- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: "Forest Fire" responsible for a 2.5mi *mushroom cloud*?
by Thomas Shaddack 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, J.A. Terranson wrote: > "No big deal"? Who are they kidding? A 2-mile wide cloud is WAY too big to be caused by a single explosion, unless REALLY big. The forest fire claim sounds more plausible in this regard. An existing cloud could be used for masking, though. But a surface or atmospheric blast would produce a flash plowing through the entire EM spectrum; from long-wave radio to microwaves to hard gamma. That's something the satellites Up There can't miss even through a smoke cloud - at least if they are still operational or replaced by newer ones. (Remember the strong flashes of gamma bursts, originally discovered by satellites observing the nuclear test ban: <http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19sep97_2.htm>.) Also a disruption of this kind would be perceivable in long range, possibly by quite many people. An underground blast, if not screwed up, wouldn't produce a cloud at all. However, both surface and underground blast would have a peculiar seismic signature. There is a network of both nonproliferation-surveillance and plain old scientific seismic stations all over the world. Something like that couldn't stay hidden for too long. Remember the day the the Kursk submarine became famous; the recording of the double signature, the explosion and shortly later following implosion, appeared online in couple days (or maybe even hours?) after the Event. It's difficult to imagine a true nuclear blast would stay unreported for more than few days. Even if it would really be a nuke test and the politicians would want to be quiet about it, there are too many subjects outside of the direct US political control to either report the measurements or the eventual pressure to not report them. According to CNN, there was also a strong blast reported in the area of a missile base. We don't know how strong the blast was, and if it couldn't be just a "conventional" explosion, caused by eg. a combination of a forest fire and an ammo depot. There is also a possibility the "senior officials with access to intelligence" were injecting media with false information. Remember there are many subjects with different agendas here and a little psyops here and there is quite common. Let's not jump on the conclusions yet. Wait 2-3 days, optionally watch the traffic in conferences of geologists taking care of the seismic activity worldwide and in the vicinity of the area of interest. It's Saturday and many people who could know the answers are away from their instruments; let's wait what they will find on their screens on Monday morning.

6 10

[ISN] Mitnick movie comes to the US
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

I wonder if they include Shinomura boffing Gilmore's girlfriend in the Toad Hall hot tub? "Got Skills" indeed... Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text

1 0

Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec
by Major Variola (ret) 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Currently BGP is "secured" by 1. accepting BGP info only from known router IPs 2. ISPs not propogating BGP from the edge inwards Its a serious vulnerability (as in, take down the net), equivalent to the ability to confuse the post office machinery that sorts postcards. All you need to do is subvert some trusted routers. At 10:54 PM 9/10/04 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >Also, the author's document discusses protecting BGP to prevent >some of the recent denial-of-service attacks, >and asks for confirmation about the assertion in a message >on the IPSEC mailing list suggesting > "E.g., it is not feasible for BGP routers to be configured with the > appropriate certificate authorities of hundreds of thousands of peers". >Routers typically use BGP to peer with a small number of partners, >though some big ISP gateway routers might peer with a few hundred. >(A typical enterprise router would have 2-3 peers if it does BGP.) >If a router wants to learn full internet routes from its peers, >it might learn 1-200,000, but that's not the number of direct connections >that it has - it's information it learns using those connections. >And the peers don't have to be configured "rapidly without external >assistance" - >you typically set up the peering link when you're setting up the >connection between an ISP and a customer or a pair of ISPs, >and if you want to use a CA mechanism to certify X.509 certs, >you can set up that information at the same time.

1 0

Re: "Forest Fire" responsible for a 2.5mi *mushroom cloud*?
by Major Variola (ret) 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

At 06:23 PM 9/12/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >I had thought that one of the main tests was seismic...from what I >understood, Seismic monitors in the US can detect nu-cu-lar tests (above or >below ground) and even guess where and the size of the blast. Yes. Seismic sensors see some foreshock activity before an earthquake including the big ones. A nuke starts instantly. Standard S & P wave triangulation gives you the location. You can try to hide a blast (in sand; or in an excavated void) but its tough. At 06:50 AM 9/13/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >About 4.5 kT of 50:50 ammonium nitrate/ammonium sulfate mix. One of the >largest, if not *the* largest nonnuclear explosions ever. Ammonium sulphate would not have exploded. Its the nitrate that is the fun group. It has an oxygen surplus, so anythign (like the rest of the ship) vaporized by the detonation would probaby burn. Fuel oil is cheap; aluminum dust is more energetic. At 10:40 PM 9/12/04 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >No FO, just AN all by itself. NH4NO3 turns into N2 + 2H2O + O, Slow decomposition yields nitrous oxide, ie the fun oxide. 19th century chemistry. (And anesthesiology!) >The first earthquake-like event I experienced was when a >chemical plant across the river from where I lived blew up; >I think it was a fertilizer plant of some sort. >(I was in Delaware; the plant was in New Jersey, and it was ~1968.) The DuPont black powder & nitro plants in Delaware have three strong walls, the weak side faces the river. When they blow up, its much safer. Unless you're on the river, of course. The N Korean blast could have been their missiles blowing up due to screw ups. There's a lot of energy in the fuels. Or it could have been a test of their nuke-testing systems. The media uses the phrase "October surprise", if NK detonates just before the elections. Of course, others are working on their own October gift to W. When the WTC towers fell, it was something like a 3 on the Richter scale. Lots of gravitational energy.

1 0

Re: "Forest Fire" responsible for a 2.5mi *mushroom cloud*?
by Tyler Durden 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

"Ken Brown" wrote... > >And if there was such a test, how long before China stomped all over them. >Last thing they want is a looney dictator with nukes on their borders (If >only to pre-empt Russia, US, or Japan intervening). Even if both the >Chinese state capitalists and the North Korean absolute divine monarchy >still use the locally redundant word "Communist" when describing themselves >to us Western barbarians. I think this pretty much nails it. Actually, I was imagining that there was still enough relationship left between PRC and NK for the Chinese to say, "Uh, a nuclear test would not be a good idea", meaning (in Chinese speak), "No way you're gonna do that". I'm sure the Chinese at this point regard their relationship with NK as baggage, though I know the Chinese do re-patriate NK refugees, so they're at least maintaining pretenses. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

Endorse EDRI's Statement Against Data Retention (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Eugen Leitl 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org -----

1 0

Recruiting Only Smart People
by Eric Cordian 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Google has an austere black on white billboard ad which simply reads. www.{first 10-digit prime found in the consecutive digits of e}.com People arriving solve another puzzle, and then can use the answer as a password for a website that greets them with the message... "One thing we learned while building Google is that it's easier to find what you're looking for if it comes looking for you. What we're looking for are the best engineers in the world. And here you are." Cute, except it's now being discussed on the net, and you can google the answers. :) -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

2 1

Re: "Forest Fire" responsible for a 2.5mi *mushroom cloud*?
by Tyler Durden 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

Variola wrote... >If it *were* a nuke, it would be easy to detect --from Vera >gamma-ray satellites staring at the earth to optical sensors >(there's a characteristic nonlinear time-course of optical emissions) >to fallout monitors, ground and plane based. --and an underground test >that vents to the atmosphere doesn't make such a big cloud. I had thought that one of the main tests was seismic...from what I understood, Seismic monitors in the US can detect nu-cu-lar tests (above or below ground) and even guess where and the size of the blast. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: "Forest Fire" responsible for a 2.5mi *mushroom cloud*?
by Major Variola (ret) 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

At 12:01 AM 9/12/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: >"No big deal"? Who are they kidding? JAT, any large explosion will create a mushroom cloud. Its the blast wave reflecting off the ground that lifts the thing, plus the buoyancy of the hot gasses. If it *were* a nuke, it would be easy to detect --from Vera gamma-ray satellites staring at the earth to optical sensors (there's a characteristic nonlinear time-course of optical emissions) to fallout monitors, ground and plane based. Time will tell, and it certainly could have been a nuke (they have the SNMs), but if you do it, you talk about it, much like the Indi/Pakis did. And you can't hide a surface burst, or even a large belowground test --and an underground test that vents to the atmosphere doesn't make such a big cloud. Nukepunk

3 3

Re: "Forest Fire" responsible for a 2.5mi *mushroom cloud*?
by Dave Emery 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 12:01:29AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: > "No big deal"? Who are they kidding? Has it occured to anyone this might be a covert US (or Chinese or ....) operation to destroy the PRK nuke test setup, say with cruise missiles, stealth B2 bombers, or a infiltrated sabotage team ? That could produce a large explosion (but little radioactivity)... And with obvious PRK preparations for a test far advanced (see today's NYT) , I would think it was now or never for such a covert attack. Maybe that is why Dubya was completely shitfaced getting off the helo at the WH on the way back from campaigning in Johnstown Pa this past Thursday ? Too much pressure to keep that Jim Beam bottle in the cabinet... one almost can't blame him... -- Dave Emery N1PRE, die(a)dieconsulting.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass 02493

1 0