HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Stephen Kirby <kirby@pyramid.cs.unr.edu>
Subject: Safeguards in the use of Nuclear Weapons
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Summary: Curious as to how the use of nuclear weapons is safeguarded
Keywords: Nuclear, Fail-Safe
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno  Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:06 GMT


From Stephen Kirby <kirby@pyramid.cs.unr.edu>



	I was curious as to how the military, in ALL nuclear powers,
prevents individuals from firing nuclear tipped missiles. I am asking
for my own piece of mind because for every deterent I can think of, I
can also think of a way to circumvent it.

Steve

[mod note -- at least in the USAF, it is impossible for a crew to launch an
ICBM without certain steps are taken.  These are from memory, and may be
slightly different than actually listed.

	1.  National Command Authority (NCA) orders a launch
	2.  SAC verifies identity of NCA and launch codes.
	3.  Valid launch codes are transmitted to Missle Combat Crew (MCC)
            from SAC in the form of an Emergency War Order (EWO).
	4.  Crew validates (EWO).
	5.  If EWO is valid, crew initiates launch procedures.  Launch
	    keys must be turned simulataneously (+-1 sec).
	6.  Each missile in the flight (10 missiles) tallies the launch
	    vote.  Waits for second valid launch vote from another crew.
	    If both votes are tallied as valid, launch then occurs

Much design went into the design of the safeguards of SAC's nuclear force
to prevent an accidental release.  Movies such as _War Games_, _Twilight's
Last Gleaming_, and _Dr. Strangelove_ are fiction, and don't bear much
resemblance to the real thing.

USN SLBM procedures are probably different.  Hopefully somebody out there
can post what a FBM crew would do

Steve]
act
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord)
Subject: Need info on laser designator wavelengths
Organization: Triangle R&D Corp,RTP,NC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:28:17 GMT


From cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord)


I need some info on infrared lasers used in weapon systems.  We are
talking with the Army about a project and will need to detect the
presence of IR laser energy from various laser designators, range-
finders, etc (all nationalities).  I cannot locate a Jane's weapons
locally.  Can someone send me some info on the wavelength bands used?
THANKS!
--
Charles Lord
cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
Subject: AMRAAM, CIWS, and Dale Brown
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:42 GMT


From MegaZone <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>

In article <C0pA43.JBy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>work, you could build a "poor man's" Patriot system using AMRAAM (but I
>wonder if AMRAAM can perform missile intercepts like Patriot can).

I don't think it would have the mass/energy to deflect a warhead even if it 
hit. A dual seeker (radar/IR) head would be best for area defense, in case
the radar goes down you have backup. Hell, home-on-jam would be nice too...

And again, does anyone know if they named the AMRAAM yet?

>About CIWS. CIWS doesn't refer to a single specific type of gun (ie the
>20 mm Vulcan "Phalanx"). CIWS is an acronym for a light, rapid fire weapon
>system designed for close range air defence, so the CIWS label can be

I should have made myself clear. Dale Brown was refering specifically to the
US Phalanx CIWS "R2D2", he calls it 20mm (right) in some cases and 30mm (wrong)
in others...

CIWS is Close In Weapons System, and I've even seen some authors use the term
in reference to short-range last ditch missile systems. Like ship-board
Stingers, and I think it was Sea Dart or a similar system.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrdek@edinboro.edu
Subject: Still on the Swiss Military
Organization: Edinboro University of PA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:42:55 GMT


From pyrdek@edinboro.edu

There have been much discussion generated by the Swiss Army question but 
I am still looking for the one basic answer.  Do the Swiss have:
    highways convertable into landing strips for jet aircraft by
    simply removing highway dividers?

    pylons on bridges, tunnels and so forth PRE-MINED (that is 
    already charged with explosives to accomplish almost
    imediate demolition without the need to secure the explosives
    from somewhere?  (just one or two responsible people and 
    a "key" to turn the switch)?

    Underground shelters and hospitals stocked and manned to supply
    shelter and/or medical service to the population in times of
    war (including atomic warfare)?

As as side note, does anyone have accurate figures on how much money
is spent (either %of GNP or actual $ or francs) by the Swiss for
military budgets?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: JASON WILLIAM JARVIS <003166j@axe.acadiau.ca>
Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:36:50 GMT


From JASON WILLIAM JARVIS <003166j@axe.acadiau.ca>

In article <C0E5vB.789@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dick Martin <rsmartin@boston.sinet.slb.com> writes:
>From: Dick Martin <rsmartin@boston.sinet.slb.com>
>Subject: Snipers at Stalingrad
>Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:28:23 GMT

>From Dick Martin <rsmartin@boston.sinet.slb.com>

>I have read references to a published book about snipers at Stalingrad and 
of>the "contest" between two of them. I belive the Russian sniper, who 
eventually>won, was a woman.

