NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like they mean business now.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/03/MNGR9H2AM71.DTL
Now all they need to do is add a few claymores, a few flamethrowers, and some electrified razorwire.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory plans to install high-powered machine guns over the next few months capable of hitting land vehicles or aircraft almost a mile away in the event of a terrorist attack.

Known as Gatling guns because they are multi-barreled, like their 19th-century ancestors, they simultaneously fire 7.62mm bullets from six barrels at up to 4,000 rounds per minute, powerful enough to take down an enemy aircraft or helicopter, officials said.

The guns will give the nuclear weapons lab greater ability to guard its huge cache of radioactive plutonium, said Linton Brooks, head of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, a quasi-independent agency that oversees the nation's nuclear weapons complex for the U.S. Department of Energy. The agency ordered the weapons.

"A lot of people are willing to die if they can kill lots of Americans ... You want to make clear that when they come here to die (by attacking the lab), they die for a failure," the blunt-speaking Brooks said at a press conference at Livermore on Thursday, where he unveiled one of the guns.

No more fooling around with pistols and assault rifles - it's nearly impossible to miss.

the phalanx point defense system if i'm not mistaken.
basicly a radar guided vulcan mini-gun.

Now that's what I call overkill.

the phalanx point defense system if i'm not mistaken.
basicly a radar guided vulcan mini-gun.
Phalanx is based around the 20mm Vulcan cannon.

This system they're buying is the M-134 General Electric Minigun, as redesigned by Dillon (the new version fixes a lot of reliability problems).

"The guns will give the nuclear weapons lab greater ability to guard its huge cache of radioactive plutonium"

*hmmmm..*

Vegetarianistica']"The guns will give the nuclear weapons lab greater ability to guard its huge cache of radioactive plutonium"

*hmmmm..*


Something tells me there's no good way to get around a set of 7.62mm Miniguns firing 4,000 rounds per minute.

Even if you did a human wave assault.

There's a kill zone outside of the fence - no place to hide for several hundred meters.

Then there's the fencing - double or triple fence, topped with razorwire, and between the fences are anti-vehicle barriers (so that idea of crashing the truck through isn't going to work).

And the guards are armed with M-16s and in some cases, with belt-fed light machineguns.

Now they'll have Miniguns, which means that even if you brought 1000 people, they're all going to be turned into hamburger in less than a minute out in the kill zone.

actually there's the vulcan cannon which is a 20mm gat. (used in the a-10 thunderbolt II) and then there's the volcan mini-gun uses 7.62mm ammo which is what the phalanx uses.

actually there's the vulcan cannon which is a 20mm gat. (used in the a-10 thunderbolt II) and then there's the volcan mini-gun uses 7.62mm ammo which is what the phalanx uses.
The GAU-8 is a 30mm cannon in the A-10 Thunderbolt.

The Phalanx uses the Vulcan 20mm cannon.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

The guns that are commonly referred to as Miniguns are:

M-134 7.62x51mm NATO

and

XM-214 5.56x45mm NATO

The one being purchased by the lab is the M-134.

Pfft, easier to get something from Kazakhstan and smuggle it in a container. Most of those never get scanned.

So in the highly unlikely event that the terorrists arrive en masse on American soil and attack this Nuclear Weapons Lab, we'll be ready!

One word - Overkill.

So in the highly unlikely event that the terorrists arrive en masse on American soil and attack this Nuclear Weapons Lab, we'll be ready!

One word - Overkill.

In the unlikely event that terrorists do try, and are shredded into flying gibs, I'd like the government to air the video on national television.

you sure about the GAU-8? i thought that's what they have on the harriers (and i know that is no gat). and the weapon on the A-10 is definetly a gatling gun. i've seen them take one out of the nose of one. i use to visite a nearby AFB when i live in tucson. but i guess i could be wrong though, but i don't think so.

you sure about the GAU-8? i thought that's what they have on the harriers (and i know that is no gat). and the weapon on the A-10 is definetly a gatling gun. i've seen them take one out of the nose of one. i use to visite a nearby AFB when i live in tucson. but i guess i could be wrong though, but i don't think so.

The GAU-8 is a seven barrel, 30mm cannon designed specifically for the A-10.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

The Harrier uses a different cannon - the GAU-12 25mm cannon.

In the unlikely event that terrorists do try, and are shredded into flying gibs, I'd like the government to air the video on national television.

That's barbaric and shameful. Where's your respect for the enemy, or even respect for the fallen?

In the unlikely event that terrorists do try, and are shredded into flying gibs, I'd like the government to air the video on national television.
Frankly, against those odds, they'd have more guts than any American soldier.

maybe i should brush up on my manuals. i've never been that wrong about a weapon system before, let alone 2.

That's barbaric and shameful. Where's your respect for the enemy, or even respect for the fallen?
If you're under a few hundred yards away, and you're hit by a 7.62mm Minigun burst, there isn't any "fallen" that is recognizable as a dead human being - under 100 yards, and you're just a momentary pink mist.

