kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> Ok suppose you needed to blow up the Whitehouse. You couldn't get near > enough in a van. But a model aircraft would do some damage.So the incoming small object is detected, and then what? Launch the "Patriot" missile?> Not nearly > as much of course but it's the shock that counts and the effect on the > polulation.The sooner officials start looking at this threat the > better.Sure. All capable engineers should be put under surveillance. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Radar
Started by ●June 13, 2008
Reply by ●June 14, 20082008-06-14
Reply by ●June 14, 20082008-06-14
On 14 Jun, 23:42, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Sure. All capable engineers should be put under surveillance.That's what will happen in a not too far future. A couple of weeks ago I discussed with some of my friends from University what inspired us to become engineers. One of the guys told about a chemistry teacher in high school, who had made a huge impression on my friend. This teacher obviously lived and breathed chemistry and knew all the 'dirty' tricks and fun demos. The teacher had become interested in chemistry as a kid and had started experimenting on his own. As he had told my friend, "I could just run down to the local chemist/drugstore and buy whatever I needed" be it acids, 'weird' metals or whatever. I suspect it would attract attention from all sorts of law enforcement agencies if somebody started buying those kinds of things these days. Rune
Reply by ●June 14, 20082008-06-14
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 14 Jun, 23:42, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >>Sure. All capable engineers should be put under surveillance. >It is, and it had happened many times in the history.> That's what will happen in a not too far future. > > A couple of weeks ago I discussed with some of my > friends from University what inspired us to become > engineers. One of the guys told about a chemistry > teacher in high school, who had made a huge impression > on my friend. > > This teacher obviously lived and breathed chemistry > and knew all the 'dirty' tricks and fun demos. The > teacher had become interested in chemistry as a kid > and had started experimenting on his own. As he had > told my friend, "I could just run down to the local > chemist/drugstore and buy whatever I needed" be it > acids, 'weird' metals or whatever.In our days, the chemistry teachers should be happy with the computer simulations instead of the actual experiments. As long as it it is socially conscious, environmentally friendly, equal opportunity and other restrictions apply. Nevertheless the potentially harmful simulations will be automatically reported to the authorities.> I suspect it would attract attention from all sorts > of law enforcement agencies if somebody started buying > those kinds of things these days.It is not high technology which drives the police states. As it was shown many times in the history, the oppression mechanism doesn't need any technology. It is the intention what matters.> > RuneVLV
Reply by ●June 14, 20082008-06-14
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 14 Jun, 23:42, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sure. All capable engineers should be put under surveillance. > > That's what will happen in a not too far future. > > A couple of weeks ago I discussed with some of my > friends from University what inspired us to become > engineers. One of the guys told about a chemistry > teacher in high school, who had made a huge impression > on my friend. > > This teacher obviously lived and breathed chemistry > and knew all the 'dirty' tricks and fun demos. The > teacher had become interested in chemistry as a kid > and had started experimenting on his own. As he had > told my friend, "I could just run down to the local > chemist/drugstore and buy whatever I needed" be it > acids, 'weird' metals or whatever. > > I suspect it would attract attention from all sorts > of law enforcement agencies if somebody started buying > those kinds of things these days.As a kid I made small bombs, rockets, and gunpowder that actually exploded instead of burning. I could have gotten as much of the materials as I wanted. I even made my own guns. That project started when my parents wouldn't let me have a cap pistol. Two and a half years later I had a matched pair of pistols and a carbine. The barrels were rifled together with the same tool, and the local police forensics lab couldn't distinguish which gun had fired a particular bullet. I used the target range in the police station basement to practice and became a fair shot. The same thing today would have landed me and the cops in jail. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●June 15, 20082008-06-15
kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> On Jun 15, 1:04 am, "VelociChicken" <b...@yahoob.com> wrote: >> <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:b1c61a34-8069-43e1-bed4-ed726d54c535@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >>> What's the smallest object that can be resolved on radar? eg could a >>> large model aircraft be seen or would it be confused with say a large >>> bird? How low does radar go in a city? >>> Why am I asking? I have reason to believe that the next generation of >>> terrorists will use UAVs to hit their targets. In fact this is well >>> known and no secret. So what can be done to stop such an attack? >> Wouldn't it be easier just to drive a large van? >> The idea of Next Gen Terrorism is eccentric, and possibly a little too >> analytical! - just my opinion of course. > > Ok suppose you needed to blow up the Whitehouse. You couldn't get near > enough in a van. But a model aircraft would do some damage. Not nearly > as much of course but it's the shock that counts and the effect on the > polulation.The sooner officials start looking at this threat the > better.If you tried that, you'd probably end up with people laughing, rather than being terrorised. When serious car bombs go off in city centres, they aren't using a handful of explosives. They use 10's or 100's of kilos. To carry that much explosive you'd need a fairly large plane. Not the sort you could hand launch within sight of the target, and fly visually like any model enthusiast. You'd be looking at either a Cessna sized UAV with a camera link back to the pilot, or a suicide bomber in a real Cessna. The suicide bomber approach has already been seen, so the remote piloting approach brings nothing new. It's just a minor variant of the World Trade Centre attack. In other words, its business as usual for the security people (and despite the current US war on toothpaste, I believe there are people behind that depressing facade who are genuinely assessing real threats, and doing their best to mitigate them). On the other hand, a converted truck loaded with short range rockets, parked in the vicinity of the white house is a genuine threat. Those rockets have a long enough range that its difficult for the security people to check through everything in such a wide area. An attacker can wait until some big moment, and rain a substantial bunch of rockets down on a fairly small area. I'm sure that type of threat is being monitored for all the time. The individual rockets are small, and easy to smuggle into the target area. The truck conversion is pretty straightforward, and simple soft cover until the last minute will easily disguise it. Given that, why would someone try technically challenging UAV solutions? Its this kind of woolly thinking that is making travel to the US such an annoyance. Regards, Steve
Reply by ●June 15, 20082008-06-15
Rune Allnor wrote: (snip)> I suspect it would attract attention from all sorts > of law enforcement agencies if somebody started buying > those kinds of things these days.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/09/22/student_causes_scare_at_logan_with_shirt_art/ Sometimes all you have to do is wear it. -- glen
Reply by ●June 15, 20082008-06-15
<kronecker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:b1c61a34-8069-43e1-bed4-ed726d54c535@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> What's the smallest object that can be resolved on radar? eg could a > large model aircraft be seen or would it be confused with say a large > bird?You should not misunderestimate the birds. In the medieval times, they used birds with the attached incendiaries to set the cities on fire. In our days, birds can carry small nuclear bombs as well as other WMDs. VLV
Reply by ●June 15, 20082008-06-15
On 15 Jun, 14:29, "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:b1c61a34-8069-43e1-bed4-ed726d54c535@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > What's the smallest object that can be resolved on radar? eg could a > > large model aircraft be seen or would it be confused with say a large > > bird? > > You should not misunderestimate the birds. In the medieval times, they used > birds with the attached incendiaries to set the cities on fire. In our days, > birds can carry small nuclear bombs as well as other WMDs.Don't know 'bout nukes, but birds are well-known carriers of biological WMDs, most notably the H5N1 and west nile viruses. Rune
Reply by ●June 15, 20082008-06-15
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:29:48 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:> In our days, > birds can carry small nuclear bombs as well as other WMDs.Aren't nukes necessarily rather too heavy for a bird to carry? I don't know much about'em, but I thought that there was a minimum size required to make "boom", as opposed to "fizz". Not that fizz would be any kind of good thing either... Cheers, -- Andrew
Reply by ●June 15, 20082008-06-15
On Jun 15, 12:33 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 15 Jun, 14:29, "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >news:b1c61a34-8069-43e1-bed4-ed726d54c535@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > What's the smallest object that can be resolved on radar? eg could a > > > large model aircraft be seen or would it be confused with say a large > > > bird? > > > You should not misunderestimate the birds. In the medieval times, they used > > birds with the attached incendiaries to set the cities on fire. In our days, > > birds can carry small nuclear bombs as well as other WMDs. > > Don't know 'bout nukes, but birds are well-known carriers > of biological WMDs, most notably the H5N1 and west nile > viruses. > > RuneWe already have West Nile carried by mosquitoes in the DC area. We also have a lot of Lyme disease. Bird Flu tends to break out in places where you have a lot of outside poultry production. There are a lot of chicken farms around here but they get raised inside. I recall reading an article some time ago about the British having a viable method of killing Hitler towards the end of WWII, but they decided against it because there was a chance that someone competent would take over.
