info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
_One Second After_ by William R. Forstchen
392 views
Skip to first unread message
Lynn McGuire
Feb 27, 2015, 5:37:54 PM2/27/15
to
_One Second After_ by William R. Forstchen
http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765356864/
A free standing novel with no known sequels.
Wow! Wow! You want apocalyptic novels, I've got your book right here. Wow! I stayed up until 3 am reading this last night. Fits
right in with my rule, if I have to stay up all night to finish the book then it is a five star book.
The author starts the story with somebody exploding a large nuclear weapon 25 miles above Kansas in the USA, causing a large EMP
event in the continental USA. There is another weapon exploded above Moscow and another above Tokyo. Basically all electronic
devices and electrical equipment are destroyed. Then, the author explores what can go wrong in the next twelve months. Actually, it
is more like what cannot go wrong in the next twelve months.
I am not going to go into the number of problems experienced in the USA but there are many. Life becomes cheap, very cheap. Food is
scarce after sixty days. Food is below subsistence level after 90 days.
About 1/3rd of the way in the book, I noted that the main character had two golden retrievers. "Oh no", I said to myself, "they are
food on four legs". I am not going to spoil that but tough, very tough decisions have to be made.
Great character development that make you feel very empathetic to their issues and needs.
I have no idea if we could actually protect the USA against an EMP first strike. The cost for a rogue state to commit the act is
actually very low. The USA military is mostly hardened against EMP but they are few and far between. There is no way that they
could ramp up for food production, distribution and area protection in a short time period. More like years or more to recivilize
the nation.
My rating: 6 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars (4,291 reviews)
Lynn
http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765356864/
A free standing novel with no known sequels.
Wow! Wow! You want apocalyptic novels, I've got your book right here. Wow! I stayed up until 3 am reading this last night. Fits
right in with my rule, if I have to stay up all night to finish the book then it is a five star book.
The author starts the story with somebody exploding a large nuclear weapon 25 miles above Kansas in the USA, causing a large EMP
event in the continental USA. There is another weapon exploded above Moscow and another above Tokyo. Basically all electronic
devices and electrical equipment are destroyed. Then, the author explores what can go wrong in the next twelve months. Actually, it
is more like what cannot go wrong in the next twelve months.
I am not going to go into the number of problems experienced in the USA but there are many. Life becomes cheap, very cheap. Food is
scarce after sixty days. Food is below subsistence level after 90 days.
About 1/3rd of the way in the book, I noted that the main character had two golden retrievers. "Oh no", I said to myself, "they are
food on four legs". I am not going to spoil that but tough, very tough decisions have to be made.
Great character development that make you feel very empathetic to their issues and needs.
I have no idea if we could actually protect the USA against an EMP first strike. The cost for a rogue state to commit the act is
actually very low. The USA military is mostly hardened against EMP but they are few and far between. There is no way that they
could ramp up for food production, distribution and area protection in a short time period. More like years or more to recivilize
the nation.
My rating: 6 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars (4,291 reviews)
Lynn
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Feb 27, 2015, 5:57:11 PM2/27/15
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> More like years or more to recivilize
>the nation.
*Re* civilise?
> More like years or more to recivilize
>the nation.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
I was most impressed when I looked up into the London sky and saw
a star through all the light pollution. A few of us checked some
astronomy references to try and identify it, and we're reasonably
confident that it was Sol. -- Peter Corlett, asr
Don Bruder
Feb 27, 2015, 9:28:05 PM2/27/15
to
In article <mcqril$o0h$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
wrote:
> _One Second After_ by William R. Forstchen
> http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765356864/
<snip>
> My rating: 6 out of 5 stars
> Amazon rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars (4,291 reviews)
I found it to be *WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY* too preachy. On a par with Strieber's
"Warday", or (even worse) "Wolf of Shadows". Like those two, it had
potential by the supertanker-load, but also like those two, it took that
boatload of potential and wasted it by trying to use it as an applicator
for the message. Unfortunately, that applicator took the form of a
baseball bat applied repeatedly to the head and shoulders of the reader
with such force and vigor that I won't bother picking up another work by
either Forstchen OR Strieber regardless of how good it might appear to
be.
I don't mind a story with a message. I get annoyed, alienated, and even
downright pissed off when beaten over the head with it as hard as the
three books spoken of here do it.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
wrote:
> _One Second After_ by William R. Forstchen
> http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765356864/
> My rating: 6 out of 5 stars
> Amazon rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars (4,291 reviews)
"Warday", or (even worse) "Wolf of Shadows". Like those two, it had
potential by the supertanker-load, but also like those two, it took that
boatload of potential and wasted it by trying to use it as an applicator
for the message. Unfortunately, that applicator took the form of a
baseball bat applied repeatedly to the head and shoulders of the reader
with such force and vigor that I won't bother picking up another work by
either Forstchen OR Strieber regardless of how good it might appear to
be.
I don't mind a story with a message. I get annoyed, alienated, and even
downright pissed off when beaten over the head with it as hard as the
three books spoken of here do it.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
Steve Coltrin
Feb 27, 2015, 10:26:50 PM2/27/15
to
begin fnord
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> writes:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>the nation.
>
> *Re* civilise?
Some of the pre-Colombians were decent folk.
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>the nation.
>
> *Re* civilise?
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Feb 27, 2015, 11:37:34 PM2/27/15
to
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J. Clarke
Feb 28, 2015, 12:21:04 AM2/28/15
to
In article <mcqril$o0h$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
I wanted to throw it at the wall on numerous occasions. It was pretty
much "the sky is falling" about EMP and buys into the false notion that
EMP magically destroys all semiconductors, even those with high power
capacity sitting in packages on shelves.
Most cars would ignore EMP, most of those than don't would restart
either immediately or after having the battery disconnected for a few
minutes. What would happen to trains is an open question--they use
semiconductors in the generators but they are high-power semiconductors
and so might not be affected--on the other hand the rails serve as very
long lines so the train could take a pretty big hit. OTGH the rails may
be effectively grounded and may lose most of the voltage that is induced
in them before it gets to a train. Diesel trucks with air start
wouldn't have any trouble at all.
Fortschen tells a good story but he is really _lousy_ at research, which
is rather sad considering that he's a PhD college professor,
specializing in history of technology.
much "the sky is falling" about EMP and buys into the false notion that
EMP magically destroys all semiconductors, even those with high power
capacity sitting in packages on shelves.
Most cars would ignore EMP, most of those than don't would restart
either immediately or after having the battery disconnected for a few
minutes. What would happen to trains is an open question--they use
semiconductors in the generators but they are high-power semiconductors
and so might not be affected--on the other hand the rails serve as very
long lines so the train could take a pretty big hit. OTGH the rails may
be effectively grounded and may lose most of the voltage that is induced
in them before it gets to a train. Diesel trucks with air start
wouldn't have any trouble at all.
Fortschen tells a good story but he is really _lousy_ at research, which
is rather sad considering that he's a PhD college professor,
specializing in history of technology.
Robert Carnegie
Feb 28, 2015, 7:24:22 AM2/28/15
to
On Friday, 27 February 2015 22:37:54 UTC, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> About 1/3rd of the way in the book, I noted that
> the main character had two golden retrievers.
> "Oh no", I said to myself, "they are food on four legs".
> I am not going to spoil that but tough, very tough
> decisions have to be made.
By the dogs. (I'm just guessing.)
> About 1/3rd of the way in the book, I noted that
> the main character had two golden retrievers.
> "Oh no", I said to myself, "they are food on four legs".
> I am not going to spoil that but tough, very tough
> decisions have to be made.
And, I guess again, by the survivors who fort up
in a pet food store. Not how to open those cans,
but whether.
Didn't we decide that you physically can't EMP
all of the United States at once? Even if the
bomb is inside a TV satellite in geosynchronous
orbit.
Lynn McGuire
Feb 28, 2015, 4:34:08 PM2/28/15
to
On 2/27/2015 4:57 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> More like years or more to recivilize
>> the nation.
>
> *Re* civilise?
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Actually, I was concerned about the two "more" occurrences in the sentences.
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> More like years or more to recivilize
>> the nation.
>
> *Re* civilise?
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Feb 28, 2015, 4:35:27 PM2/28/15
to
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451450078/
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Feb 28, 2015, 4:49:55 PM2/28/15
to
are intent on getting the message across that an EMP first strike from a
rogue state is a possible event that we are not protecting against. Or
least not visibly protecting against here in the USA.
The military is supposedly protected against EMP. And car computer
systems, up to 4 or 5 cpus per car, are hardened against transient and
severe voltage spikes. So they might or might not survive, difficult to
tell without extensive testing.
I can tell you that utility and electrical systems are not hardened in
the slightest. My customers are telling me that they are just starting
the process of getting rid of internet access in the refineries due to
the stuxnet virus. I cannot imagine what it would cost to get them
hardened, if they could even do it in a period of less than 20 to 30 years.
In fact, even the effects of a 2 MT nuke 25 miles over Kansas are
controversial. The one LEO nuke test over Hawaii in 1963 did not give
us good enough data to be able to extrapolate the effects.
Lynn
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Feb 28, 2015, 5:47:48 PM2/28/15
to
gets sideslipped into a semi-medieval-russian-with-ravening-aliens world.
J. Clarke
Feb 28, 2015, 6:06:30 PM2/28/15
to
In article <mctd4m$2pt$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
It wasn't just one test.
Tests conducted at altitude include:
Starfish Prime 1.4MT at 250 miles
Bluegill Triple Prime 400 KT at 30 miles
Kingfish 400 KT 60 miles
Hardtack-Teak 3.8MT 50 miles
Hardtack-Orange 3.8MT 28.3 miles
Yucca 1.7KT 16.29 miles
Argus 1 1.5Kt 110 miles
Argus 2 1.5KT 190 miles
Argus 3 1.5KT 493 miles
There were also at least 7 Soviet tests, including Test #184, 300KT
180mi, and similar tests at 93 and 37 miles.
Of all of those the only ones that produced significant EMP were
Starfish Prime and Test 184, both medium yield at over 180 miles
altitude.
From all these results and an analysis of the mechanics of interaction
betwen nuclear weapons and the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field,
means of estimating EMP have been established and are fairly well known
in the civil defense community. The explosion, to be effective, has to
be at fairly high altitude (around 200 miles) and faily large (a few
hundred kilotons).
A 2 MT nuke 25 miles over Kansas isn't going to produce the kind of
effect depicted in the novel. It might knock out shortwave for a day or
so due to ionospheric disturbance but that's about it. It has plenty of
power but is too low to cause a significant EMP.
The only people who whom it is controversial are the conspiracy
theorists who are certain that the standard civil defense manual
relating to nuclear attack is filled with deliberate lies.
Tests conducted at altitude include:
Starfish Prime 1.4MT at 250 miles
Bluegill Triple Prime 400 KT at 30 miles
Kingfish 400 KT 60 miles
Hardtack-Teak 3.8MT 50 miles
Hardtack-Orange 3.8MT 28.3 miles
Yucca 1.7KT 16.29 miles
Argus 1 1.5Kt 110 miles
Argus 2 1.5KT 190 miles
Argus 3 1.5KT 493 miles
There were also at least 7 Soviet tests, including Test #184, 300KT
180mi, and similar tests at 93 and 37 miles.
Of all of those the only ones that produced significant EMP were
Starfish Prime and Test 184, both medium yield at over 180 miles
altitude.
From all these results and an analysis of the mechanics of interaction
betwen nuclear weapons and the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field,
means of estimating EMP have been established and are fairly well known
in the civil defense community. The explosion, to be effective, has to
be at fairly high altitude (around 200 miles) and faily large (a few
hundred kilotons).
A 2 MT nuke 25 miles over Kansas isn't going to produce the kind of
effect depicted in the novel. It might knock out shortwave for a day or
so due to ionospheric disturbance but that's about it. It has plenty of
power but is too low to cause a significant EMP.
The only people who whom it is controversial are the conspiracy
theorists who are certain that the standard civil defense manual
relating to nuclear attack is filled with deliberate lies.
J. Clarke
Feb 28, 2015, 6:21:00 PM2/28/15
to
In article <mctc9i$uk8$2...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Just be warned--his aliens could teach Hannibal Lecter a thing or two,
rather graphically described.
rather graphically described.
Lynn McGuire
Feb 28, 2015, 7:37:35 PM2/28/15
to
Lynn
J. Clarke
Feb 28, 2015, 8:27:16 PM2/28/15
to
In article <mctmv0$7vf$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
It's not that they ate them, it's the how of it.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 1, 2015, 8:44:06 AM3/1/15
to
Lynn
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Mar 1, 2015, 12:32:37 PM3/1/15
to
I think there may have been some inkling that they were reformable in the
later books, but it's been so long now I'm not sure.
something like that is going on in the Destroyermen books by Anderson.
If the enemy "Gricks" stayed as first protrayed, the allies would have
no choice but to genocide them. He's gradually been making changes in
the nature of grick society such that they may eventually be able to
surrender..
Walter Bushell
Mar 2, 2015, 8:20:05 AM3/2/15
to
In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> > More like years or more to recivilize
> >the nation.
>
> *Re* civilise?
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> > More like years or more to recivilize
> >the nation.
>
> *Re* civilise?
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 2, 2015, 3:38:07 PM3/2/15
to
Mexico. Altitude was not given.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 2, 2015, 3:38:59 PM3/2/15
to
Lynn
Robert Bannister
Mar 2, 2015, 6:12:56 PM3/2/15
to
On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>> the nation.
>>
>> *Re* civilise?
>>
>> Cheers - Jaimie
>
> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
>
Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>> the nation.
>>
>> *Re* civilise?
>>
>> Cheers - Jaimie
>
> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
>
country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
the city streets?
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
David Johnston
Mar 2, 2015, 6:29:53 PM3/2/15
to
On 3/2/2015 4:12 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>>> the nation.
>>>
>>> *Re* civilise?
>>>
>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>
>> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
>> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
>>
> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> country is civilised?
While civilized has more than one meaning, the relevant one in this case
> On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>>> the nation.
>>>
>>> *Re* civilise?
>>>
>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>
>> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
>> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
>>
> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> country is civilised?
is "living in functional cities".
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Mar 2, 2015, 6:45:36 PM3/2/15
to
On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:29:48 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
>On 3/2/2015 4:12 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>>>> the nation.
>>>>
>>>> *Re* civilise?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>>
>>> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
>>> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
That's a very low bar.
>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>> country is civilised?
>
>While civilized has more than one meaning, the relevant one in this case
>is "living in functional cities".
That's a very low bar too. Rats do that.
Not cities of their own creation, but you might want to reconsider your
definition slightly..
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Women's breasts are like electric train sets. They're meant for
kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playing with them.
wrote:
>On 3/2/2015 4:12 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More like years or more to recivilize
>>>>> the nation.
>>>>
>>>> *Re* civilise?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>>
>>> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
>>> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>> country is civilised?
>
>While civilized has more than one meaning, the relevant one in this case
>is "living in functional cities".
Not cities of their own creation, but you might want to reconsider your
definition slightly..
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Women's breasts are like electric train sets. They're meant for
kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playing with them.
Steve Coltrin
Mar 2, 2015, 7:38:41 PM3/2/15
to
begin fnord
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
Ants think beetles are tall.
> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
Greg Goss
Mar 2, 2015, 10:08:02 PM3/2/15
to
society is how you create a civilized society. Heinlein raised this
concept in many of his novels, but I don't know if he believed that
way in the real world.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
Mar 2, 2015, 10:18:17 PM3/2/15
to
In article <clk93h...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...
What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
they can, not because the see a need.
says...
it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
they can, not because the see a need.
David DeLaney
Mar 3, 2015, 2:29:27 AM3/3/15
to
On 2015-03-03, J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
of its contents and inhabitants, much like 19th Century Europeans tended to
think all Americans were Wild West outlaw types.
I live in Knoxville TN, buckle of the Bible Belt and only a dozen or two miles
from the region's two best-known attractions, Dolly Parton. And the one person
I know who carries habitually, does so because it's part of his job at Oak
Ridge.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>> the city streets?
>
> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
> they can, not because the see a need.
If robban is from outside the USA, he may have a somewhat-distorted vision
>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>> the city streets?
>
> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
> they can, not because the see a need.
of its contents and inhabitants, much like 19th Century Europeans tended to
think all Americans were Wild West outlaw types.
I live in Knoxville TN, buckle of the Bible Belt and only a dozen or two miles
from the region's two best-known attractions, Dolly Parton. And the one person
I know who carries habitually, does so because it's part of his job at Oak
Ridge.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Scott Lurndal
Mar 3, 2015, 9:42:26 AM3/3/15
to
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 1:16:51 PM3/3/15
to
Lynn
Scott Lurndal
Mar 3, 2015, 2:15:30 PM3/3/15
to
is even close to accurate. In the last 50 years, outside of texas, I've never seen
a person carry (excepting law enforcement, and transportation to/from a range).
