HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Further Question
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:08:54 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <0eaFZ7i00iQC0bbHYJ@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>Reading around some more, I read that India had tried to obtain
>flash X-ray cameras -- I don't think thats the correct technical
>term -- but its a high speed X-ray camera, so that, for example
>you can follow what is going on, for example, while testing your
>implosion scheme for a plutonium bomb.
>
>Now, the sale of this equipment to India was blocked.
>
>This leads me to the question: As some posters have written, it is
>generally agreed today that plutonium bombs can be built to work
>without nuclear testing. What are the equipment needed for
>this to be feasible ? (For example, presumably the X-ray
>cameras would be a help.)
>
>Why I ask this is not to prove anything, but to know what
>assumptions about equipment and technology are being made
>when you say that something is possible.

To the best of public knowledge, no nation that has attempted to
build and explode an atomic bomb has ever failed, other than the
ones who were forcibly stopped by outside action before they got 
to the point of testing of course.

Once the US showed it was possible, and two different ways at that,
the work of designing and building an atomic weapon has been mostly
cookbook. Testing can show ways to improve yield and reduce size,
but these are mere(!) engineering details with most of the information
needed available in the open literature. 

Flash X-ray equipment would be helpful in developing the conventional
implosion system, but is not necessary. The US didn't have one when
the first implosion bomb was built, and it worked. The alternative
is to simply build a lot of implosion systems, fire them, and look
at the dummy nuclear material that got squished in the bang. That's
the way the US did it.

Given relatively pure U235 or Pu239, access to a good machine shop
with inert atmosphere machining equipment, a good explosives lab,
some relatively unsophisticated electronics, and a desktop computer,
a bomb is no big deal. A grapefruit sized bomb with high yield is
another matter, and likely would benefit from field testing. H bombs
are also another matter, considerably more complex events occur in
a very very short time. Testing is definitely indicated for at least
the first few generations. There's evidence that the first Soviet
H bomb was a fizzle.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: ipolyi@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Harold H. Ipolyi 713-486-6444)
Subject: Re: To clarify
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:36:39 GMT

In article <weayINq00VpQ4CKEoz@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> So, while this administration (and the US govt. in general) may be acting
|> for US self-interests, it certainly isn't acting morally. A government
|> breaking its own law isn't moral. And if laws are so elastic, then the claim
|> that the US administration is bound by law to do this or not do that is
|> quite obviously b.s.

It seems naive to equate legal with moral.

Throughout history, for example, slavery has been 
both legal and illegal in many societies and 
countries. Moral?

Normally, groups in power make laws, then jail or 
execute the "offenders". Disenfranchisement, 
represented by abysmal voter turnout, may be the 
manifestation of a deeprooted dissatisfaction with 
the immoral mass of special-purpose laws emanating 
from legislatures.  (All negatives herein are by design).

MY perception of whether a law is "GOOD" or 
"BAD" depends on how it affects me.

All tax codes are law, therefore "legal", but I 
defy one to find anything moral about the way 
most of them are instituted and applied.

Bad laws should be challenged; but one needs 
mega$,$$$,$$$.-, even more than conviction.

End of pet peeve. :)

|>But its only the blindest and most deluded patriot who equates the government
|>(even a democratically elected government) and the nation.

Of course. But, the people (those that bother) DO elect the
government, therefore it IS "representive" of the will and
of the spirit of the electorate....

Next soapbox: 

Term limitations:

It seems silly to educate persons in the intricacies of
modern legislative or adminstrative effort, then throw 
them out just as they may be gaining proficiency.

It seems just as silly to allow lifelong "government
service", as this insulates and isolates these 
"public servants" from the every-day concerns of the 
people, but requires them thrive on specific special 
interest electorates.

Possibly something along lines of 12 years in government,
6 years out (not even dog-catcher) might make real
people out of some of the "lifers".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: Lunar Society
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200917.8618@news.media.mit.edu> jeanie@media.mit.edu (Jean Y. Kim) writes:

>Hi netters,
>I am forwarding this for a friend.

>It's less than ten years to 2001...
>... do you know where YOUR space program is?

>THE LUNAR SOCIETY
>We can't afford the price of a ticket, let alone the space-equivalent
>of the covered wagon.  The only way WE are going is if we build the
>machines, vehicles, tools, habitats, factories, encampments and
>homesteads -- OURSELVES.


First of all, is this _for real_?  Apologies if it is, but this sounds
like an ad from the back of a cereal box for little kids.


>ENROLLMENT
>
>The Lunar Society is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization founded in
>1986 by Dr. Jerry Pournelle, present Chairman, along with Dr. Philip
>Chapman (former Apollo astronaut) 

There has never been any Apollo astronaut named Philip Chapman that ever
flew on a mission.  Are we having our chains yanked, or maybe this guy
went through the training, but didn't fly?  What selection group was he
in?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Schroeder	                |  Warning: prolonged exposure to this
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |  .sig may cause retinal damage and 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  |  blistering skin rashes.
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:36:23 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug23.102639.19909@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <174oidINNqra@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>>
>>You might notice that NASA's percentage of the federal budget hasn't
>>dropped in ten or fifteen years now (if I remember correctly).
>
>NASA's budget has been fairly stable at around $15 billion while the
>federal budget has skyrocketed. From 1% of the federal budget, NASA's
>share has dropped to 0.15% this year.

In 1991 dollars, NASA's budget peaked around 1964 or 65 at about
$25 billion, according to my sources.  It then declined to about
$11 billion by 1972 and has been creeping up to $15 billion since then.

My impression was that the percentage of the overall federal budget
had been stable since 1972, but I don't have that info.  (If anyone
does have that hard data on fed. budget size in constant dollars,
I'll be back in the US on Friday and I can compare them 8-)


   -george william herbert
   gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: To clarify
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.150408.12460@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>Please. Should we investigate the Caste system in India next? 

Feel free but please do it in a more appropriate newsgroup.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------238 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Russia/India Sanctions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:02:03 GMT

"Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>A question on Wales Larrison's article:

>>While the
>>funding organizations in the Indian government for the two programs
>>are different, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. manufactures both the Agni
>>and SLV/ASLV within the same factory.   

>This is what is of most interest (and why I think you are talking through
>the top of your hat ). Please name what parts of the SLV and Agni are 
>being built in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. :  the propellant ? the rocket
>casing ? the inertial navigation system ?   ..... Or is the the overall
>assembly
>only ? -- please be precise.

	The following is gleaned from _International Reference Guide to Space
Launch Systems_ published in 1991.  

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is the Prime Contractor
ISRO Liquid Propulsion System Center is responsible for the liquid engines
Hindustan Aeronatics builds the structure
ISRO Vikram Sarabhai Space Center is responsible for avionics

Of course, both the accuracy and information content of this data could
be questioned I suppose.
>ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu








-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Who went to Rio
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:59:35 GMT
Reply-To: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: wolfone@huey.cc.utexas.edu

I'll make this brief. I just would like to know if any spaceflight advocacy
groups like the L-5 Society or the Lunar Society made it to the Earth Summit
in Rio last June. I was hoping someone tried to inject some other views on 
saving the environment there (like moving some industry off Earth and getting
resources from the asteroids, etc.) Just wondering.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: To clarify
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:04:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <4ebOwGu00VAwM2_sU0@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>Mr. Mohney, nobody is saying that the US government doesn't do
>good on occasion. The point is that somebody who occasionally
>tells the truth is still a liar. And that is hardly a claim for
>moral authority !

Ah. I see. So the Government (represented by the people, elected and staffed by
the people) is Evil, by and large. 

Please. Should we investigate the Caste system in India next? 
                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:44:17 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To clarify

Mr. Mohney,
Its you who introduced the words `evil' and `imperialism' into
this thread, not me. Perhaps you mispercieve what I'm saying.

People do elect the government. But who wants an unethical Congressman,
or a budget deficit ? Yet we have these things. The government is at
best, an incomplete expression of the will of the people. Poor governance
doesn't mean an incompetent people, nor does bad government imply an
evil people, even for a democratic government. Lastly, foreign policy
(apart from strong defence) rarely ever plays a role in the elections;
it is always shadowed by domestic issues. Thus, there is no real reference
to the people of the government's foreign policies. (on a side track --
maybe we should have a foreign policy election for George Bush and
a domestic issues election for Clinton, both can win and all will
be happy :-).)

The record is quite unambiguous -- a claim that all US foreign policy
decisions are guided by a high moral standard is bunkum. To complete
the circle of argument, to claim some moral purpose in blocking the
Russian sale of cryogenic rocket engines to India is dubious.

This thread has gone far off politics.space and I remove myself from it.
I will try to get more information about the Indian space program, and
will post if successful. Till then,
bye,
arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:07:23 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To clarify


While you are mentioning dictatorships you may want to include
the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, Noriega of Panama,
and even Saddam Hussein. The first was brought to power by the
CIA and all were propped up at one time or the other by the US.

The most recent case, Saddam Hussein, illustrates the point the
best. During his eight year war with Iran, Hussein was very careful
not to let privations fall on the Iraqi civilians (other than the
constant stream of wounded and dead) so that no domestic opposition
would be raised. In this noble task, the US assisted with a billion
dollars worth of agricultural credits. And at that point he was
gassing his own dissident population and Iranians. But that didn't
matter, of course. Now Saddam Hussein has become a villain, of
course, its of utmost urgency that his people should organize to
throw him out. And to induce them to do it, they are being starved
by sanctions. Interesting twist of policy, isn't it, and of course,
extremely moral. What was right yesterday is wrong today, and if
we conveniently forget it, we can all bask in the glow of moral
rectitude.

I say, the only explanation is: self-interest.

The Shah of Iran was another nasty. Very nasty. Yes, he built some
nice cities and highways, and let the women walk unveiled. The US
ambassador always gave him high marks, and the Reader's Digest
had articles full of praise. But ask, if not Iranians, then Indians
and Pakistanis who lived there. No, the Shah was not nice. As is
often the case (like in the French Revolution) the only force
that can overthrow a nasty is often just as nasty, and that is a
great pity.

More later,
arun gupta
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:44:02 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To clarify



Mr. Mohney, nobody is saying that the US government doesn't do
good on occasion. The point is that somebody who occasionally
tells the truth is still a liar. And that is hardly a claim for
moral authority !
-arun gupta
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Reverse Engineering
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:20:34 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <MeaX9Zm00VAwEAMERw@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>Question: so the situation would change drastically if India signed
>the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a have-not, or if the five-
>nation conference, being proposed by Pakistan is held and something
>fruitful comes out ?

I think that's a fair analysis of the situation. Precision ICBMs aren't
a major military concern among non-nuclear powers. Though the current US 
law doesn't reflect that reality. Iraqi SCUDs were nuisance weapons with
great propaganda value but little real military significance. If they
had an operational nuclear program, that would have been different.

If the Indian subcontinent becomes nuclear free, I'd expect changes in
attitudes about India possessing high performance launchers.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:10:01 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: To clarify



Its good both of us are laughing, Mr. Mohney ! That way we may not end
up with a bad taste in our mouths about this thread.

Several weeks ago, I saw a political commercial on television, by someone
running for Congress in Pennsylvania. The commercial said: The government
is neglecting Pennsylvania and her workers while providing aid to the
Phillipines and Pakistan.

Nice alliteration, thought I, but aid to Pakistan ? Aid to Pakistan has been
suspended for the last two years or more, under the Pressler Amendment. The
President is to certify that Pakistan has no nuclear weapons before
any aid can be given, and he hasn't been able to do that recently.

Well, I was surprised to find that it wasn't merely political rhetoric.
The current administration illegally (this is the word used by the New
York Times) sent a couple of hundred of million dollars in aid to Pakistan
in the last year or so, in contravention of US law.

So, while this administration (and the US govt. in general) may be acting
for US self-interests, it certainly isn't acting morally. A government
breaking its own law isn't moral. And if laws are so elastic, then the claim
that the US administration is bound by law to do this or not do that is
quite obviously b.s.

Want more examples ?

Is the US evil ? No. I think the ideals in the Constitution and in the
Declaration of Independence of democracy and human rights and the government
being for the people, a servant rather than ruler, will come to be accepted
by most people as the basis for building their own societies.

But its only the blindest and most deluded patriot who equates the government
(even a democratically elected government) and the nation. And I can give
you example after example where the guiding principle of the US government
abroad was pragmatism or expediency and not reflecting at all the
values that American society is supposedly built upon.

The best I can do then, is to say that the US is guided by self-interest,
which is a legitimate reason for doing things. For it to claim some kind
of moral authority is hypocrisy or blindness.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:35:21 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug30.203217.6730@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
=>In article <25344@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
=>>In article <1992Aug28.154918.2856@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
=>>=>In article <25274@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
=>>=>>
=>>=>>It's pretty clear that the Cuban people preferred Castro to Batista, the
=>>=>>US puppet. The US boycott has nothing to do with morality, as is made
=>>=>>evident by US support for despots throughout the globe.
=>>=>
=>>=>Seriously, Jeremy.  That's just out-and-out revisionism.  If this were
=>>=>the case, where did 70% of South Florida's Cuban population come from?
=>>=>I'll give you a clue:  most of them fled the Castro regime either in the
=>>=>last months before he took over, or in the first year or so after he took
=>>=>over.
=>>
=>>They didn't want to live in a war-zone, or a country where life has been
=>>made difficult by constant US aggression. The same pattern was seen in
=>>Nicaragua.
=>
=>And for both countries, you need to read some history, not propaganda.
=>Those people didn't just flee a war zone.  They fled for a specific
=>reason.  That reason has a name - Fidel Castro.

Riiiight - all those Cubans in Nicaragua forcing the population out of 
their homes at gunpoint - even the Houston Chronicle wasn't *that*
stupid.


-- 
==================================================================
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Qui courrait dans l'herbe
==================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: RABIN MEETING
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:23:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.191306.2431880@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>In article <BtnAz1.GCo.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>>
>>The point is that this is all a LOT MORE than you could say 
>>for any other Arab country.  I've yet to see someone challenge 
>>this statement.
>>
>>Before responding, it is important to point out that I 
>>posted that this was a good "first step". 
>
>Question to Mr. Anwar Mxxxxxxd:
>
>Would you rather see Kuwait run by a 100% true moslem government
>with a 100% true moslem leader regardless if the leader was Kuwaiti,
>Iraqi, or Afghani?  Or you'd rather have the Shabah family continue
>to ride Kuwait.

This is about the fourth time today I've seen Mr. Elghani try to
pull the "any Muslim gets absolute priority over anyone or anything
else" line in reference to Kuwait -- three times about to whom Kuwait
chooses to give its financial assistance, and this time about whom a
nation chooses to put in its positions of leadership. Nobody except
Mr. Mohammed has challenged him. The next person, Mr. Mohammed excepted,
who tries to call Israel a religiously-based closed community that only
looks out for Jews will get laughed at, as that is precisely, wrt Muslims
instead of Jews, what Mr. Elghani is attacking Kuwait for *not* being.

Cheers to Kuwait. 

>jle

	-Nora


-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."