DIY cruise missile thwarted
PR
after coming under pressure from the United States."
Jim Wilson
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>"A New Zealand man who built a cruise missile in his garage claims the New Zealand government forced him to shut down his project
>after coming under pressure from the United States."
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm
>
Yep, that's me they're talking about. If anyone has questions I'll
happily answer them.
--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
Doug Goncz
>you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
>Yep, that's me they're talking about. If anyone has questions I'll
>happily answer them.
Yeah, I have a question.
Are we going to let them get away with this?
My senior project at ODU:
Google Groups, then "dgoncz" and some of:
ultracapacitor bicycle fluorescent flywheel inverter
Equipped with BoBike Mini removable child seat, too!
Jim Wilson
> Yep, that's me they're talking about. If anyone has questions I'll
> happily answer them.
I've got one. What was done to "force you to shut down?" I noticed
something about a tax problem?
Jim
Vince Iorio
terrorist angle that most people assume.
What about American defense contractors pushing the government to stop
low cost, over seas production of cruise missiles?
Defense contractors could never compete with a non-defense contractor,
much less an over seas company. If only 1% of the $5K missiles worked,
then they would still be cheaper then the one's produce by the defense
giants.
Vince
Brian Dotson
Do you plan on making the design available on the internet?
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
Yeah, several years ago my tax affairs were in a bit of a mess -- but
then I hired a good accountant who charged $10,000 to put everything
into order, file a few outstanding returns and make sure all the
paper-work was perfect.
I also paid $160K -- which covered the outstanding tax bill and much
of the extremely punitive penalties and interest that had been added
-- these accumulate on a *daily* basis for unpaid taxes so rapidly
grow to completely dwarft the original amount.
As of the start of the year I was squeaky clean and paying back the
remaining debt -- in instalments. Everything was sweet.
Then news of my cruise missile project hit the world media and the NZ
government were silly enough to admit that I was breaking no laws in
building this craft.
However, from the tax-perspective, things suddenly went to hell in a
handbasket after a US official was quoted as calling the project
"unhelpful" -- which is diplomatic-speak for "shut it down!"
Being unable to find any other way -- and having admitted that the
project itself broke no laws, the government were clearly delighted to
find that I had a small debt with the tax department that could be
leveraged in to a motion for bankruptcy -- even though it was being
repaid -- in fact it was only a few months away from total repayment.
Of course they knew that inorder to clear the debt, I'd already sold
my house and most of my other non-productive assets -- leaving me with
nothing to pay a lump-sum demand and no money to hire a decent lawyer.
In fact, when an Ernst & Young tax accountant kindly went to bat for
me, the taxman simply refused to meet with them and effectively said
that we've made up our minds as to what we're going to do.
Now as I'm sure most people know, it's bloody hard to fight people who
are using your own money to pay their legal bills and who are the ones
who make up the rules under which the game is played.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Soem other points of note: Earlier this year I received email from an
Iranian aerospace/missile company which offered to invest US$100K into
my jet-engine project -- obviously in return for information on that
project.
Clearly I'm not the kind of guy who'd export technology with military
application to Iran but I thought I'd check out the official stance on
such exports. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather when
the governmetn advised that there would be no problems with such a
deal and there was nothing illegal about exporting military technology
to Iran.
The irony is that if I had taken the government's advice and
sacraficed my own principles, I wouldn't be in the situation I am now
because that $100K would have paid my tax bill many times over and
left me with enough to pay off the nortgage.
Unfortunately -- principles and the desire to sleep straight at night
count for nothing with governments I fear.
So there you go -- the cruise missile project was an attempt to issue
a "wake-up" call so as to avoid the chance that terrorists would be
first to demonstrate the risks. And for my trouble I now face threee
years of unemployment (I can't be self-employed while bankrupt and
there are no jobs going around here). It also means my wife and
family will be stuck here with me living in a "house" (and I use the
term loosely) that costs US$70 a week to rent -- so you can imagine
what that's like. It's raining right now and you can't see the floor
for bowls and buckets I'm afraid.
But hell -- the sun's bound to come out tomorrow :-)
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>I think there is another reason that is more compelling then the
>terrorist angle that most people assume.
>
>What about American defense contractors pushing the government to stop
>low cost, over seas production of cruise missiles?
>
>Defense contractors could never compete with a non-defense contractor,
>much less an over seas company. If only 1% of the $5K missiles worked,
>then they would still be cheaper then the one's produce by the defense
>giants.
Ha ha ... the silly thing is that I have no desire to get into the
cruise missile business and there's a *huge* difference between the
craft I've built and the type of missile the big-boys are making.
I'm sure their products are worth the money they're asking for them
and that I'm no threat at all.
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>Do you plan on making the design available on the internet?
I was taking subscriptions to access a part of the website where the
project was documented in much greater detail. There's nothing there
that a keen terrorist couldn't easily find in a dozen other places so
it was mainly for those who had an academic interest or just wanted to
see how I'd done it.
Key elements of the design -- such as the software for the flight
control system were never going to be published -- although this
component *was* included in the material I freely offered to the NZ
and US military -- in the hope they'd find it useful in evaluating
just what form a real terrorist-built LCCM might take and what its
capabilities might be. This offer was also made so they could see
that my motives were totally benign and that I wasn't planning to hide
anything or act irresponsibly. I got no takers though -- both
governments were obviously very keen to distance themselves from any
involvement in the project.
Since the bankruptcy is now official, I'm refunding all those who paid
a subscription (which just about cleans me out completely) -- even
though I could quite legitimately consider them to be unsecured
creditors and refer them to the bankruptcy court to make a claim
(where they'd get nothing. I figure if these people were nice enough
to support the project then the least I can do is refund their money
now that I'm unable to supply the full service.
Fortunately for me, a couple of people have said "keep the money
anyway" so I guess there are some really nice folks out there.
Glenn Ashmore
mind for some time. Look around your shop. What could you build with
the material and equipment you have on hand? Could someone consider it
dangerous? What chemicals are in your paint cabinet? Toxic? Could
someone consider them a potential threat?
We all probably have to live with the possibility that an offended
neighbor complaining to the EPA or zoning commission but what about
Homeland Security? If some jackasses in Washington can construe those
fire breathing contraptions that a half crazy Kiwi is building on the
other side of the Earth is a threat to national security, what would
they say about what they might construe as the makings for a few dozen
pipe bombs they would find in your drop box?
This security thing is getting out of hand.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
phil hunt
I disagree. Modern cruise missiles, such as ther Anglo-French Storm
Shadow, cost about a million quid each. The V1 cost 400 quid; that
was in 1940s money so with inflation it'd be about GBP 10,000 -
20,000.
I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to mass produce V1-like
cruise missiles with GPS guidance and a several-hundred kg warhead
for that sort of money. Even better, put a digital camera on the
front, and write approriate image recognition software (something
that can pick up a moving tank or other vehicle, or can recognise a
particular building, should be doable).
Now imagine what 100 of these could do to an enemy tank column, or
what 1000 could do to a city.
So why aren't they being made? Because the defence contractors
have structured their industries around low-volume high-cost
production. They'd have to change their entire "value network" as
Tom Christiansen put it in _The Innovator's Dilemma_.
They will get developed, of course, but probably not at first in
the West. China, Iran, India and Pakistan are the nations most
likely to develop them first, IMO, though several others could:
Israel, Brasil, South Africa, and Russia spring to mind.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <zen2...@zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).
FixerDave
...
> >> Yep, that's me they're talking about. If anyone has questions I'll
> >> happily answer them.
> So there you go -- the cruise missile project was an attempt to issue
> a "wake-up" call so as to avoid the chance that terrorists would be
<much snipped>
okay, I read the article on how it's possible for a reasonably educated and
capable person to build a "hobby" cruise missile. I thought to myself: you
know, I'm one of those guys, I have an electronics engineering background,
I'm into digital mapping and GPS systems, I can handle basic machining,
I'm a little weak in the aerodynamics area but I could pick that up...
Given sufficient motivation, money, and time, I could probably build my
very own cruise missile. Cool.
But, the sticker was that "sufficient motivation" part. I can't think of
any reason I would want to spend my time and money doing this. Are you
saying that your reason for spending thousands of dollars and huge amounts
of time to build your very own cruise missile is "a 'wake-up' call" to the
government? Why not send a letter? What did you expect to happen when
said government woke up?
Is there any part you needed to buy that a government could ban production
or distribution of that would not cause real harm to some legitimate use?
Do you think government agents should run around confiscating any technical
documents that might allow your design? What can any government do to
prevent terrorists from using available technology to build destructive
weapons? They can stop you, or people like you, by passing a law to
prohibit it. I suspect governments around the world are probably
considering this now. Said laws will probably hammer aviation
experimenters and the like... But, no laws are going to stop the
terrorists.
But then, why would a terrorist organisation go through the effort to build
a functional cruise missile when the world is full of people eager to die
in support of their way of life? A person like that in just about anything
that can fly, even a hot air balloon, would be more effective as a weapon,
and a whole lot easier to hide. The last time you saw a hot air balloon,
did you think "terrorist" or "oh neat, someone's going for a balloon ride?"
When you see someone with a cruise missile strapped onto the roof of an
SUV, it's either a terrorist or... or ... someone wanting to send a
wake-up call to the government???
Face it, as technology increases, and disseminates in the process, humans
become more and more capable of killing each other. We've already passed,
the stage where a few governments have the technology to destroy just about
everything. As time goes by, individuals will become more and more capable
of killing larger numbers of people. It's a trend we've been living with
for a long time now. Eventually, in the hopefully distant future, I
suppose we will reach the point where anyone with a minor amount of
education will have the capability of destroying all life on earth,
assuming we survive that long.
So, today, a gifted DIYer can build a cruise missile. In a while, your
garden-variety idiot will be able to do this just by purchasing a few
off-the-shelf components, wiring their GPS-enabled cell-phone to a
reprogrammed game-boy or something, and away it goes. The question
remains: of all the things an intelligent, skilled person could create, why
create a weapon?
David...
P.S. I've re-read this and I'm going to answer my own question: Why
create a weapon? Unfortunately, because we're human and that's what
we're really good at. Want proof? Take the next 60 seconds and write down
all the different -novel- concepts that come to mind for building something
to kill lots of people. Then, take the next 60 seconds and write down all
the things you could create to help people. I could list off a 100 in the
first category and still be going strong. In the second category, I'd be
lucky to get a dozen. I guess in the heart of every man is a little boy
sharpening a stick. I guess, in the end, I can't choose who I am... but I
can choose what I turn from idea into reality: no weapons from me.
"Bruce Simpson" <checksi...@l.address> wrote in message
news:1hnctvgrs74gpqv6h...@4ax.com...
Artemia Salina
> Gentlemen, this is something that has been nagging in the back of my
> mind for some time. Look around your shop. What could you build with
> the material and equipment you have on hand? Could someone consider it
> dangerous? What chemicals are in your paint cabinet? Toxic? Could
> someone consider them a potential threat?
>
> We all probably have to live with the possibility that an offended
> neighbor complaining to the EPA or zoning commission but what about
> Homeland Security? If some jackasses in Washington can construe those
> fire breathing contraptions that a half crazy Kiwi is building on the
> other side of the Earth is a threat to national security, what would
> they say about what they might construe as the makings for a few dozen
> pipe bombs they would find in your drop box?
>
> This security thing is getting out of hand.
This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a childhood friend.
We spent considerable time listing ordinary objects that could
be used as weapons. Just about the only thing on the non-weapon list
was a wad of toilet paper.
What it really boils down to is the intent, and that's something
that is very hard to prove either way. With all of the shrieking
about homeland security (has there actually been a single real
attempt at terrorism on our soil in the past three years? I
read an article on the homeland security web page which boasted
that their agents busted a pedophile ring in New York... Homeland
Security... arresting pedophiles?? I thought they were after
terrorists) it would seem that it is much easier for the
government to arrest it's people than it has for a long time.
And it will probably stay that way for a long time as well.
Claims of invisible armies of terrorists are easy to make and
are nearly impossible to disprove.
I'll leave my .signature in on this post.
--
"There cannot possibly be a god in heaven watching all of this calmly."
-- Revi Shankar
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Gary Coffman
>This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a childhood friend.
>We spent considerable time listing ordinary objects that could
>be used as weapons. Just about the only thing on the non-weapon list
>was a wad of toilet paper.
>
>What it really boils down to is the intent, and that's something
>that is very hard to prove either way. With all of the shrieking
>about homeland security (has there actually been a single real
>attempt at terrorism on our soil in the past three years? I
>read an article on the homeland security web page which boasted
>that their agents busted a pedophile ring in New York... Homeland
>Security... arresting pedophiles?? I thought they were after
>terrorists) it would seem that it is much easier for the
>government to arrest it's people than it has for a long time.
>And it will probably stay that way for a long time as well.
>Claims of invisible armies of terrorists are easy to make and
>are nearly impossible to disprove.
According to an article in today's paper, about 6,000 people
in the US have been arrested by our home grown Gestapo.
184 have been charged and convicted of *some* crime.
4 received sentences in excess of 5 years. That's not a
particularly inspiring record.
Gary
Gunner
>Gentlemen, this is something that has been nagging in the back of my
>mind for some time. Look around your shop. What could you build with
>the material and equipment you have on hand? Could someone consider it
>dangerous? What chemicals are in your paint cabinet? Toxic? Could
>someone consider them a potential threat?
>
>We all probably have to live with the possibility that an offended
>neighbor complaining to the EPA or zoning commission but what about
>Homeland Security? If some jackasses in Washington can construe those
>fire breathing contraptions that a half crazy Kiwi is building on the
>other side of the Earth is a threat to national security, what would
>they say about what they might construe as the makings for a few dozen
>pipe bombs they would find in your drop box?
>
>This security thing is getting out of hand.
Yup. Now how is that potential drug smuggling vessel coming along?
Gunner
"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."
-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"
Derwood
definition of a fire arm and requires registration.
Derwood
Derwood wrote:
> Yea ,,, Probably every golf club ever made falls into the current Canadian
> definition of a fire arm and requires registration.
You know that's such an interesting thought. I sure would love to be able to
screw with some of these politicians favorite pastime (Screw with my pastime,
I'll screw with yours!) by making it mandatory for them to have to register
their dangerous instruments. To have to take the prescribed fire arms course
to go out and do a little plinking, Sorry! did I say plinking when I meant
putting. To have to lock up their clubs in the prescribed manner with the
bolts, rather shafts and balls stores separately from the heads.
Any of you math guys know if the energy released in driving a golf ball meats
the current limitation??
***************************************
The new amendments have the following:
"(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding
152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules "
Using some engergy calculators I found on the internet, the addition of
the "5.7 Joules" actually REDUCES the legal muzzle velocity for airguns!
(I'll show my forumae at the end of the email)
eg.
- - using Super Dome, 7.7 gr .177 pellets in an airgun limits the airgun
to a max muzzle velocity of 495 fps.
- - using Super Dome, 14.5 gr .22 pellets in an airgun limits the airgun
to a max muzzle velocity of 361 fps.
The new ammendments will actually create more firearms out of airguns
while trying to get rid of the LaserHawk pellet problem.
Carlo.
P.S. Calculations based on:
Joules x 0.73756 = foot-pound-force
(http://www.meridian-specialties.ca/AID%20TO%20METRICATION.htm)
Energy Calculator found at http://www.airguns.net/calculators.html
Pellet list found at http://www.22ammo.com/pellets.html
**********************************************
Dave
> Brian Dotson <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Do you plan on making the design available on the internet?
>
> I was taking subscriptions to access a part of the website where the
> project was documented in much greater detail. There's nothing there
> that a keen terrorist couldn't easily find in a dozen other places so
> it was mainly for those who had an academic interest or just wanted to
>
Haven't they already confiscated all of your 0.22 cal rabbit guns down
there? What did you think the government would do... award you a
million dollar contract? Can you offer any possible commercial
applications?
Larry Jaques
<checksi...@l.address> brought forth from the murky depths:
>Clearly I'm not the kind of guy who'd export technology with military
>application to Iran but I thought I'd check out the official stance on
>such exports. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather when
>the governmetn advised that there would be no problems with such a
>deal and there was nothing illegal about exporting military technology
>to Iran.
>
>The irony is that if I had taken the government's advice and
>sacraficed my own principles, I wouldn't be in the situation I am now
>because that $100K would have paid my tax bill many times over and
>left me with enough to pay off the nortgage.
>
>Unfortunately -- principles and the desire to sleep straight at night
>count for nothing with governments I fear.
That you were a good and moral man who was bent over and buggered
by the government _should_ have been the global news story. Effin'
politics. Y'know, it's actions like that by governments which make
people WANT to join the other side. Stupid, stupid govvies.
>But hell -- the sun's bound to come out tomorrow :-)
You should have a -really- nice tan 3 years from now. ;)
Best of luck to you and your family. Can we help?
Is the donation button on your site still active?
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
====================================================
dj28 *-A T-* comcast *-D O T-* net
As he already stated previously (you HAVE read his post, right?), he had
a contract with an American company to produce the engine for use on
UAV's. The contract fell through when the NZ government forced him into
bankruptcy. Understand?
Mike
net"> wrote in news:8oudnZrkKrE...@comcast.com:
I've read the post, his site and had been following the progress. I'm sure
Mr Simpson will post here but I don't see anywhere where he claimed to have
'a contract with an American company to produce the engine for use on
UAV's'.... (you HAVE read his post, right?)
He had an offer from Iran however and so maybe you're confused. Understand?
si...@situ.com
FixerDave <fixe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>But then, why would a terrorist organisation go through the effort to build
>a functional cruise missile when the world is full of people eager to die
>in support of their way of life? A person like that in just about anything
>that can fly, even a hot air balloon, would be more effective as a weapon,
>and a whole lot easier to hide.
'Design for a Faith Based Missile' by Richard Dawkins
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_22_1.html
dj28
"What's even worse is that in July I went to the USA and signed a
heads-of-agreement with a US company who were going to commence
manufacture of my X-Jet engine for use in UAVs and RPVs. This deal alone
was worth a huge amount of money to the NZ taxman and would have also
created new jobs and export earnings for this country." --Bruce Simpson
The contract was based on the premise that both parties remained
solvent. When NZ forced bankruptcy upon Bruce, the contract was
considered void.
When attempting to be a smartass, it helps to have read all the material
you are talking about. Understand? Thank you.
andy asberry
<gash...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gentlemen, this is something that has been nagging in the back of my
>mind for some time. Look around your shop. What could you build with
>the material and equipment you have on hand? Could someone consider it
>dangerous? What chemicals are in your paint cabinet? Toxic? Could
>someone consider them a potential threat?
>
>We all probably have to live with the possibility that an offended
>neighbor complaining to the EPA or zoning commission but what about
>Homeland Security? If some jackasses in Washington can construe those
>fire breathing contraptions that a half crazy Kiwi is building on the
>other side of the Earth is a threat to national security, what would
>they say about what they might construe as the makings for a few dozen
>pipe bombs they would find in your drop box?
>
>This security thing is getting out of hand.
I agree. It is to the point where, those like us who can see the flaws
are afraid to speak up for fear of being apprehended as a conspirator.
Oh, what the hell. If they are not interested in Bruce's cruise
missile, this won't be a blip on the screen.
Testing for explosives. The same person, with the same gloves, moves
every bag and parcel form the conveyor. The explosives tester selects
a bag to test. If the tenth bag in front of this one was the tainted
bag, probably all ten will have traces.
Thirty years ago, a customer who worked for a drug company gave me a
really nice money clip. I say nice because the spring has held its
tension this long. I talked to him recently and told him I still had
the clip. He was surprised airport security hadn't confiscated it.
Unknown to me, it contained a tracheotomy blade on one side. It has
been through security at least 50 times.
An underwire bra and a roll of tape. Does anyone but me see an ice
pick?
I'm sure one of our electronics types could cobble up a stun gun from
the workings of a MP3 player or cell phone.
If the bad guy isn't particular about where the crash site is, he
doesn't need to board the plane. Trying to secure thousands of acres
of airport is near impossible.
A suicide bomber could kill a plane load of people standing in the
security check lines.
For thinkers, Homeland Security is a joke; for the others, it is a
pacifier.
Jeff
news:o2jetv8phqvkkvl0b...@4ax.com:
>
> For thinkers, Homeland Security is a joke; for the others, it is a
> pacifier.
>
>
And an expensive one, Homeland Security has sucked up funding from some
surprising sources. For instance, FEMA has a flood mitigation plan, raise
your house in a designated flood zone and so prevent flood loss and they
foot up to 3/4 of the bill. In Florida alone that's a BIG fund, as in 9
figures annually, add the other gulf states and the Carolinas and it gets
bigger. That's now on hold as all funding has been switched to Homeland
security for the next two years... and funds agreed in the privious year
also.
The Irony is that to anyone who has been through airport security in other
Western countries the US security is lip service only, uninformed, poorly
equipped and only effective at being an inconvenience.
Another thought; The current government has said it's going to take on and
defeat terrorism by fighting terrorists and those that support them. Since
the IRA is still an active terrorist unit and is almost entirely funded by
US donations, as it has been for the last 30 years or so, does that mean
that support will be stopped? or that Homeland Security is going to be
knocking on the doors of every Irish American?
Larry Jaques
>What it really boils down to is the intent, and that's something
>that is very hard to prove either way. With all of the shrieking
>about homeland security (has there actually been a single real
>attempt at terrorism on our soil in the past three years?
9/11 comes to mind. But that's it for a decade.
My sharp 9" pencil sticking out of my pocket was deemed
safe and I carried it right through the security check
at the airport twice (along with another scary 3x5" pad
of note paper. Ever get a paper cut? Ouch!) while my 2"
Swiss Army Knife Jr. was a hazard I could not bring
onboard except in packet luggage in the belly of the plane.
Go figure.
>read an article on the homeland security web page which boasted
>that their agents busted a pedophile ring in New York... Homeland
>Security... arresting pedophiles??
Terrorizing tots?
>I thought they were after
>terrorists) it would seem that it is much easier for the
>government to arrest it's people than it has for a long time.
>And it will probably stay that way for a long time as well.
>Claims of invisible armies of terrorists are easy to make and
>are nearly impossible to disprove.
I don't fear terrorists. They can't be protected against. I'm
more afraid of what my government could choose to do to me (and
is now authorized to do) now than I am of terrorists. THAT is a
sad state of affairs.
Wasting all that money on impotent security measures--money which
should have been used to remove our gigantic deficit--is a criminal
act against our citizenry.
John Stevenson
Or a sheik eating missile
___
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light
side and a dark side, and it holds the universe
together.
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>But, the sticker was that "sufficient motivation" part. I can't think of
>any reason I would want to spend my time and money doing this. Are you
>saying that your reason for spending thousands of dollars and huge amounts
>of time to build your very own cruise missile is "a 'wake-up' call" to the
>government? Why not send a letter? What did you expect to happen when
>said government woke up?
My initial move was to simply use the written word to try and wake up
the authorities. Check out the date on this page:
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
This article was in fact highlighted by several mainstream news
publisers, including the CSM and produced a lot of feedback including
comments from a number of former and serving US military personnel who
acknowledged the risk but were also aware that there was little being
done to address it.
I also contacted teh guys at DARPA responsible for the LCCM defense
program and offered them all my research and the full results of my
own project. They completely ignored all my emails.
So, clearly that idea didn't work.
>Is there any part you needed to buy that a government could ban production
>or distribution of that would not cause real harm to some legitimate use?
If you read what I've written on this matter you'll see that I don't
advocate banning the sale of anything. Banning is not only extremely
disruptive but also totally ineffective. For example -- even though
Bush has suggested the introduction of strict controls on the sale of
GPS units -- if that were done, those who wanted them for nefarious
purposes would just steal them. Let's face it, there are already many
millions of such devices already in circulation.
>Do you think government agents should run around confiscating any technical
>documents that might allow your design?
Hey, you can get almost the entire plans for the German V1 from the
Net -- and the copies I've seen aren't hosted in the USA anyway so
there's not a lot they could do. The V1 carried a *ton* of
high-explosive and, while not deadly accurate, would still be a
formidable weapon in the hands of a terror group.
>What can any government do to
>prevent terrorists from using available technology to build destructive
>weapons? They can stop you, or people like you, by passing a law to
>prohibit it. I suspect governments around the world are probably
>considering this now. Said laws will probably hammer aviation
>experimenters and the like... But, no laws are going to stop the
>terrorists.
The reason for this project was to prove the futility of legislation
as a weapon against such things. The *only* practical defense we have
against the home-built cruise missile right now is a good public
awareness of:
1, what it is
2. what it takes to build one
3. how they're built
If terrorists know that their attempts to build such a weapon are far
more likely to be detected by the general public -- even nosey
neighbors, they'll be less inclined to consider such a project to be a
viable option.
Trying to keep information out of the public domain has already proven
to be the worst thing you can do in such cases. Do you remember the
lessons of 9/11? Woudl you really want them repeated?
>But then, why would a terrorist organisation go through the effort to build
>a functional cruise missile when the world is full of people eager to die
>in support of their way of life? A person like that in just about anything
>that can fly, even a hot air balloon, would be more effective as a weapon,
>and a whole lot easier to hide. The last time you saw a hot air balloon,
>did you think "terrorist" or "oh neat, someone's going for a balloon ride?"
>When you see someone with a cruise missile strapped onto the roof of an
>SUV, it's either a terrorist or... or ... someone wanting to send a
>wake-up call to the government???
You should read the FAQ on my website at
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/faq.shtml
Remember that the key component of the word "terrorism" is the word
"terror".
Although the V1 was responsible for a disproportionately low number of
deaths in WW2, it was by far and away one of the most feared weapons
and the sound of one flying overhead then cutting out most certainly
inflicted terror on those below.
>So, today, a gifted DIYer can build a cruise missile. In a while, your
>garden-variety idiot will be able to do this just by purchasing a few
>off-the-shelf components, wiring their GPS-enabled cell-phone to a
>reprogrammed game-boy or something, and away it goes. The question
>remains: of all the things an intelligent, skilled person could create, why
>create a weapon?
Given that my craft would not have an explosive or otherwise dangerous
warhead it was *not* a weapon -- it is a warning of what might happen
if the public aren't educated as to the potential for others to do
exactly the same with a less responsible agenda.
Bruce Simpson
>Haven't they already confiscated all of your 0.22 cal rabbit guns down
>there? What did you think the government would do... award you a
>million dollar contract? Can you offer any possible commercial
>applications?
Well they made a huge gaffe wihen news of the project first broke -
they admitted that it broke no laws. That clearly made it impossible
for them to shut it down by "conventional" means and left them with
little option but to exploit alternative, somewhat less scrupulous,
options.
Bruce Simpson
>I've read the post, his site and had been following the progress. I'm sure
>Mr Simpson will post here but I don't see anywhere where he claimed to have
>'a contract with an American company to produce the engine for use on
>UAV's'.... (you HAVE read his post, right?)
>
>He had an offer from Iran however and so maybe you're confused. Understand?
No, you need to read all the material I've published. I did indeed
have an agreement with a US company which involved the licensing of
one of my jet engine designs and production of key sub-assemblies.
The ironic thing is that, at almost the same instant I was signing
that deal, a judge's gavel was tapping out the sound of my bankruptcy.
On my return to NZ, I figured that surely the government would realise
that it was stupid to bankrupt someone over a few thousand dollars
when doing so would scuttle an export deal worth many, many times that
in extra taxes, jobs and overseas investment.
Indeed, one would assume that if their motivation for bankruptcy was
purely one of recovering debt and obtaining the best result for
taxpayers then they'd have immediately anulled the bankruptcy so that
teh deal could go ahead.
That they didn't made it clear to me (and others who have seen all the
evidence) that my bankruptcy was nothing to do with debt recovery and
everything to do with scuttling an embarrassing but not illegal
project.
Matt
>
> Haven't they already confiscated all of your 0.22 cal rabbit guns down
> there? What did you think the government would do... award you a
> million dollar contract? Can you offer any possible commercial
> applications?
So you apparently see no irony that the NZ government didn't really
seem to care until it got pressure from the freedom-loving USA? How
long do you think a project like this would've lasted in the US?
Amazing as it seems the whole world does not revolve around the 2nd
amendment.
Matt
Bruce Simpson
hunt) wrote:
>>I'm sure their products are worth the money they're asking for them
>>and that I'm no threat at all.
>
>I disagree. Modern cruise missiles, such as ther Anglo-French Storm
>Shadow, cost about a million quid each. The V1 cost 400 quid; that
>was in 1940s money so with inflation it'd be about GBP 10,000 -
>20,000.
But the latest "state of the art" cruise missiles have some very
sophisticated flight-contro/guidance systems. The development of
these systems will have cost an enormous amount of money -- and that
has to be amortized over the anticipated number of unit-sales.
On the other hand, I do know that in some areas of the defense
industry the margins are absolutely unbelievable.
When I first begain developing my jet engine technology I had given
thought to the option of building UAVs and target drones for military
use. It was clear that it would be very easy to undercut the existing
suppliers by a huge amount.
However, after talking "off the record" with a defense contractor it
was made very clear to me that, providing it meets the necessary
criteria, the price of your product is not usually the deciding
factor.
it's *WHO* you know, not *WHAT* you know or the price of your product
that decides whether the military will buy your product.
It was made very clear to me that even if I built the best UAV at the
lowest price, I wouldn't sell a single one without the right contacts.
To demonstrate the point, I was shown a "towed target" used by the
military. This is a rocket-shaped body that is towed beyind another
aircraft on the end of more than thousand yards of wire.
That target sells for about U$5,000 I believe. The cost to make it?
Well it was a five or six-foot long plastic/ composite tube (about
6-8" diameter) with four fins at one end and a vacuum formed nosecap
containing a passive radar reflector (a simple sheet-aluminum device)
at the other. How much could you make one of those for?
And why, if you made them and added a "normal" margin so that they
cost US$100 instead of US$5000, how many do you think you'd sell?
The answer is *NONE* -- because the existing suppliers have tied up
the lines of supply through their strong network of contacts.
I suspect that this is why "mil-spec" is often so much more expensive
than "commercial grade" .
It was after this little discussion that I was advised to find a
partner who already had the necessary connections to the market and
simply focus on providing that partner with key components.
Henry Bibb
"andy asberry" <andya...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o2jetv8phqvkkvl0b...@4ax.com...
>
> For thinkers, Homeland Security is a joke; for the others, it is a
> pacifier.
>
The utterly terrifying thing for me is, how *many* accept it as real...
and they all get to vote, too...
Sunworshiper
<gash...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gentlemen, this is something that has been nagging in the back of my
>mind for some time. Look around your shop. What could you build with
>the material and equipment you have on hand? Could someone consider it
>dangerous? What chemicals are in your paint cabinet? Toxic? Could
>someone consider them a potential threat?
>
>We all probably have to live with the possibility that an offended
>neighbor complaining to the EPA or zoning commission but what about
>Homeland Security? If some jackasses in Washington can construe those
>fire breathing contraptions that a half crazy Kiwi is building on the
>other side of the Earth is a threat to national security, what would
>they say about what they might construe as the makings for a few dozen
>pipe bombs they would find in your drop box?
>
>This security thing is getting out of hand.
I caught a line from a well known reporter in town on a rock station
that said something like getting conversations from inside new cars
like listening to cell phones. It was all done under Homeland
Security to bust city councel members taking bribes for titty bar
votes. Never heard a thing about it since.
The first time I saw Demolition Man I was rolling on the floor !
And at the same time thinking how long to that crap is reality...
Help me out here. I remember being told of stories from pilots
evacuating people from Cuba , around there , or Centra America in the
60's or early 70's cause they where killing everyone that was half way
educated. Where , when , and why would these stories add up? The
testimonies seemed very truthful and vivid of murders to close for
comfort next to the last planes out.
Until WE the people can listen in on about every word spoken in
Washington its all down hill. I still wonder how every representative
knows the total vote and by whom before it even happens. I say WE
should make a huge petiton to make a law against lobying and
corruption to the point of a clear stand off till it's passed.
Doesn't it start off with "We The People" ? There should be no profit
to being in office or something to that effect in the petiton and see
how they react. Or how about bills that stay strictly to the subject.
That shouldn't be too hard to get going from the people. Just let the
petiton stand in the papers and discussed over and over why OUR
representatives are not acting on our views.
The penalty should be 3 fold for civic duty. Not like it is where a
local bad cop looses his job cause he got caught. Wow, I'd love that
deal ! No fines, no jail, and only I can't do pools anymore... COOL
What I don't get is people that think its all ahhh feeble conspiracy
thinking then when someone gets caught they pull up phone records and
all kinds of things to nail them, but that doesn't happen. Once you
walk out your front door or past your property your in the public
domain , thus your rights are gone. Even that is giving a lot of
slack.
I came up with a great weapon of war and afraid to mention it. I'd
send it off to the DOD , but I think its better left as an unknown
novel idea. I had to sign the rights off on one of my patents to the
Guvernment already and didn't think it was necessary. It was probably
just protocal , but reading it made me think.
Even before 9/11 , I would never put up something beyond what I know
of the constitution or clearly demonic ideas publicly to see if I get
a hard knock at the door. LOL, I already know the world is a
dangerous place.
Like I said once before , sooner or later the technology will level
out and then they will be used against us. Its nice to have an
advantage , but don't piss people off that will hold a grudge until it
levels off.
Larry Jaques
the murky depths:
>'Design for a Faith Based Missile' by Richard Dawkins
>
>http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_22_1.html
Please pass the Holy Hand Grenade, sir.
David Harmon
<mattso...@earthlink.net> was alleged to have written:
>I caught a line from a well known reporter in town on a rock station
>that said something like getting conversations from inside new cars
>like listening to cell phones.
The FBI hacked OnStar. Ninth Circuit court ruled it was illegal,
NOT because it violated privacy w/o a warrant or anything, but because
it disabled OnStar safety functions while they were listening.
http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?492bcbd5-a644-4fbf-8289-285a36a0d116
Damn, now you've lured me into an off-topic post.
phil hunt
>
>If you read what I've written on this matter you'll see that I don't
>advocate banning the sale of anything. Banning is not only extremely
>disruptive but also totally ineffective. For example -- even though
>Bush has suggested the introduction of strict controls on the sale of
>GPS units
These days most American mobile phones have GPS. In any case, such a
restriction wouldn't affect countries outside the USA. GPS is too
useful to restrict effectively.
>>What can any government do to
>>prevent terrorists from using available technology to build destructive
>>weapons? They can stop you, or people like you, by passing a law to
>>prohibit it. I suspect governments around the world are probably
>>considering this now. Said laws will probably hammer aviation
>>experimenters and the like... But, no laws are going to stop the
>>terrorists.
>
>The reason for this project was to prove the futility of legislation
>as a weapon against such things. The *only* practical defense we have
>against the home-built cruise missile right now is a good public
>awareness of:
>
>1, what it is
>2. what it takes to build one
>3. how they're built
>
>If terrorists know that their attempts to build such a weapon are far
>more likely to be detected by the general public -- even nosey
>neighbors, they'll be less inclined to consider such a project to be a
>viable option.
That sounds sensible. A cruise missile project is bound to need
flight trials, so it can't all be done in someone's basement.
A bigger threat to western armed forces is if they go to war
against a nation that makes its own cruise missiles. These could be
very effective, against tank columns, supply columns, airfields or
warships.
>>remains: of all the things an intelligent, skilled person could create, why
>>create a weapon?
>
>Given that my craft would not have an explosive or otherwise dangerous
>warhead it was *not* a weapon
And it seems to me that there ought to be practical uses for a cheap
UAV. You've mentioned search and rescue. Crop spraying. I imagine
in places like Australia a farmer might find a use for them
overseeing his livestock. They could be used to track radio-tagged
animals in game reserves. People in remote places could use them
to deliver stuff (you'd want a STOL or VTOL craft for that). How
about for mapping? Since they are closer to the ground, they'd have
a greater resolution than satelite photographs, and could well be
cheaper (satelites cost millions to launch).
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <zen2...@zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).
phil hunt
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:53:19 +0000, ph...@invalid.email.address (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>>I'm sure their products are worth the money they're asking for them
>>>and that I'm no threat at all.
>>
>>I disagree. Modern cruise missiles, such as ther Anglo-French Storm
>>Shadow, cost about a million quid each. The V1 cost 400 quid; that
>>was in 1940s money so with inflation it'd be about GBP 10,000 -
>>20,000.
>
>But the latest "state of the art" cruise missiles have some very
>sophisticated flight-contro/guidance systems. The development of
>these systems will have cost an enormous amount of money
That's true.
>-- and that
>has to be amortized over the anticipated number of unit-sales.
I'm thinking of something mass produced. Imagine it being done by
the motor industry, not a traditional defence company. They could
probably get the price down to about what a car costs.
>On the other hand, I do know that in some areas of the defense
>industry the margins are absolutely unbelievable.
Yes. And from knowledge of working for a defence contractor, they
are not very cost efficient either.
>When I first begain developing my jet engine technology I had given
>thought to the option of building UAVs and target drones for military
>use. It was clear that it would be very easy to undercut the existing
>suppliers by a huge amount.
>
>However, after talking "off the record" with a defense contractor it
>was made very clear to me that, providing it meets the necessary
>criteria, the price of your product is not usually the deciding
>factor.
>
>it's *WHO* you know, not *WHAT* you know or the price of your product
>that decides whether the military will buy your product.
I've heard the same thing.
>It was made very clear to me that even if I built the best UAV at the
>lowest price, I wouldn't sell a single one without the right contacts.
That wouldn't surprise me. I expect if a chea pcruise missile is
mass produced, it won't be in the west, it'll be somewhere like
China.
>To demonstrate the point, I was shown a "towed target" used by the
>military. This is a rocket-shaped body that is towed beyind another
>aircraft on the end of more than thousand yards of wire.
>
>That target sells for about U$5,000 I believe. The cost to make it?
>Well it was a five or six-foot long plastic/ composite tube (about
>6-8" diameter) with four fins at one end and a vacuum formed nosecap
>containing a passive radar reflector (a simple sheet-aluminum device)
>at the other. How much could you make one of those for?
>
>And why, if you made them and added a "normal" margin so that they
>cost US$100 instead of US$5000, how many do you think you'd sell?
>
>The answer is *NONE* -- because the existing suppliers have tied up
>the lines of supply through their strong network of contacts.
>
>I suspect that this is why "mil-spec" is often so much more expensive
>than "commercial grade" .
>
>It was after this little discussion that I was advised to find a
>partner who already had the necessary connections to the market and
>simply focus on providing that partner with key components.
Another approach would be to try for non-military applications.
Here's another: policing. The UK police use helicopters, equipped
with infra-red cameras, to make sure people can't escape in car
chases, or chases on foot in the dark. Police helicopters are
expensive, costing several million pounds or so. They also require
lots of fuel, maintenance and trained pilots. A lot of police forces
would probably be interested in something that could do the same
thing more cheaply.
Ken Davey
Get whatever you have for armanents ready cause the 'black helicoptors'
*are* coming.
Ken.(being far too serious this late at night)
FixerDave
...
> >.... Why not send a letter? What did you expect to happen when
> >said government woke up?
...
> My initial move was to simply use the written word to try and wake up
> the authorities....
...
> >What can any government do to
> >prevent terrorists from using available technology to build destructive
> >weapons? They can stop you, or people like you, by passing a law to
> >prohibit it. I suspect governments around the world are probably
> >considering this now. Said laws will probably hammer aviation
> >experimenters and the like... But, no laws are going to stop the
> >terrorists.
>
> The reason for this project was to prove the futility of legislation
> as a weapon against such things. The *only* practical defense we have
> against the home-built cruise missile right now is a good public
> awareness of:
>
> 1, what it is
> 2. what it takes to build one
> 3. how they're built
>
> If terrorists know that their attempts to build such a weapon are far
> more likely to be detected by the general public -- even nosey
> neighbors, they'll be less inclined to consider such a project to be a
> viable option.
So, what your saying is that there's no point in waking up the goverment
because they can't do anything. Instead, you want to wake up the public so
we can all be vigilent against this threat.
...
> You should read the FAQ on my website at
> http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/faq.shtml
Did that, before I sent my first post. I didn't agree with your rational,
and I still don't.
> Remember that the key component of the word "terrorism" is the word
> "terror".
Yup, but one guy with a rifle - that avoided playing stupid games to get
himself caught - would cause far more terror, for far longer, than someone
building all the cruise missiles he could ever afford to make.
> Although the V1 was responsible for a disproportionately low number of
> deaths in WW2, it was by far and away one of the most feared weapons
> and the sound of one flying overhead then cutting out most certainly
> inflicted terror on those below.
Yes, but this was one state making war on another in an age before
satellite reconnaissance. The terror came from the numbers, one after the
other, with no way to stop them. In my opinion, which I fully admit is not
backed up by serious research, the V1 was particularly effective in its day
because it had just the right requirements for range, cost, and ease of use
to fit the German harassment of Britain during the war. In today's world,
a DIY cruise missile is not a good fit for the needs of a terrorist
organisation. Not when there are so many easier ways to accomplish thier
goals.
You've built a relatively short range, reasonably fast, autonomously
piloted vehicle. So far, I've only read one good use for it: target drone
(I hadn't thought of that). All the other uses - mapping, search and
rescue, photography, even terrorism - would be better served by existing
technology like airplanes or even remote piloted vehicles.
As for the wake-up call argument, even if it becomes a "public" rather than
"government" call, it just doesn't cut it. If you had been trying to
develop a low-budget target drone and some government official had come
along and shut you down. Then, I'd have sympathy for you. You'd have been
a talented, inventive, entrepreneur that got stomped on. Instead, my
feeling are really mixed: smart guy, bad idea - or at least badly pitched.
David...
<more snipped>
phil hunt
>>From: Bruce Simpson checksi...@l.address
>>Yep, that's me they're talking about. If anyone has questions I'll
>>happily answer them.
>
>Yeah, I have a question.
>
>Are we going to let them get away with this?
How would you suggest stopping them?
phil hunt
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> These days most American mobile phones have GPS.
>
US mobile phoners have GPS (AFAIK). Useful when making emergency
calls.
Bruce Simpson
<fixe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, but this was one state making war on another in an age before
>satellite reconnaissance. The terror came from the numbers, one after the
>other, with no way to stop them. In my opinion, which I fully admit is not
>backed up by serious research, the V1 was particularly effective in its day
>because it had just the right requirements for range, cost, and ease of use
>to fit the German harassment of Britain during the war. In today's world,
>a DIY cruise missile is not a good fit for the needs of a terrorist
>organisation. Not when there are so many easier ways to accomplish thier
>goals.
Okay, what "easier" way would you suggest if you wanted to strike at a
key US target such as The White House, The Pentagon or other such icon
of the US administration. Remember that these are clearly considered
"high value" by terrorists - they proved that on 9/11. Terrorists
being able to strike directly against the seat of power would be a
devastating blow to the USA in the propoganda war that surrounds all
conflicts.
Many people have suggested light aircraft could be flown into the
White House -- but that didn't produce any appreciable results when it
was tried in September 1994.
The "lone gunman" with an AK-47 firing from the street approach has
also already been tried multiple times -- and that failed too.
The reality is that, especially in the wake of 9/11, the White House
is effectively impervious to any conventional terrorist-type suicide
attacks.
However, any group wishing to score a huge win in the propoganda war
could use one or more low cost cruise missiles to effectively strike
at the White House -- even if their payloads were relatively small.
Can you imagine what the public response would be when the public
discovered that, despite all the hi-tech and protective measures in
place, terrorists could still strike at the President's residence --
or any other strategically important target otherwise protected
against martyr type terror attacks?
I guess in the eyes of some people I'm damned if I do, damned if I
don't.
If an LCCM is used by terrorists some will claim that they got the
idea from me. If no such attacks are forthcoming they'll say I was
just creating a storm in a teacup.
That's a risk I'm prepared to take however because I believe the worst
thing I can do is nothing -- and allow a repeat of the "security by
obscurity" fiasco that produced the horrific result that was 9/11.
Karl Vorwerk
to the conveyor belt.
Karl
Gunner
<checksi...@l.address> wrote:
>Okay, what "easier" way would you suggest if you wanted to strike at a
>key US target such as The White House, The Pentagon or other such icon
>of the US administration. Remember that these are clearly considered
>"high value" by terrorists - they proved that on 9/11. Terrorists
>being able to strike directly against the seat of power would be a
>devastating blow to the USA in the propoganda war that surrounds all
>conflicts.
Soft topped semi loaded with homemade mortors. Very easy to do and
impossible to catch until they fire.
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
bob mologna
news:slrnbtfrak...@cabalamat.cabalamat.org...
> These days most American mobile phones have GPS. In any case, such a
Nonsense. Can you provide any more info to support this?
Åmund Breivik
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:vahftvc021hmsj39g...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:27:49 +1300, Bruce Simpson
> <checksi...@l.address> wrote:
>
> >Okay, what "easier" way would you suggest if you wanted to strike at a
> >key US target such as The White House, The Pentagon or other such icon
> >of the US administration. Remember that these are clearly considered
> >"high value" by terrorists - they proved that on 9/11. Terrorists
> >being able to strike directly against the seat of power would be a
> >devastating blow to the USA in the propoganda war that surrounds all
> >conflicts.
>
> Soft topped semi loaded with homemade mortors. Very easy to do and
> impossible to catch until they fire.
I was going to suggest the same thing.
Alternatively, one could use something like the Katyusha rockets that are
often used against Israel. These things are simple, easily mass produced
WWII technology and can be fired from any old pipe of roughly the correct
diameter, using a car battery to set it off. Stack a bunch of pipes together
and you have the poor man's MLRS.
--
Aamund Breivik
andy asberry
<kfvo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>They actually test the bag in your presence, one at a time, before it gets
>to the conveyor belt.
>Karl
I certainly haven't flown from every airport in the country but
everyone I have flown from sent the bags, coats, etc. through the X
ray and after the pax went through the metal detector, they selected a
bag to test for explosives or hand search.
>"andy asberry" <andya...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:o2jetv8phqvkkvl0b...@4ax.com...
>>
Jedd Haas
<d.co...@iolfree.ie> wrote:
There seems to be some confusion on this. Here's what I know about what is
actually going on. In the past few years, 911 calls from cell phones have
caused problems for those responding to said calls. Why? 911 uses caller
ID name/address information to identify the location. Your cell phone
"location" typically shows up as the location of the cell phone store
where you got the phone.
So, location tracking of cell phones has been proposed so that the 911
operator sends the responders to the right location. There are two main
ways to do this: triangulation via cell towers and GPS. Triangulation can
be implemented right away, as it doesn't depend on the cell phone having
GPS. Newer cell phones *may* have a GPS receiver built in (not sure on
this, or what percentage actually have it).
As other commentators on this issue have noted elsewhere, a robust 911
system will use both triangulation and GPS, because there are
circumstances when one or the other will fail.
--
Jedd Haas - Artist
http://www.gallerytungsten.com
http://www.antijazz.com
http://www.epsno.com
FixerDave
> key US target such as The White House, The Pentagon or other such icon
I'll bite - if only because this exactly illustrates the point I'm trying
to make. The White House is, I'm guessing here, no more than a mile or two
from general urban areas, right? Why would you need a missile with a 200
mile range? As other suggested, unguided mortars or rockets would work
just as well, even an old brass cannon could probably make that range, and
deliver just as much payload. Hell, even that bowling ball cannon I read
about a few posts back could probably score a hit. Not that bowling balls
falling from the sky are particularly terrifying...
If I were an individual bent on proving a point, without caring if I died
in the process, I'd steal a learjet / helicopter / anything else that could
fly, pack it with stuff that goes boom, and head in. Or, I'd steal a
gasoline truck, pack it with explosives within the gas, and make the
biggest honking molotov ever made; after that, rig up a dead-mans trigger
and start driving in - the closer you get the better. Or, I'd just take
the gas truck, dump a line into the sewer, let it spill, and walk away;
sooner or later, something's going to spark it off and tear up the roads
all around the place. Maybe at the same time, I blow up another tanker
full of anything toxic, somewhere upwind, and let it drift in. Top it off
by giving the news about 20 minutes to report the mayhem, then blow the
powerlines leaving everyone sitting in the dark wondering what the hell to
do... now that's terror.
And that's my 60 second list. What I'm trying to say here is that
terrorising people is easy, or at least easier than building a cruise
missile. This is why I don't buy the "wake-up call" argument. If the guy
that built the bowling ball cannon made a bunch of noise about how easy it
was for someone to make, and how it could be used to launch explosives by
terrorists, but his isn't a weapon because it doesn't pack explosives, even
though it could, and everyone should be vigilant that their neighbours
aren't building these things... Well, generally, people would expect the
guy to get squashed. But, this guy just did his thing, amused himself by
lobbing balls at the nearby hills, mentioned it to a few people that can
appreciate the design, and we go "Cool..." No one's really going to care,
even if he is breaking a few laws, at least until he scares the hell out of
some hiker.
Like I said before, I admire your technical skill but, in my opinion, you
need to work on your reasons.
David...
"Bruce Simpson" <checksi...@l.address> wrote in message
news:e23gtv47goacrj0pj...@4ax.com...
Gary Coffman
>> ...Okay, what "easier" way would you suggest if you wanted to strike at a
>> key US target such as The White House, The Pentagon or other such icon
>> of the US administration....
>
>I'll bite - if only because this exactly illustrates the point I'm trying
>to make. The White House is, I'm guessing here, no more than a mile or two
>from general urban areas, right? Why would you need a missile with a 200
>mile range? As other suggested, unguided mortars or rockets would work
>just as well, even an old brass cannon could probably make that range, and
>deliver just as much payload. Hell, even that bowling ball cannon I read
>about a few posts back could probably score a hit. Not that bowling balls
>falling from the sky are particularly terrifying...
While that might work, the advantage the DIY cruise missile has over this
approach is you'd have a better chance of living to fight another day with
the cruise missile than you would with a truck load of mortars or short range
unguided rockets. That's because you could launch it well away from the
target area in a nice quiet spot where you could set it up and launch it
without attracting too much unwanted attention, and be long gone before
it reaches the target. It may be fine to be a martyr, but it is better to be a
successful terrorist who lives to terrorize another day.
>If I were an individual bent on proving a point, without caring if I died
>in the process, I'd steal a learjet / helicopter / anything else that could
>fly, pack it with stuff that goes boom, and head in.
The SS has men on the rooftops around the White House with Stinger
missiles for just such an attempt. Stingers would be effective against
the DIY cruise missile too, of course. Since 911, they also have helicopter
gunships and jet interceptors to deal with any aircraft entering the no fly
zone over the capital.
If you came in nap of the earth, and hammers to hell, you might make it
through anyway. A good cruise missile like our own military has can do that.
It would be tougher with a DIY cruise missile, and near suicidal in a hand
flown civilian aircraft, though it was done once, before 911, when security
wasn't as trigger happy.
>Or, I'd steal a
>gasoline truck, pack it with explosives within the gas, and make the
>biggest honking molotov ever made; after that, rig up a dead-mans trigger
>and start driving in - the closer you get the better.
You wouldn't get very close. They've blocked off Pennsylvania Avenue
with concrete barriers to stop just such an attack.
