Discussion:
Buy a full tube amp !
(too old to reply)
'nuther Bob
2003-07-29 16:48:48 UTC
Permalink
It's not the sound you get, but when you'll get it.

I just found out from one of my military engineer type friends
that vacuum tubes are not affected by the massive wave of EMR
generated when a nuke goes off. So, buy a full tube amp, a small
generator powered by an old point type ignition, and you'll
be rocking your way through nuclear winter. Let guys like
N. Korea send us a few, we'll still be rockin.

You can stop me (Korea), but you'll never stop rock and roll !

Bob
Richard
2003-07-29 16:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by 'nuther Bob
It's not the sound you get, but when you'll get it.
I just found out from one of my military engineer type friends
that vacuum tubes are not affected by the massive wave of EMR
generated when a nuke goes off. So, buy a full tube amp, a small
generator powered by an old point type ignition, and you'll
be rocking your way through nuclear winter. Let guys like
N. Korea send us a few, we'll still be rockin.
You can stop me (Korea), but you'll never stop rock and roll !
There's a song in there someplace.
--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><
Michael Lyons
2003-07-29 18:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by 'nuther Bob
It's not the sound you get, but when you'll get it.
I just found out from one of my military engineer type friends
that vacuum tubes are not affected by the massive wave of EMR
generated when a nuke goes off. So, buy a full tube amp, a small
generator powered by an old point type ignition, and you'll
be rocking your way through nuclear winter. Let guys like
N. Korea send us a few, we'll still be rockin.
You can stop me (Korea), but you'll never stop rock and roll !
There's a song in there someplace.
I knew there had to be some reason why almost universally the advice I have
been getting is to go with a tube amp. That really clears things up.

Of course, playing through one last night and hearing the difference for
myself did a lot to clear things up too... ;-)

Michael
Jack A. Zucker
2003-07-29 20:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Come on guys...Why do you think Russia is the biggest manufacturer and
exporter of vacuum tubes?!? Their air traffic equipment relies heavily
on vacuum tubes for just those very reasons. Also the chinese and the
russians make use of vacuum tubes in many of their "sophisticated"
warplanes...
Richard
2003-07-29 21:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack A. Zucker
Come on guys...Why do you think Russia is the biggest manufacturer and
exporter of vacuum tubes?!? Their air traffic equipment relies heavily
on vacuum tubes for just those very reasons. Also the chinese and the
russians make use of vacuum tubes in many of their "sophisticated"
warplanes...
I wouldn't laugh at the MiGs. I recall back around 1990 a lot of
Western aeronautical engineers being surprised to see, at an air show
in Paris, a Russian MiG pilot lean the nose of his jet so far back it
was behind the tail--and then recover from that position and keep
flying. He wasn't doing a climb, either. The pilot had his MiG
flying upside down and tail-first before putting it nose first again
and continuing the demo.

I don't know what tubes the Russians put in that aircraft, but maybe
I oughta pick up a matched set.

OTOH, given Russian manufacturing tolerances, maybe that wasn't
exactly a planned manuver...
--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><
aghasee
2003-08-01 15:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by Jack A. Zucker
Come on guys...Why do you think Russia is the biggest manufacturer and
exporter of vacuum tubes?!? Their air traffic equipment relies heavily
on vacuum tubes for just those very reasons. Also the chinese and the
russians make use of vacuum tubes in many of their "sophisticated"
warplanes...
I wouldn't laugh at the MiGs. I recall back around 1990 a lot of
Western aeronautical engineers being surprised to see, at an air show
in Paris, a Russian MiG pilot lean the nose of his jet so far back it
was behind the tail--and then recover from that position and keep
flying. He wasn't doing a climb, either. The pilot had his MiG
flying upside down and tail-first before putting it nose first again
and continuing the demo.
It was not a MiG, it was a Sukhoi Su-27 IIRC.
Post by Richard
I don't know what tubes the Russians put in that aircraft, but maybe
I oughta pick up a matched set.
OTOH, given Russian manufacturing tolerances, maybe that wasn't
exactly a planned manuver...
It was very much planned. Later at Farnborough '96 they did even better with
their Su-37; a full somersault, whithout losing height.

