From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #94 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, January 15 2001 Volume 09 : Number 094 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Re: FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks Missle Defense? FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Re: Missile Defense? RE: Missle Defense? Thirteen Days question Re: Thirteen Days question Re: Thirteen Days question Re: Thirteen Days question RE: Missle Defense? Re: Missle Defense? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:43:33 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks If anyone wants to see a TSR-2, I recently saw one in the first hanger at the Duxford Museum outside London. This is the same museum that has the spectacular new display of American aircraft and a considerable number of flying WWII aircraft. Duxford is near Cambridge and is an easy daytrip from London by train (and a free bus from the Cambridge train station.) I had a great time. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:54 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com; tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com Subject: FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks I'll have to have a delve into my collection of aircraft books for details. From memory: The TSR-2 (Tactical Strike Reconnaissance) aircraft was a BAC (British Aircraft Corporation, became British Aerospace when it merged with Hawker-Siddeley Aircraft, now part of BAE SYSTEMS) project in the late 1950's/early 1960's. The TSR-2 was an extremely ambitious project, intending to replace the V-force (Victor, Vulcan and Valiant aircraft), which formed the United Kingdom's tactical and strike air force after the Second World War. At the time the TSR-2 was being developed, the basic requirement for manned aircraft was being questioned inside the British government. Strategic nuclear missiles were expected to take a future war to the enemy, while local defence would be fulfilled with missile batteries equipped with such weapons as the Bloodhound surface to air missile. Pilots were going to be the dinosaurs of modern warfare, and the need for a major (and very expensive) project to design and build a new manned aircraft was difficult to justify. The TSR-2 was intended to carry nuclear bombs or stand-off short range nuclear missiles. The Buccaneer was a similar nuclear bomber for the Royal Navy that was designed to fly at extremely low altitudes to fly under an enemy's radar, then use a ballistic release (called the "toss bomb" manoeuvre) to lob its weapon with a high degree of accuracy at a target and yet be able to get away before it was caught in the weapon's concussion zone. Early Buccaneers (and the TSR-2 prototypes) were painted anti-flash white in anticipation of their role as nuclear bombers. In the event the weapon for the Buccaneer was never developed. The rotating weapon bay was designed specifically to carry a nuclear weapon (referred to as the "TML" (Target Marker Lanyard) or "TMB" (Target Marker Bomb)), under a project called "Blue Danube". The ballistic missile programme ("Blue Steel") was also cancelled at about the same time, partly justified by the failure of a European space collaboration project between the UK, Germany and France (The Blue Steel component of he launch vehicle worked every time. Components from other contributor nations - notably France - were less than successful.) TSR-2 was a very complex aircraft which had a number of revolutionary design features. It had a sophisticated autopilot and engine control system. It also had a number of teething problems which, like every other high-tech project caused delays and cost overruns. Attention was focussed on, of all things, the undercarriage. The main landing gear had two large wheels in tandem to bear the not inconsiderable weight of the aircraft. The retraction mechanism required the undercarriage bogie to rotate before it could be stowed in the undercarriage bay. This complicated linkage was prone to jamming, and great efforts were made to improve its reliability. Reginald "Bee" Beaumont, its test pilot, had concerns about the reliability of the mechanism. he insisted that it perform at least five cycles on the ground without jamming before he would retract the undercarrige in flight. It turned out that his concerns were justified. On one test flight the undercarriage was retracted. When the gear was lowered in preparatio for the landing, the wheel bogie on one side failed to rotate, such that instead of both wheels being level, one wheel was high and the other low. Beaumont tried the usual trick of applying positive and negative 'g' to shake the machanism loose, but it remained jammed. The option remained to eject, but that would have destroyed the prototype aircraft. Beaumont elected to make an attempt at landing the aircraft, risking the jammed gear tipping it over. In the event, as the wheel touched the ground, the bogie unjammed and deployed properly, allowng the aircraft to land without further incident. Unfortunately, this was latched upon by the government as yet another piece of evidence as to the failure of TSR-2. The project was abruptly cancelled - so abruptly that another prototype was on its maiden flight preflight checks when the order to cease work arrived. The pilot was ordered to shut down the engines and abandon the flight. The aircraft never even flew, even though it was seconds away from its first flight. The existing airframes were ordered to be destroyed, the jigs and tools cut up and notes and drawings shredded. Within weeks all trace of the project were to be expunged. A couple of non-flying prototypes still exist in museums in the UK, saved by BAC employees who refused to allow them to be destroyed. It was a shameful example of how the British government treated its aviation industries after the war, basically stating that it was incapable of matching the design claims of its American rivals. Ironically, the F-111, ordered to replace the TSR-2, cost more and had a poorer performance than the TSR-2. Even the MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft), which became the Tornado, has still not achieved the capabilities of the TSR-2 nearly forty years later. I'll see if I can dig up more details. In the meantime, here are a few pictures: Hope this helps, Robin. - ------ fortean1@frontiernet.net on 10/01/2001 22:35:03 *** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Robert Chambers suggested I contact you for more details on the TSR-2 program. I quote in part his e-mail: >The poor record of the Aardvarks is an old story where the bureaucrats >push aside the cautions of the engineers and other technicians. Shades >of the O-ring! "It upsets those of us who are big TSR-2 fans that the UK govt of the time ditched the programme because of delays and overspends, convinced by the US govt that the F-111 would be on time and on budget, and ended up being even more expensive than the TSR-2 would have been. For more details, contact Robin Hill (robin.hill@baesystems.com) who has a more detailed knowledge of these things. Rob" - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:11:23 -0500 From: "Paul Heinrich" Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways One thing which bothers me about the missle defense projects is that the proponants are selling it as protection from NCB attack by "rogue nations". If I were the leader of a "rogue nation" or a terrorist group and I got my hands on a nuclear, biological, chemical weapon, I wouldn't bother delivering it via ballistic missle. I deliver it via charter airline transport, truck, or container ship (probably all three) and save a bundle of cash. Considering the tonage of illegal drugs, merchandise and illegal aliens which are smuggled into the US every year, it shouldn't be too difificult to sneak a bomb in. If you've driven by the docks in Oakland, you've seen the thousands of containers waiting to be shipped somewhere. Multiply that by all the shipyards in the US and it's easy to imagine that it would be easy to sneak nearly anything into and around the country. I've seen containers marked with capacities of 10,000 pounds, weren't the first atomic bombs about that weight and size? Paul - -- Paul Heinrich RR1 Box 490 Iron Cave Lane Lewisburg, PA 17837 (570) 524-5820 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:16:04 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Paul Heinrich said, > One thing which bothers me about the missle defense projects is > that the proponants are selling it as protection from NCB attack by > "rogue nations". [snip material on other means of delivery] If we're talking about defending the US against ICBM attack, the current NMD system would be good at most against nuclear warheads. C and B would mostly be delivered in many small early-release RVs for efficiency in agent dispersal -- and NMD isn't designed against such a threat. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:22:34 +1030 From: Steve Apthorpe Subject: Re: FWD (PVT) Re: TSR-2 and F-111 Aardvarks > The ballistic missile programme ("Blue Steel") > was also cancelled at about the same time, partly justified by the failure of > a European space collaboration project between the UK, Germany and France > (The Blue Steel component of he launch vehicle worked every time. The correct name for the Medium Range Ballistic Missile was 'Blue Streak' - (I understand that 'Blue Streak' still exists, in a sense, in the Ariane rocket). 'Blue Steel' was an air-launched stand-off bomb (to use the UK terminology - if I recall correctly more akin to the SRAM than a cruise missile), launched by Victors or Vulcans. 'Blue Steel's' were in operational use, before their replacement, as nuclear deterrent, by Polaris. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 08:13:31 -0800 From: Lee Markland Subject: Missle Defense? With all of our technology, our stealth bombers, with our immense second strike capability, our nuclear subs with nuclear warheads, any country that was so feckless as to launch a missle at us would be committing suicide. And the notion that these "rogue" states are a threat to the U.S. is preposterous, more a massive propaganda effort to justify more spending for the military industrial complex. A total waste of money, that could be better spent elsewheres (education and health care) and/or rebated to us as a tax refund. How some ever, those persons, institutions whom have a financial and professional interest in military spending and research projects can always find some way to rationalize and justify "defense" spending. Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:33:54 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLCB) Re: Stars Wars was a success in a number of ways Forwarded from the Skeptic list... > Although REagan made his speech, the program didn't really start swinging > until around 1996. We also tend to forget that when it started no-one was > exactly sure how to do what we wanted to do, and a lot of basic research was > needed just to determine which direction to take. There were definitely some > screwball concepts in there, but there always are when tapping the Government > largesse seems a possibility. There was also a lot of good science and > engineering in there too. By the measure of working machines to test, it may not have been up and running until 1996, but by another measure, money spent: 1976-1982 ~1 billion/year 1983-1993 $44 billion total 1983 $991 million 1985 1,397.299 million 1986 2,759.222 million 1987 4,802.566 million 1988 5,463.312 million ($4 billion 2nd source) 1994 $2.8 billion 1995 $2.8 billion 1996 $3.3 billion 1997 $3.6 billion 1998 $3.9 billion 1999 $3.6 billion 2000 ? 2001 DoD request $4.7 billion "Overall, the United States has spent more than $100 billion (in current dollars) in the pursuit of missile defense since the mid-1950s (plus $17 billion on the Patriot system, developed separately by the Army as an anti-aircraft system.)" A history of this is at: < http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/bmdhistory.htm > Additional cost figures from: < http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu38ne/uu38ne0c.htm > < http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/MissileDefenseIllusion.asp?p=8 > The program has changed over the years also. Described in < http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1995/nd95/nd95.schwartz.html > - ---------- Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") has evolved through three major phases. The first, from 1983 to 1987, called for an invulnerable shield to protect the entire United States, thus making nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The second phase, from 1987 to 1990, envisioned a defense for land-based missiles that called for 2,000 ground- and 4,000 space-based interceptors, at a cost of over $70 billion. The third phase, from 1990 to the present, saw SDI evolve into the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) system, a plan to defend against tactical and theater missiles and as many as 200 long-range missiles-at an estimated cost of $40 billion. Each new phase has had less ambitious goals using less ambitious technical means, a trend that has confirmed skeptics' doubts about the feasibility of these systems. From 1984 through 1993, Star Wars cost $38 billion, but produced no workable missile defense. - ---------- After looking at some of these sources, the assertion that the program didn't swing until 1996 isn't accurate. The US has build and tested theater missle defenses since the 1960's without much success. SDI started out aiming for new technologies then fell back on traditional missle interceptors which it started testing in '96. > SDI wasn't the only thing that brought the Soviets down, but it was a big > thing. How do we know? Because back in the early '90s, when we had good > relations with Russia and the Ukraine, they told us so. During that period > they were being very open with us. My understanding is that SDI as an economic policy, designed to drive the Soviet Union bankrupt spending the money to keep up with the US, failed. What I've read is that the Soviet Union didn't take the bait and launch a big SDI program of their own. SDI didn't cause the Soviet Union to fall apart. > It's also worth noting that many of the things SDI opponents said would be > impossible have already been achieved. They made a big point of how complex > the code would have to be and how programs with that many lines of code > couldn't function. By 1991 telephone switching systems were already using > larger and more complex code than what would have been required for SDI. In > fact, Win 2K has more lines of code in it than what would have been required > for SDI (whether it functions or not I'll leave for another forum). It was > said we'd never be able to get the kind of sensor technology needed. The radar > technology exists today in packages small enough to be carried by fighters. IR > sensors of sufficient resolution and range have been operational for most of > the '90s. Our big problem at this point is reliability of the interceptors, > and that's engineering not new technology anymore. Although it's not at all > certain that lasers would have been used, it's worthy of note that it was > confidently predicted that lasers of sufficient power would never be able to be > lifted off the ground. Well, the ABL is going to be using a laser of the class > needed. This seems overly optimistic. -Software: SDI hasn't been designed, let alone implemented, so we don't know how big the programs would be. More pointed arguments against it were that it would be difficult to test the complete system (necessary to eliminate bugs), and