David Johnston
Mar 3, 2015, 3:04:28 PM3/3/15
to
David DeLaney
Mar 3, 2015, 3:33:02 PM3/3/15
to
>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>>> the city streets?
>>
>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
>> they can, not because the see a need.
>
> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
> or their vehicle.
Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>>> the city streets?
>>
>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
>> they can, not because the see a need.
>
> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
> or their vehicle.
Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Mar 3, 2015, 3:44:19 PM3/3/15
to
On 2015-03-03 15:32:45 -0500, David DeLaney said:
> On 2015-03-03, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
>>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>>>> the city streets?
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
>>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
>>> they can, not because the see a need.
>>
>> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
>> or their vehicle.
>
> Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
>
> Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
When I lived in Massachusetts I knew several people who owned guns --
> On 2015-03-03, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
>>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>>>> the city streets?
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
>>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
>>> they can, not because the see a need.
>>
>> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
>> or their vehicle.
>
> Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
>
> Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
but they were mostly members of the Minutemen who had flintlocks they
only carried for parades and holidays.
I knew one guy who hunted in New Hampshire every year and had half a
dozen guns, and my ex-brother-in-law had an antique shotgun he'd
inherited from his grandfather, but that's about it. (I don't think
anyone had fired the shotgun since the First World War.)
--
Now available: Tom Derringer & the Aluminum Airship
http://www.amazon.com/Derringer-Aluminum-Airship-Lawrence-Watt-Evans/dp/1619910098/
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 3:51:03 PM3/3/15
to
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 3:37:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Wow! Wow! You want apocalyptic novels, I've got your book right here. Wow! I stayed up until 3 am reading this last night. Fits
> right in with my rule, if I have to stay up all night to finish the book then it is a five star book.
Well, that's a reasonable criterion, no matter what flaws the work may possess.
> I have no idea if we could actually protect the USA against an EMP first strike.
Faraday cages and tempest shielding will neutralize emp. Distance will also help.
> The cost for a rogue state to commit the act is
> actually very low.
Actually quite high- you need a ballistic missile, that can deliver a nuclear warhead above the US. You also have to be willing to accept the death of your entire society, as US nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure are quite thoroughly shielded.
> The USA military is mostly hardened against EMP but they are few and far between. There is no way that they
> could ramp up for food production, distribution and area protection in a short time period. More like years or more to recivilize
> the nation.
Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
> Wow! Wow! You want apocalyptic novels, I've got your book right here. Wow! I stayed up until 3 am reading this last night. Fits
> right in with my rule, if I have to stay up all night to finish the book then it is a five star book.
Well, that's a reasonable criterion, no matter what flaws the work may possess.
> I have no idea if we could actually protect the USA against an EMP first strike.
Faraday cages and tempest shielding will neutralize emp. Distance will also help.
> The cost for a rogue state to commit the act is
> actually very low.
Actually quite high- you need a ballistic missile, that can deliver a nuclear warhead above the US. You also have to be willing to accept the death of your entire society, as US nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure are quite thoroughly shielded.
> The USA military is mostly hardened against EMP but they are few and far between. There is no way that they
> could ramp up for food production, distribution and area protection in a short time period. More like years or more to recivilize
> the nation.
Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 4:05:27 PM3/3/15
to
If the USA gets EMP'd, who is going to rush in to feed the CONUS 300+ million people when the grocery trucks won't run anymore and
the grocery store coolers and freezers fail to operate? A 90% death rate due to starvation and illness are not that unlikely when
all the civilization support systems fail for a year.
When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them? Will
the USA military just nuke the likely candidates? In the book, North Korea and Iran were nuked to oblivion. But it was hinted that
the Chinese did it.
Lynn
Kurt Busiek
Mar 3, 2015, 4:27:35 PM3/3/15
to
On 2015-03-03 20:32:45 +0000, David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> said:
> On 2015-03-03, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
>>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>>>> the city streets?
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
>>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
>>> they can, not because the see a need.
>>
>> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
>> or their vehicle.
>
> Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
And it doesn't address how many are carrying because they can, rather
> On 2015-03-03, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
>>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
>>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
>>>> the city streets?
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
>>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
>>> they can, not because the see a need.
>>
>> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
>> or their vehicle.
>
> Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
than because they find it necessary to.
> Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
than Texas.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Scott Lurndal
Mar 3, 2015, 4:46:38 PM3/3/15
to
David Johnston
Mar 3, 2015, 5:01:08 PM3/3/15
to
On 3/3/2015 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
That is a very impractical idea. You can't just launch a high-altitude
> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
missile from a real container ship. And unless you're going to pretend
to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators could only be
Russia or China.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 5:15:54 PM3/3/15
to
North Korea if they ever get a large capacity nuke that weighs less than two tons?
Pakistan?
France?
India?
Israel?
Lynn
David Johnston
Mar 3, 2015, 5:48:29 PM3/3/15
to
On 3/3/2015 3:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/3/2015 4:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 3/3/2015 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
>>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
>>> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
>>> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
>>
>> That is a very impractical idea. You can't just launch a
>> high-altitude missile from a real container ship. And unless you're
>> going
>> to pretend to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators
>> could only be Russia or China.
>
> Why can't I launch a ballistic missile (or three) from a container ship?
Because you'd need an actual launch platform. You could build a
> On 3/3/2015 4:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 3/3/2015 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
>>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
>>> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
>>> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
>>
>> That is a very impractical idea. You can't just launch a
>> high-altitude missile from a real container ship. And unless you're
>> going
>> to pretend to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators
>> could only be Russia or China.
>
> Why can't I launch a ballistic missile (or three) from a container ship?
something that looked superficially like a container ship and had a
launch platform system built into it, but that's the kind of development
program that draws attention.
>
> North Korea if they ever get a large capacity nuke that weighs less than
> two tons?
to do it.
>
> Pakistan?
>
> France?
>
> India?
>
> Israel?
All qualify as nations who, like Great Britain would be injuring their
own interests by doing that.
>
> Lynn
>
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 6:10:42 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
> >
> > Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
>
> New Orleans had tens of thousands of soldiers and FEMA people rushing in to help out.
Well, nice to know that you think civilization requires the federal government to create... But, as I said, the stories were false. Civilization was fine.
> > Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
> >
> > Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
>
> New Orleans had tens of thousands of soldiers and FEMA people rushing in to help out.
> If the USA gets EMP'd, who is going to rush in to feed the CONUS 300+ million people when the grocery trucks won't run anymore and
> the grocery store coolers and freezers fail to operate? A 90% death rate due to starvation and illness are not that unlikely when
> all the civilization support systems fail for a year.
> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
> bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> Will
> the USA military just nuke the likely candidates?
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 6:23:15 PM3/3/15
to
is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
Yes, launching a Low Earth Orbit missile might take out a container ship. Unless one adds a flame impingement system with a water
jacket. Maybe launch the three missiles simultaneously.
Humans are amazingly creative when they want to be.
Lynn
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 6:33:03 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 4:23:15 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
Diesels will run without electronics, so, yeah, they can be modified to run without electronics.
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
> Yes, launching a Low Earth Orbit missile might take out a container ship. Unless one adds a flame impingement system with a water
> jacket. Maybe launch the three missiles simultaneously.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Mar 3, 2015, 6:33:54 PM3/3/15
to
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:01:05 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
Nod. We Brits do have morons in charge, but not that sort of moron.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Thank you for your input. Now, if you have something substantive to
bring to the discussion, kindly do. Otherwise, isn't there an
eternal flamefest that would peter out if you won't keep feeding it?
-- Cosmin Corbea, r.a.b
wrote:
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Thank you for your input. Now, if you have something substantive to
bring to the discussion, kindly do. Otherwise, isn't there an
eternal flamefest that would peter out if you won't keep feeding it?
-- Cosmin Corbea, r.a.b
Robert Bannister
Mar 3, 2015, 6:34:37 PM3/3/15
to
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 6:37:22 PM3/3/15
to
Lynn
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 6:39:10 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 4:23:15 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
Also, electronics in a metal bodied work vehicle and surrounded by a metal engine (and likely in their own metal box to protect them from engine heat) tend to be passively resistant to emp anyway.
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
EMP isn't *that* hard to protect against. And a lot of systems are protected in ways for other reasons that also protect against emp, even petty things like having a metal case on your computer.
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 6:47:51 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md4tp5$ft1$2...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
2.6 percent of Texans have carry permits. Most people with permits do
not carry all the time.
However this is beside the point. What leads you to believe that their
motivation is a perception of _need_?
not carry all the time.
However this is beside the point. What leads you to believe that their
motivation is a perception of _need_?
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 6:52:21 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md56dk$stl$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@sff.net says...
are authorized to go armed than residentes of Texas.
>
> On 2015-03-03 15:32:45 -0500, David DeLaney said:
>
> > On 2015-03-03, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
> >>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> >>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
> >>>> the city streets?
> >>>
> >>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
> >>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
> >>> they can, not because the see a need.
> >>
> >> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
> >> or their vehicle.
> >
> > Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
> >
> > Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
>
> When I lived in Massachusetts I knew several people who owned guns --
> but they were mostly members of the Minutemen who had flintlocks they
> only carried for parades and holidays.
>
> I knew one guy who hunted in New Hampshire every year and had half a
> dozen guns, and my ex-brother-in-law had an antique shotgun he'd
> inherited from his grandfather, but that's about it. (I don't think
> anyone had fired the shotgun since the First World War.)
As a percentage of the state population more residents of Massachussetts
> On 2015-03-03 15:32:45 -0500, David DeLaney said:
>
> > On 2015-03-03, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> rob...@clubtelco.com says...
> >>>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> >>>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
> >>>> the city streets?
> >>>
> >>> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
> >>> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
> >>> they can, not because the see a need.
> >>
> >> Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
> >> or their vehicle.
> >
> > Well sure, but that's _Texans_, not Americans.
> >
> > Dave, I suspect nearly NOBODY in Massachusetts does
>
> When I lived in Massachusetts I knew several people who owned guns --
> but they were mostly members of the Minutemen who had flintlocks they
> only carried for parades and holidays.
>
> I knew one guy who hunted in New Hampshire every year and had half a
> dozen guns, and my ex-brother-in-law had an antique shotgun he'd
> inherited from his grandfather, but that's about it. (I don't think
> anyone had fired the shotgun since the First World War.)
are authorized to go armed than residentes of Texas.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Mar 3, 2015, 6:53:13 PM3/3/15
to
They largely kill your own kids anyway, according to stats.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad." - Dave Barry
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 6:55:33 PM3/3/15
to
Lynn
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 6:56:03 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 4:23:15 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
More more-
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
Many vehicles (OK, let's be honest ALL OF THEM, unless they're made in North Korea or somesuch) are passively protected against EMP for the silliest of reasons- to prevent the electronics from interfering with the radio.
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 6:59:12 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 4:53:13 PM UTC-7, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> I'd rather it were unnecessary to carry lethal weapons in any situation.
> They largely kill your own kids anyway, according to stats.
The stats you are misreporting actually claim that guns are more likely to kill a 'friend or family member'. They define 'friends' as people who have had dealings with each other previously. In other words, all murders except the rarest- stranger on stranger. They includes as 'friends' people like gang members and participants in a drug deal.
> I'd rather it were unnecessary to carry lethal weapons in any situation.
> They largely kill your own kids anyway, according to stats.
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 6:59:22 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md57l9$2qr$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
stores is not in coolers or freezers.
> A 90% death rate due to starvation and illness are not that unlikely
when
> all the civilization support systems fail for a year.
The problem is that an EMP will not cause such a failure.
> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
> bombs of two tons or less.
A nuclear bomb of two tons yield is very high technology and will not
produce enough EMP to be worth the effort. Perhaps you mean two tons
mass? If so, what nation that is likely to do such a thing has
efficient thermonuclear weapons? The largest weapons Pakistan and North
Korea have tested have been a few kilotons, which is not enough to
produce a significant EMP.
> If several missiles are launched from a container ship in the Gulf of
Mexico, who provided them? Will
> the USA military just nuke the likely candidates? In the book, North Korea and Iran were nuked to oblivion. But it was hinted that
> the Chinese did it.
Yeah, in the book. The Chinese are not _stupid_ enough to destroy their
largest market.
>
> On 3/3/2015 2:51 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> > On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 3:37:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Wow! Wow! You want apocalyptic novels, I've got your book right here. Wow! I stayed up until 3 am reading this last night. Fits
> >> right in with my rule, if I have to stay up all night to finish the book then it is a five star book.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's a reasonable criterion, no matter what flaws the work may possess.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I have no idea if we could actually protect the USA against an EMP first strike.
> >
> >
> > Faraday cages and tempest shielding will neutralize emp. Distance will also help.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The cost for a rogue state to commit the act is
> >> actually very low.
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually quite high- you need a ballistic missile, that can deliver a nuclear warhead above the US. You also have to be willing to accept the death of your entire society, as US nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure are quite thoroughly shielded.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The USA military is mostly hardened against EMP but they are few and far between. There is no way that they
> >> could ramp up for food production, distribution and area protection in a short time period. More like years or more to recivilize
> >> the nation.
> >
> >
> > Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
> >
> > Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
>
> New Orleans had tens of thousands of soldiers and FEMA people rushing in to help out.
>
> If the USA gets EMP'd, who is going to rush in to feed the CONUS 300+ million people when the grocery trucks won't run anymore and
> the grocery store coolers and freezers fail to operate?
Why would the grocery trucsk not run? And most of the stock in grocery
> On 3/3/2015 2:51 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> > On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 3:37:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Wow! Wow! You want apocalyptic novels, I've got your book right here. Wow! I stayed up until 3 am reading this last night. Fits
> >> right in with my rule, if I have to stay up all night to finish the book then it is a five star book.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's a reasonable criterion, no matter what flaws the work may possess.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I have no idea if we could actually protect the USA against an EMP first strike.
> >
> >
> > Faraday cages and tempest shielding will neutralize emp. Distance will also help.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The cost for a rogue state to commit the act is
> >> actually very low.
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually quite high- you need a ballistic missile, that can deliver a nuclear warhead above the US. You also have to be willing to accept the death of your entire society, as US nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure are quite thoroughly shielded.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The USA military is mostly hardened against EMP but they are few and far between. There is no way that they
> >> could ramp up for food production, distribution and area protection in a short time period. More like years or more to recivilize
> >> the nation.
> >
> >
> > Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
> >
> > Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
>
> New Orleans had tens of thousands of soldiers and FEMA people rushing in to help out.
>
> If the USA gets EMP'd, who is going to rush in to feed the CONUS 300+ million people when the grocery trucks won't run anymore and
> the grocery store coolers and freezers fail to operate?
stores is not in coolers or freezers.
> A 90% death rate due to starvation and illness are not that unlikely
when
> all the civilization support systems fail for a year.
> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
> bombs of two tons or less.
produce enough EMP to be worth the effort. Perhaps you mean two tons
mass? If so, what nation that is likely to do such a thing has
efficient thermonuclear weapons? The largest weapons Pakistan and North
Korea have tested have been a few kilotons, which is not enough to
produce a significant EMP.
> If several missiles are launched from a container ship in the Gulf of
Mexico, who provided them? Will
> the USA military just nuke the likely candidates? In the book, North Korea and Iran were nuked to oblivion. But it was hinted that
> the Chinese did it.
largest market.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 7:00:02 PM3/3/15
to
It is legal in Texas to carry any gun on your property without a CHL (castle doctrine).
It is legal in Texas to carry a long gun in Texas on your person and openly displayed without a CHL.
There is no direct correlation between carrying a gun and the CHL status in Texas.
Lynn
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 7:02:53 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md5bpd$ksu$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
launch two and three. Containers and containerships are not designed to
withstand rocket exhaust.
it's time to start worrying about their reducing the size to something
that can be carried by a missile that will fit in a shipping container.
> Pakistan?
Ditto.
> France?
Why?
> India?
Similar to North Korea and Pakistan.
> Israel?
Why?
>
> On 3/3/2015 4:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 3/3/2015 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
> >> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
> >> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
> >> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> >
> > That is a very impractical idea. You can't just launch a high-altitude missile from a real container ship. And unless you're going
> > to pretend to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators could only be Russia or China.
>
> Why can't I launch a ballistic missile (or three) from a container ship?
You can launch one. There won't be enough left of the container ship to
> On 3/3/2015 4:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 3/3/2015 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
> >> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
> >> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
> >> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> >
> > That is a very impractical idea. You can't just launch a high-altitude missile from a real container ship. And unless you're going
> > to pretend to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators could only be Russia or China.