>Or, I'd just take
>the gas truck, dump a line into the sewer, let it spill, and walk away;
>sooner or later, something's going to spark it off and tear up the roads
>all around the place.
The SS has sealed all the access covers to sewers, power tunnels, etc
in the areas around the White House and the Capital. You could still get
gas into a storm drain, though. Rough on the streets if those blew, but
it wouldn't get you close to damaging the White House. (AFAIK, the
sewers and the storm drains are separate in DC.)
>Maybe at the same time, I blow up another tanker
>full of anything toxic, somewhere upwind, and let it drift in.
That would be pesky, but we routinely have accidents with semi-trailer
loads of toxics, even multiple rail cars. People have become more or
less used to that sort of thing.
>Top it off
>by giving the news about 20 minutes to report the mayhem, then blow the
>powerlines leaving everyone sitting in the dark wondering what the hell to
>do... now that's terror.
Now that touch would add terror. BTW, that's why terrorists often phone
in a warning before a bomb it detonated.
Gary
Karl Vorwerk
the bags going to the baggage compartment. The only random search of carry
on items I've seen is at the gate when they pull some people to do a compete
search on them. I only fly once or twice a year so maybe it's different at
different airports. Though that wouldn't make any sense to me but you know
how our government is.
Karl
.
"andy asberry" <andya...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i92itvk6l1enm2n5f...@4ax.com...
Gunner
wrote:
>
>While that might work, the advantage the DIY cruise missile has over this
>approach is you'd have a better chance of living to fight another day with
>the cruise missile than you would with a truck load of mortars or short range
>unguided rockets. That's because you could launch it well away from the
>target area in a nice quiet spot where you could set it up and launch it
>without attracting too much unwanted attention, and be long gone before
>it reaches the target. It may be fine to be a martyr, but it is better to be a
>successful terrorist who lives to terrorize another day.
If one were to set 80 mortar tubes at the same angle and azimuth, mount
them in the back of a soft top semi trailer, load them identically, then
park the truck at a predetermined spot, it could be remotely ripple
fired even by a cell phone call. If one simply dropped the "landing
gear", the movement of the trailer would be diminished greatly and as
each back of tubes fired, dispersion would be limited but would make a
hell of a mess at the target, particularly if you used a mix of
warheads...HE, WP, the usual.
The concept used in a civilian setting makes my various orifices slam
shut in a very high pucker factor. Brrrrrrrrrr
Gunner
<andya...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:36:30 GMT, "Karl Vorwerk"
><kfvo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>They actually test the bag in your presence, one at a time, before it gets
>>to the conveyor belt.
>>Karl
>
>I certainly haven't flown from every airport in the country but
>everyone I have flown from sent the bags, coats, etc. through the X
>ray and after the pax went through the metal detector, they selected a
>bag to test for explosives or hand search.
Last time I flew, I purposely used one of my range bags. Chuckle..
Several years worth of gunpowder residue embedded in the sides of the
bag. The sniffer was being used on a bag about 5 foot from mine and
triggered. It was great watching them silently panic as they hunted for
the source, then dump the bag and find only socks and shirts <G>
They suggested I not use that bag again for air travel. They never did
figure out what the cause was. <EG>
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
jim rozen
>They suggested I not use that bag again for air travel. They never did
>figure out what the cause was. <EG>
You might not have gotten it back. My dad's lost
a couple of suitcases that he carries scientific
equipment in, they wind up 'lost' at the destination.
I have a strong suspicion that the x-rays look
troublesome, so the bags get a quick trip to
the ordinance disposal place at rodmans neck.
They blow them up and report them lost.
Jim
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Abrasha
>
> Last time I flew, I purposely used one of my range bags. Chuckle..
> Several years worth of gunpowder residue embedded in the sides of the
> bag. The sniffer was being used on a bag about 5 foot from mine and
> triggered. It was great watching them silently panic as they hunted for
> the source, then dump the bag and find only socks and shirts <G>
>
> They suggested I not use that bag again for air travel. They never did
> figure out what the cause was. <EG>
>
> Gunner
I have the same issue every time I fly to a trade show with my work in my carry
on roll away suitcase. The jewelry isn't the problem, my Judaica (Jewish
cerremonial art) always is. Several of the items are made from stainless steel
tubing, and titanium machined rod, so on the x-ray machines they look like the
perfect pipe bombs.
The first time that became apparent was in November 2001, when SFO was humming
with National Guard people. The moment my roll away went onto the x-ray
machine, the scanners reacted as if they had caught a "live one". They got very
jittery and nervous. The bag was taken off the belt, and as always I requested
a private check for my own security. I am usually not to thrilled to have the
contents of my carry on luggage spilled onto a table for all passengers to see.
Anyway, a National Guardsman accompanied me to the area where the bag would be
examined. I was not allowed to roll it, the screener had to do that. The
Guardsman made a point of having me walk in front of him, not beside him. As we
walked, I turned around and tried to diffuse the situation by saying something
like, "Don't worry, I'm Jewish. I'm cool." I forget what I said exactly.
I will never forget what he said to me. "Just don't agitate me." He did not
smile.
Now, every time I fly with my stuff I have to open everything up. And of course
I have to take my shoes off. Does that increase my sense of security about
flying. Not one little bit. It is still a scam.
If you want to know what good airport security looks like, fly out of Schiphol
Airport (Amsterdam) or Lod Airport (Tel Aviv). Very different story.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Ian Stirling
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:21:29 +1300, Bruce Simpson <checksi...@l.address> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:53:19 +0000, ph...@invalid.email.address (phil
>>hunt) wrote:
> Another approach would be to try for non-military applications.
> Here's another: policing. The UK police use helicopters, equipped
> with infra-red cameras, to make sure people can't escape in car
> chases, or chases on foot in the dark. Police helicopters are
> expensive, costing several million pounds or so. They also require
> lots of fuel, maintenance and trained pilots. A lot of police forces
> would probably be interested in something that could do the same
> thing more cheaply.
Err, no.
Police microlights, perhaps, not UAVs with pulsejets.
They are simply too loud and not reliable enough.
To get them safe enough to fly over residential areas, even neglecting
noise is really hard.
Glenn Ashmore
group. I kept a pair of hand cuffs in my briefcase for when I was
carrying a large amount of cash after a gig. I still carry them and
when they show up on the xray the security people just sort of nod at me
with a knowing smile.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
Dave
> gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote in message news:<5591d176.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Haven't they already confiscated all of your 0.22 cal rabbit guns
> > down there? What did you think the government would do... award
> > you a million dollar contract? Can you offer any possible commercial
> > applications?
>
> So you apparently see no irony that the NZ government didn't really
> seem to care until it got pressure from the freedom-loving USA? How
> long do you think a project like this would've lasted in the US?
> Amazing as it seems the whole world does not revolve around the 2nd
> amendment.
When you go building weapons technology in your garage shop you have
to be pretty stupid to offer the information on a website to anyone
with a credit card.
Bruce Simpson
You have to be even stupider not to be totally open with such a
project and therefore run the risk of being considered a terrorist.
And why is it stupid to simply make available information, much of
which the government actually makes available from its own websites,
available on the Net.
Check out some of the material available through this page:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/1945-cit.html
and in particular, reports like this one:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-269/
There's enough information in that report to allow any intelligent
person to build the same engine used to power the V1 flying bomb.
I also have URLs that contain very useful details on the V1's flight
control, fuel, airframe, engine and other systems -- certainly enough
to give any would-be terorrist a very nice head-start on such a
project.
If this kind of stuff is already freely avaialble -- hell you can buy
the control system off the shelf at places like
http://www.micropilot.com
I'm sure that terrorists know how to use Google -- so my pubilshing
this information seems rather unimportant and certainly I believe that
the benefits of educating the public significantly outweigh the chance
that I might save some terrorist a mouse-click or two.
Dave Mundt
And as further information....It appears that the FCC
HAS ordered the Cell phone companies to include GPS in the phones,
but, has given them until 2005 to comply. here is a link to
an article or two about this:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12776
http://www.compukiss.com/populartopics/tech_gadgetshtm/article691.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,21781,00.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,55986,00.asp
So....it is in the pipeline, but, until the cost of the
GPS chip drops a bit more I suspect the manufacturers will
be unwilling to add it wholesale.
I have to say that while it sounds great, considering
the current state of affairs in America, I do have some fairly
uncomfortable privacy concerns over it. I would be ok with it
*IF* the consumer could disable it, for example. However,
there is just too much useful info to be gained for it to be
an "always on" thing.
Regards
Dave Mundt
Mark
Bruce Simpson wrote:
> And why is it stupid to simply make available information, much of
> which the government actually makes available from its own websites,
> available on the Net.
Because the Governments not going to bust itself.
Because putting information out there makes the author a target.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
jk
Mine does. AFAIK, after some time soon (like thefirst of the year) all
phones sold in the US are required to have this. HOWEVER you as the
user do not have access to the data, at least in my phone. It is used
to identify your location for 911 calls.
jk
Old Nick
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:
There seem to be many argumnents hare that a CM is not worthwhile.
(1) "not worthwhile" ways have been used before because everyone
ignored them
(2) It illustrates the problem. CMs or other means. It can be done. It
cannot be stopped.
I do not believe the "individualist" (kind definition) view (and
believe me I am an individualist) that terrorism has provided an
excuse for some sort of Govt plot to invade our every orifice for no
reason.
I do believe that the Govt of every participating nation has grabbed
an excuse to make a lot of populartist noise to cover up their other
fuckups. <G>
>"A New Zealand man who built a cruise missile in his garage claims the New Zealand government forced him to shut down his project
>after coming under pressure from the United States."
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm
>
>
**************************************************** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
I was frightened by the idea of a conspricacy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?
Old Nick
<checksi...@l.address> wrote something
Bruce
I believe you started this project with the idea of showing how
ridiculously simple it would be.
I think it's sad that the NZ Govt, wjho _appear_ to have takern a
stance against the US's walking all over everything, have collapsed
under pressure.
>Then news of my cruise missile project hit the world media and the NZ
>government were silly enough to admit that I was breaking no laws in
>building this craft.
Maybe they were caught in their own ingenuousness.And they are
politicos.
>
>However, from the tax-perspective, things suddenly went to hell in a
>handbasket after a US official was quoted as calling the project
>"unhelpful" -- which is diplomatic-speak for "shut it down!"
Shit! Point out the problems with how easy it all is!
>Now as I'm sure most people know, it's bloody hard to fight people who
>are using your own money to pay their legal bills and who are the ones
>who make up the rules under which the game is played.
Anyone heard of City Hall?
>
>The rest, as they say, is history.
>
>Soem other points of note: Earlier this year I received email from an
>Iranian aerospace/missile company which offered to invest US$100K into
>my jet-engine project -- obviously in return for information on that
>project.
>
>Clearly I'm not the kind of guy who'd export technology with military
>application to Iran but I thought I'd check out the official stance on
>such exports. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather when
>the governmetn advised that there would be no problems with such a
>deal and there was nothing illegal about exporting military technology
>to Iran.
>
>The irony is that if I had taken the government's advice and
>sacraficed my own principles, I wouldn't be in the situation I am now
>because that $100K would have paid my tax bill many times over and
>left me with enough to pay off the nortgage.
>
>Unfortunately -- principles and the desire to sleep straight at night
>count
.......or to wake up next day....
>or nothing with governments I fear.
>
>So there you go -- the cruise missile project was an attempt to issue
>a "wake-up" call so as to avoid the chance that terrorists would be
>first to demonstrate the risks. And for my trouble I now face threee
>years of unemployment (I can't be self-employed while bankrupt and
>there are no jobs going around here). It also means my wife and
>family will be stuck here with me living in a "house" (and I use the
>term loosely) that costs US$70 a week to rent -- so you can imagine
>what that's like. It's raining right now and you can't see the floor
>for bowls and buckets I'm afraid.
>
>But hell -- the sun's bound to come out tomorrow :-)
From what I have seen you're a mad bastard (and from the OZ Irish
penal perspective that is NOT bad! <G>), but beaurocracy sucks.
umm...NZ is a place that many thinkers (Arthur C Clarke, Robert
Heinlein) have admired for its humanity and ...sensibleness
(especially since 1958, after I left at the age of 4 <G>)!
Any chance of lobbying / approaching /enlisting the Govt for _support_
in your stance against the comnplexity of terrorism and the
uselessness of trying to stop any _real_ attempt? Greens?
Independents? Mainstream Govt?
Mind you, I live in Oz, where the new "Leader" of the "Opposition",
who, while not the leader, decried Bush as a dangerous, incompetent
maniac, and the Oz Prime Minion as an "arse licking toady" now
suddenly gives a "non-retraction", self-justifying speech _in front of
a US flag_!
Like I said.......politicos.
Fitch R. Williams
>You can count on the cellphone industry stalling it until
>they are confident they can make money off it, so it may
>take awhile. Then stand by for more ads on your cellphone.
I was getting SPAM messages on my cell phone. &*$&^#&^#&* things
would arrive at noon and midnight. The ones at midnight would start
the phone beeping one beep every few minutes. Then I'd have to get
up, put on glasses, turn on lights, and try to see well enough to push
the buttons to delete the damn thing.
I called the phone company last week and asked them to turn off text
messaging on my phone. I had to ask the lady three times, and explain
it to her twice, but she finally agreed. Haven't had any messages
since, so she must have done it.
I wouldn't mind having a GPS in my phone if I could use it and it
didn't make the phone any bigger. But I suspect it would just give it
more ways to fail and suck up battery power, and it wouldn't be as
good as the dedicated GPS units.
Fitch
Fitch R. Williams
>It may be fine to be a martyr, but it is better to be a
>>successful terrorist who lives to terrorize another day.
What does that statement have to do with the current crop of
terrorists?
Near as I can tell, the terrorists organizations arrayed against us
have no shortage of folks who think one way trips to oblivion are just
a fine thing to do. Men, women, boys, girls, sometimes engaging in
simultaneous sacrifices within line of sight. They make tapes to
explain what a wonderful thing it is they are about to do. They have
folks sprinting to make it to a crowd with their load of explosives
while people are shooting at them.
They love for us to think it counts to live to fight another day,
gives them an edge. They have true believers who "want" to die for
their cause waiting in line for the opportunity. Some of them
probably left to go on a mission while I was typing this.
Try thinking like a human missile that is committed heart and soul to
eradicating infidels, doesn't want to survive, believes ending their
life like this is the fulfillment of their soul, and you will see
opportunities you didn't see before. They really think like that.
They make tapes about it. If we don't recognize that, we are more
vulnerable, and we are fools.
Fitch
Eastburn
coverage.
Kinda bad since my rollover is going dump but htat is grand theft to me.
Can't wait for real comm - pictures messages and all... :-)
Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer old...@pacbell.net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
Mark
D.B. wrote:
>
> You can count on the cellphone industry stalling it until
> they are confident they can make money off it, so it may
> take awhile. Then stand by for more ads on your cellphone.
Too late.
I hear there is a proposal to add a fee to phone (or was it only cell)
bills to cover costs of making a locator system for cell phones using 911.
After we pay to have this system put in place what's to stop anyone with
the proper codes from using the system to track movements? Reading about
the FBI and OnStar reinforces my paranoia.
OTOH, it's not paranoia if they really are after you.
jk
>
>After we pay to have this system put in place what's to stop anyone with
>the proper codes from using the system to track movements? Reading about
>the FBI and OnStar reinforces my paranoia.
The cell company can do that now. They can locate you fairly closely
just from knowing what cells you are connecting to. Some cells are
quite small in urban areas.
jk
phil hunt
> And as further information....It appears that the FCC
>HAS ordered the Cell phone companies to include GPS in the phones,
>but, has given them until 2005 to comply.
Oops, I got it wrong.
I must have read that somewhere, and remembereed a garbled version
of it.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <zen2...@zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).
phil hunt
>phil hunt <ph...@invalid.email.address> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:21:29 +1300, Bruce Simpson <checksi...@l.address> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:53:19 +0000, ph...@invalid.email.address (phil
>>>hunt) wrote:
><snip>
>> Another approach would be to try for non-military applications.
>> Here's another: policing. The UK police use helicopters, equipped
>> with infra-red cameras, to make sure people can't escape in car
>> chases, or chases on foot in the dark. Police helicopters are
>> expensive, costing several million pounds or so. They also require
>> lots of fuel, maintenance and trained pilots. A lot of police forces
>> would probably be interested in something that could do the same
>> thing more cheaply.
>
>Err, no.
>
>Police microlights, perhaps, not UAVs with pulsejets.
There's no reason why UAVs have to have pulsejets.
phil hunt
>
>I also have URLs that contain very useful details on the V1's flight
>control, fuel, airframe, engine and other systems -- certainly enough
>to give any would-be terorrist a very nice head-start on such a
>project.
Could you post the ones for flight control? -- I'm interested in how
they managed to do it before computers were available.
Gary Coffman
>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>It may be fine to be a martyr, but it is better to be a
>>>successful terrorist who lives to terrorize another day.
>
>What does that statement have to do with the current crop of
>terrorists?
Actually, I wrote that, not Gunner. Kamikaze tactics *are* being
employed by the current crop of terrorists. But they aren't the
*only* methods being employed. Just because they *can* use
such methods doesn't mean that they *prefer* such methods.
Use of kamikaze methods is typically a move of desperation by
people with no good alternatives. Bruce is showing that there is
an alternative.
>Near as I can tell, the terrorists organizations arrayed against us
>have no shortage of folks who think one way trips to oblivion are just
>a fine thing to do. Men, women, boys, girls, sometimes engaging in
>simultaneous sacrifices within line of sight. They make tapes to
>explain what a wonderful thing it is they are about to do. They have
>folks sprinting to make it to a crowd with their load of explosives
>while people are shooting at them.
>
>They love for us to think it counts to live to fight another day,
>gives them an edge. They have true believers who "want" to die for
>their cause waiting in line for the opportunity. Some of them
>probably left to go on a mission while I was typing this.
>
>Try thinking like a human missile that is committed heart and soul to
>eradicating infidels, doesn't want to survive, believes ending their
>life like this is the fulfillment of their soul, and you will see
>opportunities you didn't see before. They really think like that.
>They make tapes about it. If we don't recognize that, we are more
>vulnerable, and we are fools.
As we are painfully aware, we can't ignore the use of kamikaze tactics.
But equally we can't ignore the idea that terrorists may use more
sophisticated weaponry, especially since Bruce has made it clear that
such weaponry can be relatively inexpensive to produce with relatively
limited facilities.
Suicide bombers have to get physically close to their targets to be
effective. While there are always *some* targets you can attack that
way, well defended targets often require the use of stand off weaponry
to have a reasonable chance of success. The latter are what we're
discussing in this thread.
To effectively use stand off weaponry requires a greater level of skill
than just strapping explosives made by someone else to your body
and pushing the detonator. In other words, religious fervor isn't enough.
People with the required skill to effectively use stand off weaponry
aren't as common as those with just religious fervor. So it makes sense
even to fanatical terrorists to try to preserve those skilled individuals so
they can attack again and again.
The best way to do that is by using stand off techniques which don't
virtually guarantee their deaths or capture as the result of a single attack.
In other words, you're better off using a weapon you can launch from
100 miles away than one which exposes you to immediate detection and
retaliation because it has to be employed relatively near the target.
We also have to be aware that the "current crop" of terrorists aren't
the only enemies we have. Low cost cruise missiles and UAVs change
the equation for all sorts of conflicts. They offer an air power multiplier
that's otherwise beyond the means of most non-governmental groups,
and even many nations.
In other words, they're *lots* cheaper than skilled pilots flying
conventional aircraft on strike or reconnaissance missions. That
wasn't necessarily clear when the only examples of cruise missiles
and UAVs were the multimillion dollar ones produced by US defense
contractors. But we can now see, if we didn't before, that such
expense isn't necessary.
Gary
Greg and April
direction, and a timing set up or a little propeller ( I forget which ) that
measured how far it had gone.
So it basically it flew in certain direction and for a certain amount of
time, then the engine was cut off, it then fell from the sky and the rest as
they say was history.
The V2 was basically the same idea, to begin with.
Greg H.
"phil hunt" <ph...@invalid.email.address> wrote in message
news:slrnbtl8tp...@cabalamat.cabalamat.org...
Mark
Greg and April wrote:
> If I remember right, they used a simple gyroscope set up to control
> direction, and a timing set up or a little propeller ( I forget which ) that
> measured how far it had gone.
The timing was much simpler than that.
They put only so much fuel in it. When the fuel ran out it came down.
Greg and April
a fuel cut off was involved. If it was a matter of just how much fuel was
in the tank, then they would not need the fuel cut off. there is this to
consider, if there was a fuel left, even a gallon, when the engine stopped,
it would add to the destructiveness of the explosive and add to the chance
of possible fire afterwards.
Greg H.
"Mark" <REM_TO_SE...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GqRCb.2014$914...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Bruce Simpson
<gregan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>If I remember right, they used a simple gyroscope set up to control
>direction, and a timing set up or a little propeller ( I forget which ) that
>measured how far it had gone.
>
>So it basically it flew in certain direction and for a certain amount of
>time, then the engine was cut off, it then fell from the sky and the rest as
>they say was history.
>
>The V2 was basically the same idea, to begin with.
Yes, it was a simple gyro-based inertial system with an
slipstream-driven oddometer to determine the distance.
I'll hunt out the links. It's an extraordinarily complex piece of
mechanics -- which can be replaced (thanks to techology) by an
extraordiarily simple set of electronics today.
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>
>
>Greg and April wrote:
>> If I remember right, they used a simple gyroscope set up to control
>> direction, and a timing set up or a little propeller ( I forget which ) that
>> measured how far it had gone.
>
>
>The timing was much simpler than that.
>
>
>They put only so much fuel in it. When the fuel ran out it came down.
Not true. The reason the engine cut out moments before the V1
impacted was because the guidance system would (at the preprogrammed
point) push the craft into a steep dive. This would result in
negative G's being experienced and that caused the fuel to move away
from the fuel-pickup point at the bottom of the tank. As a result,
the engine would stop from fuel starvation.
Lewis Hartswick
>
> If I remember right, they used a simple gyroscope set up to control
> direction, and a timing set up or a little propeller ( I forget which ) that
> measured how far it had gone.
>
> So it basically it flew in certain direction and for a certain amount of
> time, then the engine was cut off, it then fell from the sky and the rest as
> they say was history.
>
> The V2 was basically the same idea, to begin with.
>
> Greg H.
No that was the V1 (Buzz bomb). The V2 was balistic.
...lew...
Mark
Greg and April wrote:
> I'm not totally sure about that, because I'm very sure that I remember that
> a fuel cut off was involved. If it was a matter of just how much fuel was
> in the tank, then they would not need the fuel cut off.
I stand corrected.
http://www.tidetech.com/fighterfactory/buzzbomb.html
A prop tied to a counter, when the counter hit zero it came down.
" When the pre-set counter reached zero .... The air hose from the servo
to the rear elevator was automatically cut, a spring mechanism would
snap down the elevators, and the V1 would descend into a steep dive."
Greg and April
it's ballistic course, the engine ran for a certain amount of time, in a
certain direction. Then after that amount of time, the engine was shut off.
Take a V1 and scale it up so that it could handle a engine from a V2, and
the results are the same
Even the scud, remains under power for a given amount of time depending on
how far it's target is.
The space shuttle is the same way, real fancy navigation, but, if the
engines stop before they are suppose to, the space shuttle is going to act
just like a V1. As it is, the main engines are shut down at a
pre-determined time on it's flight path, and it continues for the most part,
on course for the rest of it's journey. If the V1 had the same power as the
space shuttle, it to could achieve orbit.
Greg H.
"Lewis Hartswick" <lhart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FDC7D0C...@earthlink.net...
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@lightspeed.net> from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>>While that might work, the advantage the DIY cruise missile has over this
>>approach is you'd have a better chance of living to fight another day with
>>the cruise missile than you would with a truck load of mortars or short range
>>unguided rockets. That's because you could launch it well away from the
>>target area in a nice quiet spot where you could set it up and launch it
>>without attracting too much unwanted attention, and be long gone before
>>it reaches the target. It may be fine to be a martyr, but it is better to be a
>
>them in the back of a soft top semi trailer, load them identically, then
>park the truck at a predetermined spot, it could be remotely ripple
>fired even by a cell phone call. If one simply dropped the "landing
>gear", the movement of the trailer would be diminished greatly and as
>each back of tubes fired, dispersion would be limited but would make a
>hell of a mess at the target, particularly if you used a mix of
>warheads...HE, WP, the usual.
>
>The concept used in a civilian setting makes my various orifices slam
>shut in a very high pucker factor. Brrrrrrrrrr
In "Protect & Defend" the author has Anarchists take out #10 Downing Street
with a mortar in a van, using GPS to get the pre sighted mortar positioned
"just right".
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
Åmund Breivik
"Greg and April" <gregan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u0RCb.3117$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> If I remember right, they used a simple gyroscope set up to control
> direction, and a timing set up or a little propeller ( I forget which )
that
> measured how far it had gone.
I believe it was also radio controlled during launch, since the gyro system
was too simple to reliably control the thing at low airspeed and a high
angle of ascent.
--
Aamund Breivik
Jeff
>>If one were to set 80 mortar tubes at the same angle and azimuth,
>>mount them in the back of a soft top semi trailer, load them
>>identically, then park the truck at a predetermined spot, it could be
>>remotely ripple fired even by a cell phone call. If one simply
>>dropped the "landing gear", the movement of the trailer would be
>>diminished greatly and as each back of tubes fired, dispersion would
>>be limited but would make a hell of a mess at the target, particularly
>>if you used a mix of warheads...HE, WP, the usual.
>>
>>The concept used in a civilian setting makes my various orifices slam
>>shut in a very high pucker factor. Brrrrrrrrrr
>
> In "Protect & Defend" the author has Anarchists take out #10
> Downing Street
> with a mortar in a van, using GPS to get the pre sighted mortar
> positioned "just right".
>
Forget fiction;
7 February 1991 IRA attacked 10 Downing Street with a Box
van parked one half mile away, Van roof cut away and van loaded with a
multi ( 16?) barrel mortar, fired by cellphone. Bombs hit rear garden and
wall of the building only one or two exploded. Bombs did blow in all the
windows of the cabinet room, whilst then Prime Minster John Major was
leading a session of the Cabinet.
9 March 1994 IRA Mortar attack on heathrow airport with
two vans parked in Hotel carparks adjacent to Heathrow runway in use for
International Arrivals. Aircraft where landing for several minuites after
the attack with some runway damage and some unexploded shells on the
runway. "several dozen' shells where fired.
IRA was/is good at making mortars out of drain pipe ( often cast iron in
the UK) and used them a lot, usually out of vehicles. .
Gunner
Sounds like their mortars were ok, but their fuzing sucked big time.
Gunner
" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives
phil hunt
How did they get it to fly at the correct altitude? And keep the
wings horizontal?
Gary Coffman
>How did they get it to fly at the correct altitude? And keep the
>wings horizontal?
It had a compressed air powered gyroscopic autopilot to maintain flight
attitude. It also had a gyrocompass to control direction. The autopilot
also had a barometric altimeter. As mentioned, it had a totalizing anemometer
to determine flight distance, ie when to tip over into its final dive. Typically
the engine would flame out at this point due to fuel starvation (fuel pickup
was at the rear of the tank).
Since the V1 had no external navigational references, gyro drift and
the winds aloft would often cause it to miss its target by miles. Bruce's
use of a GPS to provide an external navigational reference eliminates
that problem.
In terms of cheap, the V1 cost $500 to produce. Correcting for inflation,
that's about $5,000 in modern dollarettes. The latter is the target cost
of Bruce's missile.
Gary
Don Foreman
<gash...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gentlemen, this is something that has been nagging in the back of my
>mind for some time. Look around your shop. What could you build with
>the material and equipment you have on hand? Could someone consider it
>dangerous? What chemicals are in your paint cabinet? Toxic? Could
>someone consider them a potential threat?
>
>We all probably have to live with the possibility that an offended
>neighbor complaining to the EPA or zoning commission but what about
>Homeland Security? If some jackasses in Washington can construe those
>fire breathing contraptions that a half crazy Kiwi is building on the
>other side of the Earth is a threat to national security, what would
>they say about what they might construe as the makings for a few dozen
>pipe bombs they would find in your drop box?
>
>This security thing is getting out of hand.
High profile doesn't help. Freedom of speech (and website) doesn't
mean it's a good idea to draw attention to one's ability to make
things like guided missiles.
Ted Edwards
> Glenn Ashmore wrote:
> >This security thing is getting out of hand.
> High profile doesn't help. Freedom of speech (and website) doesn't
> mean it's a good idea to draw attention to one's ability to make
> things like guided missiles.
Even so, if you value your freedom you need to reign in the beaurocrats.
I use a large hypodermic with a blunted needle to drip cutting fluid
when turning or milling. From what I've read, I could be arrested if I
lived in the People's Republic of Kalifornia for possesion of "drug
paraphanailia". It used to be a nice place.
Ted
Jim Stewart
I don't think so. I live in Ca and I can
drive to Fry's and get a bag of syringes
with any size blunt needles no questions
asked, as many as I want.
California is still an ok place. Better
than a couple of states that start with
the letter M at least.
Gerald Miller
I use a 1 ml. syringe without the needle to administer the thrice
daily 0.5ml. dosage of expectorant to our 12 pound tyrant puppy. I'm
glad my vigilante neighbours haven't caught me yet.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada
Eastburn
Don Foreman
wrote:
>
>California is still an ok place. Better
>than a couple of states that start with
>the letter M at least.
CA is indeed an OK place, Care to say which M states you dislike, and
why?
Doug Goncz
> How would you suggest stopping them?
(Giggles)
With a cruise missle? :)
Or maybe a fax campaign?
Yours, (via Google)
Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044
Larry Jaques
<SPAMBLOC...@goldengate.net> brought forth from the murky
depths:
That's an easy one. Most are too far north (brrr!) and too far East.
Hell, UPS wants 10 days to bring a package out here from there.
Others are too far south (can you say "sauna"?)
All are -way- too humid for too long each year.
IYAMHIKT: I was raised in arKansas and grew up in CA.
--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
Jim Stewart
Having lived in Mass for awhile, I'd not want
to go back. Horrible humidity and people
that never smile. The history is great though.
Having known several friends from Mich, I've
always wondered why Ca. always gets the socialist
rap.
As to the others, I can't say. 10 months in
Huntsville, AL, courtesy of the US Army is about
all I know about the deep south, and from what
I've heard, Huntsville isn't a very good example.
Having come from Washington state, Maine actually
seems quite interesting, beings both states are
sort of standoffish from the rest. Seattle
excepted of course.
Well, time to see how many people I've pissed
off.