>If anyone out there knows the title of this book, please e-mail me at:

>        rsmartin@blaca1.sinet.slb.com 

>Thanks in advance...Dick Martin

This would not overly surprise me, as having shot against women, I've found 
that on the whole, almost half of the top ten in any large scale competition 
tend to be women.  I think it's got to do with their physiology (if that's 
the right word).

Jason W. Jarvis
History Department
Acadia University
Wolfville, N.S.
Canada

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: Info request on Patriot SAMs
Keywords: Patriot, SAM, search radar, range 
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:24:59 GMT


From mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)

If the data on Patriot is for a game, try a game for the data!  Air Strike by GDW
contains data on the Patriot which I regard as the closest to reality we're
likely to see for a while.  Harpoon also recently published data for land-based
SAMS which I can send if you're really interested.
(To get full use of Air Strike you need Air Superiority, which is the original
game and contains all flight rules, etc.)

					E

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dick Martin <rsmartin@boston.sinet.slb.com>
Subject: Snipers at Stalingrad
Organization: Schlumberger CAD/CAM, Billerica, MA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:28:23 GMT


From Dick Martin <rsmartin@boston.sinet.slb.com>


I have read references to a published book about snipers at Stalingrad and of
the "contest" between two of them. I belive the Russian sniper, who eventually
won, was a woman.

If anyone out there knows the title of this book, please e-mail me at:

	rsmartin@blaca1.sinet.slb.com 

Thanks in advance...Dick Martin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Schmitt <shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Man Machine Systems Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:19 GMT


From Mike Schmitt <shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>


:   The Carabiniers RGTs were not actually part of the Guard.  They were
: brigaded with the 1st Cuirassier RGT (1812) to form the 1st Cuirassier
: Division.  The breastplates were copper colored.  The Guard heavy cavalry
: is the Grenadiers a Cheval and the Empress Dragoons.

  At Waterloo, the two regiments of Carabiniers formed part of the heavy
  cavalry.  The two regiments formed the 1st Brigade of d'Hurbal's 12th
  Cavalry Division (2d Brigade consisted of the 2d and 3d Cuirassiers)
  as part of Kellermann's 3rd Cavalry Corps.  (Initially positioned on
  Napoleon's left flank opposite Hougoumont).




 

  
-- 
Mike Schmitt - Disclaimer: These opinions are not my employer's.  My opinions 
are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America.  No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great.  Duty first. 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:37:07 GMT


From dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)

Has there been any thought to putting AMRAAMs on an apache? Since the missile
is self-guided, the apache shouldn't need its own radar. Of course, deciding
when to fire without some form of radar could be a problem (can the AMRAAM be
fired "blind" in response to a spotting report from someone on the ground?).
Having the AF give the army some of its newest toys might also be a problem.

-- 
... He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucs!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mjwhite@engin.umich.edu (Michael White)
Subject: Re:  Waterloo account in Les Miserables
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:30 GMT


From mjwhite@engin.umich.edu (Michael White)

In 24800 Kunal Taravade writes:

--> Napoleon lost because of a tragic accident involving a large battalion
which --> fell, both men and horses, into a ditch which the strategists had
--> failed to identify as a possible source of danger. There were
--> also some tactical misjudgements and of course, as is well known,
--> nature played no small part in sealing Napoleon's fate. 

--> However, it appears from Hugo's portrayal of the battle that this
--> incident involving the fall of several men into the ditch was the
--> deciding factor in the battle.

Hugo's account of the battle of Waterloo in Les Miserables is one of the
better known fictional accounts of Napoleon's final defeat.  However, it
does contain
several innaccuracies, the "myth of the ditch" being most prominent.

The battlefield was clear of major terrain obstacles.  There were hedgerows
along some of the roads and paths and parts of the Nivelles road which
ran just behind and parallel to the Anglo-Dutch lines was partially sunken.
This offered the allied forces some protection against bombardment. 
However,
it was not deep enough to disrupt cavalry.  

During the Waterloo campaign, Napoleon had many opportunities to defeat the
Prussian-Anglo-Allied forces.  Numerous mistakes and incompetent 
leadership undid every success.  If nature had anything to do with the
French defeat it was the torrential rains of the 17th which slowed the
French pursuit of Wellington's army and turned the battlefield into a
muddy mess on the morning of the 18th.  

Hugo (and others) seized on the myth of the ditch as an excuse for the 
defeat.  However, Napoleon once stated that the failure of the campaign
was due to the fact that no one, from colonel on up, did their job
properly.

   

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Apache and AMRAAM
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:46:09 GMT


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


MegaZone23 writes:
#with Sea AMRAAM? (say, does the AMRAAM have a name yet? I think Dale Brown

It's likely that "AMRAAM" IS its name. Recall HARM - High SPEED Anti-Radiation
Missile. The "speed" was somehow fudged away to get that clever acronym/name.
The fabrication of cute acronym/names seems to be endemic in certain areas,
with system names obviously being fudged to get a clever acronym/name.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Landing craft
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:40 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)


   Could someone post a list of the standard abbreviations for various 
   amphibious landing craft, such as LCM, LCVP, etc?  Thanks.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:24:57 GMT


From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>

In article <C0CBJE.Fx0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Thomas A. Russ" <tar@isi.edu> writes: 
|> 	3)  Assuming parallel steaming lines, you will be engaging the
|> ships at an average range that is longer than that at which the enemy
|> is engaging you.  For example, the distance from the rear of your
|> column to the head of the enemy column is potentially much greater
|> than the distance between the two battlelines.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> 
|> Thomas A. Russ                                             tar@isi.edu    
|> USC/ISI, 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292      (310) 822-1511
|> 

It is important to realize that firing at a longer range is not always a dis
advantage.  Thusly:  At very long range, shells come almost straight down to
penetrate deck armor.  At short range, they follow flat trajectories to penetrate
belt armor.  However, at some mid-range band, they are striking the target at
nearly 45degrees, which makes the effective thickness of the target's armor much
greater.  This range band was known as the "protected zone," and captains would
try to get into the enemy's protected zone while keeping the enemy out of theirs.

					E

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: nik@nik.b30.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:56 GMT


From nik@nik.b30.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)

In article <C0o9IK.I90@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
>From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>
>    My sources generally concur with yours. Dulin & Garzke only mention
> the 1920 lb shell as being obsolete, and list no further data. They 
> agree with your supercharge data.
>    I never understood why the British changed from their slow/heavy shell
> formula which worked so well. By the way, does Hodges say that the G3
> battlecruisers had L50 guns? I never recall seeing this. Parkes says nothing
> on this, Raven & Roberts say it was a 16"/L45. (perhaps I'll have to order
> Hodges too. WHERE'S MY NAVAL INSTITUTE CATALOG????) I'm trying to build
> a model G3 out of Nelson parts, and I want it to be right.
> 

	Its one of those times when two sides in an argument manage to
simultaneously convince the other side that they are correct. The 
quality of German gunnery in WWI was in part attributed to the high
velocity and flat trajectory of their shells. Testing after the War
convinced the Admiralty that the high velocity route was the correct
one. The Rodney and Nelson where the only ships to carry such guns,
in practice they had a number of problems:

	1) Barrel life compared unfavourably with the 15" guns used
	   in other battleships.

	2) Accuracy in most conditions was worse than the 15"

	3) The triple 16" mounting was not very reliable.

	The KGV 14" gun was a heavy shell/low velocity combination as 
was the 16" designed for the Lion class. HMS Vanguard was outfitted
with refurbished 15" units from Glorious and Courageous. The use of
the 15" was not a retrograde step, it was widely regarded as one of the
best battlships gun/mounting combinations.

-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  Server Product Management	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jeffrey N Jones <jejones%ob1@onus.att.com>
Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:37 GMT


From Jeffrey N Jones <jejones%ob1@onus.att.com>

In article <C0Hvx1.GBw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>> I have read references to a published book about snipers at Stalingrad and of
>> the "contest" between two of them. I belive the Russian sniper, who eventually
>> won, was a woman.
>
>I've read about this also.  I remember it differently though.  There
>was a Russian sniper and a German sniper.  The Russian had a girl
>friend who also was a sniper.  The square off was between the two men. 
>The German lost.  The woman was apparently the lover of the Russian
>sniper.  They both survived the battle but the woman, apparently
>erroneously, was told that her lover had been killed in a explosion. 
>The author of the book looked them both up long after the war when they
>were both old people and told the woman that her lover was still alive.
> He said she was visibly shocked.

She had her arms and legs blown off if I remember right after stepping on
a mine. 

The book is called "Enemy at the Gates"  and is a GREAT book on the battle
of Stalingrad.      ------------------ 

Jeff


-- 
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         | Hooker        : I'll do anything for $50! 
 jeffj@seeker.mystic.com   | Henny Youngman: Will you paint my house?
 Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929 |    

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Emmanuel Baechler <baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch>
Subject: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:42:47 GMT


From Emmanuel Baechler <baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch>


> A spokesman for MD said "Our position is that if our customer, in this
> case the British government, asked for a flyoff we would be very happy
> to participate.  We have every confidence in the aircraft and in its
> ability to challenge any of the competitors."

In the november issue of the Proceedings of the Naval Institute, someone
was very worried about the security of the LAMPS III, if the soviet place
some Hokums on their ships, which is what they want to do.

Of course, an helicopter will always be outclassed by fixed wing aircrafts
in fighter missions, but a Hokum may be better than nothing for ships who
are unable to use planes. In addition, it may be adequate to counter small
naval groups, like some ASW ones, which do only have very limited aircraft
support and rely on their own helicopters.

> A defense analyst furthered "Before the Hokum got a shot off, it would
> be killed.  It would be like a cheap off the shelf fighter going up
> against an F-15.  Nothing comes close to the Apache.  When the Longbow
> is installed, look out.  No tank or helicopter can survive on the same
> battlefield, no matter how maneuverable."

I would be *MUCH* more prudent, at least in the naval case. I do not think 
that helicopters can use the escape manuvers that jet engine fighters use
to escape missiles. An adequate radar and a medium range missile should be
enough to dowm any helicopter that you can find, including the "Apache". I
am convinced that, at least in its naval version, the Hokum has the radar
and the missiles necessary to down other helicopters.

Finally, the idea of a "cheap" fighter to provide minimal support for ASW
groups, to counter adversary helicopters (and ships), makes, IMHO, quite
a lot of sense, at least in the case of the soviet navy.

Emmanuel Baechler.                        | Tel.: ++41-21-693-2732
Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle   | e-mail: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |     or: baechler@liasun6.epfl.ch
MA-Ecublens                               | Standard Disclaimer
CH-1015 Lausanne	Switzerland

Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: no cannister
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:26:13 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>



CG>I read that the M-551 will be replaced by the Armored Gun System which
CG>by the picture looked like a cross between a MBT and a SP arty gun.  I
CG>can't recall any stats offhand and I don't know where the article is,
CG>does anyone have more info?

Hi Chris,

The last I heard about the AGS (which was a few years ago), it was down to
a tossup between 3 105mm armed systems, the Cadillac-Gage Commando, the FMC
Close Combat Vehicle Light, and the Teledyne AGS.  The Commando and the CCVL
were pretty standard looking, allowing for the slightly "off" sight of a 
standard 105mm gun on a <20 ton tank.  The Teledyne AGS is very odd looking.  
The gun is mounted above the chassis, in a tiny turret containg only the gun
mount/recoil system, an autoloader, and sights/sensors.  Everyone else rides in
the main compartment.  Nice low silouhette.

The only other light gun system I've heard of is the 75mm autocannon being 
considered for mounting on the Marine's LAV.  I don't know if the paras are
looking at this as well.  Any info would be appreciated.

Pat
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:33 GMT


From Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)

In article <C0G11s.wJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>[...] it seems, overall, safer
>to stay with the aircraft and add some armor for the crew than to rig up
>ejection seats. [...] 
>	However, why use ejection seats?  Why not mount the crew in a
>capsule, similar to those used on the Space Shuttle and certain bombers.
[...]
>	Thoughts?  Comments?  Anybody done it before?  It seems such
>an obvious idea I'm suprised it's not been done yet.

It's the usual killers of obvious ideas in aeronautical engineering:
weight and money, both at a serious premium in helicopter design.  Even in
fixed-wing aircraft, cockpit capsules have never worked well; they got a
lot of crew killed on the F-111, and imposed serious design penalties in
terms of weight and complexity - you're talking about almost building an
airplane within an airplane here, as it turns out, rather than just[!] blowing
the nose off the plane and popping a 'chute.  Same story for the B-1A; the
blowaway cockpit was about the first feature abandoned when the B-1B went
to the drawing board.  The XB-70 and B-58 used a different approach for
their escape capsules, which were enclosable ejection seats rather than
flight-deck capsules.  But they didn't work very well either. 

Essentially, you answer the question in the lead-in: so many survivability
enhancements can be added for the cost of such a system that it doesn't
make much sense. 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military