Just a little something for p_p_man... and our other international members!

[I.M.B. Cumdeath]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991210

 

[p_p_man]

Even if we were still talking about this...

figment of Bush's imagination, I would expect nothing less of him. Perfectly consistent with his psychological profile. Let the destroyed missiles land anywhere else but on America...

 

[Myrrdin]

Mega-tsunami will devastate all Atlantic coasts

Nice feel good site IMBC

I noticed the story of how the Spanish Island of La Palma in the Canary Islands is in inmminent danger of collapsing and sending a 50 metre high tsunami (tidal wave) crashing over the Atlantic coast of America.

 

[I.M.B. Cumdeath]

Re: Even if we were still talking about this...

figment of Bush's imagination, I would expect nothing less of him. Perfectly consistent with his psychological profile. Let the destroyed missiles land anywhere else but on America...

It does all seem like some great, cosmic joke... or something out of Monty Python.

 

[p_p_man]

Personally...

I prefer to think of it as Monty Python...

 

[I.M.B. Cumdeath]

Come to think of it...

So do I!

 

[shadowsource]

Even better

They're in the process of admitting that primitive missiles are the hardest to stop - you know, the kind they have in North Korea, Iran, Iraq....

 

[Azwed]

Yes it is possible that a bomb could fall on europe or canada, but nuclear weapons are pretty when it comes to explosions. The reentry vehicle can take lots of heat and friction but not much collison stress. The explosives that compress the sphere of material are weak. They have to be very exact to work and it would not take much to throw off there calibration. I don't think you really need to worry about a nuclear explosion because of an intercepted ICBM. The nuclear material falling to earth is bad, but shoud not explode. Would just make a nice hot spot wherever it hit. Yes I know that is not good, but it is better then having the damn thing explode anywhere. Not that I like Bush or anything but, having something that could stop limited and or terroist ICBM attacks would be nice. I think it will be a long time before we get anywhere near it though. Of course there all a terrorist group really has to do is smuggle a bomb into the U.S and then detonate it in a major city. It would not be hard and would probably be easier then using an ICBM.

 

[OUTSIDER]

Read em and weep.......

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1513000/1513342.stm

 

[miles]

Pee pee Man. PhD

I would expect nothing less of him. Perfectly consistent with his psychological profile.

Would you mind sharing Dubya's psychological profile with us, oh learned Doctor?

Can't wait for this one.

 

[Problem Child]

Who gives a fuck where they land as long as they don't land on US?

Isn't the point of the whole thing to protect the US?

We're paying for the goddamned system, and frankly as long as the things don't hit the United States, I could care less if they take out Buckingham Palace or a sperm whale off the coast of Massachusetts.

If you whiny Europeans want protection build your own fucking force field. Or perhaps after we get it operational we'll give you the technology. That's usually the way it works anyway.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Pee pee Man. PhD

I would expect nothing less of him. Perfectly consistent with his psychological profile.

Would you mind sharing Dubya's psychological profile with us, oh learned Doctor?

Can't wait for this one.

My own work on the subject is still very much in the embryonic stage and is not due for release into the public domain until 2004.

But in the course of my research I have come across like thinking academics and their analysis will do for the time being...


George WILL (Published in the Washington Post on Carlson's Bush profile...

"What is troubling....is not that [he is thought to be (ed. p_p_man 31 Aug 2001)] a coarse or cruel man. Rather it is that Carlson's profile suggests an atmosphere of adolescence, a lack of gravitas -- a carelessness, even a recklessness, perhaps born of things having gone a bit too easily so far."


Copied from an article in Bush Watch

"we have seen this "atmosphere of adolescence" in the public Bush for many years. (Three years ago when he attended a mock presidential nomination dinner, he told the assembled Washington politically elite that if he were to be elected President he would install a 119 phone number for dyslexics.) We don't think George's adolescent behavior is anything new. It's part of the package, it will remain part of the package, and it remains to be seen if a majority of the voters find his "atmosphere of adolescence" appropriate for the President of the United States of America."



More from Carlson

"Bush [edited out-ppman 31 Aug 2001] has a long memory for slights....and when a specific group, rather than an individual, disagrees with George, he's capable of withdrawing in a sulk..."

 

[Closet Desire]

I've said it before...

Rogue nations are more likely to deliver a nuclear device to the US via UPS than by ICBM. This from the government's own Office for Technology Assessment. The devices already exist--the Soviet version is the size of a briefcase and weighs about 35 kilos--and a few are missing.

One must not forget that the USSR fell not so much over ideals but over the financial cost of the arms race. Now the US is cutting taxes, digging into Social Security by $9 billion, and building weapons to combat a threat that hasn't even been demonstrated to exist. China and Russia, both capable of wiping the slate clean with their own nuclear weapons, warn of a new arms race.

I'd take them seriously.

 

[Myrrdin]

Who gives a fuck where they land as long as they don't land on US?

Isn't the point of the whole thing to protect the US?

We're paying for the goddamned system, and frankly as long as the things don't hit the United States, I could care less if they take out Buckingham Palace or a sperm whale off the coast of Massachusetts.

If you whiny Europeans want protection build your own fucking force field. Or perhaps after we get it operational we'll give you the technology. That's usually the way it works anyway.

But for the US system you to work you need to have across the globe tracking systems like the one you're applying for in Fylingdale, North Yorkshire, UK.
No co-operation from other countries = no system

 

[Lancaster]

It's better to go out with a bang than a whimper.

 

[Doulton]

If you whiny Europeans want protection build your own fucking force field. Or perhaps after we get it operational we'll give you the technology. That's usually the way it works anyway.

The point is not that it doesn't protect Europe so much as it directly endangers it. Warheads that have been aimed at the US could land in Europe and other places. It's not a matter of Europe wanting the US's help, it's wanting the US to take responsibility for it's actions. Which they seem incapable and reluctant to do. That's usually the way it works, anyway.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: I've said it before...

Rogue nations are more likely to deliver a nuclear device to the US via UPS than by ICBM. This from the government's own Office for Technology Assessment. The devices already exist--the Soviet version is the size of a briefcase and weighs about 35 kilos--and a few are missing.

China and Russia, both capable of wiping the slate clean with their own nuclear weapons, warn of a new arms race.

I'd take them seriously.

I think that delivery by portable means will be the only efficient way to place a nuclear device(s) in another country. But of course it is not only nuclear weapons that we should be worried about, it is the ever increasing awareness of germ warfare and the rarely discussed method of using computers to destroy an enemy's infrastructure through disruption of their essential services.

Today, talk of nuclear warfare seems a bit old hat to me. I grew up in an age when, if a jet flew overhead, we would look up in intrepidation if not fear, to look for a descending missile. Mind you commercial jets were a new phenomena then.

After the Cuban Crisis, with the agreement of both sides not to send the world to hell in a handbasket, the use of nuclear weapons being delivered by ICBMs became more "acceptable" as part of our way of life. Especially after MAD, "Mutually Assured Destruction", was formulated.

But today with nuclear weapons growing ever more portable their possible use is once again a matter of discussion. It's only the delivery system which has changed.

I don't think we should take China's and Russia's comments about a new arms race too seriously. After all, their own research whould show that Bush's MDS is really a non-starter designed for home political use only. But if they are talking about an arms race in directions other than nuclear then there may well be an element of truth in what they say.

And I would not be able to blame them. If I was part of their Governments and a new leader appeared in another country who immediately began beating his chest in an aggressive manner. I would look to my own defences and retaliatory systems as well.

I cannot see defences against nuclear attack on the scale Bush has announced as being viable. Defences against portable weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, bacterial and tecnological, would certainly be.

 

[OUTSIDER]

Re: I've said it before...

Rogue nations are more likely to deliver a nuclear device to the US via UPS than by ICBM. This from the government's own Office for Technology Assessment. The devices already exist--the Soviet version is the size of a briefcase and weighs about 35 kilos--and a few are missing.

One must not forget that the USSR fell not so much over ideals but over the financial cost of the arms race. Now the US is cutting taxes, digging into Social Security by $9 billion, and building weapons to combat a threat that hasn't even been demonstrated to exist. China and Russia, both capable of wiping the slate clean with their own nuclear weapons, warn of a new arms race.

I'd take them seriously.

There's a lot more than a few briefcase nukes missing, I saw a programme on Discovery about it and it's more like 20 or 30 of the damn things gone walkabout, and the programme said one placed high up in say a sky scraper would cause real carnage to anyplace unlucky enough to be targeted.

 

[shadowsource]

collateral damage!

I sued to call the French independent nukes (Force de Frappe) aimed at the USSR the "final solution to the German question," as that's where they would land.

And Myrddin: That tsunami is supposed to hit Cornwall, then keep growing until it hits me.

 

[Closet Desire]

ahhhh comrade...

...a few here, a few there, it's nothink I tell you!

According to the same OTA report I read (ordered from the gov't printing office...the miracles of Mastercard), the briefcase nuke would be powerful enough to destroy, for example, Wall Street.

We all tend to think of WWII and the massive destruction it took to bring a nation to its knees. Now...destroy the backbone of the financial district or Silicon Valley or--heaven forbid--that tiny software company in Washington and you HAVE caused destruction on a far greater scale.

Me--I'd be more worried about the stealthy, small scale, low tech approach. Even zealots aren't stupid. They too choose to do it the easy way like, say, a small boat loaded with explosives that nobody would ever suspect.

Personally, I think what Bush has in mind is a bit like plugging a sieve.

 

[shadowsource]

sure

Bush's plan will enrich a lot of people and endanger them and everyone else.