Those Sukhoi's, despite Russian manufacturing tolerances, outmanoeuvre ANY
European- or US built aircraft and will keep doing so for considerable time.
--
Prosper
-A collision at sea can ruin your entire day-

(E-mail address is forged - reply to group please)
Richard
2003-08-01 15:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by aghasee
Post by Richard
Post by Jack A. Zucker
Come on guys...Why do you think Russia is the biggest manufacturer and
exporter of vacuum tubes?!? Their air traffic equipment relies heavily
on vacuum tubes for just those very reasons. Also the chinese and the
russians make use of vacuum tubes in many of their "sophisticated"
warplanes...
I wouldn't laugh at the MiGs. I recall back around 1990 a lot of
Western aeronautical engineers being surprised to see, at an air show
in Paris, a Russian MiG pilot lean the nose of his jet so far back it
was behind the tail--and then recover from that position and keep
flying. He wasn't doing a climb, either. The pilot had his MiG
flying upside down and tail-first before putting it nose first again
and continuing the demo.
It was not a MiG, it was a Sukhoi Su-27 IIRC.
Fair enough. It was Russian, anyway. :)
Post by aghasee
Post by Richard
I don't know what tubes the Russians put in that aircraft, but maybe
I oughta pick up a matched set.
OTOH, given Russian manufacturing tolerances, maybe that wasn't
exactly a planned manuver...
It was very much planned. Later at Farnborough '96 they did even better with
their Su-37; a full somersault, whithout losing height.
This I did not know. That's amazing.
Post by aghasee
Those Sukhoi's, despite Russian manufacturing tolerances, outmanoeuvre ANY
European- or US built aircraft and will keep doing so for considerable time.
Yeah, the US military wags at the time were all saying, "That stunt
isn't any good in a dogfight," but they were impressed.
--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><
aghasee
2003-08-01 16:27:50 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Richard
Post by aghasee
Those Sukhoi's, despite Russian manufacturing tolerances, outmanoeuvre ANY
European- or US built aircraft and will keep doing so for considerable time.
Yeah, the US military wags at the time were all saying, "That stunt
isn't any good in a dogfight," but they were impressed.
Yeah, right. That'll be the reason then why western designers are
frantically trying to get their version of the Thrust Vector Control to work
properly. Just because it's no good in a dogfight.
Same reason why the US bought the British-designed Harrier jet. Another
design that was -according to the US military wags- "of no practical use" or
"only used for airshows".
Same thing for the multi-stage rocket engines some US engineer quite
recently found in a shed somewhere in Siberia. The Russians quit using them
for about 20 years and should have been destroyed. The guy responsible for
the site couldn't get that into his head and hid them for the authorities.
Now the US is using those very same rocket engine designs. Strange ;-)
--
Pros
-Just make sure you leave before the SWAT team
gets there. Don't ask me how I know.-

(E-mail address is forged - reply to group please)
David and/or Rena Covell
2003-07-29 21:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack A. Zucker
Come on guys...Why do you think Russia is the biggest
manufacturer and
Post by Jack A. Zucker
exporter of vacuum tubes?!? Their air traffic equipment relies
heavily
Post by Jack A. Zucker
on vacuum tubes for just those very reasons. Also the chinese
and the
Post by Jack A. Zucker
russians make use of vacuum tubes in many of their
"sophisticated"
Post by Jack A. Zucker
warplanes...
I'm skeptical about the success of an EMP attack using air-burst
nukes. Yes, it's possible that being within 5 miles of a
multimegaton air-burst might fry digital components, but if
you're that close, you'll probably have other things to worry
about. The proposed scenario of taking out our air-defense
capabilty with high-altitude nuclear detonations is pure,
untested theory. I don't buy it. Having worked in CPU design
at Intel for 11 years, I have a healthy respect for the ability
of IC's to tolerate momentary EM pulses. Our modern environment
has many sources of EM, and good circuit design provides a
measure of immunity from it. Certainly a large EMP could induce
glitches, but I don't accept that an atmospheric nuke would fry
chips at a reasonable distance. I maintain that an an aggressor
would get a lot more bang for his megatonic buck by targeting
the right ground installations and facilities, which requires
precision delivery. The russians scared a lot of us during the
cold war by testing a 100-megaton H-bomb, altered to yield only
50 megatons to avoid destroying the delivering bomber. Not
militarily practical, since it weighed 27 tons and could not be
delivered by missile. Nonetheless, I remember very well the
feeling of "oh shit" when I saw it on the news. I don't
remember the capacity of a russian "Bear" bomber, but if it
could have delivered a 27-ton nuke we would have had one hell of
a liability. You don't need a lot of accuracy with something
that nasty. 100 meg at 4000' over NYC or DC could ruin a lot of
peoples' day.

Fortunately this monster was built for bragging rights.
However, a small number of them were built and deployed for air
drop by Tu-95 bombers. They also deployed a fair number of
25-meg warheads. Scary stuff, regardless of practicallity. A
25-meg air burst is estimated to have a 95% kill rate within a
6-mile radius, and a 50% rate within about a 10 mile radius.
Folks in NYC were understandably nervous.

I remember the duck-and-cover drills at school, and the
make-shift bomb-shelters we were encouraged to build at home.
This was the era when a civil-defense siren was taken seriously,
and they were tested every day at noon like clockwork; we set
our watches by the sound. Between the government and the media,
we were conditioned to expect death from the skies at any
moment, and possibly with no warning. Strange days, those early
'60's. If you want to get a feeling for how it was in those
days, rent the video "Fail Safe". This movie scared the crap
out of a lot of people.
Richard
2003-07-29 22:42:04 UTC
Permalink
100 meg at 4000' over NYC or DC could ruin a lot of peoples' day.
NYC and DC. NYC and DC. It's always NYC and DC. Everybody from
Godzilla to Osama bin Laden has taken their shots at NYC and DC over
the past 40 years, and I for one think it's high time that the
Midwest and West Coast starting carrying their fair share of the
destruction.
Folks in NYC were understandably nervous.
See what I mean? Point them destructo-memes someplace else, bub.
I remember the duck-and-cover drills at school, and the
make-shift bomb-shelters we were encouraged to build at home.
This was the era when a civil-defense siren was taken seriously,
and they were tested every day at noon like clockwork; we set
our watches by the sound. Between the government and the media,
we were conditioned to expect death from the skies at any
moment, and possibly with no warning.
No wonder we of that generation are so cavalier about the future. On
the whole, not much money in savings, not much retirement planning,
etc.

I see a day coming when there are 1,000 senior citizens competing for
each entry-level french fryer job at McDonalds, 'cause few of us will
be able to afford retirement. We can blame it all on that damned "If
you see a bright flash, kiss your butt good-bye" in 60s grade school.
Strange days, those early
'60's. If you want to get a feeling for how it was in those
days, rent the video "Fail Safe". This movie scared the crap
out of a lot of people.
I've got it on DVD. It's still a brilliant movie, IMO.
--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><
David and/or Rena Covell
2003-07-30 13:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Remember you used to hear on the TV news about Strategic Air
Command
exercises being conducted every once in a whle on the news.
The last
that was heard was about 15 years ago or so. I guess they
finally
figured they had it down to a science and didn't need to
practice
anymore
I didn't need TV to know about these exercises; I lived within
the kill radius of major SAC bases from '61-92. As if the
knowledge that these bases were prime targets for first-strike
nukes weren't enough, the sound of B-52's taking off (amazingly
loud suckers) would always get my attention. During the 60's
and 70's, many of these BUFFs made their training flights with
live nukes on board. When we lost a bomber and 4 high-yield
H-bombs over Spain and the Med in '66, those loaded B-52's got a
lot more attention. Suddenly nobody wanted to be in the flight
paths. I had little choice; I lived in base housing on several
SAC bases, within 1-2 miles of the airfields. Standard soviet
tactics called for ICBM and sub-launched first strikes against
SAC bases to catch the bombers on the ground using multi-meg air
bursts. Everybody living on base had full knowledge of our
chances if the soviets decided to roll the dice.
Teddy Salad
2003-07-30 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
Remember you used to hear on the TV news about Strategic Air
Command
exercises being conducted every once in a whle on the news.
The last
that was heard was about 15 years ago or so. I guess they
finally
figured they had it down to a science and didn't need to
practice
anymore
I didn't need TV to know about these exercises; I lived within
the kill radius of major SAC bases from '61-92. As if the
knowledge that these bases were prime targets for first-strike
nukes weren't enough, the sound of B-52's taking off (amazingly
loud suckers) would always get my attention.
Nothing like a little water injected takeoff that's loud enough to
wake the dead to help you focus. I swear I lost more hearing on the
flight line than I ever did on stage.
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
During the 60's and 70's, many of these BUFFs made their training flights with
live nukes on board.
I was in SAC, worked on B-52 avionics from '71 to '76, but I don't
recall stateside training flights being armed except for the occasional
run to the gunnery range. I'm not saying you're wrong, David, I just
don't remember it. Could have happened before my time.

