Slashdot Mirror


'Satan' Missile Now Launches Satellites

colonist writes "The Russian intercontinental ballistic missile known to NATO as SS-18 Satan was converted to a launch vehicle (called Dnepr) and is now launching American communications satellites for profit. 'The giant rocket boasted up to 10 Multiple Independently-Targeted Reentry Vehicles, or MIRVs, each of which would have a carried a hydrogen bomb thermonuclear warhead to incinerate a different North American or Western European city. Even more terrifying, some of them were believed to have been fitted with aerosol warheads to spray smallpox virus over their U.S. targets.' However: 'With the Space Shuttle still grounded, the new generation of American boosters still being developed, and demand for reliable launching rockets building up around the world, the prospect of having a huge already-constructed supply of giant boosters built by the most experienced and reliable rocket engineers on earth has been embraced around the world.'"

13 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first post by julesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, am I the only one here who doesn't think a virus for which a vaccine exists is a worse threat than an H-bomb?

    1. Re:Not the first post by actiondan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many people today are already vaccinated against smallpox. If smallpox was realeased and an epidemic started, how quickly could new supplies be manufactured.

      More quickly than a vaccination against proximity to a thermonuclear explosion.

      Smallpox is scary, yes, but nuclear weapons are scarier.

      Dan.

    2. Re:Not the first post by solarrhino · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Speaking of which, is anyone over the age of 30 just amazed at what a different world this is from the 80's? Sure, communist menace is substituted by 'terrorist menace' but at least MAD is less likely.

      Why do you think Reagan's funeral got such reverent coverage? I was against him at the time, but I was wrong, and he was right. He truly changed the world for the better. Personally, I believe that in 20 years, we'll look back and say the same for W.

      --
      "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
    3. Re:Not the first post by TGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would take several months to manufacture smallpox vaccinations for the population at large. Of course, you wouldn't start manufacturing with case 1, you'd start with case 20 or so. By that time there are between 20 and 60 seed patients each infecting between 10 and 30 new individuals with the virus. Those individuals will experiance flu like symptoms and during that time of relitive peace, infect between 10 and 30 individuals themselves...

      Given that well before the virus kills, you can travel anywhere in the world, the possibility for a global pandemic is real.

      Smallpox killed roughly a billion people over its burn through human civilization. That was a naturaly occuring strain of the virus. What the Russians have is a bio engineered plauge that has been specificly designed to circumvent every known route for treatment and kill with the greatest possible efficiency.

      Soviet pox was created by the ton. It was loaded into ballistic missiles. It was pointed at the United States. A nuclear weapon kills everyone in the city you drop it on. Smallpox has the very real possibility of killing everyone on the planet (or at least a really sizeable portion of the population).

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    4. Re:Not the first post by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you think Reagan's funeral got such reverent coverage? I was against him at the time, but I was wrong, and he was right. He truly changed the world for the better. Personally, I believe that in 20 years, we'll look back and say the same for W.

      Man, we don't do history very well, do we. Please RTFHB. Just 35 years before the Gipper was elected, Soviets suffered 19 million civilian deaths out of a population of 194 million and lost 9 million killed and missing in an army of 27 million. So yeah, they were pussies who rolled over when faced with a little adversity from a B-list actor.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    5. Re:Not the first post by LizardKing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that in 20 years, we'll look back and say the same for W.

      The difference between Reagan and Bush junior, is that Reagan's anti-Soviet rhetoric was mostly for public consumption. Behind the scenes, there was a great deal of diplomacy going on which ultimately lead to the arms limitation treaties. The Reagan and Bush senior regimes were much more pragmatic than the Rumsfeld / Cheney / Bush junior regime. We'll look back on the Bush junior regime in 20 years time with as much disgust as most people look at it now.

      The belligerent attitude of the current regime comes as no surprise to those of us who kept up with what the various neo-con think tanks that influenced the current regime were saying in the mid-1990's. Cheif amongst their suggestions was that Saddam Hussein should be given a whipping for going against the wishes of the last Republican regime. Saddam had been the pet Middle-East strongman of the US throughout the 1980's, but he overstepped the mark by invading Kuwait. Having glossed over his previous gassing of Kurds, the Bush senior regime was thrown into turmoil by the Kuwait invasion. This is why there was a lack of firm comment on the situation from the Whitehouse in the immediate aftermath.

    6. Re:Not the first post by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're exaggerating. First of all, a lot of people have been vaccinated - I have, just to mention one (and it wasn't bad, really). Secondly, yes smallpox is bad, but not THAT bad - many patients die, as far as I remember about 10%; assuming they are infected and develop the disease.

      Smallpox can't wipe out all life on the planet - if that was possible don't you think it would have happened already? Smallpox has been around at least as long as the cow has been domesticated (it's a mutant of cow pox). The reason viruses can be used as weapons isn't that they 'kill everything', but that they create enough patients to overwhelm a country's infra structure; just look at the effect of SARS, a virus that was a lot less dangerous than smallpox - it wasn't that a lot of people died, but a lot of effort went into containing it.

    7. Re:Not the first post by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "Satan" nickname is not an official one but instead is a NATO name given to make it easier to refer to foreign weapons systems. The first letter of the name tells you what it refers to:

      S: Missiles (the Sapwood is still used today as the basis for the Soyuz and Progress rockets that still launch manned spacecraft and unmanned payloads, including Progress freighters)

      F: Fighter (Flanker, Flogger, Foxhound, Foxbat, Fishbed, etc)

      B: Bomber (the Tu-95 Bear is probably most famous).

      And so on. I would guess that "Satan" was easy to say and sounds distinctive, though as always it's possible it's a NATO "the Soviets are bad" 'propaganda' thing.

  2. Its good to see.... by eclectus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ahhh, swords into plowshares....

    It makes even this harden cynic smile a bit.

    --
    This signature is a waste of 42 characters
  3. Re:I vehemently disagree by cOdEgUru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reagan didnt get any coverage other dead Presidents didnt enjoy. How about Kennedy? Also, its been a while we lost a President and a Republican one at that, during a Republican administration, at these times of turmoil.. Ofcourse, half the country would want to show their respect.

    Now, I disagree about the part about him changing the world for the better. Rest of the world really doesnt care when he was alive, far less now that he is dead. The only time that I ever heard of him was his name associated with the infamous "Starwars" and Reagan-omics. Both really bad ideas (ofcourse can be disputed). But the fact of the matter is Gorbachev had more to do about putting things in order than Reagan purely because (1) Russia was already crumbling (2) Gorbachev was more far sighted than all the Russian presidents before him and (3) Gorbachev realized the world was changing and he had to lead his country to change with it.

    The only smart thing Reagan did was he realized what Russia was up to and instead of thwarting their efforts (and making sure Cold war stayed the same), he realized his legacy would be remembered for ending it, and helped Gorbachev speed things up. Also like how Clinton is remembered for not screwing things up when the economy was in an upswing, Reagan will be remembered for not screwing things up. You cant measure a president and his legacy especially when he passed away recently, especially when his memories are fresh and emotions supercede reason and logic, but for definite, years from today, he will be known as a president who was sensible and farsighted enough to let Russia and Communism die a slow death and not for being a visionary neither a statesman.

    Now your thoughts about W just plain out scares me. W is neither a statesman nor a visionary. He spoke of bipartisanship and pledged compassionate conservatism but showed neither. The country is more divided than ever and we are at war with different enemies and the army is stretched thinner than butter on whitebread. What were to happen if a new adversary emerges, taking advantage of this situation? How would the world respond? No Sir, these are troubled times and instead of being fortunate enough to be led by a president who were a true leader, a free thinker, an optimist and a realist, what we have here is a fragile humanbeing who is being manipulated by his cohorts, by the religious right, by the same people who should keep his course straight, but instead choose to lead him astray. No Sir, W will be known as a president who could have achieved far more, but fell far short of his goals and led the country through a path of gloom, down a road littered with the corpses of its own soldiers and its shattered dreams.

  4. Re:Poisonous fuel by Johan+Veenstra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Na and Cl are both nasty chemicals, but I eat NaCl every day.

  5. re: space shuttle ground by KavanaghNY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "With the Space Shuttle still grounded"

    The grounding of the space shuttle has nearly no effect on the demand for space launches. It was forbidden from carring commercial payloads after the Challenger disaster. Additionally, almost any payload that the Shuttle has to carry to the International Space Station for the next few years can *only* be carried by the shuttle.

    However, space station material resupply is shuffled over to Soyuz launchers.

  6. Re:Not the first post (moving OT) by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

    G.W. is just another fundamentalist, and just like Reagan, does not deserve recognition for what he's done.

    That statement alone explains how it is you can have such a distorted view of history and of the United States. Your beliefs are nothing at all except reactionary. You define yourself as the political negative of those that are religious.

    In short, you're not thinking for yourself.

    So many religious skeptics (I'm an atheist, in fact) believe that they need to be on the political team opposite those that are religious. It's a mistake. There are plenty of fvcked up ideas on the political left as well as the right and plenty of stupid ahistorical hate-america-firsters. Don't get taken in. Take a more balanced view.

    As far as Reagan goes, he was a genuinely good man. There was no smallness in him. Blowing him off because of his religious views is terribly unfair. He was a better man than most. Again, I'm an atheist, but after learning about him and his life, I would say he mostly represented what is best in men.