Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net> Wrote:
>If the inside informant had a clearance, they would risk going
>to prison for leaking info.
And I'll bet that's why he insisted the newspaper not use his name.
>Why would that inside informant do that?
Probably because he was ashamed of himself for having any part
in such a sham and was trying to make amends.
>those who know do not tell.
If so then don't expect me to support the project, I'm not going to buy a pig in a poke.
>In fact I would not expect they would combine a test of decoy
>discrimination with a kill vehicle test. Reason: decoy
>discrimination can be tested on the deck, in an anechoic chamber.
Do you really think that's a reasonable position to take? Don't test it even
one time, just assure yourself that theoretically it would work in a anechoic
chamber sitting in a lab and start spending hundreds of billions of dollars of
other people's money.
>If they felt it necessary to do such a test in space, the results would be
>highly secret, for obvious reasons
The obvious reason is that it doesn't work worth a damn. If there really was a magic
gadget that would, in the words of a past dimwitted president "render nuclear weapons
obsolete" and if you really wanted to be sure that these bombs would never be used
then obviously both sides should know all about it, there should be no secrecy
everything should be public knowledge.
>Keep in mind that the results of these tests have convinced those who pay
>the bills that this technology is worth pursuing.
What are you talking about, the taxpayer is paying the bills.
>>Me:
>>defense will always be more expensive than offence,
> Roger that. I agree. However, the comparison is irrelevant.
You spend 100 billion on a ABM defense, I spend one billion on more
rockets, warheads, and decoys and we're both right back where we started.
You call that irrelevant?
>Name a city, and please help me estimate its value.
Why would I want to do that? If defense cost far more than offence, and
it does and always will, then a ABM system can't save it and it doesn't
matter if the city's value is zero or infinity. Don't misunderstand me, I'm
not happy with this situation but that's the way things are.
>For instance, the cost of the lock on your car is much higher than
>the cost of the tool used to defeat it
Not if you count the knowledge and skill on how to use that tool, it takes
almost no knowledge or skill for me to use the lock.
>>Me:
>>I'd use FedEx or UPS to deliver my H Bomb,
>Roger that. But before this becomes much greater of a risk, we
>need the technology to determine if any given package contains
>fissionable material, which is actually now doable, with thermal
>neutron detectors and other technology.
Very hard to do, neutrons are not as easy to detect as protons or electrons and
they can be shielded. If somebody put a H Bomb inside a small oil tank you'd never
find it. Billions of tons of goods are traded worldwide every year, plenty of opportunity
for things to slip through.
I don't want to sound too gloom and doom, I was very encouraged when Russia
and the USA recently agreed that each would destroy 35 tons of Plutonium.
There is still far too much of that crappy element on this small planet but at least
now there's 70 tons less. You only need a little over 9 pounds of Plutonium to make
a crude nuclear bomb, less if you're clever.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:08 MDT