Yeah right, we can't even track the guns we sold to the cartels in Mexico.
But if we did do that it would work great until they found out and
disabled our disabler.
.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:16 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> WOuld it be possible to sell "smart bombs" to countries where the bombs
> c
Think of it, 500 to 1000 pounds of steel encased concrete hitting a
target from 20,000 feet up is bound to have an impact. I think that at
least it would create a bit of a notice.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Scott Stewart
wrote:
>
> Would this be the "Wile E. Coyote" bomb?
>
> whis
Would this be the "Wile E. Coyote" bomb?
whissstlesplat!!! poof..
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Not sure about that, but I heard from a friend of mine in the Canadian
> Armed Forces that during the Libyan conflict NATO was fitting JDAMS
> system
Not sure about that, but I heard from a friend of mine in the Canadian
Armed Forces that during the Libyan conflict NATO was fitting JDAMS
systems onto concrete practice bombs when attacking many targets in
urban areas. The bombs hit with enough force to destroy a tank using
kinetic kills, but wit
WOuld it be possible to sell "smart bombs" to countries where the bombs
could be disarmed remotely? I know that the chips are used to guide the
bomb to it's target, but could they be modified to also disengage the
firing mechanism somehow so that the bombs would just bounce harmlessly to
the groun
"Dude. You're getting a Dell."
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> many of them were from the US.
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM, GMoney wrote:
> >
> > Really??? WHere were the computers imported from?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons >wrot
IBM had back doors into all of their mainframe systems throughout the 70's
and 80's (read: Cold War), supposedly so IBM technicians could bypass
"locked" systems.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> many of them were from the US.
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM, GMon
I've heard that many of these were planted in printers. Anything worth
printing out was worth knowing about.
-Cameron
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Its been done before, in the first gulf war a lot of the imported
> iraqi computers and other equipment had some "bu
Wouldn't we have shipped those to Iraq prior to 1990.perhaps in the
late 70's or 80's when we were (supposedly) aiding them in their fight
against Iran?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> many of them were from the US.
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM, GMoney wro
many of them were from the US.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Really??? WHere were the computers imported from?
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>>
>> Its been done before, in the first gulf war a lot of the imported
>> iraqi computers and other e
Really??? WHere were the computers imported from?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Its been done before, in the first gulf war a lot of the imported
> iraqi computers and other equipment had some "bugs" purposely
> installed by the CIA an NSA that helped to cripple the
Its been done before, in the first gulf war a lot of the imported
iraqi computers and other equipment had some "bugs" purposely
installed by the CIA an NSA that helped to cripple the Iraqi air
defense in the initial attacks.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Ras Tafari wrote:
>
> lol, yah, it co
lol, yah, it could TOTALLY be a plant that helps us get something they
arent even close to expecting.
hahahahaha
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:31 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course it could be part of a very perverse idea - "lose" as dro
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Of course it could be part of a very perverse idea - "lose" as drone
> with tech that's not only old, but containing some other features that
> may sabotage the iranian efforts.
>
Ah yeahthat's awesome. This espionage stuff is nuts.
Maybe it's a dummy. They'll spend years replicating something that
doesn't work and we'll be laughing the entire time.
.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I was listening to a defense analyst on the way home last night. One
> of the things he mentioned is that the drone
I was listening to a defense analyst on the way home last night. One
of the things he mentioned is that the drones used in that area are
not the most advanced, so that it was considered an acceptable risk to
lose one or two. As this guy said, it was not a matter of if but when
a drone was lost.
O
Seriously? They cheaped out on self-destruct without considering the
cost of defending against the drones if the tech fell into empty
hands? Just how stupid are they?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Scott Raley wrote:
>
> No not all have self destruct. Some just have code to wipe the storage
>
No not all have self destruct. Some just have code to wipe the storage
drive. The one on tv is similar to the one I helped with last year and there
was "no money for self destruct" and that would "cause extra weight load".
But I didn't say that.
-Original Message-
From: GMoney [mailto:gm0
A friend of mine was building RC airplanes 25 years ago. Some of his club's
members had small RC jets, and this was technology built by people without
huge resources. 25 years later the technology is that much better and
readily available, so my guess is that self-destruct mechanisms are not
worth
I believe that the dude in Iran is ex-FBI, not CIA and was working as
a "private investigator" so presumably not actually on contract for US
intelligence services (though it can certainly be tough to tell). Iran
also denies that they have him and there is speculation that he might
be in Afghanista
Interesting.
I have another question...military/intelligence week of curiosity for me I
guess.they just released that video of a former CIA guy who is being
held in Iran. In this day and age, when prisoners are routinely put on TV
to be flaunted, are our operatives being trained in methods of
Lets also not forget that the drone that crashed isn't quite state of
the art. The CIA and Pentagon know that it was a matter of when not if
a drone on the Afghan Iran border would malfunction. Besides the
pictures shown by the Iranians suggest a mockup rather than the actual
drone. What most like
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
> aren't these the same drones that have rootkit malware installed by persons
> unknown, that the military cannot remove, and cannot figure out what it
> does, and cannot figure out how it got there?
When I see information like this I a
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> aren't these the same drones that have rootkit malware installed by persons
> unknown, that the military cannot remove, and cannot figure out what it
> does, and cannot figure out how it got there?
>
Drones sure seem like fun when it
aren't these the same drones that have rootkit malware installed by persons
unknown, that the military cannot remove, and cannot figure out what it
does, and cannot figure out how it got there?
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:50 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> I have what may be a stupid question about the U
25 matches
Mail list logo
