http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0OOH0WC4CVBKECRBAEKSF FA?type=topNews&storyID=6211095

Bob


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

That's never a good sign...

In article >,
Bob Urz > wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0OOH0WC4CVBKECRBAEKSF FA?ty
> pe=topNews&storyID=6211095
>
> Bob
>

If it was nuclear, I am sure that our satellites would have verified it.

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Bob Urz > wrote:
>
> > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0OOH0WC4CVBKECRBAEKSF FA?
> > type=topNews&storyID=6211095
>
> If it was nuclear, I am sure that our satellites would have verified it.

Not if it was a shallow underground burst.

We'd get geophysical confirmation if that were so, though.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Glenfiddich wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 05:05:14 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Bob Urz > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0OOH0WC4CVBKECRBAEKSF FA?ty
>>>pe=topNews&storyID=6211095
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>
>>If it was nuclear, I am sure that our satellites would have verified it.
>
>
> It could have been a large TNT blast to calibrate sensors for
> an upcoming nuke test.
>
> ANY large explosion from that region is bad news.

It was an antimatter bomb.

Ian MacLure wrote:

> "Bob Coe" > wrote in news:fcQ0d.24167$ni.22295@okepread01:
>
>
>>That's never a good sign...
>
>
> Given it was apparently close to the PRC border, I cannot imagine
> Beijing is very happy if in fact it is a nuke of some sort.
> I expect radiation monitoring or Vela satellite data will soon
> establish what it was.
> I'd say it was another giant economy size accidental detonation
> of something like that train earlier this year.
>
> IBM
>
They're claiming it was an explosives-assisted excavation (read: pour in a
couple thousand gallons of ANFO and ignite) for a new hydroelectric reservoir.

The lack of radiation seems to support this theory.

In article >,
Marc Reeve > writes:
> Ian MacLure wrote:
>
>> "Bob Coe" > wrote in news:fcQ0d.24167$ni.22295@okepread01:
>>
>>
>>>That's never a good sign...
>>
>>
>> Given it was apparently close to the PRC border, I cannot imagine
>> Beijing is very happy if in fact it is a nuke of some sort.
>> I expect radiation monitoring or Vela satellite data will soon
>> establish what it was.
>> I'd say it was another giant economy size accidental detonation
>> of something like that train earlier this year.
>>
>> IBM
>>
> They're claiming it was an explosives-assisted excavation (read: pour in a
> couple thousand gallons of ANFO and ignite) for a new hydroelectric reservoir.
>
> The lack of radiation seems to support this theory.

One would think that if, indeed they were doing that, it would be
better tamped - that's an awful lot of wasted explosive, if you're
throwing that much stuff in the air.

It is the sort of thing that somebody would do if they were, say,
calibrating a test range for a nuclear shot. Or trying to play
propoganda games. (No, it wasn't a well-hidden nuke shot - a nuke has
several ideosyncratic signatures that would be a certain tipoff, and
seismographic detection can be done from anywhere.)
The Chinese certainly aren't happy about this. If the Minimum Leader
had any sense, he'd hunker down & shut up, not set up a nuclear
weapons testing range on the border of my largest opponent.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster