If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Ferrin wrote in
: On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:13:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: Hobo wrote: In article , "Matt B" wrote: It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's the one delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up old white Toyota Hiace van that concerns me. Even worse, imagine a bunch of people in a basement working on a gun device nuke. When ready they set a timer and leave the city. If the device doesn't work they return to make ready a second attempt and keep doing so until they succeed. If a gun device fails, I'd expect to see the bits blown over a fairly wide area. Any random group of terrorists should be able to manage the electronics for a gun fission weapon, so it's nearly impossible to imagine the explosive not firing. After that, you simply have varying degrees of fizzle. Why fizzle? No convenient neutron source to kick start it? If they get the critical mass figured wrong,it could 'fizzle' while they are assembling it,or after firing the 'gun',the mass is not enough to sustain fission long enough to explode,but still enough to 'fizzle'.Either way,they would not be -reusing- the fissile material to begin another bomb;they would not live long enough,it would be highly radioactive.This happened in Japan,where reprocessing techs "messed up" and had a fizzle.IIRC,the techs died. -- Jim Yanik,NRA member jyanik-at-kua.net |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"David Bromage" wrote in message .. . Thursday, 4 December 2003 153/2003 AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today. Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum opportunities for Australian industry. These could include: * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch and therefore get early warning of an impending attack. * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and ground-based sensors. * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation. Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems. Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing importance of missile defence in the 21st century. "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said. "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons. "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile defence program." Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. We need to reinvent ourselves without the US. It's time we grew up. troy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
iCentral wrote in message .. . "David Bromage" wrote in message . .. Thursday, 4 December 2003 153/2003 AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today. Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum opportunities for Australian industry. These could include: * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch and therefore get early warning of an impending attack. * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and ground-based sensors. * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation. Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems. Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing importance of missile defence in the 21st century. "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said. "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons. "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile defence program." Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. We need to reinvent ourselves without the US. It's time we grew up. Yes, it's time you did. Do a few basic monetary/economic sums based on a primary production economy situated in the 2nd driest continent about as far as possible from the rest of the land masses with a population of 20 million now effectively so urbanised they believe milk comes from cardboard boxes and are huddled on the beach and tell me again how "We need to reinvent ourselves without the US. It's time we grew up." You drooling f'ing idiot. Lot of Kiwi in you, eh? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"RT" wrote in message ... iCentral wrote in message .. . "David Bromage" wrote in message . .. Thursday, 4 December 2003 153/2003 AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today. Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum opportunities for Australian industry. These could include: * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch and therefore get early warning of an impending attack. * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and ground-based sensors. * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation. Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems. Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing importance of missile defence in the 21st century. "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said. "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons. "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile defence program." Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. We need to reinvent ourselves without the US. It's time we grew up. Yes, it's time you did. Do a few basic monetary/economic sums based on a primary production economy situated in the 2nd driest continent about as far as possible from the rest of the land masses with a population of 20 million now effectively so urbanised they believe milk comes from cardboard boxes and are huddled on the beach and tell me again how "We need to reinvent ourselves without the US. It's time we grew up." You drooling f'ing idiot. Lot of Kiwi in you, eh? Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in debating the issue than a moronic personal attack. I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal. And I am not holding my breath. Cheers, John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message u... Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in debating the issue than a moronic personal attack. I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal. And I am not holding my breath. and what would that achieve? Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in the same things. Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought the subject through, are placated? Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay marriges on the same basis? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message u... Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in debating the issue than a moronic personal attack. I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal. And I am not holding my breath. and what would that achieve? Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in the same things. I'd have to say your statement is generally true! Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought the subject through, are placated? No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests ahead of keeping the US on side. Missile defence as an effective strategy has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the US conveniently provide that for us as well. Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay marriges on the same basis? By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never had a good record for tolerance of other people's views. Cheers, John |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock
theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work besides seems like its something you need to rely on much better intelligence to see know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your assets in place to shoot it down. the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on either something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to support our strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to get some independent sattelite capability besides we've got our own nuclear reactor, and soon to get a new one. ANSTO, the australian nuclear science and technology organisation employs about 150 scientists. they dont build bombs, but they DO do research into the nuclear bomb designs of foriegn countries. We have a network of seismic stations around australia that monitor the global test ban treaty. Any bombs that go off anywhere around the world register on those stations equipment. - Our scientists at ANSTO learn a great deal about the bombs design, yeild etc from those signatures. we could easily (from a technical/engineering) point of view go nuclear if we so desired. - politically however we might find it difficult internationally. Lesson is if anyone drops a bomb on us, and we know who it is, we could sure as hell drop a couple back - quite easily. and im sure that we could "out produce" some of these threshold states. and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it. the f111 point is however .... you need the range and intelligence multirole tanker (dont expect the yanks to lend us one if we we gonna use it on a nuke mission because someone exploded a bomb in sydney harbour) sattelite imagery (dont expect them or anyone else to provide us with up to date intel either) missile defence is an absolute waste of taxpayer monies imho its a typically ammerhicun approach of trying to solve a problem, without bothering to remove the problem in the first intance. by the way .... read in the news today germanys selling nuclear reactors to china .... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message u... Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in the same things. I'd have to say your statement is generally true! Then why would you expect Howard to disagree with him? Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought the subject through, are placated? No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests ahead of keeping the US on side. This will come as a shock to you, but it is in Australias interest to keep the US on side, the fact that doing so requires doing the very things that Howard believes in should be no surprise - they are both conservatives, which part of that don't you get? Missile defence as an effective strategy has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the US conveniently provide that for us as well. The old 'bomber will always get through' crowds argument resurfaces, they were right, for as long as nobody tried to stop the bomber. N Korea has already made a number of suggestions that they have nukes and missiles and are prepared to use them, how is it unwise to spend some of our money trying to stop them? The point is BMD doesn't have to be 100% effective, to be effective. it just has to make sure that the enemy can't be assured of a one shot, one kill capability. Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay marriges on the same basis? By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never had a good record for tolerance of other people's views. You are the one arguing that a conservative should disagree with a conservative just to show he disagrees. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work "...and I told Orville and I told Wilbur, that thing will never fly......" Better minds than ours appear to think otherwise. Probably won't be 100% effective but then what is? If they lauch say, 10 missiles at us and some, say 3 fail in some phase (unlikely they will all work perfectly either) and it gets 5 of those that don't, well would you rather have 2 nukes to clean up after or 7? Nothings certain or perfect but it seems to me that it's worth a go. No real down side, and if it *does* work we are at worst safer than we were. Note that I don't consider whining from Indonesia and Malaysia to be a 'real down side'.. The CO |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"The CO" wrote in message ... "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work "...and I told Orville and I told Wilbur, that thing will never fly......" Better minds than ours appear to think otherwise. Probably won't be 100% effective but then what is? If they lauch say, 10 missiles at us and some, say 3 fail in some phase (unlikely they will all work perfectly either) and it gets 5 of those that don't, well would you rather have 2 nukes to clean up after or 7? Nothings certain or perfect but it seems to me that it's worth a go. No real down side, and if it *does* work we are at worst safer than we were. Note that I don't consider whining from Indonesia and Malaysia to be a 'real down side'.. neither do i. they complain we got F111s theyd whine more if we got a squadron of Airbus multirole tanker transports, and a damn sight louder than if we were just participating in missile defence. thats something i'd pay money for just for the fun of it. regardless of the defence benefits to be able to extend the range of the f111 and bring all those flanker bases in the region to heel. The CO |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 18 | January 3rd 05 03:57 AM |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |
[AU] Defence support for Bush visit | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 7 | October 23rd 03 05:04 AM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |