Replies

The other day we were talking about the Safeguard system, using the Sprints and Spartans. You are right about that popular science issue-- I have it too- It generally poked fun at the system, explaining why id would not work, how much of a waste it was, andf then, a terrorist scenario of a robot boat carrying a 100M. bomb, to the US, to get around missile defense. Obviously, it was written by a Liberal, hippie type, who thought that all this country needed to do, to be at peace with it's enemies, was to send flowers, friendship cards,and have yoga sessions together.

I read that too where the author said the system will not work. About the terrorist scenario and the "robot boat," that is a non-sequitor. just because it is possible to get hit one way, doesn't mean you don't protect yourself in other ways too. I remember that same tripe when Ronald Reagan proposed SDI. It's the same logic of not preventing cancer or trying to because they say, "you'll die from heart disease."

BTW-- the US DID have a missile, that had a MARV warhead(meaning one that is terminally guided, AFTER separation and reentry, to the target). It was the Pershing II, and the CEP (or accuracy ratio) was less than 100 FEET!! A 50kt. warhead, a 100 ft. accuracy ratio, and 1,000 mile range, made it pretty formidable!! It was scrapped, as a result of the 1987 INF treaty.

IIRC, most warheads use inertial guidance. From what I know how the Pershing II worked, the warhead had a computer programmed with the target and the computer analyzed the land around the target to compare to what it had in memory and it would keep doing it until it hit the target. BTW, I've seen films of the Sprint taking off, those things are fast from the get-go, if there was a human in there, the G-Forces would be too much. I'd like to see some sort of SDI based on large guns too like the old HARP cannon Gerald Bull was working on along with his "Baby Baghdad" cannon although the later was designed to fire a shell that was supposed to re-enter and hit a target. I was thinking if you get a shell high enough and explode it, you might be able to take out or damage the warheads enough be putting up enough flak like ball bearings, lugnuts, nails and whatever else you and think of.

BTW, I'll have to take a look at my '94 Ford "Exploder." For some reason, I think the "Prince of Darkness" (he usually plagues British made cars, Ford owns Land Rover, IIRC, Hmmmm) designed the electrical system, my brake lights and hazzard keep blowing the fuse and my rear lights don't light up when I turn on my headlights along with having a dark dashboard. Sigh...

I do plan on getting my 1977 Mercury Cougar "land yacht" back on the road someday, wish it was now, I'd use it as my nighttime car. B-) I dunno, if God Himself would come down and say, "Chuck, if you give me your Ford Explorer, I'll give you a 1965 Mercury Park Lane in return," I'd jump at the offer. B-D I'd take a 1965 Ford Galaxie or a 1968 Buick Wildcat as well. I just love those old cars.

Well, I guess this weekend, I'll have to go to the library and score a Chilton's or Haynes repair manuals and manage to grab my neighbor who has worked on cars. He was the head mechanic at the local Penna Air Nat'l Guard base when we had the A-7's fighters stationed here although he started so far back, he started working on the P-51 Mustangs we had here at that time.

Sorry about the rambling, but I'm in that kind of mood. ;-)