Slashdot Mirror

China already has missle technology capable of launching various payloads* from the mainland to Taiwan: so what missles are you referring to exactly that they are "developing" of which they don't yet have? It says on that page that China can also launch missiles that can hit mainland United States.

Another link that may be of interest to you:

http://www.rense.com/general38/cong.htm

There are about 20 before/after photos of Chernobyl here including one with the American Pioneer robot that was sent in to take a look; obnoxiously flying the Stars & Stripes...

Interestingly, the plant was still operational until 2000 - here's a history of all the reactors. *

Unit 1: shut down on 11/30/96.
Unit 2: A fire at Unit 2 resulted in its shutdown in 10/91.
Unit 3: Shut down on 15 December 2000.
Unit 4: destroyed in the 4/86 disaster.

People have pointed to this accident as one of the hallmark turnarounds in reactor safety, but I don't think the Russian mindset changed post-1986.

From NTI: "Units 1 and 3 were shut down in 1991 after an accident at the similar Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant in Russia, but were restarted in December and October of 1992, respectively. The restart decision was taken against the advice of the Ukrainian State Committee for Nuclear and Radiation Safety."

Under Communism, the Russians couldn't build a safe reactor, under capitalism, they couldn't afford to shut it down. Choose your poison, boys!

There are about 20 before/after photos of Chernobyl here including one with the American Pioneer robot that was sent in to take a look; obnoxiously flying the Stars & Stripes...

Interestingly, the plant was still operational until 2000 - here's a history of all the reactors. *

Unit 1: shut down on 11/30/96.
Unit 2: A fire at Unit 2 resulted in its shutdown in 10/91.
Unit 3: Shut down on 15 December 2000.
Unit 4: destroyed in the 4/86 disaster.

People have pointed to this accident as one of the hallmark turnarounds in reactor safety, but I don't think the Russian mindset changed post-1986.

From NTI: "Units 1 and 3 were shut down in 1991 after an accident at the similar Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant in Russia, but were restarted in December and October of 1992, respectively. The restart decision was taken against the advice of the Ukrainian State Committee for Nuclear and Radiation Safety."

Under Communism, the Russians couldn't build a safe reactor, under capitalism, they couldn't afford to shut it down. Choose your poison, boys!

So, in your first link, the words "proposed hyperplane" suggest to me that their plane, unlike NASA's, doesn't exist yet. The rest of the article, as far as I could tell, is about ballistic missles powered by rockets and 'regular' jets.

The second link is from NewsMax. Since I assume you're not from the U.S., you may not know that this is not a reputable news site. They are actually ultra-right scandal-mongers. I didn't see a single source cited in that entire article, but it appears they took the news from a Washington Times article (the Times is another right-leaning paper, not to be confused with the reputable Washington Post). The Russians denied the report as can be seen here. So if you want to believe that the Russians have scramjet-powered BM warheads, you go ahead. I won't say that they don't, but to ignore such rumors when discussing real hypersonic research doesn't make one "US centric"

Since we're all friends now and trust former KGB officers turned quasi-dictators, how bout the Russians give us some of the advanced weapons they've developed since they decided to become friendly members of the world community.
For isntance, how about they give us the new Topol-M road mobile super accurate nuclear missiles that can wobble in flight to avoid ABM systems.
They could give us the supersonic sea skimming nuclear tipped Sunburn missile which does a maneuver before it hits so it can slam into the decks of carriers.
They could give us the docs on how they make their high-speed cavitating torpedoes work.
Or their new Tupelov supersonic bombers.
Or the new Russian Infantry carried fuel air weapons that they used so well in the war in Chechnya.

"VVER" is the Soviet designation for a pressurized light water moderated reactors, which is designated PWR in western designs. This type of unit is generally regarded as less vulnerable to fire than the RBMK graphite-moderated reactors (LGR) employed at Chernobyl.

In part because of these concerns, efforts by Moscow and Havana to find international financial support for the project have so far failed, and remarks by Cuba leader Fidel Castro in January 1997 signal that it is unlikely to be completed anytime soon.

Will it defeat MAD though?

I've seen MAD mentioned a lot in this thread, but I wonder if people realize that MAD still only exists between the US and Russia. Most people think China is somehow involved, but they only have 20 nukes that can reach the US. It would take about 150 to destroy US command and control and 1/4th of the population.

Give us a break please. You are one of this people who belive that US is the country that gives most foregin aid, aren't you? Grow up! You are NOT. Not if we base it on percent of GNP, something we have to do to make it fare to compare.

It's "fair", the way I see it, and it has nothing to do with "growing up" it has more to do with the fact that we have plenty of people "in need" here at home. The US is going to spend 17.1 BILLION dollars on foriegn aid next year. I'd rather see that money go to the homeless in America, the Heathcare and education system in America, NASA and the Army. Surely, it shouldn't be spent on you ungrateful fucks.

Your own administration has told EU that you will attack our sattelites and other space equipment if you don't approve of your actions. We are supposed to be your allies.

a link? a quote? Prove it. Even if it is true, GOOD. I'm glad my country is protecting me from the EU and their anti-american stance.

No, it wasn't. It was expensive, stupid, ineffective and leads to an arms race. It doesn't protect you from terrorists - a SUV with a nuclear bomb is much more of a threat than a terrorist getting hold of a ICBM.

Who says we only have to protect ourself from terrorists? Plus there are plenty of countries that could be taken over by radical islamics that do have ICBMs.

It doesn't protect you from Russia, China or any other nuclear power with ICBMs (beacuse they have to many) so what good is it for?

China doesn't even have enough Nuclear Missles to destroy American command and control. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. China has 18 ICBM's It would take 124 Just to take out American Command and control and kill %30 percent of the American population. Most countries don't have a large nuclear stock pile, aside from the US and Russia.

Do some research before you spew your anti-American claims. Face it, you don't hate us because of BMD, it's just pure jealiousy.

Well, they do have WMD

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

• work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
  
• abide by the biological and chemical weapons conventions;
  
• repudiate "preemptive" war plans;
  
• repudiate "regime change" doctrine;
  
• cease interference with the inspections process;
  
• acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program and cut off aid until it can be inspected and dismantled;
  

The lightest portable identified in the Brookings survey and your link was the "Davy Crockett" (51 lbs.). It does seem they had a nuke for every occasion. Perhaps there is an undisclosed weapon even more portable.

I wanted to say that the idea of nuclear interceptors for ABM was long dead, but it's not at all true. In April 2002 the WP published this op-ed re the Pentagon's Defense Science Board studying the option. Congress overrode the Pentagon in October and forbade research into the topic. I read somewhere that the Board intends to complete its study nonetheless.

EMP and danger to U.S. satellites are mentioned as hazards, aside from political fallout. So I guess despite misgivings the nuclear interceptor concept is still live, at least in the minds of some planners.

For the time being, I live in Finland and it seems that the goverment is dealing with similar issues. Some radioactive stuff is moving around, and often it originates from the former USSR.

There are radiation monitors at the border. Several times a year a load of steel or something similar is sent back, as it contains something radioactive. The Russians living on illegal metal trade steal junk from the old Soviet dumps, and sell it. They are not worried about the radiation.

There are also plenty of environmental 'nuclear bombs' ticking in the old Soviet. I'm expecially worried about the ones in Estonia (see e.g. nti.org which contains plenty of info on these and similar issues). The Sillamae pool contains wastes of uranium ore processing and in Paldiski there is a pool of nuclear waste from two naval training reactors. Should the pools break, that would practically destroy the Gulf of Finland (which I see from the window of my office). The Sillamae pool contains so much uranium nitrate that even the nitrate part is problematic. And it's leaking...

Estonians can't afford the cleanup alone, so Finland and other rich states around the Baltic Sea are paying a large part of the bill. The Estonians will be dealing with the Soviet cleanup for decades. The non-nuclear mess is a longer story. (as an example: in some areas the water in wells is flammable, as a result of careless fuel handling in airbases).

We also have a bedrock containing plenty of uranium, so radon is a big problem is some areas (most of the houses are not properly vented to save energy). In the worst places, the drinking water contains also plenty of other natural radionuclides.