>
> Why can't I launch a ballistic missile (or three) from a container ship?
launch two and three. Containers and containerships are not designed to
withstand rocket exhaust.
>
> North Korea if they ever get a large capacity nuke that weighs less than two tons?
If North Korea ever gets a large capacity nuclear weapon at all then
> North Korea if they ever get a large capacity nuke that weighs less than two tons?
it's time to start worrying about their reducing the size to something
that can be carried by a missile that will fit in a shipping container.
> Pakistan?
Ditto.
> France?
Why?
> India?
Similar to North Korea and Pakistan.
> Israel?
Why?
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 7:03:54 PM3/3/15
to
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
*
*
*
In the book, the Chinese own the west coast of the USA one year after the event. Over 90% of the USA population is dead due to
starvation or illness.
Lynn
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 7:10:05 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md5fnl$8pg$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Toss it.
> Yes, launching a Low Earth Orbit missile might take out a container ship. Unless one adds a flame impingement system with a water
> jacket.
In which case you have a purpose-made missile launching ship, not a
container ship.
> Maybe launch the three missiles simultaneously.
Launching a low earth orbit nuclear armed missile is an invitation the
whole world to open a can of nuke-ass on you. Not even the Soviet Union
at its peak was willing to put a nuclear weapon in orbit.
>
> On 3/3/2015 5:10 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >>> Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
> >>
> >> New Orleans had tens of thousands of soldiers and FEMA people rushing in to help out.
> >
> >
> > Well, nice to know that you think civilization requires the federal government to create... But, as I said, the stories were false. Civilization was fine.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If the USA gets EMP'd, who is going to rush in to feed the CONUS 300+ million people when the grocery trucks won't run anymore and
> >> the grocery store coolers and freezers fail to operate? A 90% death rate due to starvation and illness are not that unlikely when
> >> all the civilization support systems fail for a year.
> >
> >
> > Diesel trucks don't require electronics. Plants do not require electronics to grow. The US also has substantial food reserves. Also, we can make NEW chips. We can also modify machines that use chips to operate without them.
> >
> >
> >
> >> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
> >> bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> >
> >
> > You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the ship, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Will
> >> the USA military just nuke the likely candidates?
> >
> >
> > Probably, yeah... Start with who has the capability. Subtract people you know didn't do it (allies, people also affected). Nuke the rest.
>
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
EGR is an emission system--toss it. Soot catcher is an emission system.
> On 3/3/2015 5:10 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >>> Civilization is not going to fall. It was created from nothing at all, not even its own concept. It can and will be preserved and recreated if necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Remember New Orleans? The horror stories were actually false.
> >>
> >> New Orleans had tens of thousands of soldiers and FEMA people rushing in to help out.
> >
> >
> > Well, nice to know that you think civilization requires the federal government to create... But, as I said, the stories were false. Civilization was fine.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If the USA gets EMP'd, who is going to rush in to feed the CONUS 300+ million people when the grocery trucks won't run anymore and
> >> the grocery store coolers and freezers fail to operate? A 90% death rate due to starvation and illness are not that unlikely when
> >> all the civilization support systems fail for a year.
> >
> >
> > Diesel trucks don't require electronics. Plants do not require electronics to grow. The US also has substantial food reserves. Also, we can make NEW chips. We can also modify machines that use chips to operate without them.
> >
> >
> >
> >> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
> >> bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> >
> >
> > You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the ship, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Will
> >> the USA military just nuke the likely candidates?
> >
> >
> > Probably, yeah... Start with who has the capability. Subtract people you know didn't do it (allies, people also affected). Nuke the rest.
>
> All modern diesel engines have electronics for their fuel injection and exhaust systems. The EGR recirculation system on the Cummins
> is a freaking computerized disaster. The DEF injection exhaust system is extensively computerized along with the soot catcher
> regeneration system. I am not if these can be bypassed and still run, especially the 30,000 psia fuel injection system.
Toss it.
> Yes, launching a Low Earth Orbit missile might take out a container ship. Unless one adds a flame impingement system with a water
> jacket.
container ship.
> Maybe launch the three missiles simultaneously.
whole world to open a can of nuke-ass on you. Not even the Soviet Union
at its peak was willing to put a nuclear weapon in orbit.
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 7:13:52 PM3/3/15
to
In article <0aicfa175dcsegf9o...@4ax.com>,
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org says...
In which case cops don't need them either.
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org says...
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 7:16:52 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md5hsl$fsd$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Under Federal law it is legal to carry any gun in your vehicle as long
as you are going from one place where it is lawful to possess it to
another place where it is lawful to possess it. So what?
> It is legal in Texas to carry any gun on your property without a CHL (castle doctrine).
It is legal just about everywhere in the US to carry any gun on your own
property. That is not what is commonly considered to be "going armed".
> It is legal in Texas to carry a long gun in Texas on your person and openly displayed without a CHL.
Lots of folks wandering around downtown Dallas with rifles slung over
their shoulder are there?
weapon.
as you are going from one place where it is lawful to possess it to
another place where it is lawful to possess it. So what?
> It is legal in Texas to carry any gun on your property without a CHL (castle doctrine).
property. That is not what is commonly considered to be "going armed".
> It is legal in Texas to carry a long gun in Texas on your person and openly displayed without a CHL.
their shoulder are there?
>
> There is no direct correlation between carrying a gun and the CHL status in Texas.
There is if you are talking about walking around on the street with a
> There is no direct correlation between carrying a gun and the CHL status in Texas.
weapon.
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 7:17:43 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md5i3s$fsd$2...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Yeah, the sky is falling the sky is falling.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Mar 3, 2015, 7:20:25 PM3/3/15
to
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full
It's just fucking ridiculous.
In a civilised society there would be no need to carry lethal weaponry.
In a sane society, people wouldn't need to hide lethal weaponry in their
bedrooms to stave off their fear of being invaded.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 7:22:09 PM3/3/15
to
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 3:37:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> The author starts the story with somebody exploding a large nuclear weapon 25 miles above Kansas in the USA, causing a large EMP
And, for the win-
http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
Report of the Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack
(EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know about EMP and modern technology/civilization- 208 pages)
Interesting excerpts-
"Automobiles were subjected to EMP environments under both engine turned off and
engine turned on conditions. No effects were subsequently observed in those automobiles
that were not turned on during EMP exposure. The most serious effect observed on running
automobiles was that the motors in three cars stopped at field strengths of approximately
30 kV/m or above. In an actual EMP exposure, these vehicles would glide to a
stop and require the driver to restart them. Electronics in the dashboard of one automobile
were damaged and required repair. Other effects were relatively minor. Twenty-five
automobiles exhibited malfunctions that could be considered only a nuisance (e.g.,
blinking dashboard lights) and did not require driver intervention to correct. Eight of the
37 cars tested did not exhibit any anomalous response.
Based on these test results, we expect few automobile effects at EMP field levels below
25 kV/m. Approximately 10 percent or more of the automobiles exposed to higher field
levels may experience serious EMP effects, including engine stall, that require driver
intervention to correct. We further expect that at least two out of three automobiles on the
road will manifest some nuisance response at these higher field levels. The serious malfunctions
could trigger car crashes on U.S. highways; the nuisance malfunctions could
exacerbate this condition. The ultimate result of automobile EMP exposure could be triggered
crashes that damage many more vehicles than are damaged by the EMP, the consequent
loss of life, and multiple injuries. "
25 is a lot, and 10% is nowhere near fall of civilization levels.
"Of the trucks that were not running during EMP exposure, none were subsequently
affected during our test. Thirteen of the 18 trucks exhibited a response while running.
Most seriously, three of the truck motors stopped. Two could be restarted immediately,
but one required towing to a garage for repair. The other 10 trucks that responded exhibited
relatively minor temporary responses that did not require driver intervention to correct.
Five of the 18 trucks tested did not exhibit any anomalous response up to field
strengths of approximately 50 kV/m.
Based on these test results, we expect few truck effects at EMP field levels below
approximately 12 kV/m. At higher field levels, 70 percent or more of the trucks on the
road will manifest some anomalous response following EMP exposure. Approximately
15 percent or more of the trucks will experience engine stall, sometimes with permanent
damage that the driver cannot correct."
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 7:24:02 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:03:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> In the book, the Chinese own the west coast of the USA one year after the event.
OK, but never in the real world. China lacks the naval capability to do ANYTHING like that, even against a wrecked US. Hell, even against an *empty* US.