that the software would be easy to sabotage by introducing hard to test for bugs. -Sensors: Much prgress has been made in the last 17 years, true. But wasn't there a recent flap about how decoys were, in principal, undistinguishable in the situation tested? The current state of the tech is hard to assess. I don't know of a SDI sensor system which has been put together and passed tests. -ABL laser: The ABL is a plane-baed system which may, as is said, be light enough to fit on a satelite (3000 lbs). It is still being developed, and as far as I know, hasn't been tested (begin testing in 2002-3, best as I can tell). Apparently it can not be put in space as it's components are not durable--some need to be replaced after firing. Also this: "Critics cite a study, to be released shortly by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), a watchdog agency, that reportedly raises serious doubts about the viability of the ABL. It reportedly found little hope that a system that can mold laser beams to compensate for atmospheric disturbances will ever be developed." from < http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/10/20/ us/us.1.html+ABL+SDI+test+problem&hl=en > Jim Lund - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:35:57 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Missile Defense? But what if the missile was launched by a stateless person? Would it be fair to destroy a country, unaware of the missile firing prior to liftoff, for the act of a terrorist acting outside the values of the country? Jim Stevenson > > With all of our technology, our stealth bombers, with our immense second > strike capability, our nuclear subs with nuclear warheads, any country that > was so feckless as to launch a missle at us would be committing suicide. > And the notion that these "rogue" states are a threat to the U.S. is > preposterous, more a massive propaganda effort to justify more spending for > the military industrial complex. > > A total waste of money, that could be better spent elsewheres (education > and health care) and/or rebated to us as a tax refund. > > How some ever, those persons, institutions whom have a financial and > professional interest in military spending and research projects can always > find some way to rationalize and justify "defense" spending. > > Lee > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:13:42 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Missle Defense? Yes, the USA could obliterate any country that attacked it. But, alas, that would not be the end of it. A nuclear explosion in the atmosphere would have effects that would extend regionally and, indeed, globally. What would be the reaction of, say, Japan or China or even Russia to a nuclear retaliation against North Korea? Assume that North Korea launched a single nuclear missile at the US, would we massively retaliate instantly as we might against Russia? Or is it as likely that there would be a pause before the American response? And would it be politically possible to retaliate with nuclear weapons after it became clear that there would be no further missile attacks from North Korea because they had exhausted their arsenal? Assume that Iraq or Iran had exploded a nuclear "device" from a ship off New York. Assume further that there were no doubt concerning the author of that explosion. Then ask yourself, how would Saudi Arabia - or even Israel - view the possibility of an American nuclear retaliation against either of those states? While both would likely agree that the malefactor "deserves it", I doubt that either would want to be down wind of a nuclear strike. And what if the strike were not nuclear but biological or chemical? What if, instead of making a nuclear bomb, a nation simply used its plutonium as a poisonous dust? Would the USA be able to respond by using nuclear weapons? I could go on but the point is that it is very much in the interest of the United States - or any country - to be able to prevent a situation in which its response must be nuclear. And, of course, to avoid the damage that even a small missile attack would cause to it. The most important reason that I believe that we should build a limited missile defense it to provide ourselves with options an with time. In the Gulf War, the presence of Patriot missiles (whether they actually worked or not) enabled the Israelis to ride out Iraq's (small) missile attack with enormously favorable consequences for the coalition of forces against Sadaam. If Israel had found itself with not option but to do nothing or to retaliate, I have not doubt that they would have done the latter. The effects of that - justified - retaliation would have blown the American-led coalition apart as surely as it would have done, Baghdad. The presence of the Patriots (and their apparent success) made it possible for Israel to avoid having to decide between passivity and retaliation. The real reason that we should embark on the creation of a missile defense system is that it would preserve our options - and, indeed, enlarge them. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Lee Markland Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 11:14 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Missle Defense? With all of our technology, our stealth bombers, with our immense second strike capability, our nuclear subs with nuclear warheads, any country that was so feckless as to launch a missle at us would be committing suicide. And the notion that these "rogue" states are a threat to the U.S. is preposterous, more a massive propaganda effort to justify more spending for the military industrial complex. A total waste of money, that could be better spent elsewheres (education and health care) and/or rebated to us as a tax refund. How some ever, those persons, institutions whom have a financial and professional interest in military spending and research projects can always find some way to rationalize and justify "defense" spending. Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:54:07 -0600 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Thirteen Days question Hello: Dad & I saw 13 days on Saturday and I'm told that one of the aircraft on the film didn't exist yet at the time it covered....what was it?? I sure can't spot it... George George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:14:17 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Thirteen Days question George and all: I haven't seen the movie, yet, so can't say. I did work with the movie team on the U-2 segments and helped them make things as authentic as possible. Again, however, I haven't seen the finished product so I have no idea what it contains. Cheers, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:55:25 -0500 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Thirteen Days question At 12:54 PM 1/14/01 -0600, you wrote: >Hello: > >Dad & I saw 13 days on Saturday and I'm told that one of the aircraft >on the film didn't exist yet at the time it covered....what was it?? >I sure can't spot it... > >George > CNN article on the topic states that several F-15's are shown and they that they did not enter the inventory until 1972.. http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/13/movieadpulled.ap/index.html Also Spruance-class destroyers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:58:55 -0600 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: Thirteen Days question On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:14:17 EST, you wrote: >George and all: > >I haven't seen the movie, yet, so can't say. I did work with the movie team >on the U-2 segments and helped them make things as authentic as possible. >Again, however, I haven't seen the finished product so I have no idea what it >contains. > >Cheers, Jay > Jay: Thanks for the response....cool that you worked with them...can I ask what is your background and how you got this great opportunity? How well done was the U2 stuff? (Sorry I have to ask)? George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:38:04 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: RE: Missle Defense? if you want to kill people but minimize fallout the weapon of choice is the neutron bomb.here is the first paragraph of an article about the "father" of the neutron bomb: Bomb inventor says U.S. defenses suffer because of politics By Christopher Ruddy FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW LOS ANGELES - For most of Sam Cohen's life, he has struggled against politicians who, in his opinion, have sacrificed good sense when it comes to the nation's defenses. Cohen is the physicist who invented the neutron bomb, the one that kills people but leaves things like tanks and buildings intact. Plans to deploy his creations in Europe during the '70s and '80s awakened the "peace movement" across that continent, stopping its deployment. to read this article go to: http://www.tribune-review.com/ruddy/061597.html wayne _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:36:34 -0000 From: "David" Subject: Re: Missle Defense? From: "wayne binkley" > if you want to kill people but minimize fallout the weapon of choice is the > neutron bomb.here is the first paragraph of an article about the "father" of > the neutron bomb: It makes my blood run cold to think that not all weapons are vulnerable in the boost phase for systems like Brilliant Pebbles or whatever to neturalise. Chemical/binary or biological weapons leave infrastructure completely intact and their method of delivery can be so covert that no amount of technology can intercept them before it's too late. I'm reminded of the light aircraft converted into UAVs found in the Gulf - it looked like Sadam was thinking of using them to spray coalition forces. I'm not convinced a Rogue State or should I now say State of Concern would use a missile against the US or the UK for that matter - there's enough fissionable material missing in the FSU to build several nukes and assemble them in-situ without running the risk of technical missile foul up or interception. Heard a former chief of the CIA discussing it this morning on BBC radio - seems a janitor at a nuke facility in Russia was arrested with a sizeable amount of Pu - not enough to build a bomb, but he was going to sell it to the Russian Mob. I might do the conspiracy buffs good to know the CIA and other agencies are on the case to prevent this kind of stuff happening. David ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #94 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner