IF BUSH KNEW *OTHERWISE* THEN:
DO NOT THINK THAT BUSH WILL *SCARE* HIS ENTIRE NATION TO EXPLAIN HIS
REAL REASON FOR INVADING IRAQ.
DO NOT THINK THAT BUSH (only stupid me) WILL *SCARE* HIS ENTIRE NATION
TO REVEAL
THAT ***THERE IS A REAL NUCLEAR THREAT AND THAT SEVERAL SIMULTANEOUS
BALLISTIC NUCLEAR MISSILES CANNOT BE COMPLETELY STOPPED.
1. Image Recognition is not only used to attack nuclear ballistic
missiles before they hit the ground but also the nuclear missiles can
also use them to properly divert and reach their target....SADDAM's
where NOT yet this advanced when he threw his on Isreal in 1993.
2. Nuclear ballistic missiles do not need to hit the ground so even if
another missile intercepts them in the air the same devasting mushroom
cloud will kill everyone.
3. Several decoy missiles (which can even split-up when interceptor
arrives) can be launched together so the intercepting missile cannot
know which to hit.
4. The nuclear balistic missile with image recognition, like a jet
plane can outmaneuver the interceptor (glide up and down).
5. The nuclear balistic missile can easily release hot gaz clouds and
mutliple magnets to divert the intercepting missiles.
SADDAM DID NOT HAVE THIS SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY BACK THEN BUT THEY ALL DO
KNOW.
They will all mostly be launched from ***nuclear
submarines/ships/small-lessvisable-boats (The Enola Gay plane over
Japan was not that big and was at night and 60 years ago)*** this way
there's no way of knowing who the invading nation is and counter
attacking. And if the nuclear ballisitic missile is intercepted early
it will not do any damage *over* the invading nation.
Hope Osama doesn't read this, if so may he be thrown into hell.
.
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
21 Jan 2005 11:59:28 AM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106328839.634255.204650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
THAT ***THERE IS A REAL NUCLEAR THREAT AND THAT SEVERAL SIMULTANEOUS
BALLISTIC NUCLEAR MISSILES CANNOT BE COMPLETELY STOPPED.
Nobody claims that they currently can, you idiot.
1. Image Recognition is not only used to attack nuclear ballistic
missiles...
More nonsense.
2. Nuclear ballistic missiles do not need to hit the ground so even if
another missile intercepts them in the air the same devasting mushroom
cloud will kill everyone.
So? it's been known for a long time that an airburst is more effective
for general destruction, you only attempt for a CEP of 0 when attacking
hardened targets.
3. Several decoy missiles (which can even split-up when interceptor
arrives) can be launched together so the intercepting missile cannot
know which to hit.
So? countermeasures have been part of nukes for quite a while now.
4. The nuclear balistic missile with image recognition, like a jet
plane can outmaneuver the interceptor (glide up and down).
That depends on several factors such as the types of both missiles,
relative velocities, interceptor K factor and many more, it's extremely
difficult to drastically manoeuvre an inbound missile travelling at high
Mach without compromising its airframe. This "image recognition" crap
makes no sense though, perhaps you should define what you mean by it.
5. The nuclear balistic missile can easily release hot gaz clouds and
mutliple magnets to divert the intercepting missiles.
To what end? most ABM's are radar guided onto the inbound target
so neither option would be effective.
SADDAM DID NOT HAVE THIS SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY BACK THEN BUT THEY ALL DO
KNOW.
Is this your current claim of expertise then idiot? given up on your
stupidity about AM/FM modulation already? I can see why the
physics and astronomy groups laughed at you so much.
Hope Osama doesn't read this, if so may he be thrown into hell.
He's probably laughing at you like anyone else who can see your
stupidity for what it is.
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
21 Jan 2005 02:58:56 PM |
|
|
Ok if you insist even forget about small boat for ICBM instead they can
move and launch them all from a distant secluded island in the Pacific
and the US wouldn't know which nation is attacking.
Is it North Korea, China, Iran?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 12:39:51 AM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106341136.797640.152350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ok if you insist even forget about small boat for ICBM instead they can
move and launch them all from a distant secluded island in the Pacific
and the US wouldn't know which nation is attacking.
You don't think they can accurately pinpoint such a launch?
try looking up satellite launch detectors on the web and see
if that answers your question.
Is it North Korea, China, Iran?
Is it likely?
--
krib
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TaDa Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 03:47:43 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE
From: " "
Date: 1/21/2005 12:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <1106341136.797640.152350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Ok if you insist even forget about small boat for ICBM instead they can
move and launch them all from a distant secluded island in the Pacific
and the US wouldn't know which nation is attacking.
Is it North Korea, China, Iran?
Or they could like launch it from any
place inside our country and we'd have
no option of who and where to strike
back!
We can't nuke our own country.
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
Oh Joy!
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 04:09:25 PM |
|
|
TaDa Pope wrote:
Subject: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE
From: " "
Date: 1/21/2005 12:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <1106341136.797640.152350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Ok if you insist even forget about small boat for ICBM instead they can
move and launch them all from a distant secluded island in the Pacific
and the US wouldn't know which nation is attacking.
Is it North Korea, China, Iran?
Or they could like launch it from any
place inside our country and we'd have
no option of who and where to strike
back!
We can't nuke our own country.
Sure you could... 24
-A
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
Oh Joy!
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
21 Jan 2005 01:30:19 PM |
|
|
The Polaris Missile was a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)
carrying a nuclear warhead developed during the Cold War for the United
States Navy.
Lockheed developed it as a solid fuel Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) for
the US Navy. The first successful test flight was from Cape Canaveral
on January 7, 1960.
The nuclear warhead was developed at the (now) Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory by a team headed by Harold Brown from 1957. In July
1960, the Navy accepted delivery of the first 16 warheads and on
November 15 the first Polaris missile was test launched from a
submarine.
The missile was 12.3 m (40.5 ft) long and with a finspan of 2.6 m (8.5
ft) and capable of delivering a 1 Mt warhead 4000 km.
Now that was 45 years ago, don't you think by now they could have a
missile half that length = 15 to 20 feet and 5 feet wide.
Now put that on a very small boat with maybe even half the missile
under water and pointing upwards.
Hope Osama doesn't do this and if so may he be thrown into hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 12:39:51 AM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106335819.397548.312690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Now that was 45 years ago, don't you think by now they could have a
missile half that length = 15 to 20 feet and 5 feet wide.
You can have a missile as small as you like that doesn't make it
likely that terrorists are going to have one does it?
Now put that on a very small boat with maybe even half the missile
under water and pointing upwards.
Why not eliminate the boat altogether and float it on some polystyrene
blocks? why not eliminate the missile altogether and tie the warhead to
a bunch of trained terrorist geese? why not eliminate the explosives
around the fissile material and simply send a small piece of uranium or
plutonium to everyone in the designated target are via post?
Hope Osama doesn't do this and if so may he be thrown into hell.
If he's as dumb as you we have no worries.
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 05:05:26 AM |
|
|
Krib wrote:
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106335819.397548.312690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Now that was 45 years ago, don't you think by now they could have a
missile half that length = 15 to 20 feet and 5 feet wide.
You can have a missile as small as you like that doesn't make it
likely that terrorists are going to have one does it?
Now put that on a very small boat with maybe even half the missile
under water and pointing upwards.
Why not eliminate the boat altogether and float it on some polystyrene
blocks? why not eliminate the missile altogether and tie the warhead to
a bunch of trained terrorist geese? why not eliminate the explosives
around the fissile material and simply send a small piece of uranium or
plutonium to everyone in the designated target are via post?
LOL, excellent.
-A
Hope Osama doesn't do this and if so may he be thrown into hell.
If he's as dumb as you we have no worries.
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
23 Jan 2005 05:40:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:05:26 +0000, Absolute Zero
<amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote:
Krib wrote:
Why not eliminate the boat altogether and float it on some polystyrene
blocks? why not eliminate the missile altogether and tie the warhead to
a bunch of trained terrorist geese? why not eliminate the explosives
around the fissile material and simply send a small piece of uranium or
plutonium to everyone in the designated target are via post?
LOL, excellent.
Isn't he? I don't mean to kiss ***** (I always tell people how they are
whether good or bad; no pulling punches - just my nature).
I'm always impressed by Kribs' posts.
Dani
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "TaDa Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
23 Jan 2005 12:53:02 PM |
|
|
A team of medical researchers from
Puerto Rico have discovered that giving a person a double Barium enema one hour
after they are exposed to radiation can
neutralize the effects of radiation poisoning.
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
Oh Joy!
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
23 Jan 2005 05:57:56 AM |
|
|
Dani wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:05:26 +0000, Absolute Zero
<amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote:
Krib wrote:
Why not eliminate the boat altogether and float it on some polystyrene
blocks? why not eliminate the missile altogether and tie the warhead to
a bunch of trained terrorist geese? why not eliminate the explosives
around the fissile material and simply send a small piece of uranium or
plutonium to everyone in the designated target are via post?
LOL, excellent.
Isn't he? I don't mean to kiss ***** (I always tell people how they are
whether good or bad; no pulling punches - just my nature).
I'm always impressed by Kribs' posts.
Yes, very witty. Especially with those several sandwiches short of a
picnic. As is tw....................
Perhaps it's a Brit thing, sarcasm and irony comes naturally to us.
-A
Dani
-A
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TaDa Pope" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 03:31:18 PM |
|
|
The administration of Dubyas can't fool
me with they *EVERYTHING IS GONNA BE ALRIGHT IN OUR COUNTRY*.
I have no doubts that a dirty bomb will
be used against us in our big cities in
the near future. In fact SADLY I'll predict
that such will happen befor the end of this
summer of 2005.
Then theirs always the threat of biological
warfare in our big cities that could do even
more damage to our country. It's sad
that the human race has reached such a stupid and careless level of ignorance
of
what this world needs the most of - LOVE.
Tangents are infinite in all of nature in
all universes constantly and at random.
* D OUOSVAVV M *
*PUBLIUS ENIGMA*
Oh Joy!
The Psychedelic Pope
Patron Saint of the Internet
http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
21 Jan 2005 01:14:41 PM |
|
|
Well I'm not a know it all like you, but your ignorance is not familiar
with image recognition
1. I even remember in 1992 where an Isrealy Company came over to our
factory to repair their image recognition technology.
2. Nor are you familiar with Radar Jammers.
3. Are you saying a long-mid range ballisitic missile are as large as
the Enola Gay.
4. Even Kennedy Junior's plane took time and money to find within a
known region and present Radar Technology.
5. Launching a nuclear missile from the Ocean at night can be very
probable and most effective than planes or from the originating
nation's land.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: REAL NUCLEAR THREAT WITHOUT *ANY* DEFENSE |
22 Jan 2005 12:39:51 AM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106334881.719317.244990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Well I'm not a know it all like you, but your ignorance is not familiar
with image recognition
As I have said before I think your poor English lets you down.
Are you trying to discuss terminal guidance? such as RADAG?
1. I even remember in 1992 where an Isrealy Company came over to our
factory to repair their image recognition technology.
Good for you, it's a pity you didn't learn what you're talking about though.
2. Nor are you familiar with Radar Jammers.
I'd have to disagree with you there ;0)
3. Are you saying a long-mid range ballisitic missile are as large as
the Enola Gay.
No, are you unable to comprehend English?
4. Even Kennedy Junior's plane took time and money to find within a
known region and present Radar Technology.
I seem to recall his light plane crashed into the sea? I think you'll find
that radar had little to do with finding the aircraft, you see RADAR is
not that efficient underwater.
5. Launching a nuclear missile from the Ocean at night can be very
probable and most effective than planes or from the originating
nation's land.
Which is why boomers are such effective deterrents, so what?
--
krib
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