> In the book, the Chinese own the west coast of the USA one year after the event.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 8:08:50 PM3/3/15
to
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 3, 2015, 8:15:14 PM3/3/15
to
I sure would not want to try full blown EMP event out though.
Lynn
Shawn Wilson
Mar 3, 2015, 8:42:32 PM3/3/15
to
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:15:14 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> I sure would not want to try full blown EMP event out though.
Well, no. This was basically covering localized events, not nation wide. Multiple hits nationwide, power grid fragments and dies, taking a LOT of stuff with it. Can it be repaired? Sure. *Eventually*. A lot of the problem is that things are repaired by replacing them with spares. And we don't have that many spares, nor skilled people to do the fixing/replacing. Saturate the system and we serious, long lasting badness. At a minimum we would be talking about another great depression. It's just not end of the world/civilization stuff.
> I sure would not want to try full blown EMP event out though.
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 8:44:36 PM3/3/15
to
In article <hnjcfa5h22l0lcvlp...@4ax.com>,
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org says...
Be careful about "statistics" like those. Note that they are calling
everyone under 20 years of age "children" even though at 18 one is
legally an adult in the United States and many people serving in the
military are under 20.
> In a civilised society there would be no need to carry lethal
weaponry.
Again with the "need". This is America. One does not have to prove
_need_ in order to obtain something that one wants.
> In a sane society, people wouldn't need to hide lethal weaponry in their
> bedrooms to stave off their fear of being invaded.
So? Who hides lethal weaponry in their bedrooms for that reason?
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org says...
everyone under 20 years of age "children" even though at 18 one is
legally an adult in the United States and many people serving in the
military are under 20.
> In a civilised society there would be no need to carry lethal
weaponry.
_need_ in order to obtain something that one wants.
> In a sane society, people wouldn't need to hide lethal weaponry in their
> bedrooms to stave off their fear of being invaded.
J. Clarke
Mar 3, 2015, 8:46:10 PM3/3/15
to
In article <md5ltj$svb$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
Be interesting to see if that happens.
Don Bruder
Mar 3, 2015, 10:37:29 PM3/3/15
to
In article <gLnJw.24417$_N4....@fx24.iad>,
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
> >On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <clk93h...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>>> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
> >>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> More like years or more to recivilize
> >>>>>> the nation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Re* civilise?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers - Jaimie
> >>>>
> >>>> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> >>>> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
> >>>>
> >>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> >>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
> >>> the city streets?
> >>
> >> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
> >> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
> >> they can, not because the see a need.
> >
> >Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
> >or their vehicle.
>
> which translates to about 1% of americans. If your suspicion (sans any scrap
> of evidence)
> is even close to accurate. In the last 50 years, outside of texas, I've
> never seen
> a person carry (excepting law enforcement, and transportation to/from a
> range).
Partially depends on where you are. Several states are "open carry" -
meaning that anybody who isn't barred from owning a gun (because they're
a convicted felon, diagnosed with various disqualifying mental
illnesses, under a restraining order for some reason, etc - variable by
state, but usually follows the federal restrictions fairly close) is
free to strap one on anytime they feel like it, so long as it's visible
(different states define "visible" differently - YMMV) while others
either restrict, or outright ban, open carry. (California, for instance,
requires the gun to be unloaded - Which, to my mind, pretty much renders
carrying it utterly pointless - which is, of course, the intent)
My own first encounter with open carry was when I lived in Arizona - I
had to do a double-take when I walked into a Safeway store behind a
fellow with a big ol' "hawgleg" on his hip. After my initial shock (I
was a new transplant from Florida, which, at the time, was a "concealed
only" state) and some pondering, I realized that I actually thought it
was a good thing.
Of course, open carry ignores persons like myself, who hold a concealed
carry permit (by whatever name a particular state cares to call it -
mine calls it a "concealed pistol license" or "CPL", others call it a
"CCW" or "CHL", etc) who might or might not be armed at any given
moment, whether you are able to observe their weapon or not. Some states
say that if you hold a CPL, you *MUST* carry it *CONCEALED* - if it can
be seen, by anyone, even if indirectly or accidentally (for instance, as
a bulge under your coat, or if your jacket rides up and exposes it)
you're committing a crime. Others, like my own state (which is also an
open carry state) are more sensible, and holding a CPL means you *MAY*
cover it up if you choose to, but if it's seen, <shrug> big fat hairy
deal.
Being a CPL holder, I often "cover up" in the winter, simply because
that's how my jacket generally falls. However, knowing that I'm in an
open carry state, I make no particular effort to hide it. Why should I?
I ain't ashamed. In the summer, when I go strapped, I simply don't care
one way or the other - If my shirt falls to cover it, fine. If not, just
as good. Either way I'm legal, and either way, should the need arise,
it's at hand. Just like "American Express", I "don't leave home without
it".
To date, I've had *ONE* negative experience while carrying - Some
hoplophobic idiot apparently noticed my piece and called the cops raving
about "a guy with a gun" while I was talking to a good friend of mine
(whose mother owns the place) in a local mom-n-pop grocery store. Cops
arrived "code 3" and since we were literally across the street from a
school, were legally entitled to ask for my CPL. Once they discovered
that I did indeed have one and it was valid, that was the end of things,
other than one of the responding officers striking up a conversation on
the merits of revolvers versus automatics. (I prefer revolvers - "6 for
certain" out of a wheelgun trumps "MAYBE as many as 15" out of a slider
- The key concept being the "maybe" - if it doesn't jam or misfire...)
Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
> >On 3/2/2015 9:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <clk93h...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> On 2/03/2015 9:20 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>>> In article <jht1fa1dmu7i3sebt...@4ax.com>,
> >>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:37:47 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> More like years or more to recivilize
> >>>>>> the nation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Re* civilise?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers - Jaimie
> >>>>
> >>>> By comparison. America is very civilized compared to many countries I
> >>>> could name. Including (especially) some of our closest allies.
> >>>>
> >>> Why then do so many Americans find it necessary to carry firearms if the
> >>> country is civilised? Or do you have bears, wolves and rattlesnakes in
> >>> the city streets?
> >>
> >> What leads you to believe that any significant number of Americans "find
> >> it necessary to carry firearms"? Most people who carry carry because
> >> they can, not because the see a need.
> >
> >Got stats on that? I suspect that about 10% of Texans carry on their person
> >or their vehicle.
>
> of evidence)
> is even close to accurate. In the last 50 years, outside of texas, I've
> never seen
> a person carry (excepting law enforcement, and transportation to/from a
> range).
Partially depends on where you are. Several states are "open carry" -
meaning that anybody who isn't barred from owning a gun (because they're
a convicted felon, diagnosed with various disqualifying mental
illnesses, under a restraining order for some reason, etc - variable by
state, but usually follows the federal restrictions fairly close) is
free to strap one on anytime they feel like it, so long as it's visible
(different states define "visible" differently - YMMV) while others
either restrict, or outright ban, open carry. (California, for instance,
requires the gun to be unloaded - Which, to my mind, pretty much renders
carrying it utterly pointless - which is, of course, the intent)
My own first encounter with open carry was when I lived in Arizona - I
had to do a double-take when I walked into a Safeway store behind a
fellow with a big ol' "hawgleg" on his hip. After my initial shock (I
was a new transplant from Florida, which, at the time, was a "concealed
only" state) and some pondering, I realized that I actually thought it
was a good thing.
Of course, open carry ignores persons like myself, who hold a concealed
carry permit (by whatever name a particular state cares to call it -
mine calls it a "concealed pistol license" or "CPL", others call it a
"CCW" or "CHL", etc) who might or might not be armed at any given
moment, whether you are able to observe their weapon or not. Some states
say that if you hold a CPL, you *MUST* carry it *CONCEALED* - if it can
be seen, by anyone, even if indirectly or accidentally (for instance, as
a bulge under your coat, or if your jacket rides up and exposes it)
you're committing a crime. Others, like my own state (which is also an
open carry state) are more sensible, and holding a CPL means you *MAY*
cover it up if you choose to, but if it's seen, <shrug> big fat hairy
deal.
Being a CPL holder, I often "cover up" in the winter, simply because
that's how my jacket generally falls. However, knowing that I'm in an
open carry state, I make no particular effort to hide it. Why should I?
I ain't ashamed. In the summer, when I go strapped, I simply don't care
one way or the other - If my shirt falls to cover it, fine. If not, just
as good. Either way I'm legal, and either way, should the need arise,
it's at hand. Just like "American Express", I "don't leave home without
it".
To date, I've had *ONE* negative experience while carrying - Some
hoplophobic idiot apparently noticed my piece and called the cops raving
about "a guy with a gun" while I was talking to a good friend of mine
(whose mother owns the place) in a local mom-n-pop grocery store. Cops
arrived "code 3" and since we were literally across the street from a
school, were legally entitled to ask for my CPL. Once they discovered
that I did indeed have one and it was valid, that was the end of things,
other than one of the responding officers striking up a conversation on
the merits of revolvers versus automatics. (I prefer revolvers - "6 for
certain" out of a wheelgun trumps "MAYBE as many as 15" out of a slider
- The key concept being the "maybe" - if it doesn't jam or misfire...)
Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
Don Bruder
Mar 3, 2015, 10:40:14 PM3/3/15
to
In article <MPG.2f602e033...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I'd be willing to bet on it happening. The trend is there, and only
picking up momentum.
picking up momentum.
Brian M. Scott
Mar 3, 2015, 11:26:10 PM3/3/15
to
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:42:50 -0800, Don Bruder
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote
in<news:md5upg$8ph$3...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <MPG.2f602e033...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <md5ltj$svb$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com
>> says...
[...]
>>> They are walking around Austin right now with rifles on
>>> them to support the state leg to pass the new short
>>> gun open carry law.
>> Be interesting to see if that happens.
> I'd be willing to bet on it happening. The trend is
> there, and only picking up momentum.
Yes, the lunatic fringe of the firearm world has been quite
visible in Texas of late, to the discomfort and/or
annoyance of much of the rest of it.
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote
in<news:md5upg$8ph$3...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <MPG.2f602e033...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <md5ltj$svb$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com
>> says...
>>> They are walking around Austin right now with rifles on
>>> them to support the state leg to pass the new short
>>> gun open carry law.
>> Be interesting to see if that happens.
> I'd be willing to bet on it happening. The trend is
> there, and only picking up momentum.
visible in Texas of late, to the discomfort and/or
annoyance of much of the rest of it.
David Johnston
Mar 3, 2015, 11:54:56 PM3/3/15
to
On 3/3/2015 8:40 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
> don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
> smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
> might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
>
So always avoid eye contact and conversation and leave as soon as
> Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
> don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
> smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
> might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
>
possible?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Mar 4, 2015, 1:22:30 AM3/4/15
to
--
Now available: Tom Derringer & the Aluminum Airship
http://www.amazon.com/Derringer-Aluminum-Airship-Lawrence-Watt-Evans/dp/1619910098/
David Johnston
Mar 4, 2015, 1:51:05 AM3/4/15
to
Gary R. Schmidt
Mar 4, 2015, 5:54:08 AM3/4/15
to
On 4/03/2015 2:40 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
Serious question: Why do you carry a weapon, either concealed or open?
I ask this as I grew up and live in a culture where gun ownership was
always unusual - modulo farmers having a use for shotguns and rifles -
and hand-gun ownership practically non-existent, so I see no reason to
have a weapon, or weapons, to hand.
I learnt to shoot on my cousin's farm, and to shoot pistols at a
suburban gun club, so I am not "scared" of guns.
I just can't see why you would want to carry a gun, do you live in a
war-zone, are you a police officer, why???
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.
[SNIP]
Serious question: Why do you carry a weapon, either concealed or open?
I ask this as I grew up and live in a culture where gun ownership was
always unusual - modulo farmers having a use for shotguns and rifles -
and hand-gun ownership practically non-existent, so I see no reason to
have a weapon, or weapons, to hand.
I learnt to shoot on my cousin's farm, and to shoot pistols at a
suburban gun club, so I am not "scared" of guns.
I just can't see why you would want to carry a gun, do you live in a
war-zone, are you a police officer, why???
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.
David DeLaney
Mar 4, 2015, 6:05:42 AM3/4/15
to
On 2015-03-03, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
end well for you.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
>> bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a
>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
>> container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
>
>
> You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the
> ship, right?
Note: _Shawn Wilson_ is correcting you, and is right. This cannot possibly
> ship, right?
end well for you.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
Mar 4, 2015, 6:08:26 AM3/4/15
to
Dave, introverts unite! er, on a webforum somewhere, or something
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Mar 4, 2015, 6:08:29 AM3/4/15
to
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:40:04 -0800, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
>don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
>smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
>might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
This is pretty much what I consider to be the opposite of civilised.
>Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
>don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
>smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
>might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Machines take me by surprise with great frequency." - Alan Turing
Robert Carnegie
Mar 4, 2015, 7:07:26 AM3/4/15
to
On Tuesday, 3 March 2015 22:48:29 UTC, David Johnston wrote:
> something that looked superficially like a container ship and had a
> launch platform system built into it, but that's the kind of development
> program that draws attention.
So, use a container ship, but install a few dozen
containers that have launch platform parts in 'em.
Stacked up and then hollowed out so you have a silo
that's "n" containers high.
Also maybe let out weather balloons with your
missiles attached - or, no missiles, just balloons.
Japan got balloons to land on the U.S. in the
Second World War, but it was a big secret -
in the U.S.
> On 3/3/2015 3:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 3/3/2015 4:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 3/3/2015 4:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 3/3/2015 2:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>
> >>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
> >>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
> >>> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
> >>> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> >>
> >>
> >>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
> >>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs of
> >>> two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a container
> >>> ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
> >>
> >> That is a very impractical idea. You can't just launch a
> >> high-altitude missile from a real container ship. And unless you're
> >> going
> >> to pretend to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators
> >> could only be Russia or China.
> >
> > Why can't I launch a ballistic missile (or three) from a container ship?
>
> Because you'd need an actual launch platform. You could build a
> >> high-altitude missile from a real container ship. And unless you're
> >> going
> >> to pretend to suspect a nation like Great Britain, the perpetrators
> >> could only be Russia or China.
> >
> > Why can't I launch a ballistic missile (or three) from a container ship?
>
> something that looked superficially like a container ship and had a
> launch platform system built into it, but that's the kind of development
> program that draws attention.
So, use a container ship, but install a few dozen
containers that have launch platform parts in 'em.
Stacked up and then hollowed out so you have a silo
that's "n" containers high.
Also maybe let out weather balloons with your
missiles attached - or, no missiles, just balloons.
Japan got balloons to land on the U.S. in the
Second World War, but it was a big secret -
in the U.S.
J. Clarke
Mar 4, 2015, 7:55:24 AM3/4/15
to
In article <md689o$g0u$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@sff.net says...
For CCW numbers <http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-
United-States.pdf>. For state populations wikipedia comes close enough.
content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-
United-States.pdf>. For state populations wikipedia comes close enough.
J. Clarke
Mar 4, 2015, 8:01:54 AM3/4/15
to
In article <7r4jsb-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
grsc...@acm.org says...
I dunno about him but I at one time in my life had to occasionally carry
significant quantities of cash late at night in a bad neighborhood.
Having jumped through the hoops to get the CCW I figured I may as well
use it and started carrying regularly. I later moved to a different
state and didn't feel that carrying there was worth the effort of
getting the permit.
grsc...@acm.org says...
significant quantities of cash late at night in a bad neighborhood.
Having jumped through the hoops to get the CCW I figured I may as well
use it and started carrying regularly. I later moved to a different
state and didn't feel that carrying there was worth the effort of
getting the permit.
Don Bruder
Mar 4, 2015, 9:47:35 AM3/4/15
to
In article <md635f$1at$2...@dont-email.me>,
If that's your method of coping with a non-issue situation, then sure.
Seems like an awful paranoid way of going through life, but if it's what
keeps you happy, who am I to judge?
Seems like an awful paranoid way of going through life, but if it's what
keeps you happy, who am I to judge?
Don Bruder
Mar 4, 2015, 9:52:31 AM3/4/15
to
In article <7r4jsb-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
One of the great things about America is that if it isn't illegal, I
don't have to explain what I do to anyone.
don't have to explain what I do to anyone.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:20:32 PM3/4/15
to
On 3/4/2015 5:05 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-03-03, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
>>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
>>> bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a
>>> container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
>>
>> You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the
>> ship, right?
>
> Note: _Shawn Wilson_ is correcting you, and is right. This cannot possibly
> end well for you.
>
> Dave
We've got to agree to disagree here. Otherwise submarines would never survive the launch of their first ballistic missile. And yes,
> On 2015-03-03, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> When I say the cost is quite low, I mean that ten countries have the
>>> capability to do this now with ballistic missiles and nuclear
>>> bombs of two tons or less. If several missiles are launched from a
>>> container ship in the Gulf of Mexico, who provided them?
