 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of.....
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Waiter, there a bomb in my glass of..... From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 03 - 04:52 PM If you're wonderin' why your water is tasting a little differently it's because the House and Senate negotiators stuck a $13.5 billion "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" in the $27.3 billion "Water and Energy" bill... Oh, those wacky Republicans! What *will* they think of next? Bobert And oh, BTW, no, you won't find the article too easily. The Washington Post all but buried it on A23... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there a bomb in my glass of..... From: Cluin Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:23 PM About the RNEP thingy. Nice... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there a bomb in my glass of..... From: Bill D Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:32 PM ummm..it IS nasty...but that article says $13.5 MILLION, not billion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there a bomb in my glass of..... From: Hrothgar Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:59 PM Didn't Barnes Wallis demonstrate that an "earthquake" bomb is best dropped just beside the target, not directly on it? That way you don't have to penetrate the hardened concrete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there a bomb in my glass of..... From: Gareth Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:12 PM Yup - reinvent "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" - Hmmm! Will 617 Squadron be reactivated ? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:23 PM Yer correct, Bill, it is $13.5 MILLION... Ol' Hillbilly can't read... Nevermind. Hey, you can't hardly by a box of fir creackers fir a mere $13.5 million so I hope no one has gone as far as to going out to buy cases of bottled water... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: artbrooks Date: 11 Nov 03 - 08:20 PM Of course, this is for a preliminary study. Lots more money will be needed if they decide to actually build the thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: Rapparee Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:02 PM Whatever it tosses up as debris is gonna be diiiiiiiiiirrrrrr-tee! Ya know, if one meter of penetration yields the equivalent of 20 kilotons -- doesn't it bother anyone that we're talking the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT? Or 40,000,000 pounds? An explosion of 250,000 pounds of TNT that the Army and Navy touched off back around 1949 was heard 250 miles away! If you want to bust bunkers with bombs, you have to know where the bunkers are. And if you know where they are, why not just cover 'em up? Or pump 'em full of a lachymator? Or just lay siege to 'em? Eventually they run out of food.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: Cluin Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:07 PM Too much work. And nothing gets a general's rocks off like a great big BOOM! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: Bobert Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:10 PM Don't sound like no "smart bomb" to me, Rapaire... Might of fact, if I were to have to label it I would say that it is a purdy danged retarded bomb. Doesn't seem to have a clue between military and civilian (collaterial dmage) targets... I just wonder why the Repubs put it unde the "Clean water" bill??? Hmmmmmm? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: Don Firth Date: 11 Nov 03 - 10:59 PM Madre de Dios!! When I first looked at this thread, I recalled something about the Bush's restart of research on SDI ("Star Wars"), and I recalled something about a non-explosive bearing weapon called a "flechette" that could be dropped on a target from orbit. The energy dissipated from striking its target with the velocity it would build up from such a fall would provide a most "satisfactory" explosion. I went googling and almost immediately came up with what, to me, was a real shocker. Colloquially called "Rods from God," this weapon would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground.And this, from a different web site: The written reports on THOR suggested the projectiles be made of tungsten, or even (for some applications) depleted uranium. They would have seekers built into the nose, and very small guidance fins on the tail, not unlike a large, guided flechette. Striking their targets at near orbital velocity, they could punch through an armored warship's deck, or through the doors of a missile silo. Jerry Pournelle suggested that the seekers could be made to discriminate between various types of armored vehicles, and that they could even hit moving targets.If the whole idea isn't bad enough, the shocker to me was that back in the late Fifties and early Sixties, I used to drink with Jerry Pournelle at the Blue Moon Tavern in Seattle. Jerry is a real bright guy (in spite of being pretty conservative), and we used to have some interesting discussions and arguments. This was before I had a clue that he was even interested in writing science fiction. The last time I saw Jerry was at a book signing in 1985. Barbara and I had dinner at Ivar's Salmon House with him, Larry Niven, and Frank Herbert. I consider him a friend, but—Ye Gods, Jerry!!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Waiter, there's a bomb in my glass of..... From: Peace Date: 11 Nov 03 - 11:17 PM Other than obvious remarks about the utility of such a weapon, when I read the article I couldn't help but wonder what Freud would have thought. Is this whole thing a precursor to novel methods of impregnation? Will it be taken from the macro to the micro? Man, we got some sick puppies out there. Imagine that brain power applied to peaceful pursuits? |
