 |
| |
|
|
Sinapus
|
 |
Houston, Texas
Jun 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's also possible that a very large asteroid will strike Earth in the next hour, wiping out 99% of the lifeforms. The mechanics of a nuclear device is so simple that the chance of it not going boom when asked to is practically nil.
I don't think anybody is going to gamble on the chance of a nuclear device not working.
|
Oh, so you weren't speaking of an accidental detonation. I'm not gambling on it not working, I'm pointing out pitfalls you are deliberately ignoring.
As for "simple", that only tells me that you have absolutely no clue as to how much precision in design and how much regular maintenance is required to keep an nuclear warhead operational. The technology is known, the concept is rather simple in the Cliff's Notes description, the excecution... well, that's a bit more difficult than you think.
It's not like you can build one using an ACME Nuclear Physics Home Science Kit and store it in your closet for years until you need it. Of course, you'll ignore this and handwave with some similar remark below about the "people behind the scene" thinking of everything and having some cunning plan to get around it.
quote:
Oh really? I bet that the people behind the scene would have never thought about these things.
|
...and instantly thwart it, riiiiiight. Guess what? I'll bet there are other people behind the scene working to make your little scenario seem not all as easy as you want it to be.
quote:
Besides, a vapourised boat does not provide much to work on. |
Oh well, guess we'd better not bother trying and surrender completely.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The whole point of having a nuclear device is to say, "if you push me too far, I'll use it".
Part and parcel of that is the ability to deliver it in such a manner that it unmistakably came from you. A theat that cannot be credited to you is no threat at all.
The "Omnipotent Fishing Boat of DOOOOOOM" (let me count those O's...yep, right number) has two flaws, in that it would be too slow to respond to the kind of emergency that would provoke a nuke strike in the first place, and that it's much too anonymous -- too many groups could conceivably claim responsibility, for varying reasons. |
Flaw One: Delivery Time
If delivery time is that important, the weapon could easily be pre-positioned. It could be sitting in a foreign-registered prop plane on a small Mexican airfield, or in the hold of a small cargo ship anchored just outside Boston harbor. This kind of delivery option is still far cheaper and easier - by orders of magnitude - than developing, deploying and maintaining intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Flaw Two: Anonymity
If they really do want to claim credit, there are very easy fool-proof ways to do it (e.g. alerting the US five minutes before detonation, a pre-dated communication, etc).
Finally, I disagree with your contention about "the whole point of having a nuclear device". A nuclear attack on the US would provide an American leader with carte blanche for whatever retaliation was desired. What leader would expect to survive vaporizing Los Angeles?
If the US really did need to threaten a nation in a manner so extreme as to give cause to that nation to contemplate a nucear attack on the US (with all the ensuing consequences), that extreme threat could easily include pre-emptively disabling the nation's tiny nuclear arsenal (remember, it must be a very small arsenal or it could overwhelm the "shield" anyway).
Any other flaws? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joseph
Some said we would never fly faster than the speed of sound. It was wall and we hit it, we would died. Guess what. |
So you think we should have given money to scientists to deploy faster-than-sound technology in WWI? I'm really fascsinated to hear how that would work. Maybe we should have sent a man to the moon in 1945 when we got our hands on a V-2 rocket.
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
its what the second largest economy in the world does with air travel. |
The thing about planes is, they need to land. Modern planes need certain rair places to land. It makes it much easier to track, unless you're flying a little Sandpiper Cub, which has many more possibilities, including secret landing fields, like they use to smuggle drugs.
I'm not sure you really, truly, comprehend the size of the U.S. border. If it were so easy to control what comes into and out of the United States, they would have done it by now. We put farm more effort into drug interdiction today than we did 25 years ago, and many times the amount of drugs are still coming in to the U.S. Certainly without that effort, far more would be coming in, but the sealing the border is basically about as usefull as a fishing seine is at catching water.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
Flaw One: Delivery Time
If delivery time is that important, the weapon could easily be pre-positioned. It could be sitting in a foreign-registered prop plane on a small Mexican airfield, or in the hold of a small cargo ship anchored just outside Boston harbor. This kind of delivery option is still far cheaper and easier - by orders of magnitude - than developing, deploying and maintaining intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Flaw Two: Anonymity
If they really do want to claim credit, there are very easy fool-proof ways to do it (e.g. alerting the US five minutes before detonation, a pre-dated communication, etc).
Finally, I disagree with your contention about "the whole point of having a nuclear device". A nuclear attack on the US would provide an American leader with carte blanche for whatever retaliation was desired. What leader would expect to survive vaporizing Los Angeles?
If the US really did need to threaten a nation in a manner so extreme as to give cause to that nation to contemplate a nucear attack on the US (with all the ensuing consequences), that extreme threat could easily include pre-emptively disabling the nation's tiny nuclear arsenal (remember, it must be a very small arsenal or it could overwhelm the "shield" anyway).
Any other flaws? |
Again, if that is in fact the case, why are they bothering to develop them, and why are they throwing such a fit over our missle defense?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
The thing about boats is, they need a harbor to come in. Adequate facilities need to be constructed, the docks need to be staffed,etc. Both Airports and Sea Ports are easily constructed. |
It's far, far easier to get a boat undetected into the U.S. than it is a plane, especially one which could carry a nuclear weapon. Boats can just come near land, go up rivers, sail into a port and tie up at a private dock.
The border has to be longer than 3,000 miles. It's 3000 miles from East to West just driving. Then you've got the Canadian border, Alaska, and the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
On the net I found "The land borders between Canada, Mexico and the United States amount to 5317 miles in total length excluding the Alaska/Canada border."
http://www.usbc.org/profiles/profil...cureborders.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Are you saying that Kim will risk a war with the U.S. if there is a 95% chance of his ace in the hole being a deuce?
It's not about what we think -- it's about what they think.
...and when I see that a lot of people who don't like us are having fits about us "wasting money" on a "dead end" (which, ultimately, leaves us, an opponent, weaker), I have to wonder why. |
I don't foresee Kim declaring war on the US anytime soon.
However, it seems likely to me that he wants to keep his comfy little dictatorship intact and is mighty concerned that at some time he will get hammered by the US as a part of the "Axis of Evil" campaign.
And that's why he wants nukes... Nobody f***s with a nuclear power. From US perspective, if his chances of successfully hitting US with his single nuke is 5% instead of 75%, it is not going to make any difference - an offensive action against NK is completely out.
That's what Kim wants.
When Reagan started the whole Star Wars shebang, things were different. Basically, if one has to consider a possibility of a total nuclear war, then 95% success rate against incoming missiles sounds pretty damn good. If, however, we are talking a rogue state single action, 95% or 5% does not make any difference.
And 100% successful system is plain vanilla impossible. Look at the track record for Patriot missiles during the last Iraqi war - they interception rate was somewhere around 40-60%.
That's why deployment of a missile shield is effectively an anti-Russian move despite all US administration claims to the contrary - it won't stop rogue states but, if successful, it will devaluate Russian nuclear arsenal somewhat.
I however, don't think that a missile shield is technologically possible... Well, it's a matter of definitions. I believe that it is possible to get workable ICBM interceptors; I, however, don't believe that it can have higher than 50% success rate given current technology. And at 50% efficiency it is essentially useless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
about the only thing that we need to import is oil, for now. Now as I stated, my plan isn't to end all trade, it is to have all goods come into a few remote ports, and from there have intra-US deliverers send it to whatever wallmart its headed to. |
Tin is than very useful metal that is alloy to other metal to make usefull thing like the metal we use to make election contention stay together with each other. Your hateful plan will never work you just want to isolate the america people from idear like Islam is than peaceful religion which will lead to than world government as the UN is only than temp stop on the way to than world government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
We allready went thought something like this in the 15th cenurty. There was plate armour for chest than back which was than 1 1/2 to 2 inches thich with heavey 1 inch thick plate covering the rest of your body with than heavy helmet with very tiny slits in it to see out and to breach thought. It was very heavy, hot whileing it in hot climate than cold when wearing it in cold climate. It was hard to see your total surrounding due to the tiny slit you have to see thought. The wealthly knight in England have than total income of 50 dollar ayear than this armour cost 10,000 dollar to buy.
In afew year the gun became so powerful that they penerate this armous easy and able to penerate thich armour than this. This when the isear of wearing heavy armous die out. Mass formation of gunman where use in big battle where regimentals fought it out. It 5 king musketeers where going after hightwayman in they camp they wouldnot stand up in formation an be sitting duck they would apporach speadout takeing avangte of cover to protection thenself from gunfire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
The moon rocket was than very complex piece of machine. When VonBrown was working on the V2 rocket in WWII they have ploblem inverting than lightweight pump able to pump the fuel fast enought for the rocket to work. He visit than evant than was talking to than pump manufactor when he mention his plob with makeing than pump to do the job the Nazie member who ran the pump factory said we have than pump that can work for you with afew change it the fireengince pump on all fireengine. Fireengine pump must be simple and reliab, powerful to pump alot of water at than fire, than average fireengine pump wasd capable of pumping 50000 gal of water a minutes, have to be lightweight enought to fit on a fireengine.
To make than trip to the moon possible alot of tech problen have to be workout. The Command cap have 4mm of gold to protect the crew from the van Velt belt radiation 4mm of gold give the same protection as 24 inches of lead for far less weight but at greater cost.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-05-2004 22:44
So it is the right thing to do. Besides, such a grandiose project always leads to a number of useful by-products. It might well be that the sum of by-products would eventually result more important than the original goal itself. Too bad, Russia is not quite in a position to compete in this. 
|