Maybe, maybe they find your left rear pants pocket. Or your Nike shoes with the feet still in them. But that's it.

Both the A-10 and the Harrier (and, unless I am completely mistaken, the F-18) use GAU rotary cannon, but different model numbers. The Harrier's is only 20mm.

i'll start showing respect to them when they stop going into shops and blowing up civies.

maybe i should brush up on my manuals. i've never been that wrong about a weapon system before, let alone 2.

fas.org and globalsecurity.org are your friends...

In the unlikely event that terrorists do try, and are shredded into flying gibs, I'd like the government to air the video on national television.

I agree! It'll be a lesson for those who want to try and attack a nuke lab.

I agree! It'll be a lesson for those who want to try and attack a nuke lab.

These guys aren't afraid of death. It would probably get high ratings though.

These guys aren't afraid of death. It would probably get high ratings though.

Ya your probably right.

Frankly, against those odds, they'd have more guts than any American soldier.

*snorts*

Apparently, you do not know the military.

Video of a minigun fired at a car.

I promise, no body parts, etc. Just tracer heaven.
http://67.19.106.107/gun.wmv

*snorts*

Apparently, you do not know the military.
Eh, all I need are casualty stats. No value judgements, just the fact that the US military has not faced remotely comparable risk in two generations.

Definately not overkill. Not in the least. Not by a long shot. Typically, the people that complain that is overkill are the same ones that whine when an attack isn't stopped or averted.
My dad used to work at EBR-II, a breeder reactor in Arco, Idaho, and they had an armed, fueled and manned attack chopper. Complete with rockets and machine guns. (1974-1988 it was later removed nearing the end of the cold war considering the unlikely chance of soviet attack.)
Don't be surprised to find serious military hardware being installed in all manner of places deemed likely targets for terrorist attack.

Eh, all I need are casualty stats. No value judgements, just the fact that the US military has not faced remotely comparable risk in two generations.
American troops do not habitually rush machinegun emplacements that have very high rates of fire.

However, it is most certainly an Arab tradition to do so.

Eh, all I need are casualty stats. No value judgements, just the fact that the US military has not faced remotely comparable risk in two generations.

True and if you want to take a look at casualty stats, you might want to see casualties from before world War 2. Such as the Civil War and World War 1.

Still think that we do not have guts? Actually, the Civil War is a better war to study because of all the gutsy manuevers from both sides.

True and if you want to take a look at casualty stats, you might want to see casualties from before world War 2. Such as the Civil War and World War 1.

Still think that we do not have guts? Actually, the Civil War is a better war to study because of all the gutsy manuevers from both sides.
On this occasion, I am only passing judgement on the current generation. :D

On this occasion, I am only passing judgement on the current generation. :D

Actually, our troops have guts today. Considering they are volunteering to go IED Hunting :D

*goes off to the mall on that note*

plenty of wars had us soldiers charging machine gun nests and bunkers. now, true they didn't have gat cannons, but still it takes guts

True and if you want to take a look at casualty stats, you might want to see casualties from before world War 2. Such as the Civil War and World War 1.

Still think that we do not have guts? Actually, the Civil War is a better war to study because of all the gutsy manuevers from both sides.

What the hell do fifty year old wars have to with it?

The point she was making was "Terrorists are braver than US soldiers because they face a higher possibility of being killed."

The US doesn't have to be the best at everything.This should be no way construed as support for terrorists.

i was responding to the us soldiers don't go charging machinegun post. that's all. sorry.

I think that someone here might be mistaking guts for religious zealotry. Just because American soldiers have some of the best weaponry and defensive abilities certainly doesn't mean they don't have guts. It means they were smart enough to join the right team.

I think that someone here might be mistaking guts for religious zealotry. Just because American soldiers have some of the best weaponry and defensive abilities certainly doesn't mean they don't have guts. It means they were smart enough to join the right team.

I wasn't saying that they didn't have guts. I would be the first to admit that they are far braver than me.

I wasn't saying that they didn't have guts. I would be the first to admit that they are far braver than me.




It wasn't you so much as someone earlier in the thread.:)

The British have the best army (not the largest)
*breaks out in Land of hope and Glory.....la la la

If you're under a few hundred yards away, and you're hit by a 7.62mm Minigun burst, there isn't any "fallen" that is recognizable as a dead human being - under 100 yards, and you're just a momentary pink mist.

Maybe, maybe they find your left rear pants pocket. Or your Nike shoes with the feet still in them. But that's it.

No shit. And completely irrelevant.

The British have the best army

Something to back that up would be nice.

The British have the best army (not the largest)
*breaks out in Land of hope and Glory.....la la la

i thought the israelis had the best army? or atleast the best trained

i thought the israelis had the best army? or atleast the best trained

Everyone thinks their army is the best. I bet the Pope thinks "I could conquer any nation on earth with my trusty Swiss guard".

In the unlikely event that terrorists do try, and are shredded into flying gibs, I'd like the government to air the video on national television.
Amen!

Frankly, against those odds, they'd have more guts than any American soldier.
I wouldn't call that "guts." I would call that "stoopidity!" :D

Everyone thinks their army is the best. I bet the Pope thinks "I could conquer any nation on earth with my trusty Swiss guard".

one small problem with that. i'm not israelie.

And the terrorists would attack this institute why? If they wont plutonium there are far easier ways to get it.

Anyway. Anyone fancy getting a shovel? I plan on tunneling in...

Holy crap! That's 66 bullets in one second! I think I'll pass going up against it.

and that just from one weapon. you most likely be shot at by 2-4 of those cannons

In the unlikely event that terrorists do try, and are shredded into flying gibs, I'd like the government to air the video on national television.


Their compadres need to witness them being reduced to large puffs off red mist and chunks.

I am sending a larger check to my General Electric DRP acct this month.

Eh, all I need are casualty stats. No value judgements, just the fact that the US military has not faced remotely comparable risk in two generations.

None exist.

On this occasion, I am only passing judgement on the current generation. :D
US troops don't have to charge at machine guns. We have air superiority. It's just easier to hunker down and call in an air strike. Why stupidly waste your men in a charge against an enemy who's better armed and probably behind cover when you can just call in a bomb to blast him to hell?

It's got nothing to do with guts, it's got everything to do with knowing how to fight smart.

What the hell do fifty year old wars have to with it?

The point she was making was "Terrorists are braver than US soldiers because they face a higher possibility of being killed."

The US doesn't have to be the best at everything.This should be no way construed as support for terrorists.

No we don't however our forces can be killed just as easily. It takes guts to put on the uniform and stick with it. Our forces are on the firing line everyday putting their lives in danger. I say we have more guts than they do because terrorists are hitting their targets via the cowardly way.

Something tells me there's no good way to get around a set of 7.62mm Miniguns firing 4,000 rounds per minute.

Even if you did a human wave assault.

There's a kill zone outside of the fence - no place to hide for several hundred meters.

Then there's the fencing - double or triple fence, topped with razorwire, and between the fences are anti-vehicle barriers (so that idea of crashing the truck through isn't going to work).

And the guards are armed with M-16s and in some cases, with belt-fed light machineguns.

Now they'll have Miniguns, which means that even if you brought 1000 people, they're all going to be turned into hamburger in less than a minute out in the kill zone.

We should get these on British nuclear power plants. Reporters keep walking up to the fences and saying,"Look, I haven't been challenged! If i were a terrorist (and climbed or cut the fence, wandered into the plant, found something that was both unguarded and vital, actually had a bomb and was able to plant it) I could possibly cause a bit of damage." I think it would be a nice message to potential terrorists to have the occasional wacko reporter turned into a bloody mist.

Looks like they mean business now.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/03/MNGR9H2AM71.DTL
Now all they need to do is add a few claymores, a few flamethrowers, and some electrified razorwire.

No more fooling around with pistols and assault rifles - it's nearly impossible to miss.
Several obvious problems about this whole story:

But a lab critic called the plan a threat to innocent men, women and children, particularly with the lab being across the street from suburban homes. A better solution would be to investigate ways to remove the plutonium and other weapons-grade nuclear materials from the lab altogether, said Marylia Kelley, head of Tri Valley Cares, a Livermore anti-nuclear group.

"There are residential homes all up and down what is the western perimeter of Livermore lab," Kelley said. "You always see children on their bicycles or skateboards ... people walking their dogs ... You can't just indiscriminately open fire."

Why is this lab in a residential area?

Conceivably, terrorists might wish to attack the lab either to steal plutonium, which they could then convert into their own bombs, or to blow up the plutonium storage building to spread radioactive material over a densely inhabited area.

Brooks acknowledged that "if somebody wants to drive an aircraft into a building, you can't prevent that." But in the event of a "military-style" terrorist attack either from a ground vehicle or an aircraft, Livermore needs to have this kind of super-armament "to leave no doubt about the outcome," he said.

Why is this lab susceptible to attack by aircraft?

In November, the Energy Department authorized the lab to increase its amount of stored plutonium to an amount exceeding 3,000 pounds -- enough for as many as about 300 nuclear bombs.

Why is the government increasing the potential risk by increasing stockpiles?

Solution:

Move this facility to a remote part of the country, which would reduce the risk that the current residents face.

The facility should be underground, which eliminates the possibility of an attack by air or military weapons. It would also reduce the cost of human security and thereby reduce the possibility of casualties.

You'll notice that people don't want a facility with nuclear material "in their backyard".

A good example is Yucca Mountain. Extremely remote. Extremely underground.

And yet there is delay after delay after delay in opening the site - because no one wants it in their state.

Which prevents nuclear waste all around the country from being removed from the sites where it is generated (not just weapons grade plutonium).