If a nuke were to be intercepted...

[ribbon13]

Are you trying to say your pffft post and "See, now you just look stupid." posts were more useful to the conversation? At least I'm trying to participate instead of doing nothing but putting other people down. But hey, if you like to play the victim because you were bullied in school as a child and need to stroke your own ego, be my guest.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Ribbon, the truth is that there is no truth to most of that. It is simply a passing fad - natural heath care, that is. It is designed to extract money from the gullible in the name of science; I advise you to steer clear before you spend a fortune on herbs only to find out they won't cure your appendicitis or whatever. There's just no alternative to actually going to a real doctor.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Ribbon, the truth is that there is no truth to most of that. It is simply a passing fad - natural heath care, that is. It is designed to extract money from the gullible in the name of science; I advise you to steer clear before you spend a fortune on herbs only to find out they won't cure your appendicitis or whatever. There's just no alternative to actually going to a real doctor.

From one of those links provided:
"Dr. Day rejected standard therapies because of their destructive side effects and chose instead to rebuild her immune system using natural, simple inexpensive therapies designed by God and available to everyone, so her body could heal itself. She is now cancer free."

That stuff gets me - therapies designed by God, to treat diseases designed by God.


It is good to know that these weapons aren't dangerous, at least in explosive capacity, until fully armed. That site that shows the various mishaps involving incredibly deadly weapons is both comforting and terrifying at the same time. You drop a bomb containing plutonium - ok, it doesn't explode. But it's still plutonium, quite probably the most toxic substance ever created.

Scientific American did an article on missile defense systems, and how infeasible they are - and how easy to spoof they can be. Using heat-seeking interceptors? Fine, the incoming nuke can be equipped with magnesium flares, or something like that, to confuse the interceptor's targeting systems. Radar-guided interceptors? Something as simple as chaff can confuse them. Camera-guided? The technology doesn't exist yet to make something that advanced. Heck, the Mars Rovers are pretty advanced, able to drive themselves. But they move at about 5cm per second. And when they are in self-guide mode, they move about 5 meters, forget where they are to save memory space, re-analyze their surroundings, and then move another 5 meters. They can't even move and analyze at the same time. Try that on a missile moving at a few thousand miles per hour.

 

[roguerower]

Sry, got my books mixed up. I say we build a huge wall around our country. That'll protect us

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Ribbon, the truth is that there is no truth to most of that. It is simply a passing fad - natural heath care, that is. It is designed to extract money from the gullible in the name of science; I advise you to steer clear before you spend a fortune on herbs only to find out they won't cure your appendicitis or whatever. There's just no alternative to actually going to a real doctor.

Sorry... did you just say two highly respected doctors and something off of MEDLINE published by Duke University are untruthful in the same sentence as I should go to a doctor? And the Xylitol stuff is very true also... by case studie by the doctors you so hail.... -> Turku Sugar studies

http://www.xylitol.net/english/decades.htm


:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Are you trying to say your pffft post and "See, now you just look stupid." posts were more useful to the conversation? At least I'm trying to participate instead of doing nothing but putting other people down. But hey, if you like to play the victim because you were bullied in school as a child and need to stroke your own ego, be my guest.

Saying something stupid doesn't mean your posts were useful. They were moronic.

 

[ribbon13]

From warheads to fallout to radiation to cancer worries to health info to moronic flames.

"a ball of uranium is wrapped in a set of shaped charges (charges that shaped to explode with the bulk of their force going one certain direction) that will compress the ball of uranium to something the size of a pencil erasor" That's what I meant by sub explosions.

"She is now cancer free." Ahh... anyways...

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: ribbon13

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...ubMed&list_uids=12106620&dopt=Abstract

I suggest you read up on the primary literature you cite. Here's a nice follow-up evaluating that study. Its quite funny since the article you quoted can only state that weightloss was correlated to the diet, and not caused by the diet.

American Journal of Medicine
Volume 114 ? Number 1 ? January 1, 2003
Copyright © 2003 Excerpta Medica

Correspondence

Caloric intake, not carbohydrate or fat consumption, determines weight loss


Richard M. Fleming, MD a a The Camelot Foundation
Omaha, Nebraska, USA
PII S0002-9343(02)01312-8

To the Editor:

I was delighted to read the publication by Westman et al. in the July 2002 issue of the Journal [1] . Their findings confirm that which I had previously reported [2] [3] [4] , including the little effect of a very low carbohydrate diet on body weight or fat mass after 2 to 3 months on the diet. Although the diet was truly a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (comprising 23 g of carbohydrates, or 6.4% of the calories on an average diet of 1447 kcal/d; and 98 g of fat, or 882 calories, which is 61% of the total caloric intake for the day), it is the reduction in total caloric intake that is responsible for weight loss. Because the average caloric intake reported in the study was 1447 kcal/d (reference, 801 to 2322 kcal/d) and the estimated caloric intake entering the study was 1905 kcal/d (an estimate that I consider relatively accurate since the mean entry weight of subjects enrolled in the study was 191 ± 24 lbs), then the caloric deficit was 400 to 450 calories per day, which would result in 0.8 to 0.9 lbs of weight lost per week, regardless of fat intake. On further review, the authors reported a 10.3% (19.7 lbs) weight loss during the 6 months, meaning that subjects lost the expected weight per week predicted by their reduction in caloric intake. My research has shown that the reduction in caloric intake is the primary determinant of weight loss, independent of the percentage of calories consumed as protein, carbohydrate, or fat.

The reductions in lipid levels were of interest, because they reflect a minor decrease in total cholesterol levels from 214 ± 35 mg/dL to 203 ± 36 mg/dL (in most participants), and in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels from 136 ± 32 mg/dL to 126 ± 34 mg/dL. Although the raw data were not presented, it is clear that the total cholesterol level fell by an average of only 11 mg/dL, while the LDL cholesterol level dropped by an average of only 10 mg/dL. The majority of any perceived benefit occurred during the first 3 months, which is also consistent with what I have reported [4] . Furthermore, only 1 subject had a cholesterol level <195 mg/dL while following the prescribed low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. As I have also shown [4] , any initial improvement in serum lipid levels for subjects following high-fat diets later disappeared as subjects remained on the diet. This is in contrast to the effect seen when subjects followed caloric restriction and either low- or moderate-fat diets. These subjects not only showed weight reduction, but also persistent reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors as well as lipid levels [2] [3] [4] .

The results of the study by Westman et al. confirm my earlier findings that reduction in total caloric content is the key to weight reduction and subsequent control, and that the effect of either high-fat or highly refined carbohydrate diets can blunt the potential benefits obtained with caloric restriction.
References

1. Westman E.C., Yancy W.S., Edman J.S., et al. Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program. Am J Med 2002;113:30-6. Full Text
2. Fleming R.M.. Reversing heart disease in the new millennium?the Fleming Unified Theory. Angiology 2000;51:617-29. Abstract
3. Fleming R.M.. The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow. Angiology 2000;51:817-26. Abstract
4. Fleming R.M.. The effect of high-, moderate-, and low-fat diets on weight loss and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Prev Cardiol 2002;5:110-8.

 

[roguerower]

How did we get to debating about doctors. Last time I checked we were talking about destroying a warhead. Did I miss something?

 

[intogamer]

:Q

 

[WiseOldDude]

if the warhead lands intact, then no fall out, highly unlikely. the warhead consists of a good deal of high explosive, and we are shooting it down with what, explsoive. DIRTY BOMB is the result, no nuclear detonation, but nuclear material finely scattered by the effective of high explosives. where it happens, wind and all that stuff will factor in, but yes, it will contanimate air, sea, cities, countryside, and people will eventually die as a result.

 

[Toastedlightly]

WiseOldDude has what I think it would be. If it were any sort (fission or fusion) that if you could destroy the explosives that trigger the explosion it would scatter radiation, but not detonate.

 

[roguerower]

Amen

 

[nick128]

Originally posted by: roguerower
Sry, got my books mixed up. I say we build a huge wall around our country. That'll protect us

Nobody's done it yet, but i love how whenever somebody brings up building a wall everybody points to the wall of china and declares it a failure, except it DID keep out the mongolians for a while. i say we just get rid of our nukes...by using them...on...every...one....must....keep....hand...from...button...

 

[ender11122]

well, just my 2cents

1. We cannot actaully even catch a MIRV with conventional missles. They are just going TOOO fast.

2. We would have to use lasers, EMP, whatever travels at the speed of light to hit them. Yes, we probably have the technology to acccurately hit one. No, we do not have the technology with which to hit it.

 

[nick128]

Originally posted by: ender11122
well, just my 2cents

1. We cannot actaully even catch a MIRV with conventional missles. They are just going TOOO fast.

2. We would have to use lasers, EMP, whatever travels at the speed of light to hit them. Yes, we probably have the technology to acccurately hit one. No, we do not have the technology with which to hit it.

I disagree...those things are horribly, horrible fragile. This is a very bad analogy, but they're very similar to teh space shuttle. just like you said, they are going sooooooo fast that a BB hitting them would have an effect like a mack truck hitting a bicycler. if htey hit things more solid than air they're toast. It's not a matter of hitting them like a rifle vs deer, better to look at it from a shotgun vs bird point of view. It won't take much, and you can fire a shitload more projectiles at the same time.

The Clancy books were on the right track, it woudln't be hard to reprogram an Aegis system or similar radar-intercept setup, and program the missles to explode and fragment a set distance and time in front of the ICBMs. The problem they had in the fiction story is that he didn't take that into account and the missles were exploding behind the MIRVs. do your calculus right and the computers are fully capable, hell, ones that are 10 years old are capable of doing the math necessary. it's just a matter of plotting where the missle is going, where the MIRV is going, how fast each is going, and where they're going to meet, then having the missle detonate at a distance directly proportional to the MIRV and create a dense cloud of debris for it to fly through. think of it as a "train 1 leaves the station traveling west at 55MPH, train 2 leaves traveling east at...train one explodes and kills all onboard train 2..."

 

[ender11122]

Ok, thats possible nick.

Does anyone know the actual time that we would probably have from when the missle was detected till it detonated. I am saying, with lasers, EMP, ect. you dont have to take into account the travel time of the interceptor. I am thinking that by the time we detect the missle, it will be to late for the interceptor to catch up.

 

[f95toli]

I suggest you look at the link in my last post.
Or, look here for a slightly shorter article saying basically the same thing.

 

[RelaxTheMind]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I think your quip serves no purpose. Rendundancy is good in servers, not in context, you twit.

LOL!!! almost good enough for a sig quote.

Anyone remember the reagan presidency and how our national debt went into the trillions?

big ORBITING LASERS!!! to shoot down incoming missles. what ever did happen to that thing and why its quickly dismissed when anyone brings it up?

I vaguely remember hearing it about it when i was younger.... or am i wrong.

 

[ender11122]

You would be surprised by the evolution of laser technology since the Reagan administration. Call my suggestion infantile but you can research conventional missles and such all you want, but you will never be able to catch up to an MIRV before it turns YOU into nuclear fallout.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: RelaxTheMind

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I think your quip serves no purpose. Rendundancy is good in servers, not in context, you twit.

LOL!!! almost good enough for a sig quote.

Anyone remember the reagan presidency and how our national debt went into the trillions?

big ORBITING LASERS!!! to shoot down incoming missles. what ever did happen to that thing and why its quickly dismissed when anyone brings it up?

I vaguely remember hearing it about it when i was younger.... or am i wrong.

They were TALKING about it, but they had no clue how to actually build such a thing. Today airborne lasers have a range of about 300 km which is way too short, and the laser is extremely heavy (I think they use a 747 or something similar as a platform). You could of course put such a thing into orbit, but you would need something like 1000 satellites in order for it to be efficient.

You need to remember that what was discussed 20 years ago was a product of the cold war, a system that could shoot down 60-70% of all incoming missiles launched from the Soviet Union in the event of WWIII that would have been considered good (that would still have meant that hundreds of warheads would have reached their goals).

Shooting down a single misslile launched from a "terrorist-nation" without warning is much. much harder.

 

[JTWill]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: RelaxTheMind

Originally posted by: ribbon13
I think your quip serves no purpose. Rendundancy is good in servers, not in context, you twit.

LOL!!! almost good enough for a sig quote.

Anyone remember the reagan presidency and how our national debt went into the trillions?

big ORBITING LASERS!!! to shoot down incoming missles. what ever did happen to that thing and why its quickly dismissed when anyone brings it up?

I vaguely remember hearing it about it when i was younger.... or am i wrong.

They were TALKING about it, but they had no clue how to actually build such a thing. Today airborne lasers have a range of about 300 km which is way too short, and the laser is extremely heavy (I think they use a 747 or something similar as a platform). You could of course put such a thing into orbit, but you would need something like 1000 satellites in order for it to be efficient.

You need to remember that what was discussed 20 years ago was a product of the cold war, a system that could shoot down 60-70% of all incoming missiles launched from the Soviet Union in the event of WWIII that would have been considered good (that would still have meant that hundreds of warheads would have reached their goals).

Shooting down a single misslile launched from a "terrorist-nation" without warning is much. much harder.

You have it backwards on the terrorist nation, the same detection systems we use for Russia and China will pick up a terrorist weapon and one is always easier to intercept than a hundred.
No device on a ballistic launch can get near this nation without being picked up.A missle is a machine that can be destroyed and there are many methods to do it, some are public some are maintained under high security. Review how many shuttle missions carried classified packages into space. No terrorist device will have the speed and guidance that one built by a nation state. We need to watch for them attempting to bring one in , and there are methods to track those devices.

 

[f95toli]

I think you should read one of the artictles I linked to.

The main problem is that shooting down 60-70% of all incoming missiles is a good number if we are talking about defence during WWIIII, after all it would save the life of millions of people (even if 30-40% of all missiles hit their target. killing millions of people).
But 60% is probably not good enough if we are talking about an act of terrorism and a single missile on its way to a major city.

About "classified packages": My guess is that 99% are spy satellites, the space shuttle is simply not big enough to carry any laser-based anti-ICBM system (not to mention the fact that such a satellite would be so big that it would be easy to spot from earth), and you would need about 500-1000 launches to deploy a missile based system (and again it would be easy to spot, it is difficult to hide things in space).

 

[nick128]

Originally posted by: ender11122
Ok, thats possible nick.

Does anyone know the actual time that we would probably have from when the missle was detected till it detonated. I am saying, with lasers, EMP, ect. you dont have to take into account the travel time of the interceptor. I am thinking that by the time we detect the missle, it will be to late for the interceptor to catch up.

NORAD can monitor any ICBM launch in the world, they woudl be detected. After detection, you're looking at probably 10 minutes, maybe less of travel time. Your margin for error would be horribly small, but computers aren't known for making mistakes only the programmers...(lets just set aside microsoft for the moment...).

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well they can monitor but what would we use to shoot them down. IIRC didn't one of the presidents look into lasers to shoot down oncoming targets. Is that possible.

-Kevin