The only thing which distinguishes a nuke
> from anything else is radiation, a passive property.
>
Well, actually, there's density--or atomic weight, if
you will. Now of course, lead shielding is quite
likely to screw this up--but the lead shielding would
have only some easily penetrable covering--wood, thin
metal, etc.--both of which can be "seen through" with
current technologies, though mind you I'm not saying
that can (or can't) be done by satellite. Simply
detecting lead shielding would be a tip-off, depending
upon context. So, just to throw another wild Q--might
it be possible to pick it up that way--detection of
heavy elements in unusual places? Some tech analogous
to GPR, perhaps? (Though yes, I realize GPR itself is
unsuitable.)
> If you insist in making a fool out of yourself in a
> public
> place, be my guest.
Wouldn't miss the opportunity. I've always thought it
better ask and learn than dwell in silent ignorance.
How about you?
john marlow
----- Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote: > John Marlow wrote: > > > @Could be; as I said, it's a guess--but I suspect > > neither of knows the true capabilities of current > > detection gear. > > No. Nor do we have to, since elementary physics > suffices. The only thing which distinguishes a nuke > from anything else is radiation, a passive property. > > Which is being emitted from behind a shield on a > noisy background, and has a distance of some 100 km > filled with atmosphere between source and detector. > Plus, you have a lot of terrain to cover, so you > can't > look for very long. > > On such a distance you have a much better chance > seeing the infrared emission from the nuke surface, > which is (at best) few degrees K above background. > Which is just as silly. > > > @It wouldn't really have to, would it? There are > other > > clues, such as disturbance of air molecules by > passing > > gamma particles--which of course, absent a > detonation, > > Um, gamma quanta are not special. There are a lot of > hot > nuclei around here, and see the cosmic ray > background. > You would should be able to detect a nuke with it's > nitrogen-rich > high explosive shell around it from a few m > distance, but > that's about it. > > > are feeble. Can such things be detected from a > great > > distance? I don't know. Can Hubble be turned > around to > > look down here? Good chance. > > If you insist in making a fool out of yourself in a > public > place, be my guest.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT