ONE SECOND AFTER

or about Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:49:51 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


    "Great Britain. A small island off the coast of Holland, which is responsible for the happiness of a quarter of the earths population." From a Dutch Gazette I read decades ago. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karsten Kruse wrote:

Agreed. I didn't know the effect was greater at high altitude, but the point is still the same. Not even a nation with ICBMs is going to launch an attack like that except as part of a low altitude nuclear attack. If they did they would invite retaliation (even if it's only massive conventional retaliation) without hope of killing our military. So it remains that only Russia could do it, since they are still the only country with the power to kill the US, but they'd suffer retaliation too. Other powers like NK would be destroyed while inflicting only repairable damage to us.
So I wouldn't even call the risk small. It's smaller than the probability of total nuclear war, and if both the consequenses and the probability are smaller then there's no need to worry.
--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:07:58 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"

So if a Scud 2 with a nuke is launched from off shore, from a freighter and detonated over the Eastern Seaboard, we are going to attack which country?
Be specific. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

The one that made the bomb. If the official line is that we can't determine who made it, that would mean the administration doesn't want to deal with it.
Aside from the radiation signature, the use of a freighter which is easily identifiable would mean that you have some pretty stupid terrorists on your hands. They could have parked the bomb in a small boat in the harbor without the expense or difficulty of a scud, and caused real terror. Blackouts don't exactly terrorize people. It's one contingency we don't have to waste time worrying about.
--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:16:39 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"

An EMP would cause more than a blackout. However, even if it were just an electrical blackout for a month or two over the entire country, the death toll would still be significant.
Now add to that most vehicles not working, medical devices going south, etc., and you are talking about a significant blow to society.
Having finished listening to the book, I can only see one technical flaw in the story line. That would be the loss of communications with the outside world. Granted, radio stations inside the affected area would be gone. However, radio stations outside the affected area would still be working. One can build a kit radio capable of receiving short wave broadcasts.
Also, the idea of survivalists throwing in with the rest of the townspeople was a bit hard to swallow, but it is fiction after all.
Overall, it was a very good listen (read?) Once again, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
about Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:16:39 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    Blackouts lasting months are not a concern? Excuse me, but when the water goes out people get really cranky - no coffee without water!

- pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pyotr filipivich wrote:

Yeah, but they don't like being irradiated either. Given the considerable extra expense for this type of attack, they will choose the other option. And the sponsoring nation won't equip the terrorists to use a method that makes tracing the source easier.
--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
about Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:06:45 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    This of course, assumes that the sponsoring nation isn't prepared for Armageddon. Last I heard, the Iranians were big believers in the 12th Imman, and one thing good Muslims can do to hasten his re-appearance, is massive global strife.
    It's sort of like how many Evangelicals just know that the second coming is dependent on Antichrist introducing the Tribulation and waging the battle of Armageddon. Only in the Evangelical's cases, they're not trying to hurry the onset of the Antichrist by precipitating the Tribulation. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not having a horse in this race, I would suggest that the Iranians have a very specific reason to want to a nuclear capabability:- The other nuclear capable terrorist nation in the Middle East that has a nasty habit of ignoring other countries' boundaries, international laws and treaties. At least your current president isn't supporting them quite as irresponsibly as his predecessor.
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on or

They certainly have a reason, but it's not one that Western countries would accept.
This isn't a sporting competition, nor are we applying Western-style rules of evidence. This is a case of realpolitik, in which most countries understand the principles of non-proliferation and the instability risk posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. It isn't just Israel that's nervous. It's also much of the Arab Middle East, who probably would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons in a balance of terror.
Then all bets are off. The issue is whether we'll allow that kind of instability and threat of nuclear war to develop out of the theoretical niceties of sovereignty, the way we did with Germany between the wars. Most of the world's powers apparently have decided we will not.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Absolutely right on target, Ed. Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Israel has a right to be nervous. If they gave up on the quasi-religious bigoted paranoia and tried to work _with_ their neighbours and those whose land they occupy, there would not quite so much desire amongst those neighbours to wipe them off the face of the earth. Supporting their deluded world view and continuing atrocious behaviour does nothing to stabilize the region.
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:43:58 +0100, the infamous Mark Rand

OTOH, anyone supporting the quasi-religious bigoted paranoia, deluded world view, and continuing atrocious behavior of the Arabs does nothing to stabilize the region, either. These hacks have been hacking at each other for 4 millenia. A few democrazies aren't going to faze them. <shrug,sigh>
-- Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We'll never agree about this, and my opinion of Israel is not what you probably assume. But the idea of "working with their neighbors" suggests to me an unrealistic view of their history -- and especially an unrealistic view of their neighbors.
If the Israelis had the opportunity, they probably would wipe out their neighbors. As for the neighbors, they've proven multiple times that they would do the same.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

IIRC... way back when, God commanded the Isrealites to destroy their enemies, every last man, woman, child, and beast. They didn't do it, and are still paying for the oversight.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would have solved the Christian problem, all right. d8-)
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RBnDFW wrote:

Unfortunately this isn't the case. That was how our conversation got started. That and my young friend mentioned that he'd had his MOS changed. He's going over as a convoy scout. I thought at first he meant he's been assigned duty as a Recon Marine but that wasn't it. His squad will be out in front of transport convoy's in Hummers to check the roads for IED's and the reason he wanted to look me up and have a word was the duty I pulled first, at the Forward Observer Infantry Training School, and then at the Jungle Warfare Training Center as an instructor. One, in Ahn Khe and the other, Bon Song. Unknown to me, his Officer had recommended the visit. We'd met at a party when the unit was notified of their change from reserve status to active duty.
I ended up describing TET, and the results, to him as well as how that situation mirrored today's dilemma in Afghanistan. In all of America's history in RVN, we never really lost a battle. America's armed forces unleashed hell on Earth, year after year on a country the size of a large postage stamp. We defoliated a third of the country and I've seen track mounted artillery manned by Marines fire until the barrels of their guns made the air around them shimmer while filling an area the size of a football field or more with spent brass. Those units were receiving ammo as fast as it could be brought up and they just busted open the packing with iron bars and fired the stuff. I've seen an ARCLIGHT from as near as 2 KM and that's way too close, even for an observer.
During TET, the North Vietnamese Regular Army was wiped out, very nearly to the last man. So were the irregular's. We killed thousands of them. Tens of thousands. I ordered concentrated artillery fire on a wooded area where we thought, just thought mind you, a short battalion of enemy were laying low. Three Bn's worth, TOT for fifteen minutes of AP quick. Then we brought in rockets, napalm, and because they were lingering, Spooky. In the end, an area about one Km wide to our front and two deep just ceased to exist except as a brush fire. You couldn't even tell the area had been inhabited - even by snakes, bugs or roaches. The Navy came in the following morning and lit the area up all over again.
I'll bet that, or something like it, happened a thousand or more times in the course of the six month's following TET. But here is the point. None of that mattered, and that was what we all came to understand, because in spite of all of that shit, they didn't give up.
We just couldn't "persuade" them to quit.
Will is right. I read his piece this afternoon as well as Bill Kristol's mewling response to it.
What I'd do if it were my call is put two hundred air conditioned trailers out on the range at Edwards and have the guys there drive UAV's over Afghanistan 24/7/365. Everybody would get three squares, dinner and a movie with the family every day. Everyone, that is, except the enemy, several thousand miles away.
That is the answer to the question Bill Kristol poses.
--
John R. Carroll



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John R. Carroll wrote:

And then Walter Chronkite said:
quote: We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. :end
and the war was lost... but not over...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Given the atrocities that were carried out to the Jewish people before and during the last war, it is almost beyond belief that their descendants are behaving in a similar manner towards their neighbours and the owners of the land they are occupying.
Until they can comprehend that the only solution is a diplomatic one and will involve giving back some of what they have stolen, there can only ever be hatred on both sides.
Propping them up with armaments only exacerbates the problem. It hasn't worked for the last 60 years.
Tight sanctions for a few years would be far more effective in encouraging a diplomatic solution that continuing arms supplies.
This isn't anti Semite, the Palestinians and Arabs are also Semites!
You might not agree with this analysis. But then, I'm completely impartial and you aren't :-|
Mark Rand RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually,,its worked very very well. In the 6 times the Islamic nations attempted to murder every living Jewish man, woman and child..the Jews won. And didnt increase the size of their nation by a single square foot. They could have taken the entire middle east as a prize each and every time.
So OvenMeister...why DO you hate jews so much?
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.