Article

2004-05-20 Terror Networks

Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by JAB 2004-05-20 10:45:42 AM|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 One thing about one of the co-authors of "Endgame," Paul Vallely. His son was just killed in Iraq. The author appeared on Fox News. You could sense the intense emotional loss he felt even as he maintained a stoic, laconic pose. I just feel so grateful to all of the troops and their families.

I will buy a copy of the book. It sounds great.

We must be victorious in Iraq. Iraq might not get democracy, but we have got to hold fast and turn over power to a decent government.

Posted by Bob 2004-05-20 11:26:47 AM|| 2004-05-20 11:26:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 On topic: A few months ago the Russians claimed to have developed some kind of beam weapon that would neutralize nuclear weapons.

I think between nanotech and all the rest we are probably far ahead of where we say we are right now.

That's a good thing. Iran starts testing ICBM's next year. That's "Intercontintal Ballistic Missiles" for the uninformed. The kind that can hit anywhere in the USA.

I just want Bush to have a plan to deal with the Iranians. We have to nail them at some point.

Posted by Bob 2004-05-20 11:29:41 AM|| 2004-05-20 11:29:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "Neutralizing" nuclear weapons can happen in several ways.
First, and easiest, is to attack their delivery system. This technology has existed ever since the original US ABM system was established in the 1970s. This can happen in several ways: anti-missiles, satellite and airborne lasers, and pre-emption, from attacking lauch sites to sabotaging hardware or software.
Second is to interfere with their guidance and/or arming systems before they become ballistic (free falling.) The purpose is to throw them off course or make their trajectory unstable, causing the missile to destroy itself.
Third would be to interfere with the chain reaction of the nuclear material. Unless the timing klystron in the bomb itself detonates the high explosives precisely, the yield of the bomb is drastically reduced or eliminated. The other way, suggested by the above book, is by bombarding the nuclear material itself with some kind of energy that can also strongly inhibit a chain reaction.
Optimally, you use ALL of the above, and any other tricks you can come up, ALL the time.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-05-20 11:51:36 AM|| 2004-05-20 11:51:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Dog Bites Trolls TROLL 2004-05-20 12:26:25 PM|| 2004-05-20 12:26:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 ..I'm going to make a comment that may start a real argument here, but here goes:
Assuming that this is true - and I hope to God it is - we won't know until a Black Hat or Nork lights the fuse and steps back to watch the fun. We wheel out the Death Star, and a few tons of useless metal digs a hole in a Manhattan street.

Then what?

Do we - justifiably and without any compunction - erase them from the planet? One Trident boat can do that without even using up all its missiles. Or will we sit there and argue over what course of action to take while the rest of the world decides WE'VE gone rogue?
They will, you know. The EU, Russia, and China already know that the only thing that would stop us is a nuclear weapon - but if even that restraint goes out the window, would they decide that maybe it's time to put us down once and for all?
They may not be able to. But I sure as hell think they'll try. Don't misunderstand me - if this thing exists, build as many as we possibly can, even if we bankrupt ourselves. But we had damn well better be ready for what will come next.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-05-20 12:35:06 PM|| 2004-05-20 12:35:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 We've still got big programs running at DOE labs and elsewhere. I'd like to think we are doing something more than just maintaining the last generation of nukes and playing around with missile defence and bunker buster bombs.

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2004-05-20 1:55:05 PM|| 2004-05-20 1:55:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Why nuke us when all they have to do is elect Kerry?

Posted by B 2004-05-20 3:17:31 PM|| 2004-05-20 3:17:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Unless this weapons system can find and neutralize an atomic bomb sitting in a car trunk, it's practically useless.

Posted by Gazoo 2004-05-20 5:30:06 PM|| 2004-05-20 5:30:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 This technology that I refered to earlier today as "Microwave a Mullah", could be used effectively, and if things got real sour, would be used in Iraq or environs. It would theoretically, as I understand particle beams, not only neutralize atomic weapons, but "disrupt cellular function in organic systems" i.e. "Microwave a Mullah".

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-20 5:36:47 PM|| 2004-05-20 5:36:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Having the "Part Number" formatted to look like an NSN makes me suspect this is just BS.

The actualy stuff is probably some sort of particle beam, one that will create a particle flux that will interfere with fission in the trigger section. And the problem is that it takes a lot of energy to excite a large enough number of particles to those energy levels - so much so that its likely not prtable at all.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-05-20 11:29:41 PM|| 2004-05-20 11:29:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I don't know squat about any of this stuff. But I'm reminded of a comment about the SR-71 Blackbird when it was first Declassed. When they declass something like that you'll know there is a replacement that makes that bird obsolete.

And then I'm reminded of the Luftwaffel's(?) high tech birds that were a little to late to decide the battle. The good news, in my mind, is that our opponents in this war are looking at a 30 years war. Their modus is like Carpenter ants.

Hem, thats not good news Lucky!

Shut up.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-20 11:43:50 PM|| 2004-05-20 11:43:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 If you do a google search you'll find that some Japanese scientists proposed a neutrino beam, and yes the generator is huge and beyond current technology. A nuke in a car trunk is detectable, but the car would have to pass by a scanner such as the kind that are already in use in some places.

Posted by virginian 2004-05-20 11:54:00 PM|| 2004-05-20 11:54:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 LTA, blimps, over the approach areas to our ports!? 24/7.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-20 11:57:11 PM|| 2004-05-20 11:57:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'd like to agree with "B" in #7 about electing Kerry. Anyone who cant underrstand the the web of terror and evil dictators would prefer Kerry over the hard charging Bush is missing some marbles. Also, with respect to this BHB particle flux beam system and wether or not we have one....does "HAARP" ring a bell? Google it and find out for your self how far ahead USA has been in this Utterly Classified feild of weapons systems.

Posted by Quarterdeck 2004-10-14 4:29:35 PM|| 2004-10-14 4:29:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Dog Bites Trolls 2004-05-20 12:26:25 PM|| 2004-05-20 12:26:25 PM|| Front Page Top

12:59 Dog Bites Trolls
18:42 Dog Bites Trolls
05:12 Dog Bites Trolls
05:04 Dog Bites Trolls
04:57 Dog Bites Trolls
04:18 Dog Bites Trolls
03:12 Dog Bites Trolls
03:05 Dog Bites Trolls
00:33 Dog Bites Trolls
22:52 Dog Bites Trolls
22:19 Dog Bites Trolls
12:34 Dog Bites Trolls
12:33 Dog Bites Trolls
12:31 Dog Bites Trolls
12:26 Dog Bites Trolls
12:22 Dog Bites Trolls
22:27 Dog Bites Trolls
21:33 Dog Bites Trolls
23:47 Anonymous5485
13:33 haterofmuslimpigs
02:04 Anonymous5071
01:12 Mark Espinola
02:21 Not Mike Moore
02:16 MrGrumpyDrawers