HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>
Subject: Internal/External (was Re: Scope of Action-US Military)
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:32 GMT


From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>

patterson,george r (patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:
: 
: From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
: 
: In article <C17vr8.Eso@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca> writes:
: 
: >>Ever heard of the War Between the States (also called the Civil War or the
: >>Valiant Fight Against Yankee Agression)?
: >
: >Yes, I have, though I thought since the Confederacy seceeded from the
: >Union, they weren't considered a part of the United States any more (de
: >facto, a foreign power, thus within the scope of the ability of Congress
: >to declare war.)
: 
: That was the Confederacy's opinion. Lincoln did not agree. His entire
: rallying cause during the first three years of the war was the attempt
: to reunite the country. 

This discussion has led into another interesting area.  At what point in a
rebellion does the issue stop being an internal affair, and in theory not the
concern of third parties, and become a dispute between nations.

It could be argued that the Confederacy showed almost all the attributes of
a sovereign state and, therefore, alliance with a European power would have
not constituted interference with internal U.S. affairs. The critical area
that the South never controlled was its own foreign trade, which the North
kept under its control with the crude tool of a blockade.

Possibly more relevant is the question of Yugoslavia.  I believe that the
Serbian position is that Bosnia is part of Yugoslavia and the entire affair
is internal.  Obviously the Bosnians disagree.  I've noted with interest as
the maps and comments of newsmakers have changed over time.  Until fairly
recently the maps used by the news have continued to use the Yugoslavia label,
even if only on Serbia.  Now most maps just list the individual republics.
From: jonke@brl.mil (Patrick Jonke)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: re: DU Rounds
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:05 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From     Patrick Jonke <jonke@brl.mil>

>> ...is it actually a fusion-reaction that would enable surprisingly deep
>> penetration into armor?

> What happens is on contact the KE of the round becomes heat, melting
> the armor and the round and forming a high-temperature molten metal jet
> that slices through the armor. 


Where on earth did you get this idea?  8-)

KE rounds don't "melt" (neither do shaped charge jets, for that
matter); the interaction with the armor takes place so fast that there
isn't time to melt anything. Keep in mind that the term "melt" implies a
change from solid to liquid and should not be confused with plastic
deformation. Some energy is taken up by plastic deformation of the
target and penetrator (which also heats them) and some by momentum transfer.

In a nutshell, DU is used in KE rounds because it is very dense (~18.7
g/cc) compared to steel (~7.8 g/cc). The primary material property
factor in penetration is the ratio of threat density to target density.
To maximize penetration for a given round, you want to make that ratio
as large as possible. Tungsten (~19.3 g/cc) is used for the same reason.


Hope this helps...
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Ephraim P. Hochberg" <eph3@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: Seal Team Rebreathers
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:39:00 GMT


From "Ephraim P. Hochberg" <eph3@po.cwru.edu>


Does anyone know how rebreathers work? All I know is that they act like
SCUBA gear, but give off no bubbles. What kind of duration do they have?
How expensive are they?

			Thanks,
				Ephraim Hochberg
-- 
Ephraim Hochberg				eph3@po.cwru.edu	
Botulinus toxin is lethal to humans at doses of 1 ng/kg.

'Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.'

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:50 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <C0r2FK.C92@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> nik@nik.b30.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
>
>
>In article <C0o9IK.I90@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>    I never understood why the British changed from their slow/heavy shell
>> formula which worked so well. 
>
>	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. 
But they also should have known that the "quality of German gunnery in WWI"
was a realtive thing, (i.e. the Germans looked good because the British were
so bad) and that most of the problem with the British gunnery was poor 
quality shells, and that this was fixed after the Battle of Jutland.
They should have known better.

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: I don't speak for AT&T, and they don't speak for me.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Won-Soon Lau <engp2065@nusunix1.nus.sg>
Subject: Catching a Tomahawk
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:13 GMT


From Won-Soon Lau <engp2065@nusunix1.nus.sg>

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the Tomahawk cruise missile
recently.  My impression of the missile is that it is vulnerable to ground
small arm fires because it is flying at such a low altitude.  I had a
discussion with my brother and we came out with this (crazy??) idea of
catching (yes, not shooting it down) a cruise missile.

The scheme is very simple.  Suppose you can identify in advance some of
the potential targets (e.g. weapon factory, defence military HQ) which
you think will be attack by the cruise missile.  The first thing to do
is to erect one or two layers of heavy duty fishing nets surrounding
the target.  The nets should be set up at a distance of 200m away.  One
end of the nets should be firmly archored to the ground and the nets are
make to suspend in the air by ballons.  The basic requirement is that the
nets shouldn't be tensioned so that anything falls onto it will be trapped
and entangled.  The nets need not be raised to very high because the
terminal phase of the cruise missile is very low (50m??).  The next thing
is to dig a canal between the nets and target and fill it with water.  The
purpose of this water canal is for the entangled mass to land softly on it
and kill the turbofan on the tomahawk without detonating its warhead. 
Now we are all set to catch the incoming cruise missiles.

The idea is somewhat similar on that use on the carrier to recover those
aircraft which cannot lower its tail hook.  Since the aircraft is a much
bigger mass than a cruise missile I don't see any reasons why this is not
feasible.  I hope to see some discussions and even improvement to this 
scheme.  Thanks.


Won-Soon Lau
--
VLSI DESIGN & CAD LABORATORY          \  Internet: engp2065@nuscc.nus.sg
Dept of Electrical Engineering         \  Bitnet:  ENGP2065@NUSVM.bitnet      
National University of Singapore        \  Phone:  (+65) 772 6319       
10, Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 0511. \______________________________

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW@lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:41:10 GMT


From Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW@lbl.gov>

In article <C17vLw.Eo6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Geoff Miller
<Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com> wrote:

> Why are megaton-range weapons rare in this day and age?  Also, what are
> typical yields of the various nuclear gravity bombs still in inventory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists publishes this sort of thing in
sort of a "weapons table of the month" rotating feature called Nuclear
Notebook.  In BAS you also see advertisements for a series of "nuclear 
weapons databooks" (reliability of information unknown to me) that 
give all the gory details.  It looks as though the biggest gravity
bomb in our recent inventory was the 9-MT B53, of which we had 50
or so; supposedly it is being retired in favor of a larger number of
B-83s with a maximum yield around 1.2 MT.

The big ones are, well, big, which is an obvious delivery disadvantage.
I guess they figure that the results you get are dominated by platform
survivability (for bombers) and cost (both bombers and missiles) rather 
than yield, so it's advantageous to go in with many little ones rather 
than a few big ones.  

There's also the question of what you buy yourself with size.  The
really big ones are better for two things.  One is completely devastating
a large metropolitan area, but a few hundred kT ain't exactly chopped
liver (recall that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki yields were in the teens).
The other is compensating for inaccuracy, especially when attacking
hardened targets such as the other guy's silos.  Inaccuracy used to be
a much bigger issue than it is today; nowadays there is even talk that
we are on the threshold of being able to successfully attack some kinds 
of hardened targets with terradynamic conventional weapons.  City-
busting or even the obvious intent to practice it does not make you 
really popular with either side, and pre-emptive silo-killing is 
considered to be destabilizing influences upon the balance of terror. 

Discussions of high-altitude EMP attacks also usually invoke several-
MT yields because the things you want to take out are mostly on the 
surface and the inverse-square law bites you hard.

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>
Subject: USS Stenis- Nimitz Class Carrier
Keywords: Aircraft Carrier
Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:35 GMT


From Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>

Question here: Who was Mr. Stenis?  (Considering that US Nimitz Class Carriers
are named after famous people from US history, the fact that this name
draws an absolute and total blank is annoying.)



-- 
Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Div. of Behavioural Research-"jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca"
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 
/   The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions /
/         of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government. 	      /

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Harpoon and tactics.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:02 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:

>I've been trying to figure out how two O.H.Perry class frigates
>and a Ticonderoga Cruiser would defend against two soviet
>Kirov Class cruiser. Any suggestions?

	From when I played NAVTAG, the Soviet strategy was "He who
shoots the most first wins."  The USA strategy was "If we survive,
we can sink that empty boat with any gun we have."

	In short, the USSR seems to have this one unless your defense
is better than the computer simulations say is likely.  The best bet
is speed, AEGIS, and a Phalanx or similar with plenty of ammunition.
If you survive and are mobile, you win.  If you don't/aren't, you lose.

	BTW: I am not saying NAVTAG is particularly relevant.  We did
a simulation of a Kirov-class vs an Iowa-class.  The Iowa won because
it was able to hit the Kirov with 16" shells while the Kirov had shot
its load and made life miserable, but not impossible, for the Iowa.  I
would not trust this simulation if *I* were on either ship.

	Getting back to your question, the best bet for the USA forces
is to shoot when they detect inbounds, defend as best they can, and
chase down the Soviet ships with the survivors.  The two philosophies
are interesting to contemplate with regards to present threats.  For
all the media plays up the demise of the USSR and the reduced threat,
it seems our system is much more likely to work against a small country
than the xUSSR's system would given political limitations.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:34 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


From "Eugene N. Miya" <eugene@nas.nasa.gov>

In article <C1H2CL.Dyu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dave pierson
<pierson@empror.enet.dec.com> writes:
>And tracking down the public info on this is rather a hobby of mine.

I was just at LLNL Friday (third visit in 4 months) and one thing I
have noticed is that there is a lot of historical discussion going on
right now in the nuclear community.  I am on the sideline of one such
email discussion between physicists (some of whom are weapons designers),
and some interesting historical questions are being raised in parallel to
this discussion (I was just passing thru, and I noted this discussion to
them).  While the discussion is not classified, it is private, so I
will make no further note than to say you are not alone in tracking,
wondering, and reviewing, the people who lived this are introspecting as well.

BTW guys, the ref I gave on pigeons and aerial photography is a solid
ref.  It never comes better than the Manual of Remote Sensing.
Just probing moderation policies.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			3 down 1 to go.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Missle Destroyers 
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:43 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <C15y9u.K5r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jeff stump <austlcm.sps.mot.com!jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com> writes:
> 
> From jeff stump <austlcm.sps.mot.com!jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com>
> 
>   I read a report saying one of the ships used to
> fire missles the other day was the U.S. Stump. 
> Does anyone know more about this ship ? Why did
> they pick this name ? What type 'class' is it ?
>   Thanks. Out of bad responses are welcome. 
> ***********************************************************
> **  Jeff Stump                                           **
> **  Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas                          **
> **  E-mail:  jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com                   **
> ***********************************************************
>

USS Stump is a Spruance class destroyer.  She is named after a war hero, 
probably from WWII.  Destroyers and frigates in the US Navy are named after
people, typically sailors and marines either who were important to a US
victory (Spruance for example) or who gave their life in the defense of the
country and made a difference in a battle (like a Congressional Medal of Honor
receiptant).

She probably fired Tomahawks from an armored box on the main deck since I
do not think she has been back-fitted with the vertical launch system. 

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that either protect or support the power projectors."





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:26:57 GMT


From Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


In sci.military, aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally) writes:
 >From aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally)
 >
 >It seems to be a commonly held view that by the end of the Second World War,
 >German physicists were very close to developing their own atomic bomb.

This was a common view at that time, but there's nothing to sustain
this concept.  The Germans initially had a five-year lead in the nuclear
research, but they took a wrong turn somewhere along the way.

 >While this may be the case, I do recall reading somewhere that the large
 >heavy-water distilling plant (the name of which I cannot remember) in Nazi-
 >controlled Norway was considered a serious-enough threat for them to try to
 >destroy it.

This was a potential threat, but this doesn't mean that the Germans 
were inches away from building a nuclear bomb.  If I remember right, 
the Germans hadn't even achieved a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction,
similar to that under Enrico Fermi at University of Chicago.

>Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
>German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
>advanced by the time the war ended?

As the Allied forces overran the countries of France and Germany in 
1944 and 1945, they searched for any existence of this proramme, but 
found none.  After the war the American physicists interviewed the German
physicists and reviewed their records, and concluded that the Germans
did take a wrong turn along the way.  Furthermore, the French physicists
weren't cooperating with the Germans.

Note: All of this from my memory; please correct me if I am wrong.  
      No flames, please.  There's a book on this subject that I read
      some time ago; I think its title was "Making of the Atomic Bomb".

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: Chevron
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:38:51 GMT


From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

Okay, let's get this straight...

Ed, you wrote:

|>> Rather a broad statement, considering the fact that no CIWS has yet
|>> received a proper testing in actual combat, with multiple missiles
|>> incoming from unknown directions. As far as I can tell all successful
|>> CIWS firings have been in tests, with a single missile or a pair arriving
|>> from a known direction. Were there any actual combat kills of a single
|>> missile yet?  Not counting Silkworms :)

To which I replied:

|>>The only way you could have "multiple missiles incoming from unknown
|>>directions", is to be on the open ocean at war with some other major
|>>sea power or somekind of surprise attack while in a inland sea or such.

 I was interpreting your statements as saying CIWS wasn't any good and 
 debunking all uses of it in combat so far as not being "proper tests".

But then you replied:

|> That's what I was getting at. The original poster seemed to be
|> questioning the effectiveness of antiship missiles due to the 
|> effectiveness of shipboard close in defense systems. My response
|> was meant to ask "Effective against what?" There are many different
|> threat levels, and the systems are meant to address them all, yet
|> we've really only seen the lower end of the threat spectrum.

And Chris jumped in up with:

|> The point here is that CIWS is not all powerful, and I think it might be
|> a bit hyped.  Remember- it is a LAST-RESORT weapon.  Else why does the 
|> USN have all those guided-missile cruisers to protect the carriers?


 And that is essentially what I meant.  No weapon system will do it all - 
 that's why there are "layered" defenses.  With radar and other sensors 
 and all the layered missile defenses, it should never come down to having
 "multiple missiles incoming from unknown directions".  IF everything works
 close to as advertised, then the CIWS should only have to deal "with a 
 single missile or a pair arriving from a known direction" at most.

 And since, most (if not all) of the CIWS in use have a limited view-of-view
 anyway, the incoming direction is essentially already "known".  By that I 
 mean, a Phalanx on the starboard-aft of a BB can't swing around to engage
 a missile coming in off the port-bow.


 TRAVIS
From: aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:19 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: An Ol Ag surrounded by a bunch of unfriendly Seminoles


From aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu

> From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>


> Am I missing 2 more?  Lexington may only be used for training now.
> 
> [mod note -- Lexingtion is going to be de-commissioned (or may have been
> already, and Forrestal is taking her place.
> 
> You missed the Constellation (part of the JFK/Kitty Hawk class)
> 
> Midway was on it's way back from Japan to be de-commissioned
> 
> Steve]

According to my recollection of one of the posts appearing here, AVT-16
_Lexington_ has already been decomissioned and scraped. Can anyone 
confirm or deny that? 

I would assume _Forrestal_ is already on duty, but I haven't had a
chance to drive up to Pensacola lately.

James
From: tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com (System Administrator)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: White KC-135
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:31 GMT
Organization: TGraphics, Inc.


From System Administrator <tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com>

I am not in the military, and although I have live right next to Barksdale
AFB and have a keen interest in military technology, my knowledge of aircraft
is strictly limited.  BAFB is normally home to B52's, A10's and KC-10's.  The
other day I watched as two planes landed.  They were, as far as I could tell,
KC-135's (4 wing-mounted engines and a refueling boom).  While this in itself
was not strange, their paint scheme was.  They were snow-white from nose to
tail with no discernable markings except for a small blue airforce insignia
(=A=) on the fuselage just aft of the wings.  Not even any tail numbers.  The
only thing I could guess was that these were brand-new planes which had not
yet received their final paint scheme.  A friend who was with me at the time
said that he thought they were some kind of medical transport but that just
doesn't seem right.  Anyone care to shed some light on this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProLine: tgeer@pro-gumbo          Internet: tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com
UUCP:    crash!pro-gumbo!tgeer    Fidonet:  tom.geer@f20.n380.z1.fidonet.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't believe in astrology - We Scorpios aren't taken in by such things."
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: JASON WILLIAM JARVIS <003166j@axe.acadiau.ca>
Subject: Iraqi bagpipers?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:11 GMT


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

	Last night on CNN I saw a news clip from Baghdad where everyone was 
celebrating Clinton's inauguration or something, and one frame showed an 
Iraqi drummer and what looked like two Iraqi *bagpipers*? Am I as blind as I 
think, or is there a Middle-Eastern instrument that just looks and sounds 
like the pipes? Maybe this isn't exactly a military question, but they were 
soldiers, and I can't think of any other groups to send this too.

					Jason

P.S: Maybe they were just left over when the British left . . . ?

Newsgroups: sci.military