Of course, sometimes they'd scramble the alert aircraft (the one's
sitting at the ready armed with nukes) and pretend there was a war
going on. That didn't happen very often, though.
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
When we lost a bomber and 4 high-yield
H-bombs over Spain and the Med in '66, those loaded B-52's got a
lot more attention. Suddenly nobody wanted to be in the flight
paths. I had little choice; I lived in base housing on several
SAC bases, within 1-2 miles of the airfields.
Hell, I remember a B-52 losing a tip tank over a field full of cows in
Louisiana. The farmer was some kind of pissed off. Bombs ain't the only
thing that fell off them things.
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
Standard soviet
tactics called for ICBM and sub-launched first strikes against
SAC bases to catch the bombers on the ground using multi-meg air
bursts. Everybody living on base had full knowledge of our
chances if the soviets decided to roll the dice.
Absolutely. Everybody knew the score.

ts
--
toneguru_uk-at-yahoo-dot-com
Les Cargill
2003-07-30 14:55:01 UTC
Permalink
David and/or Rena Covell wrote:
<snip>
Got that right. The odd thing is that during the worst of it,
the early 60's, the government publicly maintained that we could
win and survive an all-out nuke exchange. Yeah right. The
duck/cover drills in grade school had us hiding under flimsy
school desks, as though that would offer much protection in an
era when most public schools were multistory brick buildings
guaranteed to entomb every occupant in the event of collapse.
At the time, I had access to a gentleman who was a PhD
candiate and Air Force officer. I point blank asked him,
and he said "no, nobody would survive, but it's really
important that people think they can". This was not
early '60s, but still...
The two things I remember most clearly from those days (I was 10
YO in '63) are the widespread fear that the russkies would
immediately nuke us after Kennedy was assassinated, and my
coming to the realization that our government was lying to us
about our chances of long-term survival of an all-out exchange.
It beat the snot out of reinventing the Battle of Leningrad in,
say L.A., or even Berlin.
I came to the conclusion, which I still hold today, that if
things come to that point I'd want to be as close to ground zero
as possible. Then, as now, I have no interest in becoming a
survivalist and witnessing the horror that would follow such a
scenario.
I dunno. If I could become a sufficiently interesting mutant,
might be fun, y'know?

