It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The " real" weapons of mass destruction.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
its kind of hard to remote control something that is traveling to its target by means of gravitational attraction. Meaning a war head launched from a Russian ICBM is placed into orbit and "falls" back to earth on its target. No chance in altering its course.

As for other systems, sure its called electronic warfare and sometimes it works and sometimes it dosent. Yes we have probably developed some niffty little countermeasures from leaked information but I doubt we have a force wide capability to "own" the battlefield and all of our potential agressors "toys".

Just not probably although we would like to of course.

If we truely had that as a 100% capability then we would have no need to build stuff of our own as any enemy that we encountered we could just use their own hardware against them.

nice thought but highly unlikely, so we focus more on making their equipment not work at all rather try and take control. localized EMP, directed microwave disruption etc.




posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Chiclestick
im a Lt General in the USAF and i have access to the info.. its not classified but its not like you would know to look for it.also, i meant the UK france germany etc. could all be potential threats you never know what the future holds


Lieutenant General? Indeed. :shk:

Please do not make a mockery of the USAF, nor yourself by perpetrating such claims. The validity of, or lack thereof, is solely dependant on your posts content and merit; not ridiculous claims.

KP and latrine duty for you.

Drop and give me fifty, recruit.

Dismissed.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Why would you try to take control of your enemy's weapons when you could simply impurify their bodily fuids ?

Seriously, has such possibility ever been researched ? It sounds far-fetched to take control of a plane against its pilot's will, but is that technically feasible ? For the pilot, I guess there's always the possibility to take control manually if the "computer" goes wrong, but could nowadays planes be flown with the electronics all off, considering they're naturally unstable in order to be manoeuvrable ?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
firstly, i am a Lt. General.
secondly, this is a forum not a grammar class.
thirdly, you want to control an ICBM remmotely because if we control it and we can stop any of their attempts to get it bak, then the ICBM is useless to them and usefull to us.also, if we have control of it, we can use it against them. either way they must use a self-destruct meaasure or they must shoot it down before we turn it on their cities.
lastly, can ya'll see my signature.

[edit on 07/29/2005 by Mr Chiclestick]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Chiclestick
im a Lt General in the USAF and i have access to the info.. its not classified but its not like you would know to look for it.also, i meant the UK france germany etc. could all be potential threats you never know what the future holds

[edit on 07/29/2005 by Mr Chiclestick]


Well then i am sure the USAF would be interested that you are sharing info that is probably classified over the #1 conspiracy site on the web. I saw your second reply and you claimed to be a Lt General again. The proof you offered was this- "I am a Lt General". That really shuts us up. Furthermore,if i wouldn't know how to look for it then tell me how, after all it is not classified right. Come one dude( or should i say sir), your credibility is on the line here. The only thing that keeps this site credible is the trust we put in each other to tell the truth in our statements. Since you are the one who threw this Lt General out there, we are gonna need more to go on than your word. From this point, it appears you will either become a Subject Matter Expert, or just another liar. Whats it gonna be, sir?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Major Discrepancy
Drop and give me fifty, recruit.

Dismissed.




Hold on major, Better make it 10. He is in the Air Force not the Army.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
A LT General, with a masters degree who writes horribly, can't spell back, want, or measure. I bet your superiors LOVE reading your reports.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Actually, this idea isn't all together crazy. I keep dreaming of the day I can fly a plane like I fly my computer, and that day is coming closer, and faster than ever. One problem...one really and truely CAN take over a computer remotely. Remember when the porn industry installed dialers which TURNED ON the computer. (Of course, this all works better if you have DSL, and are connected to the web 24/7.)

All the while, computer owners were at work, or in bed asleep...and their computers were turning on by themselves and logging into porn sites, at a hefty cost!


Yes, lawsuits flew and the porn sites ended up settleing at a major loss. But that is beside the point! If that technology can exist, why not stealing the control of a (mostly) computer-run aircraft?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Except flight control computers don't network anywhere.They do for TEST aircraft, but not for production aircraft. There's no way to get access to the FCC in a plane to take it over.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except flight control computers don't network anywhere.They do for TEST aircraft, but not for production aircraft. There's no way to get access to the FCC in a plane to take it over.


Exactly - you cannot take over circuits that do not exist.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
if u wanna find more check the national archives, its all there.

btw, just cause i dont always spell stuff rite dosent mean a thing. ppl use different types of speech depending on what they are doing. im not giving a report to my supereioir, this is a website and who cares. my kids talk like this on AIM all the time.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Still not believing a word your saying.


A guy doesn't get to the rank of Lt. General by doing things half right - and wouldn't just use their rank to 'win an arguement'. They'd present facts and make a competent attempt at winning the arguement before maybe saying - 'I know more but cannot say' or such-like.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Chiclestick
if u wanna find more check the national archives, its all there.

btw, just cause i dont always spell stuff rite dosent mean a thing. ppl use different types of speech depending on what they are doing. im not giving a report to my supereioir, this is a website and who cares. my kids talk like this on AIM all the time.


The staff and members would like to see "supereioir" posting quality, especially from such an esteemed and august contributor such as yourself... Lieutenant General.

General Monkeys, not just for major flaws anymore...



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Kilcoo, youve never believed a word of anybody on this site, just go back and look at all your previous posts. Your a faith based conspiracy believer, never giving anyone the time of day. You have NO IDEA who he is, what he really does, yet you immediately dimiss him on the basis he didnt feel like spell checking his post on a website, just like im doin right here.

Train



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I personally think that 12 million is expensive for a nuke, considering that an ICBM would cost only 6, so doubling that price up for just the war head is like, too expensive.


You would be lucky to get a working nuclear warhead for a 100 million on the Black market.

Price is determined by rarity,demand and how hard it was to aquire. All of which would be sky high on a black market nuclear weapon. If you could even find a nuclear weapon on the black market and were lucky enough to not simply be killed and have your money taken you should expect a insane markup in price.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It's just impossible for too many reasons to go into I'm really suprised some people on this thread are taking it seriously .
Thats the same as me saying i have a magic box that can take over your car and force you to drive into your own house.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Kilcoo, youve never believed a word of anybody on this site, just go back and look at all your previous posts. Your a faith based conspiracy believer, never giving anyone the time of day. You have NO IDEA who he is, what he really does, yet you immediately dimiss him on the basis he didnt feel like spell checking his post on a website, just like im doin right here.

Train





Are you paranoid? Your certainly coming across that way.

Since when have I ever dismissed everyone else's very, very, valuable contributions to the forum? News to me that I have. There are many people on here with much greater specialist knowledge and even better, experience, than I could ever hope to achieve, why would I disrespect that?


No, I have no idea who he is, but he certainly is not presenting himself or his arguements in the manner I would expect any General to - but then again, what would I know, I'm not educated



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

by MirthfulMe:
General Monkeys, not just for major flaws anymore...


so fitting and just too funny ... thanks for the laugh


Lieutenant Monkeys, not just for general flaws anymore...



On a side note:

Redirection of in-flight missiles is not only possible, but has been recently tested, accomplished and affirmed. Try Google ... or I'll be back later with links.

note: this only applies to outgoing launches, not redirection of an incoming missile.

Peace2All



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

On a side note:

Redirection of in-flight missiles is not only possible, but has been recently tested, accomplished and affirmed. Try Google ... or I'll be back later with links.

note: this only applies to outgoing launches, not redirection of an incoming missile.

Peace2All


Hey, sure that would be the same as an AMRAAM mid-course update wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Chiclestick
if u wanna find more check the national archives, its all there.

btw, just cause i dont always spell stuff rite dosent mean a thing. ppl use different types of speech depending on what they are doing. im not giving a report to my supereioir, this is a website and who cares. my kids talk like this on AIM all the time.


Well like i said, you could either be known as an Subject Matter Expert, or as a liar. With you giving us no proof that you are a Lt General in the USAF you have proven yourself as a liar. I for one will not pay any credence to another one of your posts. I assume others will second this, Sir.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join