• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

Page 224 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
From my understanding that would be difficult to do as that’s not where the crime was committed.
Click to expand...
I remember it being discussed back then, but I thought most people thought it could've been an either or. But Jack Smith likely picked southern Florida to avoid the delay from a change of venue motion. But Judge Cannon is going make sure it's delayed far more than that would have.
 
I think the fear is that some states might keep candidates off the ballot for unreasonable reasons. While those work though the courts it could be overcome by events. Ideally the SC would come out say if Trump if fit to hold office and it would apply nationwide but they can't rule they way they want without looking like fools.
 
When the courts become corrupted only the two other branches together can fix things. When the election process becomes corrupted such that the majority party can’t win elections we wind up with the tyranny of the minority. We have a department of Justice where republicans investigate both Democrats and Republicans accused of crimes. How is that working out. We had 5 SC justices, Comey, Hur, Mueller, and Trump, fuck over the country. We have Cannon now in Florida.

The media has its eye on profit. Keep the game interesting. Cover both sides as if nothing really matters. It’s all just a game to which it can sell tickets. We walk backward off a cliff.
 
fskimospy said:
From my understanding that would be difficult to do as that’s not where the crime was committed.
Click to expand...
Actually the crime was committed in DC, where the papers were stolen. I haven't read the particular statutes involved but I'm guessing they give the government the choice where to bring the action-where the defendant lives or where the crime occured.
 
Thump553 said:
Actually the crime was committed in DC, where the papers were stolen. I haven't read the particular statutes involved but I'm guessing they give the government the choice where to bring the action-where the defendant lives or where the crime occured.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking it has to be where the crime occurred. (Like if you live in Oklahoma and shoot someone in NYC they don’t try you in Oklahoma.)

The crime isn’t actually the removal, as removals happen all the time, it is the WILLFUL and unauthorized retention of those documents. It could be very difficult to prove Trump knew they were being removed in DC (even though we all know he did). It’s not at all hard to prove for Florida.
 
hal2kilo said:
This is why this man should not have been anywhere near the White House and why he can't be there again.

www.salon.com

National security lawyers alarmed by Fox News town hall: Did Trump just “disclose classified info?”

Experts think Trump potentially revealed "classified information about our nuclear weapons arsenal on live TV.”
www.salon.com www.salon.com
Click to expand...
Meh, Czar Bomba wouldn't have the effect Trump alludes to. It is possible to build a bomb powerful enough to have effects from NYC to South Carolina as there is no theoretical limit on the size of an H-bomb. But it would be very large and very, very heavy. One would likely have to assemble it in place.
 
IronWing said:
Meh, Czar Bomba wouldn't have the effect Trump alludes to. It is possible to build a bomb powerful enough to have effects from NYC to South Carolina as there is no theoretical limit on the size of an H-bomb. But it would be very large and very, very heavy. One would likely have to assemble it in place.
Click to expand...
Yields are just a forbidden subject. If you ever been around a weapons nuke, they say nothing about nothing.
 
“These people, everybody in this room is in great danger right now,” he said. “We have a nuclear weapon that if you hit New York, South Carolina is going to be gone too. I worry about their safety. I think it’s the reason I’m doing this.”

Sounds made up to me. The B83 is the largest bomb we have at present at 1,200 kilotons. Dropped on New York is not going to wipe out South Carolina.

nuclearsecrecy.com

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.
nuclearsecrecy.com nuclearsecrecy.com
 
pcgeek11 said:
“These people, everybody in this room is in great danger right now,” he said. “We have a nuclear weapon that if you hit New York, South Carolina is going to be gone too. I worry about their safety. I think it’s the reason I’m doing this.”

Sounds made up to me. The B83 is the largest bomb we have at present at 1,200 kilotons. Dropped on New York is not going to wipe out South Carolina.

nuclearsecrecy.com

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.
nuclearsecrecy.com nuclearsecrecy.com
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, it’s not made up and we do indeed have a weapon that’s capable of that.
 
IronWing said:
The U.S. has released approximate yields for the most common weapons in the arsenal, keeping in mind that some of these weapons have tunable yields and may be set to a higher/lower yield depending on target.

en.wikipedia.org

Nuclear weapon yield - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Only because they've mostly been tested in open atmosphere and the yield can at least be guesstimated based on observable results. Even underground tests were subject to this.

Now, there is currently a program in place to test the packages without an actual explosion taking place. Who knows what those have done ...
 
And to add, there's no way to be sure that Mango Mussolini was talking about our capabilities either. His syphilis addled brain makes it hard to tell exactly what it is he's talking about.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Something that large would have to assembled in place. It would be huge.
Click to expand...

Plutonium is much lighter than Uranium and you need a fraction of it to give the same output.

You're saying even with Plutonium it'd be bigger than anything all our planes could carry?

Or maybe even a Saturn V rocket?
 
Without knowing much of this story is he possibly speaking of the nuclear cluster bomb things? I forgot their name but it’s something like one rocket multiple warheads that spread out over an area.
 
Indus said:
Plutonium is much lighter than Uranium and you need a fraction of it to give the same output.

You're saying even with Plutonium it'd be bigger than anything all our planes could carry?

Or maybe even a Saturn V rocket?
Click to expand...

Most of the weight is not the plutonium or the uranium. It is primarily in the high explosives.

The B83 currently the largest bomb we have is 2,400 pounds, 12 feet long and 18 inches in diameter.

This is the blast map for a B83 over New York:

1708719308369.png
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Without knowing much of this story is he possibly speaking of the nuclear cluster bomb things? I forgot their name but it’s something like one rocket multiple warheads that spread out over an area.
Click to expand...

What you are describing sounds like a ICBM Missile with MIRV (Multiple Independently targeted Reentry Vehicles) capabilities. We have lots of those, but the warheads have to be smaller in order to have them delivered by one missile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top