John Clark wrote:
>
> Michael S. Lorrey <retroman@turbont.net> Wrote:
>
> > where are you launching [cruse missiles] from? Canada? Mexico?
>
> Submarines and distant airplanes.
How many terrorists do you know that have submarines with ranges of more than
10,000 miles, can carry (and launch) cruise missiles? None.
Airplanes are a much better gamble for terrorists of limited means, however all
aircraft have IFF identification transponders. If you are an incoming aircraft
who has no IFF, or responds with incorrect IFF coding, you will get intercepted
well out to sea. I worked in the 318th FIS back in the 80's, a fighter
interceptor F-15 squadron in Tacoma. Air Guard and Reserve units have taken over
most interception responsibilities around the country which have two to four
planes on constant alert at airports a couple hundred miles apart around the
entire border and shoreline, except for at Langley and Andrews AFB, which both
have large numbers of full time planes on alert status to cover the DC area. All
planes on alert status are kept in condition to take off in less than two
minutes notice, fully fueled and armed, with an operational combat radius of
1000-1500 miles or more.
>
> > (BTW: Backpack/suitcase bombs are not that small, or that light)
>
> The US government will admit to having built 400 backpack nukes, they
> thought they might be useful in sabotage if they wanted to destroy something
> really big like a major dam. It weighed 58 pounds, could be deployed by one
> man, and exploded with a force of 800 tons of TNT. I'm sure they have
> classified stuff that's much better nowadays because that was back in 1964.
Since there has been no need, then there has been no new designs. The backpack
nukes were specifically developed for Keyhole insurgents to carry behind enemy
lines in Europe in the event that the Warsaw Pact tried to take western europe.
They were basically there for the expressed purpose of taking out a couple dozen
key locations where autobahns and railroads intersect in Germany.
>
> > The testing [X Ray Laser] has all been underground for obvious
> > legal/treaty reasons, but they've been designed with many focusing
> > devices on a single bomb.
>
> That's not what I've hear, I've heard that the beam had much less power than
> expected and nobody had any idea how to aim it to hit a tiny fast moving target
> thousands of miles away. That's why the military doesn't talk much about X Ray
> Lasers anymore, they've gone back to pushing "smart rocks".
Thats what I expect you would have heard. Disinformation does wonders. Early
tests were for the purposes of learning the practical practice of designing xray
waveguide and focusing technologies to the level we've had with optics for
decades. Its rather to be expected that early attempts were not near theoretical
potentials.
The reason they are pushing 'smart rocks' is because rocks are not nuclear
weapons, while x-ray lasers are. The treaty restrictions on nukes in space put a
significant crimp on using this technology, for sure. Primary plans now for them
are to install them on some ICBMs to replace MIRVs that have been removed for
treaty reasons, so they can be fast launched on demand into the path of whatever
incoming wave of offensive nukes occurs.
Besides, in their hearts, soldiers actually dislike nukes intensely. The idea of
just tossing rocks around has a much broader appeal...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:19 MDT