoped the first Jet.

Nothing againts America I still think its a great country but not everything is invented in america!.ill be moded as offtopic i presume , who cares , what i said is still true.

It's nice of you to say that we're a great country, and that you have nothing against us, (some of your aside comments would indicate otherwise, but I'll take you at your word), but what you say isn't really true. You failed to make even the most cursory of checks using google for any of the claims you made.

What i don't understand about the whole supercomputer thing is that nuclear weapons were developed in WW2 with no more computing power than a wrist-watch

And that's why the Hiroshima bomb was 1.4% efficient. Maybe you should read this Nuclear Weapons FAQ.

Actually prior to 9-11-2001 I don't think you can find many acts of terrorism in US airports that required the use of any type of military or police intervention with automatic weapons.

If you would like to ask yourself why these other airports from other countries do need these the go right ahead.

As for the inference that NG (National Guardsmen) would fumble around with their weapon ....... NOPE. Two shots ... maybe. But they are trained to use thier weapon including how it's carried. They wear body armor. "Ever tried to ... ", nope... but the guardsmen have! It's part of their training. I'd grade them an A for their presence, a C for the number of guardsmen being used, and the whole US airport security system a C due to their inexperience in actual civilian airport security experience.

Lastly the reason of the NG being present is as a precaution and to give the flying public the message that some kind of response to terrorism is close by.

I don't give a $hit if a guard has their hand on the handle, trigger, or their crotch. Because the element of surprise is a given for the terrorist. If you think the military could treat civilian airport security the same way it does with it's own airfields your wrong. If left up to the military youd be writing to bitch about how your rights are violated by the stormtroopers manning the airport security gates.

By far more terroristic acts have been done at non-us airports around the world and this website lists a few dating back to the late 1960's.

How crazy was Project Chariot? Consider the fact that Bikini Atoll is now one of the best sites for skin diving and sport fishing on the planet. (Read that as "lots of shipwrecks in pristine condition" and a nearly-undisturbed environment for the past 40 years.) The most serious radiological contaminant on Bikini is Cs-137, and the main reason it's a problem is because the local vegetation picks it up in place of potassium. It's a land problem, not a sea problem. Since a putative Alaskan harbor isn't a likely site for crop-growing, and since it would have been excavated with high-yielding thermonuclear devices designed to maximize explosive yield and minimize heavy radionuclide production, the residual radiation levels around the site would have dropped to habitable levels relatively quickly. (Of course, whether it would have cooled off in time to be economically viable compared to conventional construction, or even whether or not a harbor would have benefited the Alaskan economy is a question for economists, not physicists :)

IMHO the best use for nuclear explosions would have been Project Orion; a nuclear pulse engine. Another cool project killed by the ignorance of the public when it comes to things nuclear.

Teller has every right to be bitter. It appears from the article that many people are unable to separate the man from the device he helped build. In an age in which the public is so frightened of the word "nuclear" that they argue to ban space probes like Cassini due to their RTGs, and in which people prefer the cyanide in apricot pits to chemotherapy "because it's the natural way to fight caner", it's not surprising that Teller's vision of the application of technology to build a better world is viewed as hubris, and his contributions are held in low esteem.

Back to nukes. Anyone interested in the history of atomic weaponry should consider a visit to the National Atomic Museum in New Mexico. The timing is great - the first weekend of October also marks the date on which White Sands Missile Range opens up the Trinity Site to the general public, allowing tours of the site of the first fission explosion.

Finally - whatever your opinions on the horror of the bomb's use - the physics behind it was still beautiful. Anyone wanting more detailed information on the design is highly encouraged to read Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ - a 14-part document also available at the FAS High Energy Weapons archive.