[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: any 3 letters

Brian Candler

7/3/2008 10:27:00 AM

> xxx765xxx should match
> vvv123vvv should be omitted
>
> is it possible to write proper regular expression?

Yes, it's possible, but you may find it less mind-bending just to use two
regular expressions:

puts "match" if foo =~ /\A[a-z]{3}\d{3}[a-z]{3}\z/ && foo !~ /\A...123/

If you really want a single regexp, then you can explicitly code a match for
the allowed digit ranges:

re = %r{\A [a-z]{3}
([02-9]\d\d | 1[013-9]\d | 12[0124-9])
[a-z]{3} \z}x

Or you can be clever and use a negative look-ahead assertion:

re = %r{\A [a-z]{3} (?!123) \d{3} [a-z]{3} \z}x

Note that %r{...}x is just a way to write regexps with embedded spaces and
newlines, so that they can be more easily understood.

HTH,

Brian.
9 Answers

Bruce Dawkins

9/30/2007 10:10:00 PM

0

Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Chom Noamsky" <b@t.me> wrote in message
> news:cSQLi.128045$bO6.17@edtnps89...
> > <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message
> > news:uWLLi.628631$Bo7.169758@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> >> Leftist, anti-US skeptics have long claimed that ballistic missile
> >> de fence was a fantasy and would never work. Now they have
> >> conclusively been proved wrong again just as they have
> >> on everything else.
> >
> > Clown, Chinese and Russians have already developed and tested BMD
> > countermeasures. Decoys, manoeuvering warheads, stealth missiles... even
> > one-off rogue terrorist missiles can be outfitted with something as simple
> > as chaff dispensers. You can bet the nuclear powers have made sure their
> > arsenals are not going to be rendered ineffective. The funny part is the
> > countermeasures have cost pocket change compared to the massive
> > expenditures on BMD.
> >
>
> There is NO system you can devise, that some other system cannot be
> developed to overcome. If you worry about someone coming up with a counter
> to what you come up with, you would not even bother to come up with the
> system in the first place. And, it is not whether someone will try to
> figure out a way to counter what you have dreams up, but how effective will
> it be. As for any counter measure, do you for a second believe that the US
> military is not well aware of all the counter measures your oponent is
> dreaming up? But, the bottom line is, ANY adversary is not about to launch
> a missile attack, "if" they cannot destroy the expected response. From a
> nuclear exchange standpoint, no country is going to risk launching such a
> strike, unless they are certain that they can completely defeat any counter
> measure that is developed. Sending ICBM's, and not knowing what percentage
> will actually do its job, is not a very smart tactics. A missile defense
> system does not HAVE TO knock out every incoming missile (though that would
> be nice), it just has to knock out enough of the incoming missiles, to
> retain an ability to respond to such an attack. As for counter measures
> that one could employ with an ICBM, that cannot be done in the boost phase.
>
>

Now that China and India are planning missions to the Moon as part of their
respective longterm space programs, I can see why Bush got edgy a few years
back and announced that it was time for the USA to go back!

Never forget Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"; where there were
weapons platforms in orbit above the earth looking down.

Chom Noamsky

9/30/2007 10:33:00 PM

0

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:470019a6$0$11017$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Chom Noamsky" <b@t.me> wrote in message
> news:cSQLi.128045$bO6.17@edtnps89...
>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message
>> news:uWLLi.628631$Bo7.169758@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>> Leftist, anti-US skeptics have long claimed that ballistic missile
>>> de fence was a fantasy and would never work. Now they have
>>> conclusively been proved wrong again just as they have
>>> on everything else.
>>
>> Clown, Chinese and Russians have already developed and tested BMD
>> countermeasures. Decoys, manoeuvering warheads, stealth missiles... even
>> one-off rogue terrorist missiles can be outfitted with something as
>> simple as chaff dispensers. You can bet the nuclear powers have made
>> sure their arsenals are not going to be rendered ineffective. The funny
>> part is the countermeasures have cost pocket change compared to the
>> massive expenditures on BMD.
>>
>
> There is NO system you can devise, that some other system cannot be
> developed to overcome. If you worry about someone coming up with a
> counter to what you come up with, you would not even bother to come up
> with the system in the first place. And, it is not whether someone will
> try to figure out a way to counter what you have dreams up, but how
> effective will it be. As for any counter measure, do you for a second
> believe that the US military is not well aware of all the counter measures
> your oponent is dreaming up? But, the bottom line is, ANY adversary is
> not about to launch a missile attack, "if" they cannot destroy the
> expected response. From a nuclear exchange standpoint, no country is
> going to risk launching such a strike, unless they are certain that they
> can completely defeat any counter measure that is developed. Sending
> ICBM's, and not knowing what percentage will actually do its job, is not a
> very smart tactics. A missile defense system does not HAVE TO knock out
> every incoming missile (though that would be nice), it just has to knock
> out enough of the incoming missiles, to retain an ability to respond to
> such an attack. As for counter measures that one could employ with an
> ICBM, that cannot be done in the boost phase.

Missile defence was never meant as a shield against another nuclear power
like Russia, it was ostensibly a shield against a rogue state or 'terrorist'
that might launch a one-off. The scenario is so fantastic it's akin to
buying meteorite insurance. Missile defence is really just a way to funnel
heaps of taxpayer funds into the pockets of defence contractors, sort of a
corporate make-work welfare program.

If rogue states or terrorists are determined to nuke the US, how would you
stop them from using a submarine to get right up close to an American port
city and detonating a nuke? No missile even required.


Bruce Dawkins

9/30/2007 11:07:00 PM

0

Viejo Vizcacha <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If some group launches some missile and it has a nuclear bomb,
> stopping it in mid air might not help much. Depending on the winds,
> the fall of radioactive particles might affect even more people than
> if it had hit a city.
>
>
Heck. Detonating a nuke from a cargo ship on the Great Lakes would contaminate
the water of over 40 million people and destroy the North American economy;
putting us back to the stone age.

Why are we worrying about some asshole despot lobbing the odd missile from
afar?

Jerry Okamura

9/30/2007 11:17:00 PM

0


"Chom Noamsky" <b@t.me> wrote in message
news:uuVLi.112733$Pd4.90227@edtnps82...
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:470019a6$0$11017$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Chom Noamsky" <b@t.me> wrote in message
>> news:cSQLi.128045$bO6.17@edtnps89...
>>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uWLLi.628631$Bo7.169758@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>> Leftist, anti-US skeptics have long claimed that ballistic missile
>>>> de fence was a fantasy and would never work. Now they have
>>>> conclusively been proved wrong again just as they have
>>>> on everything else.
>>>
>>> Clown, Chinese and Russians have already developed and tested BMD
>>> countermeasures. Decoys, manoeuvering warheads, stealth missiles...
>>> even one-off rogue terrorist missiles can be outfitted with something as
>>> simple as chaff dispensers. You can bet the nuclear powers have made
>>> sure their arsenals are not going to be rendered ineffective. The funny
>>> part is the countermeasures have cost pocket change compared to the
>>> massive expenditures on BMD.
>>>
>>
>> There is NO system you can devise, that some other system cannot be
>> developed to overcome. If you worry about someone coming up with a
>> counter to what you come up with, you would not even bother to come up
>> with the system in the first place. And, it is not whether someone will
>> try to figure out a way to counter what you have dreams up, but how
>> effective will it be. As for any counter measure, do you for a second
>> believe that the US military is not well aware of all the counter
>> measures your oponent is dreaming up? But, the bottom line is, ANY
>> adversary is not about to launch a missile attack, "if" they cannot
>> destroy the expected response. From a nuclear exchange standpoint, no
>> country is going to risk launching such a strike, unless they are certain
>> that they can completely defeat any counter measure that is developed.
>> Sending ICBM's, and not knowing what percentage will actually do its job,
>> is not a very smart tactics. A missile defense system does not HAVE TO
>> knock out every incoming missile (though that would be nice), it just has
>> to knock out enough of the incoming missiles, to retain an ability to
>> respond to such an attack. As for counter measures that one could employ
>> with an ICBM, that cannot be done in the boost phase.
>
> Missile defence was never meant as a shield against another nuclear power
> like Russia, it was ostensibly a shield against a rogue state or
> 'terrorist' that might launch a one-off. The scenario is so fantastic
> it's akin to buying meteorite insurance. Missile defence is really just a
> way to funnel heaps of taxpayer funds into the pockets of defence
> contractors, sort of a corporate make-work welfare program.
>
> If rogue states or terrorists are determined to nuke the US, how would you
> stop them from using a submarine to get right up close to an American port
> city and detonating a nuke? No missile even required.
>

One or two nuclear bombs going off on US soil is not the problem. The
problem is many nuclear bombs going off on US soil.

Bruce Dawkins

9/30/2007 11:47:00 PM

0

Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> One or two nuclear bombs going off on US soil is not the problem. The
> problem is many nuclear bombs going off on US soil.
>
>
And the chance of that happening from a foreign missile launched from the
culprits home territory rates right up there with Los Angeles getting an NFL
team next year!

And that is without considering the "enemy tech" that has already made an ABM
system like that irrelevant.


Whoo! Hoo! Kim Il Jong shot a SCUD over Japan into the Pacific!

Better drop another $50 billion!

Bruce Dawkins

10/1/2007 12:31:00 AM

0

Viejo Vizcacha <elbie_jovis_kasha@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I clearly remember that when the Chernobyl accident the food chain in
> Sweden was affected. And there wasn't even a nuclear explosion. Some
> studies even suggested that it marginally affected the IQ of Swedish
> children.
>
> VV
>
I had just returned from France a week after Chernobyl. My friends were still
in Europe at the time. Everyone in Europe was touched by the fall out from
the plant because its remains showed up in their water table, lakes, air and
food. Everyone who has read about it knows that the plant was a piece of shit,
not even close to the one in Pennsylvania in 1979.

My time in Grenoble a week before that was interesting. Grenoble has a nuke
power plant smack damn in the middle of the valley, right beside the city.

France relies on Nukes for over 70% of their fuel, most of their unranium comes
from Manitoba Canada. The French know how to do it. They cool the reactors
with liquid nitrogen and use a reactor that are different from the USA and the
old Soviet Union. In fact, it's more like the Candu we use in Canada.

Their safety record is impeccable and the French people have no issues with a
giant fucking "nuke" smack dab in the middle of their life.

Bruce Dawkins

10/1/2007 2:39:00 AM

0

Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Viejo Vizcacha" <elbie_jovis_kasha@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:71ad8$47003a7a$cf703803$9954@PRIMUS.CA...
> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>
> >> "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1191192615.206684.46540@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Sep 30, 6:32 pm, "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote:
> >>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> news:470019a6$0$11017$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote in message
> >>>> >news:cSQLi.128045$bO6.17@edtnps89...
> >>>> >> <anonym...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >>>> >>news:uWLLi.628631$Bo7.169758@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> >>>> >>> Leftist, anti-US skeptics have long claimed that ballistic missile
> >>>> >>> de fence was a fantasy and would never work. Now they have
> >>>> >>> conclusively been proved wrong again just as they have
> >>>> >>> on everything else.
> >>>>
> >>>> >> Clown, Chinese and Russians have already developed and tested BMD
> >>>> >> countermeasures. Decoys, manoeuvering warheads, stealth
> >>>> missiles... >> even
> >>>> >> one-off rogue terrorist missiles can be outfitted with something as
> >>>> >> simple as chaff dispensers. You can bet the nuclear powers have
> >>>> >> made
> >>>> >> sure their arsenals are not going to be rendered ineffective. The
> >>>> >> funny
> >>>> >> part is the countermeasures have cost pocket change compared to the
> >>>> >> massive expenditures on BMD.
> >>>>
> >>>> > There is NO system you can devise, that some other system cannot be
> >>>> > developed to overcome. If you worry about someone coming up with a
> >>>> > counter to what you come up with, you would not even bother to come
> >>>> > up
> >>>> > with the system in the first place. And, it is not whether someone
> >>>> > will
> >>>> > try to figure out a way to counter what you have dreams up, but how
> >>>> > effective will it be. As for any counter measure, do you for a
> >>>> > second
> >>>> > believe that the US military is not well aware of all the counter >
> >>>> measures
> >>>> > your oponent is dreaming up? But, the bottom line is, ANY
> >>>> adversary is
> >>>> > not about to launch a missile attack, "if" they cannot destroy the
> >>>> > expected response. From a nuclear exchange standpoint, no country is
> >>>> > going to risk launching such a strike, unless they are certain that
> >>>> > they
> >>>> > can completely defeat any counter measure that is developed. Sending
> >>>> > ICBM's, and not knowing what percentage will actually do its job,
> >>>> is > not a
> >>>> > very smart tactics. A missile defense system does not HAVE TO
> >>>> knock > out
> >>>> > every incoming missile (though that would be nice), it just has to
> >>>> > knock
> >>>> > out enough of the incoming missiles, to retain an ability to
> >>>> respond to
> >>>> > such an attack. As for counter measures that one could employ with
> >>>> > an
> >>>> > ICBM, that cannot be done in the boost phase.
> >>>>
> >>>> Missile defence was never meant as a shield against another nuclear
> >>>> power
> >>>> like Russia, it was ostensibly a shield against a rogue state or
> >>>> 'terrorist'
> >>>> that might launch a one-off. The scenario is so fantastic it's akin to
> >>>> buying meteorite insurance. Missile defence is really just a way to
> >>>> funnel
> >>>> heaps of taxpayer funds into the pockets of defence contractors, sort
> >>>> of a
> >>>> corporate make-work welfare program.
> >>>>
> >>>> If rogue states or terrorists are determined to nuke the US, how would
> >>>> you
> >>>> stop them from using a submarine to get right up close to an American
> >>>> port
> >>>> city and detonating a nuke? No missile even required.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If some group launches some missile and it has a nuclear bomb,
> >>> stopping it in mid air might not help much. Depending on the winds,
> >>> the fall of radioactive particles might affect even more people than
> >>> if it had hit a city.
> >>>
> >> understand the subject matter before making such claims
> >
> >
> > I clearly remember that when the Chernobyl accident the food chain in
> > Sweden was affected. And there wasn't even a nuclear explosion. Some
> > studies even suggested that it marginally affected the IQ of Swedish
> > children.
> >
> Think about this. The only place that nuclear bombs were used were in the
> cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are these two cities "wastelands"?


The tactical explosive weaponry of the Naga and Hiroshima bombs may have caused
thousands of fatalities, but "fat boy" and its cousin were tiny nukes compared
to the power those suckers out there today.

In fact, I don't think that there is a conventional nuclear bomb as weak as
what hit Japan so long ago used today.

Chom Noamsky

10/1/2007 4:23:00 AM

0


"Bruce Dawkins" <bruce.dawkins022@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.216a27df2179b2a498995d@news.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Viejo Vizcacha" <elbie_jovis_kasha@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:71ad8$47003a7a$cf703803$9954@PRIMUS.CA...
>> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1191192615.206684.46540@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> On Sep 30, 6:32 pm, "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote:
>> >>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>> news:470019a6$0$11017$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote in message
>> >>>> >news:cSQLi.128045$bO6.17@edtnps89...
>> >>>> >> <anonym...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> >>news:uWLLi.628631$Bo7.169758@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>> >>>> >>> Leftist, anti-US skeptics have long claimed that ballistic
>> >>>> >>> missile
>> >>>> >>> de fence was a fantasy and would never work. Now they have
>> >>>> >>> conclusively been proved wrong again just as they have
>> >>>> >>> on everything else.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >> Clown, Chinese and Russians have already developed and tested BMD
>> >>>> >> countermeasures. Decoys, manoeuvering warheads, stealth
>> >>>> missiles... >> even
>> >>>> >> one-off rogue terrorist missiles can be outfitted with something
>> >>>> >> as
>> >>>> >> simple as chaff dispensers. You can bet the nuclear powers have
>> >>>> >> made
>> >>>> >> sure their arsenals are not going to be rendered ineffective.
>> >>>> >> The
>> >>>> >> funny
>> >>>> >> part is the countermeasures have cost pocket change compared to
>> >>>> >> the
>> >>>> >> massive expenditures on BMD.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > There is NO system you can devise, that some other system cannot
>> >>>> > be
>> >>>> > developed to overcome. If you worry about someone coming up with
>> >>>> > a
>> >>>> > counter to what you come up with, you would not even bother to
>> >>>> > come
>> >>>> > up
>> >>>> > with the system in the first place. And, it is not whether
>> >>>> > someone
>> >>>> > will
>> >>>> > try to figure out a way to counter what you have dreams up, but
>> >>>> > how
>> >>>> > effective will it be. As for any counter measure, do you for a
>> >>>> > second
>> >>>> > believe that the US military is not well aware of all the counter
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> measures
>> >>>> > your oponent is dreaming up? But, the bottom line is, ANY
>> >>>> adversary is
>> >>>> > not about to launch a missile attack, "if" they cannot destroy the
>> >>>> > expected response. From a nuclear exchange standpoint, no country
>> >>>> > is
>> >>>> > going to risk launching such a strike, unless they are certain
>> >>>> > that
>> >>>> > they
>> >>>> > can completely defeat any counter measure that is developed.
>> >>>> > Sending
>> >>>> > ICBM's, and not knowing what percentage will actually do its job,
>> >>>> is > not a
>> >>>> > very smart tactics. A missile defense system does not HAVE TO
>> >>>> knock > out
>> >>>> > every incoming missile (though that would be nice), it just has to
>> >>>> > knock
>> >>>> > out enough of the incoming missiles, to retain an ability to
>> >>>> respond to
>> >>>> > such an attack. As for counter measures that one could employ
>> >>>> > with
>> >>>> > an
>> >>>> > ICBM, that cannot be done in the boost phase.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Missile defence was never meant as a shield against another nuclear
>> >>>> power
>> >>>> like Russia, it was ostensibly a shield against a rogue state or
>> >>>> 'terrorist'
>> >>>> that might launch a one-off. The scenario is so fantastic it's akin
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> buying meteorite insurance. Missile defence is really just a way to
>> >>>> funnel
>> >>>> heaps of taxpayer funds into the pockets of defence contractors,
>> >>>> sort
>> >>>> of a
>> >>>> corporate make-work welfare program.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If rogue states or terrorists are determined to nuke the US, how
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> you
>> >>>> stop them from using a submarine to get right up close to an
>> >>>> American
>> >>>> port
>> >>>> city and detonating a nuke? No missile even required.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If some group launches some missile and it has a nuclear bomb,
>> >>> stopping it in mid air might not help much. Depending on the winds,
>> >>> the fall of radioactive particles might affect even more people than
>> >>> if it had hit a city.
>> >>>
>> >> understand the subject matter before making such claims
>> >
>> >
>> > I clearly remember that when the Chernobyl accident the food chain in
>> > Sweden was affected. And there wasn't even a nuclear explosion. Some
>> > studies even suggested that it marginally affected the IQ of Swedish
>> > children.
>> >
>> Think about this. The only place that nuclear bombs were used were in
>> the
>> cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are these two cities "wastelands"?
>
>
> The tactical explosive weaponry of the Naga and Hiroshima bombs may have
> caused
> thousands of fatalities, but "fat boy" and its cousin were tiny nukes
> compared
> to the power those suckers out there today.
>
> In fact, I don't think that there is a conventional nuclear bomb as weak
> as
> what hit Japan so long ago used today.

The bombs dropped on Japan were low efficiency, only a small percentage of
the fissile material was converted to energy. That meant a lot of
radioactive particulate was left over to shower down on the cities. Even
so, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not written off. Modern nukes are designed
to convert fissile material to energy much more efficiently; on the order of
97-99%, so there is much less toxic fallout. Using conventional explosives
to disperse radiological material could easily render a city unliveable. A
modern nuke could demolish a city but result in a relatively small amount of
radioactivity.


Bruce Dawkins

10/1/2007 4:50:00 AM

0

Chom Noamsky <b@t.me> wrote:
>
> "Bruce Dawkins" <bruce.dawkins022@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.216a27df2179b2a498995d@news.individual.net...
> > Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Viejo Vizcacha" <elbie_jovis_kasha@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:71ad8$47003a7a$cf703803$9954@PRIMUS.CA...
> >> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1191192615.206684.46540@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> On Sep 30, 6:32 pm, "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote:
> >> >>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> news:470019a6$0$11017$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote in message
> >> >>>> >news:cSQLi.128045$bO6.17@edtnps89...
> >> >>>> >> <anonym...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>> >>news:uWLLi.628631$Bo7.169758@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> >> >>>> >>> Leftist, anti-US skeptics have long claimed that ballistic
> >> >>>> >>> missile
> >> >>>> >>> de fence was a fantasy and would never work. Now they have
> >> >>>> >>> conclusively been proved wrong again just as they have
> >> >>>> >>> on everything else.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >> Clown, Chinese and Russians have already developed and tested BMD
> >> >>>> >> countermeasures. Decoys, manoeuvering warheads, stealth
> >> >>>> missiles... >> even
> >> >>>> >> one-off rogue terrorist missiles can be outfitted with something
> >> >>>> >> as
> >> >>>> >> simple as chaff dispensers. You can bet the nuclear powers have
> >> >>>> >> made
> >> >>>> >> sure their arsenals are not going to be rendered ineffective.
> >> >>>> >> The
> >> >>>> >> funny
> >> >>>> >> part is the countermeasures have cost pocket change compared to
> >> >>>> >> the
> >> >>>> >> massive expenditures on BMD.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > There is NO system you can devise, that some other system cannot
> >> >>>> > be
> >> >>>> > developed to overcome. If you worry about someone coming up with
> >> >>>> > a
> >> >>>> > counter to what you come up with, you would not even bother to
> >> >>>> > come
> >> >>>> > up
> >> >>>> > with the system in the first place. And, it is not whether
> >> >>>> > someone
> >> >>>> > will
> >> >>>> > try to figure out a way to counter what you have dreams up, but
> >> >>>> > how
> >> >>>> > effective will it be. As for any counter measure, do you for a
> >> >>>> > second
> >> >>>> > believe that the US military is not well aware of all the counter
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> measures
> >> >>>> > your oponent is dreaming up? But, the bottom line is, ANY
> >> >>>> adversary is
> >> >>>> > not about to launch a missile attack, "if" they cannot destroy the
> >> >>>> > expected response. From a nuclear exchange standpoint, no country
> >> >>>> > is
> >> >>>> > going to risk launching such a strike, unless they are certain
> >> >>>> > that
> >> >>>> > they
> >> >>>> > can completely defeat any counter measure that is developed.
> >> >>>> > Sending
> >> >>>> > ICBM's, and not knowing what percentage will actually do its job,
> >> >>>> is > not a
> >> >>>> > very smart tactics. A missile defense system does not HAVE TO
> >> >>>> knock > out
> >> >>>> > every incoming missile (though that would be nice), it just has to
> >> >>>> > knock
> >> >>>> > out enough of the incoming missiles, to retain an ability to
> >> >>>> respond to
> >> >>>> > such an attack. As for counter measures that one could employ
> >> >>>> > with
> >> >>>> > an
> >> >>>> > ICBM, that cannot be done in the boost phase.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Missile defence was never meant as a shield against another nuclear
> >> >>>> power
> >> >>>> like Russia, it was ostensibly a shield against a rogue state or
> >> >>>> 'terrorist'
> >> >>>> that might launch a one-off. The scenario is so fantastic it's akin
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>> buying meteorite insurance. Missile defence is really just a way to
> >> >>>> funnel
> >> >>>> heaps of taxpayer funds into the pockets of defence contractors,
> >> >>>> sort
> >> >>>> of a
> >> >>>> corporate make-work welfare program.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If rogue states or terrorists are determined to nuke the US, how
> >> >>>> would
> >> >>>> you
> >> >>>> stop them from using a submarine to get right up close to an
> >> >>>> American
> >> >>>> port
> >> >>>> city and detonating a nuke? No missile even required.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If some group launches some missile and it has a nuclear bomb,
> >> >>> stopping it in mid air might not help much. Depending on the winds,
> >> >>> the fall of radioactive particles might affect even more people than
> >> >>> if it had hit a city.
> >> >>>
> >> >> understand the subject matter before making such claims
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I clearly remember that when the Chernobyl accident the food chain in
> >> > Sweden was affected. And there wasn't even a nuclear explosion. Some
> >> > studies even suggested that it marginally affected the IQ of Swedish
> >> > children.
> >> >
> >> Think about this. The only place that nuclear bombs were used were in
> >> the
> >> cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are these two cities "wastelands"?
> >
> >
> > The tactical explosive weaponry of the Naga and Hiroshima bombs may have
> > caused
> > thousands of fatalities, but "fat boy" and its cousin were tiny nukes
> > compared
> > to the power those suckers out there today.
> >
> > In fact, I don't think that there is a conventional nuclear bomb as weak
> > as
> > what hit Japan so long ago used today.
>
> The bombs dropped on Japan were low efficiency, only a small percentage of
> the fissile material was converted to energy. That meant a lot of
> radioactive particulate was left over to shower down on the cities. Even
> so, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not written off. Modern nukes are designed
> to convert fissile material to energy much more efficiently; on the order of
> 97-99%, so there is much less toxic fallout. Using conventional explosives
> to disperse radiological material could easily render a city unliveable. A
> modern nuke could demolish a city but result in a relatively small amount of
> radioactivity.
>
>
>
Yeah, But former Marine and author Rod Serling was writing about that stuff
long ago, even before we were watching cartoons about "DUCK AND COVER!"

Lol!


I just want a big fucking bomb shelter in my back yard, so I can screw chicks
in it.

Or, that's what I thought back in the 1960's. ;)