--
Les Cargill
Odin
2003-07-30 15:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Got that right. The odd thing is that during the worst of
it,
the early 60's, the government publicly maintained that we
could
win and survive an all-out nuke exchange. Yeah right.
The
duck/cover drills in grade school had us hiding under
flimsy
school desks, as though that would offer much protection
in an
era when most public schools were multistory brick
buildings
guaranteed to entomb every occupant in the event of
collapse.
The two things I remember most clearly from those days (I
was 10
YO in '63) are the widespread fear that the russkies would
immediately nuke us after Kennedy was assassinated, and my
coming to the realization that our government was lying to
us
about our chances of long-term survival of an all-out
exchange.
I came to the conclusion, which I still hold today, that
if
things come to that point I'd want to be as close to
ground zero
as possible. Then, as now, I have no interest in becoming
a
survivalist and witnessing the horror that would follow
such a
scenario.
I can handle being a survivalist and witnessing the horror
of the aftermath but I wouldn't want to live in a world
contaminated by radiation. The medical infrastructure would
be gone and people would be suffering from the effects of
the nukes which would mean that survival would be
questionable and miserable. Doesn't sound fun.
Odin
2003-07-30 23:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odin
I can handle being a survivalist and witnessing the
horror
Post by Odin
of the aftermath but I wouldn't want to live in a world
contaminated by radiation. The medical infrastructure
would
Post by Odin
be gone and people would be suffering from the effects
of
Post by Odin
the nukes which would mean that survival would be
questionable and miserable. Doesn't sound fun.
The medical infrastructure might continue to function; the
military has their act together in this respect. There's
enough
redundancy and stand-alone capability that medical
services
should still be in place. The problem would be a massive
shortage of medical supplies, particularly blood products.
Anyone who survives the blast effects of an air burst but
is
close enough to get a beefy dose of radiation will
experience
bone-marrow suppression, leading to severe anemia and a
life-threatening reduction in platelets. Many of these
patients
would require from 1-5 units of whole blood or packed red
cells
plus platelets daily. That adds up to a *hell* of a lot
of
blood.
Sounds like something I'd rather not be around for.
In what I consider a feasible scenario, a group of
radicals
could seize control over a soviet missile silo, disable
the
security features, and lob an SS-18 at LA or NYC. The
MIRV
would distribute 10 warheads of 500 or 750 kilotons each
over a
wide area, air-bursting at 3-4000 feet. I would guestimate
as
much as 200,000 fatalities from blast effect, and at least
1
million people would receive an eventually-fatal radiation
dose.
There's no way that blood could be delivered to the area
in
sufficient quantities. Patients would be triaged
according to
visible signs of dosage; anyone who's losing hair and/or
teeth
would be set aside to wait in vain for blood that won't
arrive
in time. It wouldn't be pretty.
Reagan's Star Wars idea is sounding like a good idea right
about now.
Radiation sickness is particularly nasty; I know exactly
what
it feels like, since I had 13 sessions of total-body
irradiation
before my bone marrow transplant. Without multiple daily
transfusions of blood products, you simply will not
survive. In
the limited scenario I described, there would be a million
or
more patients lying in overcrowded hospital hallways,
public
schools, warehouses, and anywhere that has space
available,
dying from anemia or bleeding out from lack of platelets.
All
the medical staff in the US wouldn't be of help if blood
isn't
available immediately. In the worst case, where Russia
lobs
their entire arsenal (and we do the same), we'd have this
same
scenario in 100 or more american population centers. I
wouidn't
want to survive that and have to cope with the aftermath.
Total
breakdown of the transportation system is virtually
assured,
resulting in nationwide food shortages. A few days
without food
will turn law-abiding average citizens into desperados.
Just
now I did a quick survey of my kitchen cabinets, and I
have
about a month's worth of canned goods, dried beans, rice,
and so
forth. Assuming I survive a nuke exchange, I will have to
defend my food supply from roving bands of hungry,
desperate
people. On hand I have only a .357 mag, 100 rounds of
ammo, and
a 10.5 lb Les Paul for close-in combat. I don't think
I'll be
able to hold them off for long. I do, however, take pity
on
whomever is on the receiving end of my Les Paul, El
Cabong
indeed.
The people at most risk are the devout mormons, who are
commanded to keep a 1-2 year food supply. They'd better
be
armed to the teeth if they hope to defend their stash.
I wouldn't be defending a damn thing, my truck would be
headed to Mexico at haul-ass speed. Nobody is gonna bomb
Mexico and the weather is great. If I could get far enough
south to avoid the radiation I might be OK.
In reality, I don't think an all-out nuke exchange is
likely.
However, I do think it's highly likely that we'll see a
nuclear
event in the US or Israel within the next 5 years. Given
the
growing availability of nuclear material and technology,
and the
growing number of extremists, it seems inevitable.
If we got the fuck out of the middle east (and stopped
supporting Israel) we might avoid that bomb going off in the
US. Since we negotiate with terrorists in Israel why can't
we negotiate a truce with the Islamic radicals and Arab
countries that we will completely pull out of the middle
east and stop supporting Israel in exchange for a free pass
from terrorism on US soil or embassies. I think they'd go
for it.
David and/or Rena Covell
2003-07-31 00:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odin
If we got the fuck out of the middle east (and stopped
supporting Israel) we might avoid that bomb going off in the
US. Since we negotiate with terrorists in Israel why can't
we negotiate a truce with the Islamic radicals and Arab
countries that we will completely pull out of the middle
east and stop supporting Israel in exchange for a free pass
from terrorism on US soil or embassies. I think they'd go
for it.
I do too, but I think it's going to take a nuclear event in the
US or Israel to push the american public to that point. In my
mind, the most likely scenario in the next 5 years is a
low-yield nuclear event in the form of a diverted soviet
"suitcase nuke" or similar home-brewed portable bomb, delivered
by car or truck to a major and symbolic population center such
as Manhattan, DC, or downtown San Francisco. A low-yield device
at ground level amidst tall buildings will have a somewhat
limited death toll, but the symbolic value of a terrorist nuke
attack on US or Israeli soil will open eyes to the
inevitablility of larger, more lethal attacks to come. I think
that's all it will take to drive the american public to demand a
return to isolationism. Israel and South Korea would be left to
their own defense, and things would quickly get ugly. I've been
to Israel, and I've been atop Masada (twice) and witnessed the
never-again vibe that pervades the Israeli mindset. They have
more than enough nukes to create a localized doomsday scenario
if they're pushed to the wall. One card up Israel's sleeve would
seem to be their option to easily destroy muslim holy sites in
Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. I wouldn't be surprised if they
don't have a few nukes specifically planned for the Ka'aba, and
t a few of their version of Hellfire missiles planned for the
Dome of the Rock. Symbolism is a big deal over there; taking
out holy sites would be a significant strategic coup. It would
also hit the fan in a big way; there would be no stopping the
carnage after such an event.

