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.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KansasGirl
You can't build to withstand earthquakes after a certain point. There was a 6.5 foot lateral movement. That's going to require more than is fiscally reasonable to withstand.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
originally posted by: RadioRobert
originally posted by: GreenGunther
I feel a conspiracy, I know nothing of possible seismic weapons, but hot damn!
I highly doubt any military complex would test a seismic weapon in an area as volatile as California.
Unless...
If I had a "seismic weapon", I wouldn't test it anywhere near a large city of mine, particularly one as active as that area. That's just borrowing trouble.
And i definitely wouldn't test it on a known weapons range. The whole point would be to have a quiet capability noone knows about. You've got lots of ocean out there, unfriendly nations, the Antarctic, etc. Why would California near fault lines overdue for a quake be a good plan exactly?
Exactly. It was snow melt that caused the quakes. Snow melt.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KansasGirl
You can't build to withstand earthquakes after a certain point. There was a 6.5 foot lateral movement. That's going to require more than is fiscally reasonable to withstand.
Not everything is going to be over-engineered for earthquakes.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: The GUT
Why target China Lake?
China Lake is the United States Navy's largest single landholding, representing 85% of the Navy's land for weapons and armaments research, development, acquisition, testing and evaluation...
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: The GUT
Why target China Lake?
originally posted by: RadioRobert
originally posted by: KansasGirl
originally posted by: RadioRobert
originally posted by: GreenGunther
I feel a conspiracy, I know nothing of possible seismic weapons, but hot damn!
I highly doubt any military complex would test a seismic weapon in an area as volatile as California.
Unless...
If I had a "seismic weapon", I wouldn't test it anywhere near a large city of mine, particularly one as active as that area. That's just borrowing trouble.
And i definitely wouldn't test it on a known weapons range. The whole point would be to have a quiet capability noone knows about. You've got lots of ocean out there, unfriendly nations, the Antarctic, etc. Why would California near fault lines overdue for a quake be a good plan exactly?
Exactly. It was snow melt that caused the quakes. Snow melt.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding the snow melt "story" to create a strawman?
originally posted by: RadioRobert
originally posted by: GreenGunther
I feel a conspiracy, I know nothing of possible seismic weapons, but hot damn!
I highly doubt any military complex would test a seismic weapon in an area as volatile as California.
Unless...
If I had a "seismic weapon", I wouldn't test it anywhere near a large city of mine, particularly one as active as that area. That's just borrowing trouble.
And i definitely wouldn't test it on a known weapons range. The whole point would be to have a quiet capability noone knows about. You've got lots of ocean out there, unfriendly nations, the Antarctic, etc. Why would California near fault lines overdue for a quake be a good plan exactly?
According to NAWS’s website, the weapons station has 2,132 buildings and facilities, 329 miles of paved roads and 1,801 miles of unpaved roads, as well as Armitage Field, the main air station, all valued at some $3 billion. Its 19,600 square miles of restricted and controlled airspace supports integrated testing and training for aircraft and weapons systems.