HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PAISLEY@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Minuteman Launch Center Surviablity
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:06:41 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center


From <PAISLEY@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>

In article <1992Apr14.003117.22490@cbnews.cb.att.com>, pyrdek@edinboro.edu says:
>
>From pyrdek@edinboro.edu
>
>Does anyone have any information on the following:
>
>Survivability of Minuteman Launch Control Centers.
>     In particular,
I believe the basic consensus is that, in a full-scale nuclear exchange,
these wouldn't stand a chance.  It is this realization that led to the
development of "Launch on Warning" as a policy, because it was the only
way they could be used.  Use 'em or lose 'em.

> Has one ever been tested in an underground A-bomb test out
> on the Yucca Flats (or where ever the undergrond atomic
> bomb testing is conducted)?
I don't think a full test would be necessary, the mathematical models are
sufficient to determine that they are vulnerable.  So, to err on the side
of caution, it is assumed that they will be destroyed.

> Have any been tested using conventional HE to simulate
> either above or below ground detonation?
It would be virtually impossible to use just HE to try to simulate a
cuclear blast.  Even a small warhead is equal to 50 thousand tons of TNT
exploding simultaneously.  It's just to much TNT to detonate at once.  And
again, a test is rather useless.

>What accuracy was assumed for U.S.S.R. missle attack on this type
>of site?  And did it include penetrator (bunker buster) type
>warhead design?
I don't know about accuracy, but their accuracy, combined with nuclear
yield is, shall we say, sufficient to trun any bunker into a smoldering
crater, without even breaking a sweat.

>I am not realy concerned about EMP or ionizing radiation effects, just the
>pure mechanical effects (ground movement and over pressure effects)
>and possibly, if appropiate, thermal effects.
Oh, hell, that's another problem all together.  Maybe someone will re-start
that thread.

>If I am treading to close to some lines on security (I have heard a
>rumor or two), only previously published sources (on the open market)
>should be quoted.
Not to worry, this stuff has been non-class for some time.  It is available
almost anywhere.  Specific numbers may be classified, but the final effects
are public knowledge.
Gordon.
Standard disclaimers apply.
From: rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Smart mine question
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:56:50 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407


From rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty)


	I recall a thread of a few months back in which there was a
discussion of the Marconi Stonefish smart mine. As I understand it,
Stonefish is bright enough to sit patiently on the bottom while low
value target ships pass overhead, distinguishing among them by their
sound characteristics, and then surface under the keel of a priority
target like a capital ship when one happens by.

	How does a smart mine, or a dumb one for that matter, rise
from the bottom to detonate under or against a hull? Is it buoyant
but tightly anchored, or does it blow positive like a surfacing sub?



-- 
||||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Rusty)  ||||||||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: accidental nuclear detonation
Full-Name: News Service
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:35:49 GMT


From eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)

In article <1992Apr3.013157.2415@cbnews.cb.att.com> dif@bhpcpd.kembla.oz.au (David Faulkner) writes:

   The story I heard of why the Titan blew up was that a technician dropped
   a spanner down the silo and it punctured the missile's fuel tank. This
   seemed a bit unlikely to me, since it would be falling down parallel to
   the side of the missile. Does anyone remember or know anything about
   this event.

   There are steel grid platforms at various levels in the silo to
allow access to different parts of the missle.  Presumably the wrench
hit one of these and was deflected into the fuel tank.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: White Phosphorus
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:08:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


From kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)


In a previous article, malx0664%steer@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Generic Account 0664) says:

>
>From malx0664%steer@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Generic Account 0664)
>
>In article <1992Apr7.035242.7155@cbnews.cb.att.com> ha0h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Herbert Simon Ascherman) writes:
>>
>>   A friend of mine's father was wounded by white phosphorus in WWII,
>>and he and I were wondering what exactly WP is, what it does and how it
>>works.
>>            Thanks.
>
>Well, form what I was taught in artillery school in the Corps
>phosphorus is an element that burns as long as it is in contact with 
>oxygen. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe that WP is just purified
>phosphorus.

some slight chemistry is in order here ;-)

There are two main kinds of phosphorus, red and white.
Both are made of phosphorus atoms. White is four atoms in a 
crystalline structure. here are a comparision of physical properties
of the two.

                         Red                    White
Formula                  P                      P4
Physical Appearance:     Red-vlt powder        wht. and waxy.
atmostpheric ignition:   260                    30 & moist air.
  temperature ( C )
Density                  2.34                   1.828
Melting point (c)        597                    44.2

as you can see, white P can ignite at lower temperatures.
Handling must be with caution.

