EMP
 

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?

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

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.

EMP
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?

The effects of an EMP have nothing to do with "sideband and sidetone",
the damaga is not limited to RF amps, and a lot of the damage will be
due to the amount of power that the internal circuitry 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?

As there has been no nuclear wars, I would say the "nuclear deterrent"
has worked well.

What nation state would you target for a nuclear reprisal?

--
Jim Pennino

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

EMP
 

wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:


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?

As there has been no nuclear wars, I would say the "nuclear deterrent"
has worked well.

What nation state would you target for a nuclear reprisal?

Let's start with Chippenham.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

EMP
 

"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?

No doubt there are those who will misunderstand, perhaps for the purpose
of being obnoxiously argumentative, as does reay, the nub of my posts above,
which is, that
the threat to world peace does not come from nuclear bombs, but
figuratively, from an armada
of rowing boats crewed by those wearing the Osama Bin Liner and brandishing
sickles and scimitars.

With the outpouring of shock, hypocritically from Yankland, Britland and
France who supply the international
arms market which market supplied the AK47s and explosives, with "only" 250
people killed
or wounded, who, now, in their right mind, would set off a nuclear bomb
where the
damage to people would be many thousands of times worse?

So there is no purpose to the waste of money and resources inherent in
nuclear bombs

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

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

EMP
 

"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.

EMP
 

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.

EMP
 

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

EMP
 

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

EMP
 

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

EMP
 

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

EMP
 

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

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

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

EMP
 

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

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

EMP
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Brian Reay wrote:
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 which bits did the Americans control, exactly? After all, if you know
so much, you could tell us. Otherwise it is just bovine muck.

The US has no control over UK nuclear forces.

UK nuclear forces are nominally under NATO control but the UK has the
last word.


--
Jim Pennino

EMP
 

On 11/17/2015 6:12 PM, wrote:
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.

The issue is not the *why*. This issue is the *what*. Armed
insurrection is a loosing game. Or if government deteriorates and can't
maintain control, even a few guns won't keep you safe for long. There
will be those with bigger guns and who know better how best to use them.
"Cold, dead hands" will be the appropriate expression.

--

Rick

EMP
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 11/17/2015 6:12 PM, wrote:
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.

The issue is not the *why*. This issue is the *what*. Armed
insurrection is a loosing game. Or if government deteriorates and can't
maintain control, even a few guns won't keep you safe for long. There
will be those with bigger guns and who know better how best to use them.
"Cold, dead hands" will be the appropriate expression.

The subject is NOT insurrection of any kind nor the why of anything.

The story of the local farmers, shopkeepers, and militia that pinned down
Brown and his troops in the Harpers Ferry Armory until the Marines arrived
is most appropriate to the actual subject no matter how much you want
to change it.


--
Jim Pennino

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?

It is not just the RF amps.
The EMP is a high power broadband RF pulse that will turn almost any bit
of wire regardless of length into an antenna and so fry any small scale
electronics that it attaches to.
Any electronics that is not in a Faraday cage is at risk if it is in a
high power region of the pulse.

Andy

EMP
 

On 18/11/2015 01:19, Brian Reay wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:

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 which bits did the Americans control, exactly? After all, if you know
so much, you could tell us. Otherwise it is just bovine muck.

Well, seeing as how you are an expert in the analysis of newspaper
stories, you might recall in the aftermath of the Falklands war it was
mentioned, probably in one of the Sunday heavies, that at one of the
early crisis meetings to discuss the UK's options the nuking of the city
of Cordoba was mentioned. ISTR it being said that the idea was dropped
when it was allegedly discovered that the US wouldn't give us the
targeting codes.

Next time you're in the British Library looking for local newspaper
reports of dogs, you might care to spend some time looking for something
a little more serious. It might help you to stop looking like a
small-minded fool.


--
Spike

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles
with all its might against the attempts of crime"

- Maximilien Robespierre

EMP
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:
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.


Do you have evidence for your claim? Or are you doing a Cummins and just
spewing nonsense?

Brian, that sort of gratuitous abuse must be jumped on, for Roger asked for
the evidence.

EMP
 

On 11/18/2015 1:03 AM, wrote:
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?

No, the topic is taking up arms, a stupid thing to do unless you have
some reason to believe you will be the winner.

--

Rick

EMP
 

"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 11/17/2015 6:12 PM, wrote:
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.

# The issue is not the *why*. This issue is the *what*. Armed
# insurrection is a loosing game. Or if government deteriorates and can't
# maintain control, even a few guns won't keep you safe for long. There
# will be those with bigger guns and who know better how best to use them.
# "Cold, dead hands" will be the appropriate expression.

Armed insurrection works if the military breaks ranks.

EMP
 

On 11/18/2015 11:13 AM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 11/17/2015 6:12 PM, wrote:
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.

# The issue is not the *why*. This issue is the *what*. Armed
# insurrection is a loosing game. Or if government deteriorates and can't
# maintain control, even a few guns won't keep you safe for long. There
# will be those with bigger guns and who know better how best to use them.
# "Cold, dead hands" will be the appropriate expression.

Armed insurrection works if the military breaks ranks.

We are way beyond that. In China the military resisted conflict with
their own people. They brought in troops from the other side of the
country who spoke a very different dialect. Here the troops would never
meet the victims. Remotely operated weapons allow the military to fight
anyone without knowing who they really are. Having rifles and "several
thousand rounds" won't even let you defend yourself against other people
for more than a few days, much less the military. Heck, a decent swat
team would easily rout you out. Hand weapons are pointless these days
for anything but killing someone in your own family. Like bringing a
knife to a gun fight.

--

Rick

EMP
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 11/18/2015 1:03 AM, wrote:
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?

No, the topic is taking up arms, a stupid thing to do unless you have
some reason to believe you will be the winner.

Half assed correct; the subject was civilians taking up arms against
terrorists.


--
Jim Pennino

EMP
 

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:12:12 -0000
wrote:

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

I always thought that the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to allow
resistance against a government that was effectively conducting
terrorism against its former electorate.

What does John Brown have to do with government terrorism?

John Brown WAS a terrorist attacking civilians.


--
Jim Pennino

EMP
 

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 2:55:52 AM UTC-5, AndyW 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?

It is not just the RF amps.
The EMP is a high power broadband RF pulse that will turn almost any bit
of wire regardless of length into an antenna and so fry any small scale
electronics that it attaches to.
Any electronics that is not in a Faraday cage is at risk if it is in a
high power region of the pulse.

Andy

Andy

Is there any possibility that that is an overstatement of the threat. I'm no expert. I don't pretend to be. When I was a Zoomy; low these many years ago; we were instructed to never open the case of any critical electronic item outside the shielded repair area. All of the Ground Radio Equipment was protected by two coaxial devices. The first covered stuff like lightning, snow static, etc.. The second one which was always at the antenna port of the radio was for EMP. The instructors alleged that if the equipment were installed in accordance with the technical manual's instructions and maintained that way it was safe from EMP. EMP protectors fail open. Each of the spares kits used in Strategic Air Command contained several of each type of protector.

So what I want to know is were they misinformed? Was that all hokus pokus. We were certainly held to a high level of compliance with that training. Since many of my officers behaved like business executive trainees I gradually lost all respect for my immediate leadership but that didn't lead me to believe that it was all nonsense.

I would truly appreciate answers based on actual testing or pear reviewed research rather than rules of thumb extended to unrelated issues.

--
Tom Horne W3TDH

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 2:55:52 AM UTC-5, AndyW 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?

It is not just the RF amps.
The EMP is a high power broadband RF pulse that will turn almost any bit
of wire regardless of length into an antenna and so fry any small scale
electronics that it attaches to.
Any electronics that is not in a Faraday cage is at risk if it is in a
high power region of the pulse.

Andy

EMP
 

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
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?

As there has been no nuclear wars, I would say the "nuclear deterrent"
has worked well.

What nation state would you target for a nuclear reprisal?

Let's start with Chippenham.


Wot became of the Chippenham Volcano Experiment?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

EMP
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

It disrupts everyday.

Are you capable of making positive social comments?

EMP
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

It disrupts everyday.

Are you capable of making positive social comments?

Are YOU?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

EMP
 

On 11/18/2015 1:55 AM, AndyW 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?

It is not just the RF amps.
The EMP is a high power broadband RF pulse that will turn almost any bit
of wire regardless of length into an antenna and so fry any small scale
electronics that it attaches to.
Any electronics that is not in a Faraday cage is at risk if it is in a
high power region of the pulse.

Andy


I think the EMP damage would depend on the size of the bomb, the
distance from the bomb, and the type of nuclear weapon used. There are
enough variables here to make it difficult to estimate the threat.

I don't know, are thermonuclear weapons capable of producing a larger
EMP? Just guessing on the blast produced I would say they would do more
damage. Again, that is only a guess. Do neutron bombs produce more or
less EMP?

EMP
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Tom wrote:
On 11/18/2015 1:55 AM, AndyW 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?

It is not just the RF amps.
The EMP is a high power broadband RF pulse that will turn almost any bit
of wire regardless of length into an antenna and so fry any small scale
electronics that it attaches to.
Any electronics that is not in a Faraday cage is at risk if it is in a
high power region of the pulse.

Andy


I think the EMP damage would depend on the size of the bomb, the
distance from the bomb, and the type of nuclear weapon used. There are
enough variables here to make it difficult to estimate the threat.

I don't know, are thermonuclear weapons capable of producing a larger
EMP? Just guessing on the blast produced I would say they would do more
damage. Again, that is only a guess. Do neutron bombs produce more or
less EMP?

If you are close enough to a neutron bomb to experience the EMP, it is
irrelevant as you will be dead anyway.

If you really want to know about nuclear EMP, read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...magnetic_pulse


--
Jim Pennino

EMP
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjZ5voe_d1Y

EMP
 

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 8:46:07 PM UTC-6,

If you are close enough to a neutron bomb to experience the EMP, it is
irrelevant as you will be dead anyway.

That's been about my usual thinking.. I think the whole EMP deal is a wee tad
bit overplayed. Seems to me, if bad enough to toast infrastructure, bad enough
to toast carbon life forms. :| Or at the least, a severe pseudo sunburn..

Heck, a very close lightning strike is a fairly strong EMP event. Sometimes
it causes mayhem, often times not.
I still have old tube rigs if things came to that. But I don't fear for any of
my modern rigs if they aren't hooked up. And I have more than one rig to
increase the odds of one surviving.