On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:34:07 -0000, wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:10:50 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

On 17/11/2015 18:30, gareth wrote:

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that
an EMP will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of
power that their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly
and unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully
well, does it?

Well we haven't been nuked yet ;-)

Well the Soviet Nuclear weapon defence threat kept the Americans under
control for decades.

As well as the Brits.

The UK nuclear weapons are firmly under the control of the Americans
anyway, so I don't think we have them for other than ceremonial and
solidarity reasons. They're not cheap either.

So if the UK were nuked, there would be no retaliation until the US
allowed it?

The NATO treaty suggests that USA would have to retaliate also.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:34:07 -0000, wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:10:50 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

On 17/11/2015 18:30, gareth wrote:

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that
an EMP will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of
power that their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly
and unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully
well, does it?

Well we haven't been nuked yet ;-)

Well the Soviet Nuclear weapon defence threat kept the Americans under
control for decades.

As well as the Brits.

The UK nuclear weapons are firmly under the control of the Americans
anyway, so I don't think we have them for other than ceremonial and
solidarity reasons. They're not cheap either.

So if the UK were nuked, there would be no retaliation until the US
allowed it?

The NATO treaty suggests that USA would have to retaliate also.

Of course, but that isn't the point.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/17/2015 4:56 PM, Wayne wrote:


"gareth" wrote in message ...

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that an
EMP
will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of power that
their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack
on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly and
unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully well,
does it?

It is indeed a mess, and I'm doing my own part to be prepared.

However that includes some options not available to you. Example: a
few semiautomatic rifles, pistols and several thousand rounds.

Then what do you do the second day?

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 11/17/2015 4:56 PM, Wayne wrote:


"gareth" wrote in message ...

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that an
EMP
will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of power that
their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack
on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly and
unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully well,
does it?

It is indeed a mess, and I'm doing my own part to be prepared.

However that includes some options not available to you. Example: a
few semiautomatic rifles, pistols and several thousand rounds.

Then what do you do the second day?

Reload.

--
Jim Pennino

On 11/17/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 11/17/2015 4:56 PM, Wayne wrote:


"gareth" wrote in message ...

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that an
EMP
will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of power that
their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack
on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly and
unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully well,
does it?

It is indeed a mess, and I'm doing my own part to be prepared.

However that includes some options not available to you. Example: a
few semiautomatic rifles, pistols and several thousand rounds.

Then what do you do the second day?

Reload.

John Brown tried that...

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 11/17/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 11/17/2015 4:56 PM, Wayne wrote:


"gareth" wrote in message ...

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that an
EMP
will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of power that
their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack
on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly and
unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully well,
does it?

It is indeed a mess, and I'm doing my own part to be prepared.

However that includes some options not available to you. Example: a
few semiautomatic rifles, pistols and several thousand rounds.

Then what do you do the second day?

Reload.

John Brown tried that...

Nope, John Brown was fighting his own war against the US government; a
totally different thing from citizens resisting terrorism.

A better analogy would be the local farmers, shopkeepers, and militia
that pinned down Brown and his troops in the Harpers Ferry Armory
until the Marines arrived.


--
Jim Pennino

wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:10:50 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

On 17/11/2015 18:30, gareth wrote:

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that
an EMP will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of
power that their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly
and unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully
well, does it?

Well we haven't been nuked yet ;-)

Well the Soviet Nuclear weapon defence threat kept the Americans under
control for decades.

As well as the Brits.

The UK nuclear weapons are firmly under the control of the Americans
anyway, so I don't think we have them for other than ceremonial and
solidarity reasons. They're not cheap either.

So if the UK were nuked, there would be no retaliation until the US
allowed it?


AIUI. Though I think the exact arrangements are secret on our side, but
may have been leaked on the US side. I am prepared to be proved wrong
by someone with documentary evidence.



--

Roger Hayter

Rambo wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:34:07 -0000, wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:10:50 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

On 17/11/2015 18:30, gareth wrote:

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that
an EMP will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of
power that their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly
and unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully
well, does it?

Well we haven't been nuked yet ;-)

Well the Soviet Nuclear weapon defence threat kept the Americans under
control for decades.

As well as the Brits.

The UK nuclear weapons are firmly under the control of the Americans
anyway, so I don't think we have them for other than ceremonial and
solidarity reasons. They're not cheap either.

So if the UK were nuked, there would be no retaliation until the US
allowed it?

The NATO treaty suggests that USA would have to retaliate also.

Isn't that a treaty obligation rather than an automatic military action
though, so the US government would have to decide?

--

Roger Hayter

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
Rambo wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:34:07 -0000, wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:10:50 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

On 17/11/2015 18:30, gareth wrote:

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that
an EMP will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of
power that their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly
and unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully
well, does it?

Well we haven't been nuked yet ;-)

Well the Soviet Nuclear weapon defence threat kept the Americans under
control for decades.

As well as the Brits.

The UK nuclear weapons are firmly under the control of the Americans
anyway, so I don't think we have them for other than ceremonial and
solidarity reasons. They're not cheap either.

So if the UK were nuked, there would be no retaliation until the US
allowed it?

The NATO treaty suggests that USA would have to retaliate also.

Isn't that a treaty obligation rather than an automatic military action
though, so the US government would have to decide?

The relation between the US and UK is so close the UK would have to do
something extremely stupid that caused it to get nuked before the US
would do anything other than immediate retaliation.


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Rambo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:10:50 +0000, Fred Roberts wrote:

On 17/11/2015 18:30, gareth wrote:

Those who were self-taught to the exclusion of sideband and sidetone
are no doubt unaware that in the event of a nuclear detonation that
an EMP will melt the RF amps in their RXs because of the amount of
power that their antennae will pick up?

Anyway, in the light of the events in Paris last Friday, and
previously the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11/9 the costly
and unnecessary nuclear deterrent doesn't seem to be working awfully
well, does it?

Well we haven't been nuked yet ;-)

Well the Soviet Nuclear weapon defence threat kept the Americans under
control for decades.

As well as the Brits.

The UK nuclear weapons are firmly under the control of the Americans
anyway, so I don't think we have them for other than ceremonial and
solidarity reasons. They're not cheap either.

So if the UK were nuked, there would be no retaliation until the US
allowed it?


AIUI. Though I think the exact arrangements are secret on our side, but
may have been leaked on the US side. I am prepared to be proved wrong
by someone with documentary evidence.

You might want to read:

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/...ngdom/nuclear/

And in partcular the "Force Posture and Doctrine" section.



--
Jim Pennino