Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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 ;-) -- Extend ****s law - make 'em wear a cheat sheet 24/7 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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. -- Jim Pennino |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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. -- Roger Hayter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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? -- Jim Pennino |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EMP
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 |