In message
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:40:59 +0000 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

I am making the "mistake" of talking about the subject under
discussion, "a dirty biological bomb in London".

Ah, your subject under discussion, not everyone elses.

Nice try. However, it is the subject which was put at the start of this
little bit of the thread by another poster.

Incidentally there is no such thing as a dirty biological bomb, in London
or elsewhere. It is a natural contradiction in terms.

Surely it's actually a tautology? There's no such thing as a *clean*
biological bomb!


A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message , at 20:07:27 on Mon,
26 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall remarked:

A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

Not quite. It's a conventional explosive device designed to spread
*biological* 'shrapnel' around. It doesn't have to be a very big bang,
either. Just enough to do the spreading. And nothing radioactive
involved at all.
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
"Andrew Clark" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote

And quite what would be left of the rest of the country in the event of
an attack in the scale they were expecting?
Especially as the USSR was planning a scale of attack massively above the
one the planners somewhat idealistically hoped for...



Alledgedly. Both sides claimed to be able to do things that subsequently
turned out not to be the case.

But even if the attack had only been on the scale anticipated, the post
attack plans were hopelessly inadequate. On the other hand there was no
realistic way adequate plans could have been made, we didn't have the
knowledge, technology or money to implement anything remotely resembling a
realistic plan.

Or put another way, even a "moderate" nuclear attack would so devastate
Britain that there was no practicable means to survive it in a way that
would preserve any of our way of life (if at all). That's why we called
it mutually assured destruction.

Robin

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 08:14:37AM -0000, Brian Watson wrote:
"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but
they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
Might be something to do with incurring HUGE debts to the US during WW1
and
the rematch between 1939 and '45.
It's call the "special relationship" - either we site their missiles or
they
bankrupt us.

No can do - the last payments on those debts were made some time in the
last year IIRC.

That was for the rematch - we still owe for WW1.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:10:51PM -0000, Brian Watson wrote:

Only for WW2 - "we" are keeping very quiet about the owings for WW1.

Payment *and interest* was suspended, with the agreement of the US,
pending re-negotiation of the terms. Those negotiations have yet to
take place. I believe that the total owed (yay no interest!) is now
approximately the same as what the civil service spends each day on tea
bags.

Oh really? Well, then I suggest you tell Tony so that he can stop kissing
bottom to keep us all off the breadline.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:49:18 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:07:27 on Mon,
26 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall remarked:

A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

Not quite. It's a conventional explosive device designed to spread
*biological* 'shrapnel' around. It doesn't have to be a very big bang,
either. Just enough to do the spreading. And nothing radioactive
involved at all.

I beg to differ; my understanding is that a 'dirty bomb' has always
been thought of as being radiological in nature. A chemical or
biological weapon doesn't *need* explosive - the agent can simply be
released into the environment and allowed to disperse naturally.
Irradiated material is most effective when dispersed as widely as
possible, and isn't affected by heat (which can of course destroy
biological, and to some extent possibly chemical agents), hence the
'bomb' makes sense.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On 26 Feb 2007 14:53:06 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could
correctly say that "A is closer to independence than B").

I depend on my local bike shop for the supply of spare parts for my
bicycle.

If you "depend" on the bike shop, then you are not independent of the
bike shop.

According to your logic, I don't have independent travel
facilities since the use of my bicycle is controlled by said local bike
shop.

It's important to bear in mind what it's being said to be independent
*of*.

When travel facilities are referred to as independent, it's normally
meant that their day-to-day use is independent of the permission or
aid of other people. It doesn't mean they're independent of absolutely
everything (occasional need for servicing or spare parts, your health,
the existence of roads, the availability of breatheable oxygen, etc).

In message , at 18:51:23 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Mike Ross remarked:
A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

Not quite. It's a conventional explosive device designed to spread
*biological* 'shrapnel' around. It doesn't have to be a very big bang,
either. Just enough to do the spreading. And nothing radioactive
involved at all.

I beg to differ; my understanding is that a 'dirty bomb' has always
been thought of as being radiological in nature. A chemical or
biological weapon doesn't *need* explosive - the agent can simply be
released into the environment and allowed to disperse naturally.

Whatever term people are familiar with, that latter weapon was the risk
I was meaning.
--
Roland Perry

"Pete Fenelon" wrote in message
...
In uk.railway Brian Watson wrote:
A contributor to The Robert Elms Show on BBC Radio London has just
claimed
there are secret underground train lines between Buckingham Palace and
various other London sites.

Nifty conspiracy theory, or fact?


********. Try Emmerson's "London's Secret tubes" for a clear-headed
survey of what *is* under London.

pete
--
"it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"

Is it absolutely necessary to you foul language to emphasise your point?
M

So I'm presuming 'fanny' is your real name then?



--
Protected by www.Spamjab.com {1ClyzYGhYG9yw5arEQ}
"fanny" wrote in message
...

"Pete Fenelon" wrote in message
...
In uk.railway Brian Watson wrote:
A contributor to The Robert Elms Show on BBC Radio London has just
claimed
there are secret underground train lines between Buckingham Palace and
various other London sites.

Nifty conspiracy theory, or fact?


********. Try Emmerson's "London's Secret tubes" for a clear-headed
survey of what *is* under London.

pete
--
"it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"

Is it absolutely necessary to you foul language to emphasise your point?
M