Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

In article , Jose wrote:
Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna
approaches, but that's not the point.

Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.

and how is this different from having the gov't scatter like hens when a
small car approaches? It's not like you have to approach very closely
with an A-bomb.

With the yield of an A-bomb that you could carry in a C150, you'd need
to. The largest nuclear weapon you could practically carry in a C150
would be something like a Davy Crockett. This was a nuclear bazooka
round weighing in at 76lbs, with a (user selectable) yield of between
10t and 250t of TNT.

You'd have to get it within 0.5km if *airburst* to be effective - if
exploded on the ground, its destructive range would be very short (maybe
a city block) - you'd have to drive right up to the gates of the White
House.

Of course if they had the Davy Crockett launcher too, they would only
have to get within 3 miles or so.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , x-ray wrote:
Apparently you do not understand nuclear weapons.

1) You can NOT put "A bomb" in a suitcase.

The US manufactured (and tested) the Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka. It
certainly qualifies as a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon. It was a pure
fission implosion design, with a maximum yield of around 250t TNT. It
was also pretty close to the smallest theoretical size for a nuclear
weapon.

It weighed about 76lbs and was man-portable. They were actually deployed
in the field without the soldiers dying of radiation sickness. There are
photographs of them being tested in the Nevada desert.

They were designed to destroy advancing Russian tank columns, but it
would have been a last ditch suicide mission for the soldiers to use
them - at the range they would probably have had to set the fuse, the
prompt ionizing radiation would also have killed the soldiers using them
even at the lowest yield settings.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Christopher Campbell wrote:
never been interested in such a weapon. The smallest weapon ever tested by
the US was the UCRL Swift device in 1956.

I think the Davy Crockett round they tested in the early 60s was
actually smaller than that, I think it had a yield of around 20t (but I
could be wrong).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article .com, Gene Seibel wrote:
Threats don't do any good unless one believes they will be carried out.
Shooting down one Cessna would wake up a lot of pilots.

Exemplary 'justice' is not justice. Also consider the people below that
the burning parts of missile and aircraft would rain down on - why
should they deserve to die also?

Those pilots do NOT deserve to be shot down, and it would not be
justice. They SHOULD have an appropriate punishment that any pilot would
get for violating a prohibited area of airspace.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Martin Hotze wrote:
"W P Dixon" wrote:

When onboard the USS Iwo Jima we almost had to shoot down a small GA
plane in the Med. He invaded our airspace

how is this possible? you were in the Mediterrean sea. do you have airspace
there?

When you have all those guns, you have airspace. Remember the Iranian
airliner that got shot down? (Just so we're being fair and even handed,
remember the B747 the Soviets shot down too when that went off-course).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , kontiki wrote:
Exactly! All that going on in Washington while our borders remain Wide-ass
open for millions of illegals to come streaming in every week. The activity in
Washington is tantamount to locking the barn after the horses have escaped.

Millions?

OK, let's look at the numbers. Having lived in south Texas, I know most
of the illegal immigrants are Mexicans.

The population of Mexico is 106M.

Since you specify millions (plural), that means at least two million per
week. If that were the case, Mexico would have long ago been empty; at a
rate of 2M per week, it would only take 53 weeks for Mexico to be
totally empty.

I think you are exaggerating by at least three orders of magnitude.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Grumman-581 wrote:
"Mike W." wrote in message ...

Weapon would be much more effective if detonated at altitude.


Despends upon what you're trying to accomplish... Fallout works better with
a subsurface blast... Do it right and more people will die from the fallout
than the original blast...


You have to realize that the rules for the ADIZ and FRZ have squat to
do with protecting the people of DC. It's the secret service
protecting the president backed up by the selfish nature of our
elected legislature that is responsible for the rules.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Interesting! I wonder how that works? Hard to have a visual if you can not
see? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything just trying to get the whole
picture.

For purposes of visual versus instrument flight rules, the required
visibility conditions are specified for purposes of separation, not
navigation or aviation. That is, as long as you can see well enough to keep
from colliding with other aircraft, there's no requirement to be able to
tell where you are without use of instruments, or even to be able to keep
the plane upright without use of instruments.

--Gary

"Mike W." wrote in message


3/2126 PART 4 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS
...
call it what you will, they shouldn't have been there.

No, they shouldn't have been there, but that does *not* mean the ADIZ or FRZ
is a "no-fly zone". Show me the part of that NOTAM that says "no flight is
permitted".

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights -
even by GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a
"no-fly zone" around DC.

Routinely? c'mon.

Yes! Routinely. Even flight instruction from the DC-3.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news
There is absolutely no doubt they are guilty. Humans make mistakes and in
this country must often suffer the consequences for those mistakes.
Ooooops
I made a mistake is not something a judge or jury is going to accept as a
defense.

If you're referring to criminal guilt ("judge or jury"), do you have a
statute in mind? The FBI has already concluded that since the incursion was
unintentional, no criminal charges will be filed.

--Gary