I've been to the temple mount in Jerusalem and there's a very
heavy vibe there. The western wall (judaism's most holy site)
and the Dome of the Rock (Islam's third most holy site) and the
al-Aksa mosque are all within a few hundred yard radius, and all
visitors enter the area by the same route. Here you have some
of the most devout, and sometimes fanatical, followers of both
faiths, collected in a small area. As can be expected, they are
under scrutiny by the Israeli military, armed with
impressive-looking automatic weaponry. As I said, there was a
heavy vibe. Jews are reluctant to approach the Dome for fear of
stepping on the former location of the temple's Holy of Holies,
and muslims have no interest in hanging out at the western wall,
so there is a de facto segregation which doubtless prevents
violent clashes, Still, muslims and jews must mingle during the
walk to the mount, and that's where the heavily-armed military
doods are most prevalent. Weird place to walk.

As a non-jew, I took some flak for approaching the wall without
a yarmulke on my head. I was also required rather pointedly to
remove my camera and shoes before entering the Dome and the
mosque. Despite the bad vibes, it was worthwhile. The Dome is
quite a work of art.
The lasting impression from my Israel trip is that the middle
east is a poweder keg of nuclear proportion, and I'm amazed that
it hasn't exploded already. I firmly believe that US backing is
the only thing that has held off the carnage. If/when we play
the isolationist card, things are going to quickly go to hell.
I see it as damned if we do/damned if we don't. I hope I'm
wrong.
Richard
2003-07-31 01:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
I do too, but I think it's going to take a nuclear event in the
US or Israel to push the american public to that point. In my
mind, the most likely scenario in the next 5 years is a
low-yield nuclear event in the form of a diverted soviet
"suitcase nuke" or similar home-brewed portable bomb, delivered
by car or truck to a major and symbolic population center such
as Manhattan, DC, or downtown San Francisco. A low-yield device
at ground level amidst tall buildings will have a somewhat
limited death toll, but the symbolic value of a terrorist nuke
attack on US or Israeli soil will open eyes to the
inevitablility of larger, more lethal attacks to come. I think
that's all it will take to drive the american public to demand a
return to isolationism.
I have too clear a memory of all those "Lake Afghanistan" maps
immediately after 9/11 to believe the American public would be
screaming for anything other than indiscriminate retaliation.
--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><
David and/or Rena Covell
2003-07-31 12:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
I do too, but I think it's going to take a nuclear event in
the
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
US or Israel to push the american public to that point. In
my
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
mind, the most likely scenario in the next 5 years is a
low-yield nuclear event in the form of a diverted soviet
"suitcase nuke" or similar home-brewed portable bomb,
delivered
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
by car or truck to a major and symbolic population center
such
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
as Manhattan, DC, or downtown San Francisco. A low-yield
device
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
at ground level amidst tall buildings will have a somewhat
limited death toll, but the symbolic value of a terrorist
nuke
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
attack on US or Israeli soil will open eyes to the
inevitablility of larger, more lethal attacks to come. I
think
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
that's all it will take to drive the american public to
demand a
Post by Richard
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
return to isolationism.
I have too clear a memory of all those "Lake Afghanistan" maps
immediately after 9/11 to believe the American public would be
screaming for anything other than indiscriminate retaliation.
Initially, yes; people will want blood, and won't care much
about who the involuntary blood donors may be. But what happens
after we bomb the crap out of some desert again, and a few
months later another nuke attack occurs on US soil? Or a dozen?
It wouldn't take very many of these to convince people that
we're in a no-win scenario. It's clear that this is utterly
unlike WWII, and that our industrial capacity isn't going to
help us win by obliterating a country's military force. And
there seems even less chance of eliminating their will to fight.
America has been isolationist in the past, and I think that
we'll be pushed back into a shell out of sheer desperation and
fear.

I'm not advocating isolationism at all; I think it'll only buy
a few years of false security. But I do think it's inevitable.
Richard
2003-07-31 17:01:44 UTC
Permalink
VP Cheney, SOD Rumsfeld, etc., are signatories to the Project for a
New American Century
(http://www.pnac.org),
Wrong link, although it would not surprise me if the Bush-ites
signed up there.
Oops. PNAC's web site is http://www.newamericancentury.org

Too funny!
--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><
ryanm
2003-08-01 00:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
I'm not advocating isolationism at all; I think it'll only buy
a few years of false security. But I do think it's inevitable.
If we weren't interfering in their disputes and propping up regimes that
we like (despite their tendency to abuse their people) they would have no
reason to bomb us. They would be too busy blowing each other up to be
bothered to figure out how to get bombs all the way over here. Now if you're
suggesting that *after* they've blown each other to bits and some sort of
stability had come over the region that they might turn their attention to
us, so be it. That would be generations away, and we're still across an
ocean and have a rather large army to strike back with, making the cost in
time, money and effort to attack us very large with very little ROI
(assuming we haven't started meddling in their affairs again), while bombing
their neighbors has a big return for very little effort, comparatively.

I think the risk of terrorist attack would decrease significantly if we
started keeping an isolationist policy. It might take a generation for it to
really take affect, but with no good reason to attack us that leaves only
the truly psychotic nutbags that would even *want* to attack, and they
generally aren't as well funded as the politically motivated nutbags. You
have to realize, of course, that the problem with an isolationist policy is
that we no longer have any control over the global marketplace, which would
affect our economy directly, and that's where the real problem lies.
However, pulling out of the middle east and continuing to work with other
countries (with larger markets, like Europe, southeast Asia, etc.) would
work great for everything but oil. But all that would take is one president
to actually do what they say, and set the mpg max for the auto industry to
20 mpg like practically every president in the past 30 years has said they
would until the auto industry lobby check arrived (at which point they
quickly change their minds, usually *increasing* the minimum required mpg
instead). That alone would make us capable of sustaining ourselves with our
own oil long enough to come up with a better power source. Assuming the oil
lobbyists didn't crush it before it got out the door, of course.

Too much money at stake, for any of this stuff to work, of course.

ryanm
Odin
2003-07-31 05:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
Post by Odin
If we got the fuck out of the middle east (and stopped
supporting Israel) we might avoid that bomb going off in the
US. Since we negotiate with terrorists in Israel why can't
we negotiate a truce with the Islamic radicals and Arab
countries that we will completely pull out of the middle
east and stop supporting Israel in exchange for a free pass
from terrorism on US soil or embassies. I think they'd go
for it.
I do too, but I think it's going to take a nuclear event in the
US or Israel to push the american public to that point. In my
mind, the most likely scenario in the next 5 years is a
low-yield nuclear event in the form of a diverted soviet
"suitcase nuke" or similar home-brewed portable bomb, delivered
by car or truck to a major and symbolic population center such
as Manhattan, DC, or downtown San Francisco. A low-yield device
at ground level amidst tall buildings will have a somewhat
limited death toll, but the symbolic value of a terrorist nuke
attack on US or Israeli soil will open eyes to the
inevitablility of larger, more lethal attacks to come. I think
that's all it will take to drive the american public to demand a
return to isolationism. Israel and South Korea would be left to
their own defense, and things would quickly get ugly. I've been
to Israel, and I've been atop Masada (twice) and witnessed the
never-again vibe that pervades the Israeli mindset. They have
more than enough nukes to create a localized doomsday scenario
if they're pushed to the wall. One card up Israel's sleeve would
seem to be their option to easily destroy muslim holy sites in
Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. I wouldn't be surprised if they
don't have a few nukes specifically planned for the Ka'aba, and
t a few of their version of Hellfire missiles planned for the
Dome of the Rock. Symbolism is a big deal over there; taking
out holy sites would be a significant strategic coup. It would
also hit the fan in a big way; there would be no stopping the
carnage after such an event.
I think a small "dirty bomb" is the most likely scenario for us. And sadly
it will probably take that sort of thing to convince most Americans that
these terrorists are serious and playhing for keeps.
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
I've been to the temple mount in Jerusalem and there's a very
heavy vibe there. The western wall (judaism's most holy site)
and the Dome of the Rock (Islam's third most holy site) and the
al-Aksa mosque are all within a few hundred yard radius, and all
visitors enter the area by the same route. Here you have some
of the most devout, and sometimes fanatical, followers of both
faiths, collected in a small area. As can be expected, they are
under scrutiny by the Israeli military, armed with
impressive-looking automatic weaponry. As I said, there was a
heavy vibe. Jews are reluctant to approach the Dome for fear of
stepping on the former location of the temple's Holy of Holies,
and muslims have no interest in hanging out at the western wall,
so there is a de facto segregation which doubtless prevents
violent clashes, Still, muslims and jews must mingle during the
walk to the mount, and that's where the heavily-armed military
doods are most prevalent. Weird place to walk.
As a non-jew, I took some flak for approaching the wall without
a yarmulke on my head. I was also required rather pointedly to
remove my camera and shoes before entering the Dome and the
mosque. Despite the bad vibes, it was worthwhile. The Dome is
quite a work of art.
The lasting impression from my Israel trip is that the middle
east is a poweder keg of nuclear proportion, and I'm amazed that
it hasn't exploded already. I firmly believe that US backing is
the only thing that has held off the carnage. If/when we play
the isolationist card, things are going to quickly go to hell.
I see it as damned if we do/damned if we don't. I hope I'm
wrong.
The whole middle east is a powder keg waiting to blow up. Why we have to
be involved is beyond me because in the end what will happen, will happen.
I'd prefer that we not be a part of it.
David Morley
2003-08-01 19:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
"Fail Safe". This movie scared the crap
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
out of a lot of people.
I've got it on DVD. It's still a brilliant movie, IMO.
Or laugh your tits off AND get scared shitless by "dr.Strangelove"
'nuther Bob
2003-08-01 21:31:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:09:14 +0200, David Morley
Post by David Morley
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
"Fail Safe". This movie scared the crap
Post by David and/or Rena Covell
out of a lot of people.
I've got it on DVD. It's still a brilliant movie, IMO.
Or laugh your tits off AND get scared shitless by "dr.Strangelove"
A note or two... the Soviets/Russians continued to refine
vacuum tube design and are known for tubes well beyond the
quality we had when we (that is, non-guitarists) pretty much
shelved them 30 years ago.

There are a few defense contractors that still make use of tubes
for components that require durability following nuclear attack.

Oh, and the FAA continues to use tubes in their air traffic
control equipment...but not because they want to. They have been
trying to replace the equipment, which is now repeatedly failing
and hacked together with spare parts from other failed units.
However, they have screwed up the project so many times that they
are 15-20 years behind where they were supposed to be. They are
just now starting to get their act together and actually test
and install replacement units.

Bob

miker
2003-07-30 01:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by 'nuther Bob
I just found out from one of my military engineer type friends
that vacuum tubes are not affected by the massive wave of EMR
generated when a nuke goes off. So, buy a full tube amp,
Don't forget a tube rectifier in there.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...