>>
>> You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the
>> ship, right?
>
> Note: _Shawn Wilson_ is correcting you, and is right. This cannot possibly
> end well for you.
>
> Dave
submarines are heavily armored. I can armor just about anything, especially if I can put a water jacket in it.
Of course, the engineer in me says get three container ships.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:22:00 PM3/4/15
to
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:24:59 PM3/4/15
to
Short guns in your vehicle, boat, or property, no. Castle Doctrine.
Short guns on your person not on your property or in your vehicle or boat, requires a CHL. CHLs are must issue in The Great State of
Texas unless you do not fit a short criteria.
Lynn
Shawn Wilson
Mar 4, 2015, 1:29:02 PM3/4/15
to
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the
> >> ship, right?
> >
> > Note: _Shawn Wilson_ is correcting you, and is right. This cannot possibly
> > end well for you.
> >
> > Dave
>
> We've got to agree to disagree here. Otherwise submarines would never survive the launch of their first ballistic missile.
Sigh... Submarines ARE NOT CONTAINER SHIPS. They are designed to handle the forces of missile launch. Container ships are basically just heavy sheet metal.
> >> You realize that the launch of the first missile will pretty much destroy the
> >> ship, right?
> >
> > Note: _Shawn Wilson_ is correcting you, and is right. This cannot possibly
> > end well for you.
> >
> > Dave
>
> We've got to agree to disagree here. Otherwise submarines would never survive the launch of their first ballistic missile.
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:39:58 PM3/4/15
to
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:40:56 PM3/4/15
to
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:42:56 PM3/4/15
to
On 3/4/2015 5:08 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:40:04 -0800, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
>> don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
>> smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
>> might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
>
> This is pretty much what I consider to be the opposite of civilised.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Is there anywhere in the USA that has a crime rate of zero?
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:40:04 -0800, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that just because *YOU*
>> don't *SEE* that someone is armed doesn't mean that they aren't. Your
>> smartest move is to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
>> might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
>
> This is pretty much what I consider to be the opposite of civilised.
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 1:50:16 PM3/4/15
to
hit the Earth as 12% in the 2012 to 2022 time period. Apparently one missed us in 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection#Recent_events
Lynn
Scott Lurndal
Mar 4, 2015, 2:09:26 PM3/4/15
to
missile rocket engine starts in the water, not in the
submarine if I recall correctly. Similarly for torpedos.
Don Kuenz
Mar 4, 2015, 3:05:25 PM3/4/15
to
civilized class only allows people who operate under the aegis of the
State to carry a gun. While the free class allows all people to carry a
gun.
It seems probable that people carry a gun in either class for the same
reason. People carry a gun to hurt others, if need be.
There's a story on the tip of my tongue. It may or may not be a SF
story, but it's weird enough to qualify as _Twilight Zone_ material.
It's a story about a group of people. Half of the people seem most happy
while the other half seem most unhappy. Let's say that the story is set
at a church picnic, with plenty of good clean fun.
Somewhere along the way it's revealed to one of the unhappy ones that
they're actually in hell. It's also revealed that the happy ones are in
heaven.
So, there you have it, the marriage of heaven and hell, with a twist. A
twisted version of _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_.
The topmost panel of http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=30 probably
probably qualifies as either a nightmare or a dream. It all depends upon
one's perspective. :)
--
,-. GIVE MORE expect less LOVE MORE
\_/ argue less LISTEN MORE talk less
{|||)< Don Kuenz LAUGH MORE complain less DREAM MORE
/ \ doubt less HOPE MORE fear less
`-' BREATHE MORE whine less
James Silverton
Mar 4, 2015, 3:33:45 PM3/4/15
to
intend to fight for euthanasia if diagnosed with a painful fatal
illness. Whether they will really go thru with it is debatable.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Brian M. Scott
Mar 4, 2015, 4:36:16 PM3/4/15
to
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:34:39 -0500, James Silverton
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote
in<news:md7q5q$ug$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> There are people who don't intend to use a gun in defense
> but do not intend to fight for euthanasia if diagnosed
> with a painful fatal illness.
Which makes perfectly good sense and has nothing to do with
carrying.
[...]
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote
in<news:md7q5q$ug$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> There are people who don't intend to use a gun in defense
> but do not intend to fight for euthanasia if diagnosed
> with a painful fatal illness.
carrying.
[...]
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Brian M. Scott
Mar 4, 2015, 4:36:38 PM3/4/15
to
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 06:50:11 -0800, Don Bruder
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote
in<news:md75sn$2ae$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <md635f$1at$2...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2015 8:40 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
>>> Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that
>>> just because *YOU* don't *SEE* that someone is armed
>>> doesn't mean that they aren't. Your smartest move is
>>> to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
>>> might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
>> So always avoid eye contact and conversation and leave
>> as soon as possible?
> If that's your method of coping with a non-issue
> situation, then sure. Seems like an awful paranoid way
> of going through life,
<splork!!!>
<dak...@sonic.net> wrote
in<news:md75sn$2ae$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <md635f$1at$2...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2015 8:40 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
>>> Anyway, I digress - The point I was going for is that
>>> just because *YOU* don't *SEE* that someone is armed
>>> doesn't mean that they aren't. Your smartest move is
>>> to *ALWAYS* assume that *ANYONE* you may encounter
>>> might be carrying, and behave accordingly.
>> So always avoid eye contact and conversation and leave
>> as soon as possible?
> If that's your method of coping with a non-issue
> situation, then sure. Seems like an awful paranoid way
> of going through life,
Lynn McGuire
Mar 4, 2015, 5:51:55 PM3/4/15
to
On 3/3/2015 6:23 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:03:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>
>> In the book, the Chinese own the west coast of the USA one year after the event.
>
>
> OK, but never in the real world. China lacks the naval capability to do ANYTHING like that, even against a wrecked US. Hell, even against an *empty* US.
Sure would hope that China would not go to South Korea and grab a few medium size freighters that they are producing at one per week
and use them for troop transports. Excuse me, relief transports for the grievously wounded USA.
Of course, they would need to get around the Pacific fleet in Hawaii and San Diego. If they were posing as humanitarian for the
starving USA west coast, might be quite easy.
Lynn
> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:03:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>
>> In the book, the Chinese own the west coast of the USA one year after the event.
>
>
> OK, but never in the real world. China lacks the naval capability to do ANYTHING like that, even against a wrecked US. Hell, even against an *empty* US.
Sure would hope that China would not go to South Korea and grab a few medium size freighters that they are producing at one per week
and use them for troop transports. Excuse me, relief transports for the grievously wounded USA.
Of course, they would need to get around the Pacific fleet in Hawaii and San Diego. If they were posing as humanitarian for the
starving USA west coast, might be quite easy.
Lynn
J. Clarke
Mar 4, 2015, 6:04:13 PM3/4/15
to
In article <md7jge$372$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
You really don't know much about ships, do you?
A submarine has a double hull, of which the inner hull is a pressure
hull intended to survive deep submergence--there have been cases of
surface ships ramming submarines with extensive damage to the surface
ship and the submarine suffering a minor dent--submarine hulls are very
strong.
A submarine that launches ballistic missiles has purpose made missile
tubes for launching them that run the entire depth of the hull. The
missiles are not normally launched from the surface, the submarine is
submerged and the missiles are ejected by compressed air before the
engines fire.
If you want to posit purpose-made missile tubes in the container ship
that's fine. But then it's not a container ship anymore, it's a warship
disguised as a container ship.
A submarine has a double hull, of which the inner hull is a pressure
hull intended to survive deep submergence--there have been cases of
surface ships ramming submarines with extensive damage to the surface
ship and the submarine suffering a minor dent--submarine hulls are very
strong.
A submarine that launches ballistic missiles has purpose made missile
tubes for launching them that run the entire depth of the hull. The
missiles are not normally launched from the surface, the submarine is
submerged and the missiles are ejected by compressed air before the
engines fire.
If you want to posit purpose-made missile tubes in the container ship
that's fine. But then it's not a container ship anymore, it's a warship
disguised as a container ship.
J. Clarke
Mar 4, 2015, 6:06:54 PM3/4/15
to
In article <ELIJw.495878$dw5.3...@fx25.iad>, sc...@slp53.sl.home
says...
In any case, torpedoes (American ones anyway) are powered by propellers,
not rockets.
says...
not rockets.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages