Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 5, Insightful) 381

you obviously know very little about atomic devices if you think that they can be set off by someone blowing up the facility. In order to form the chain reaction necessary for an atomic explosion, the forces must be very precisely directed. And with the radioactive material so far underground already, there's no danger of releasing radiation into the surrounding countryside. Its far more dangerous to let the Iranians have a working nuclear device than to worry about putting extra large pot holes all over their country. Which is sad, because if their government cared at all for their people, they'd realize that pissing off the US is a good way to look more like large parking lot than an industrialized country.

Comment Re:Not needed any more (Score 1) 215

You are talking about a time scale in days, if not weeks. I was referring to a time scale in hours, if not days. Emergency systems of those type are designed to withstand the EMP to allow for immediate deployment. More long term recovery would certainly involve fixing the civilian infrastructure. But an EMP would not hamper our ability to deploy a conventional (or even nuclear) counterstrike. Heck, if it could, then you wouldn't need to even target even near the ground, as the range of the EMP is significantly larger than the blast radius.

Comment Re:Not needed any more (Score 1) 215

Incorrect. In a war situation, our military is mostly EMP Proof. its designed that way. but civilian life is not, so it would be affected. given the choice of retaliating or restoring services, our military would do their duty and retaliate. Then they'd work on restoring the internet so that you could tweet about WWIII

Comment Re:Move to military contracting if you do get out. (Score 1) 212

I once new a guy who found a unique ex military profession. he went back into the military. This guy signed on at 18 as an enlisted. did 20 years. after retiring at 38, he got dispensation to re-enlist, but this time as an officer, and then retired again as a full bird at 58 years old. (airhead)

Comment Re:Personally I have no problem with this (Score 2) 212

it is discriminatory, in the strictest sense of the word. But its not illegal. its not even immoral. To provide preferential treatment to those who gave up their time to help defend our freedom is not a bad thing. To offer a job to someone who risked their life to ensure our way of life is never a bad thing. Of all the things our government does that they shouldn't do, it should do more for veterans.

Comment Re:That seems somewhat smart (Score 4, Funny) 212

low wages, check. no respect from superiors, check. hazardous working conditions, check. surly attitudes, check. sounds like it would make sense. plus it would discourage people from attacking your it folks when the server goes down. (would YOU want to complain about slow download speeds to your IT guy if you knew he was an ex-green beret with PTSD?)

Comment Re:Greed. (Score 1) 460

I'm unconvinced that FDR deliberately caused the deaths of thousands of americans and allies by provoking an attack on Pearl Harbot. Your site shows memos which indicate that such an attack would make for a great excuse for entering the war, but fail in many ways. First off, the Japanese could just has easily attacked the Presidio in San Francisco. Or Alameda, or San Diego, or the Aleutians.

They could also have just as easily limited their attack to the Philipines.

The Summer 1941 embargo of Japn, which resulted from the breakdown in negotiations certainly did not happen in a vacuum. US leaders undoubtedly understood that there was no dealing with hitler and that since Japan was hitler's ally, if they wanted to help Britain further, they would have to go to war. Hitler did them a favor by attacking the USSR (bringing them into the war on our side). Japan's attack on Pearl had the effect of bringing the US in. Even if the attack had not been such a surprise, like if the incoming flight of zeros had not been mistaken for a returning flight of patrol planes or some-such, the Effect of Japan attacking Pearl without declaring war first is what caused the outrage.

But the outrage was unnecessary. the US didn't need it to crush the Japanese. indeed, it was production, not emotion, which won the war in the pacific. that and advanced training techniques. by the end of 1944, the US were running around in new carriers, new planes, with new pilots who knew what they were doing. The Japanese were still in Zeros (and the like) and running low on ships, oil to run the ships, fuel for the planes, and qualified pilots to fly them. Defeat was inevitable.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell