Science Abuse Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 ... and said "Hey, that's a great idea!" http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 God damn.... That is a pretty good read. KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Interesting read. Wonder how our system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Interesting read. Wonder how our system works. It was outlined in the atricle. Guys in planes with launch athority, high above the carnage. I imagine we have something more current these days, like a Netowrk of computers in the Sky, a Sky Net of sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 It was outlined in the atricle. Guys in planes with launch athority, high above the carnage. I imagine we have something more current these days, like a Netowrk of computers in the Sky, a Sky Net of sorts. e3 ftw http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/e3awacs/ I was more interested in what our current stuff is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonneVille Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 One note: There have been a number of articles by Cold War era intelligence officials that point to the USSR's having had nowhere near the actual launch capacity as the USA, even though they outnumbered us on warheads and missiles. The Soviets success rates in testing were dismal, something on the order of a 90% failure to detonate in testing. Their missiles had about the same failure rate. So, out of a thousand missiles, 900 wouldn't make it to the USA...out of the hundred that make it, 90 would either totally fail to detonate, or fizzle-yield(detonate, but only at near-critical, spewing horrifying levels of hard and soft radiation and radioactive particles but not producing the full explosive effect). It doesn't seem the current mob over there are doing any better, BTW: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4193033 Meanwhile, the US success rate in testing was at least 95%... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I'm surprised this just came to light popularly, I've known about dead hand for some time, always scared the hell out of me- Mount Yamantaw is another point of interest, they're even related. The British strategy is pretty good. Subs deep in the ocean, if they believe the UK has been destroyed, try to tune into Radio 4, the BBC news station. If they can't tune to it, the Captain goes to his personal safe and opens up a handwritten letter to him by the Prime Minister. He then bases his choice to launch or not by that letter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_4#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Some days I'm ashamed to be part of the human race.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Sad thing is...the most likely nuclear attacker in today's world will be a small, rogue force that US/Russia systems aren't set up for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Sad thing is...the most likely nuclear attacker in today's world will be a small, rogue force that US/Russia systems aren't set up for. I agree. KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Sad thing is...the most likely nuclear attacker in today's world will be a small, rogue force that US/Russia systems aren't set up for. They'd need to find the enriched uranium, no way a person could make it without being noticed. They'd need to construct a device. They'd get it wrong, they'd need to test, this means time, facilities, and money. They'd need to carry it. Getting any nuke smaller than a truck is a very high-tech effort, even today. The idea that a bearded guy can make a functional nuclear device in a garage is a fallacy. State-run efforts are the only thing that have a shot, and...well, see the above soviet statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Fair enuff...then, I'm at least talking about a "dirty bomb". That could wreck the lives of a lot of people if let off in a stadium, park, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Fair enuff...then, I'm at least talking about a "dirty bomb". That could wreck the lives of a lot of people if let off in a stadium, park, etc... Fair-nuff, but still needs enriched uranium to be dangerous. On top of that, I don't the the average terrorist has the patience to turn a U235 ingot into a fine powder, it's incredibly hard. Funny thing about the Russians in the early 90s: There's much speculation about where the stockpile went, and stories of banana republics and rouge states sending buyers into former republics to buy. Punchline: They were scams. Those that actually were selling the material knew that the US, Britain, etc would give them much more money than and Omar or Saddam could come up with. On top of the, state sponsored transactions like what we had with Kazakhstan got them cash for the nuke material AND got them buddy-buddy relations with the US, which meant 10X that cash in aid over the years. If you had 235 to sell, you'd be a fool to offer it to anyone but us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.