White P also liquifies during during burning < as evident by the low
melting point > and has the tendantcy to stick to what it is burning.

becuase of this, it is hard to put out with normal water.
i believe ABC works though.  < not sure, not a fireman ;-)



* from Lange's Handbood of Chemistry
-- 
In reading a novel, any novel, we have to know perfectly well that the whole
thing is nonsense, and then, while reading, believe every word of it. I talk 
about gods, I am an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. 
Distrust everything I say. I am telling the Truth.  -Ursula K. Le Guin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: IFF and all that
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:57:31 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

Interesting item in the Feb 17 issue of Aviation Week, in an article on
lessons from Desert Storm:  a better system of identifying aircraft is
considered an urgent need, with Rear Adm. Luecke (director USN Tactical
Readiness Div) saying "It was amazing there was no air-to-air fratricide
in Desert Storm".
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:06:14 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From biman@turtle.ee.queensu.ca (Aapoolcoyuz)
>
>I was under the impression that only
>the Su-27 did "Pougachev's (sp?) Cobra".  I didn't think the 
>Mig-29 did (or was capable) of doing it as well.

It sure *looked* like the MiG-29 did Pougachev's Cobra last
year at the Salinas airshow.

The crowd went nuts, following a brief pause during which they
thought that their eyes were lying to them.  The tail slide was
nifty, too.

I came home with a Fulcrum t-shirt.  :}

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: manuelp@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald N.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low Altitude Training
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:46:57 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility


From manuelp@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald N.)

In article <1992Apr7.034932.6767@cbnews.cb.att.com> craig.patten@f824.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Craig Patten) writes:
>
>hh> from flying at 200 feet that it takes considerable training
>hh> for pilots to fly effectively at the lower altitude, yet only two air
>hh> forces in the world train for it [the USAF not among them].
>
>Which air forces are these?
>

Doesn't the RAF do low-level training with their Hawks ?  And doesn't
NATO a/c carry out ultra low-level flights in the Canadian North?  This
particular activity (curtailed somewhat now) has been raising a lot of
protests from environmental (!) groups and native Inuit communities of
the north.

Gerald
From: PAISLEY@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: raised section on Sturgeon-class sub
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:59:34 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center


From <PAISLEY@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>

The Parche is a Special Operations Boat.  The extra hull fittings are part
of its Spec Op package.  It is my understanding that the exact content of
those hull modifications are so secret that there are even members of the
boat's crew that don't know what's in them.
Take that as you will, but my source was a sailor in San Diego who had talked
to sailors on Parche when she was there.
This may just be some kind of hocus-pocus, or it may be a case where a secret
is actually being kept a secret.
BTW, I have seen Parche tied up in San Diego myself.  She is one strange-
looking boat!  She almost looks like a "Baby-boomer," because that hull
section is reminiscent of the missile deck on a missile sub, except on
Parche, it's forward of the sail.

Gordon.
1170 to be.  26 & a wakeup!
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Some strange ideas on air assault
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:33:29 GMT


From egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)

In article <1992Apr8.233855.22863@cbnews.cb.att.com> "Zoltan Egyed (607)-255-4882" <EGYED@LNS62.TN.CORNELL.EDU> writes:
>
>From "Zoltan Egyed (607)-255-4882" <EGYED@LNS62.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
>
>After too much time on the computer, got some far-fetched ideas on
>making a paratroop landing more concentrated in time, and to reduce
>the time needed to bring in some heavy stuff.

Folks use helicopters for that.  Air Cav, after all.

>M1A1 Abrams on the carrier. Airborne commanders would love to have them
>fast after landing.

M1A1 are a bit heavy.  And what you're proposing means clearing off
the entire flight deck for the duration of the operation, something
carrier captains are loathe to do.

I think Air Cav units tend to use their gunships to provide mobile
fire support.  An Apache perhaps doesn't have the shock effect of
an Abrams, but still....
From: RBARTON@who.trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why F-117
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:09:40 GMT
Organization: Trinity College


From RBARTON@who.trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III)

In article <1992Apr15.035016.3625@cbnews.cb.att.com>, yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) writes:
> 
> 
> From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
> 
> Why the AF designated the F-117 F-117 instead of maybe F-19.
> 
> We know there was F-17,18,20,21,22,23, where was F-19?

Most reports claim the 117 number originated from the radio call signs used
by the Stealth pilots when flying in Groom Lake and Tonopah, two of the
black planes' bases.  Those are the same fields that operated the MiG-15s,
19s, 21s, and 23s that the US has evaluated from Egypt, Israel, Vietnam, etc.
and they all took low three digit numbers (generally 11#).  As to why they
skipped the F-19 designation, perhaps they intended to make it the 19,
but the 117 designation stuck, I'm not sure.  117 certainly suggests the 
missing block from the F-111 to the F-117, but I doubt there's any
correlation.

US designations have been getting weirder for some time now.  
Case in point:  In an attempt to save funding for the giant Mach 3 B-70
Valkyrie bomber, USAF redesignates it RS-70 for Reconnaissance Strike.
We don't have a S- prefix for strike a/c, and even if we did, there
certainly weren't 69 of them pre-the RS-70.  Then along come the recce
Blackbird (another plane with strange designatorial history) and its called
SR-71, supposedly due to one of LBJ's many mis-statements.  The SR now
stands for Strategic Reconnaissance.  If that's not enough, the late model
U-2R's -lacking $$$ from Congress, are redesignated TR-1s for Tactical Recce.
Then the NASA version is called the ER-1 for Earth Resources.  All this from
a plane originally called the U-2 precisely to hide its true nature from
Congressional oversight.  One last twist, the U-2 was designed by
Kelly Johnson (P-38,P-80,F-104,U-2,SR-71,etc.) of Lockheed fame.  His design
for the U-2 came as an effort to thwart Martin's proposal (masked as the X-16,
I think.  X was also used to throw off Congress.  His U-2 Was very much based
on the structural design of the F-104, with enourmous modification.
So if one wanted to apply standard designations with an eye to accuracy before
common sense, the current NASA bird the ER-1 could be rightly called something
like the RF-104N Starfighter.

Nothing's ever simple.
Ran Barton
RBARTON@MAIL.TRINCOLL.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:23:19 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Brian Hanafee writes:
#don't use the Glock because it doesn't have a clip release lever.  He

The Glock, like all modern pistols, has both a magazine release and a
slide stop/release.

The Glock differs from most other current 9mm pistols in that chambering
a round "half-cocks" the action. Pulling the trigger completes cocking
and fires the gun. The trigger pull is the same for each shot.

Conventional double action pistols can be operated so as to drop the
hammer without firing the chambered cartridge. The first shot subsequently
fired requires a long double action trigger squeeze, and all following
shots have a shorter single action squeeze. The M9 Beretta has a safety
which, when actuated, moves the firing pin out of line and drops the
hammer. It must then be returned to the "fire" position to get that 
first double action shot. The SIG-Sauer P226 has a decocker which, when
depressed, drops the hammer, but is spring-loaded to return to the "fire"
position automatically.

The requirements for pistols for US service tend to specify both single
and double action fire capability. This tends to put pistols like the 
Glock and the HK P7 at an inherent disadvantage.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:10:49 GMT


From patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)

In article <1992Apr10.013550.9278@cbnews.cb.att.com> davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich) writes:

>Do you have any data on stopping power comparisons between .45 and 9mm?  It
>apprears that there is a book out there, whose name and and author escapes me atthe moment, that details actual shooting statistics for various calibers.

There was an article recently in the American Rifleman on the FBI's
comparison study of the 9mm, 10mm, and .45 pistols. That study showed
clear superiority in stopping power of the 10mm and .45 over the 9mm.
Up to that point, there had been a fairly even split between FBI men
over the .45 and 9mm, some preferring the .45, some the 9mm.

The FBI selected the 10mm as their new official weapon. According to
their tests, it packs the same power as the .45 and the 9mm doesn't.
There is suspicion that they selected the 10mm instead of the .45
because they didn't want the .45 afficianados saying "told you so" to
the 9mm people.

They have since then had reliability problems with the new 10s, but
that's a different issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | "Statistics": A means of presenting your personal
                    |   prejudices in convincing political disguise.
                    |         Kelvin Throop - The Management Dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mat%mole-end@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: accidental nuclear detonation
Summary: I've never heard of these ...
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:47:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr8.004752.13174
Organization: :


From mat%mole-end@uunet.UU.NET

In article <1992Apr7.033900.5662@cbnews.cb.att.com>, dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths) writes:
 
> The use of electronic neutron generators, rather than the old
> polonium/beryllium "golf balls" is an additional safety measure. A
> frangible initiator would always go off when compressed by an
> explosion, but an electronic generator requires the fuzing system to
> be operating normally.

I've never hear of an electronic neutron generator.  How does it work?
Is it a deuteron gun?
 
> One of the most famous nuclear weapons accidents was that over
> Palomares, Spain in 1966. A B52 carrying 4 Mk28RI weapons collided
> with a KC135 tanker. One weapon landed intact, one went into the sea
> (recovered intact from 2,850 feet) and 2 exploded. No nuclear
> explosion took place, although the explosive dispersal of plutonium
> involved an extensive clean-up operation, involving the removal of
> hundreds of tons of contaminated soil.

As as aside, I remember reading that the US Ambassador to Spain at
the time was one Angier Biddle Duke, who would be the grandson of the
character who inspired Disney's *Happiest Millionaire*.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
From: gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Accidental ICBM launch
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:35:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)

An interesting story in this regard is from 1956, when a Snark Surface Missle
was test launched (in armed configuration it would have a 4MT warhead), after
it went of course, the lauch command ordered a destruct, but the Snark refused
and went over the horizon, eventually landing in Brazil...!

Then in 1979 a Brazilian Farmer found a 'strange object' on his property!!!

So it can happen :)
From: anderson@bellman.lanl.gov (Alan Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Wide Area Mines
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:59:39 GMT
Followup-To: smart tank mines
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory


From anderson@bellman.lanl.gov (Alan Anderson)

  >From napalm@next09pg2.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn)

  I read somewhere that a couple companies have developed smart anti-tank
  mines.  They appear to be small cylinders about the size of a paint-can
  and they somehow sense an approaching armored vehicle somehow(magnetic?),  
  and then fire a projectile straight up into the air which then locates the  
  target tank and fires itself into the weaker top armor of the vehicle.   
  Can anyone out there confirm this or give more information on this?  I  
  also heard there is an anti-helicopter version of this mine.  How does  
  THAT work?

Textron Defense Systems makes the Wide Area Mine (WAM) and the Anti-Helicopter Mine (AHM). To the best of my knowledge, both are still under development/testing and neither have actually been fielded. I believe both mines use seismic and/or acoustic to make a "launch" decision. The launched "skeet" then uses thermal sensors to actual acquire the target, firing a self-forged projectile into the target. 
                                    Alan.
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: White Phosphorus
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:52:11 GMT
Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia


From bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)

In article <1992Apr14.005741.27335@cbnews.cb.att.com> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:

>As soon as the phosphorus had direct contact with air, and was above 70F,
>it will ignite spontaneously.  (The water was needed to *keep* the stuff
>from burning.)  And it glows faintly green in the dark before it lights
>off, too.  Toxic, be careful, etc.

Apparently the way to treat someone injured in a phosphorus explosion
is to put them in a water bath in a darkened room and look for glowing
particles of phosphorus.  There is a solution that is used to inactivate
the surface layer of phosphorus (copper sulphate?) but that is toxic too.

According to my reading, it isn't just elemental phosphorus that is used,
but a 90% phosphorus 10% plasticised rubber mixture.  (All the better to
stick?).

The greatest use of phosphorus grenades/bombs/shells was for their instant
smokescreen effect.  Compared to smoke candles or base-ejecting shells,
they could put a reasonable smoke screen in a very short time.  Unfortunately
unlike the slower methods, the heat from the burning phosphorus tended to
disperse the smoke vertically, rather than hugging the ground in the
direction of the prevailing wind as was the case with the cooler smoke
from smoke pots.

Bill Lee
(According to reports, up to 50% of 40mm grenades fired failed to explode
and still present a danger to the indiginous people in Vietnam. You may
thinks this is an isolated problem until you consider the automatic
40mm grenade launchers mounted on helicopters. Cluster bomblets as well.)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: pistols vs. airliners
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:39:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
>>...a .45 slug would NOT go through the side of an Airliner.
>
>Sure they can.  An airliner's fuselage is an incredibly thin piece of
>metal...

On the other hand, it's reasonably strong, and the .45 is not much of a
penetrator.

However, the whole debate misses a fundamental point:  having a bullet
go through the skin of an airliner is not that big a deal.  Airliners
leak like sieves as it is; they stay pressurized only by pumping air in
faster than it leaks out.  And considerable damage tolerance is part
of their design.  The notion that one bullethole will have dire results
is a *myth*, the result of people taking one of the early James Bond
movies (really!) as a reliable source of technical information.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry