|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:24:02 -0600, Kevin Willoughby wrote
(in article ): That's probably both unConstitutional and a very wise idea. It may have been in violation of certain statutes and federal regulations dealing with the implementation of the presidential role as commander in chief, but it's not unconstitutional. -- You can run on for a long time, Sooner or later, God'll cut you down. ~Johnny Cash |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"John Schilling" wrote in message
... On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:52:56 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority. Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial. Yes, but "legal order" and "order from the ultimate legal military authority", are two different things. It takes more than rank and whim to constitute a legal order, and even for the president there are procedures which must be followed. Agreed, my point though is ultimately, unless someone has a reference otherwise, (and I'm guessing Goldwater-Nichols Act might) one can't dismiss the possibility that the President does have that authority. Based on the Constitution itself, there's really nothing restricting him. He can and does order troop movements and actions. The only limitation inherent in the Constitution is the ability to declare war. Now, any reasonable President is going to consult his advisors, etc. But ultimately as far as the Constitution goes, I don't see anything that denies him the legal ability to launch a nuclear attack at will. Given an incoming missile threat, I think a good argument could be made that a retalitory strike ordered by the President with little to no consultation might be considered a valid, legal order. How so? I mean, *maybe* in the old Cold War scenario of thousands of Rooskie ICBMs suddenly coming over the pole you could make that argument. Though as it turns out we apparently didn't, planning instead to ride out the strike before deciding on a response. See argument above. Now agreed, given that it may be valid and legel does not make it prudent. But if it's one Iranian missile headed for New York City, or to be more precise one blip on the radar that looks like an Iranian missile headed for NYC, what's the argument for instant retaliation? Personally I don't think there is a GOOD one. Simply that one exists. I'm on the side of "ride it out and then react". How is that scenario any different than, "The President's staff tarot card reader just advised him that Iran is planning on nuking Manhattan, Real Soon Now, so we'd better go ahead and nuke Iran first"? Really none. snipped So if you're going to argue that it's legal for the President to Nuke Iran Right Now Dammit Half An Hour From Now Is Too Late!, on account of a blip on a radar screen, you pretty much have to argue that it's legal for him to nuke Iran on a whim just because a psychic told him to, and that the military has to blindly obey because he's the president and he says its urgent. I don't think that's what you want to do. Actually that's about what I want to do. Let's put it this way, what would constitute an illegal order from the President? And how would we know it was illegal? Again, I'm not familiar with any specific Act that would prevent the President to order a launch in response to a perceived threat. Yes, it may certainly exist (and I suspect there are several that lean that way). In addition, I highly suspect that any officer given such an order probably would think twice about obeying it. Just because it's "valid and legal" doesn't meean it's a good idea. Despite the flaws in Crimson Tide, it does raise these questions. At what point do you obey an order vs. follow it? Generally it's critical for military discipline for orders to be followed, but when it comes to nukes, you do sort of want someone saying at the upper levels, "hmm, is this really right?" And I know for certain that what *I* want, is to wait half an hour to be absolutely certain that retaliation is necessary rather than launching while the issue is the least bit in doubt. Yes, that means Tehran gets nuked forty-five minutes after NYC rather than fifteen minutes. That's no big deal. Again, I agreed. It also means there is absolutely no possibility that we nuke Tehran over what turns out to have been a false alarm on our part, or a bluff on theirs. That's a *huge* deal. In fact, I might recommend waiting a full day or two before nuking Tehran, depending on the circumstances. And I think quite a few generals and presidents would agree. Tehran's not going any were; we don't need to rush. Tehran's not true. But their leaders might be. In which case nuking it would be wanton slaughter. In which case you might simply decide other options are far better. -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: But if it's one Iranian missile headed for New York City, or to be more precise one blip on the radar that looks like an Iranian missile headed for NYC, what's the argument for instant retaliation? Personally I don't think there is a GOOD one. Simply that one exists. I'm on the side of "ride it out and then react". As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching. It'll take around one half hour for a Minuteman to get there or around ten to fifteen minutes for a Trident to reach it assuming that it's fairly close to the area. Every second you wait could be the second another missile lifts off. This is a case of better safe than sorry. And I know for certain that what *I* want, is to wait half an hour to be absolutely certain that retaliation is necessary rather than launching while the issue is the least bit in doubt. Yes, that means Tehran gets nuked forty-five minutes after NYC rather than fifteen minutes. That's no big deal. Again, I agreed. Tehran shouldn't be the priority target; wherever the missile came from is target numero uno. Tehran's not true. But their leaders might be. In which case nuking it would be wanton slaughter. In which case you might simply decide other options are far better. You really want to get their attention in no uncertain terms, hit the country with a EMP detonation; about the time that everything electric in the country ceases to work, you will find them to be in a very tractable situation for a negotiated settlement on very favorable terms, without having to kill the populace. Unlike Afghanistan, Iran does have a centralized government, so this should work. The problem of blowing up their government is that you are left with no one to negotiate with. However, this is all getting ahead of the situation; a couple of days ago, I read that a Iranian nuclear weapon might be a decade away still, and they still have to develop a missile to get it here. Everyone worries about "The Islamic Bomb" but Pakistan has had The Islamic Bomb since at least 1998 (probably a lot longer than that although they didn't test it till then), and the world hasn't ended yet... despite some wackos in Pakistan like this guy: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/5795/ At least the radical right and Pakistanis have something in common - their loathing of Bill Clinton, as the parade float on that page will show. Pat |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:47:08 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: But if it's one Iranian missile headed for New York City, or to be more precise one blip on the radar that looks like an Iranian missile headed for NYC, what's the argument for instant retaliation? Personally I don't think there is a GOOD one. Simply that one exists. I'm on the side of "ride it out and then react". As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching. It'll take around one half hour for a Minuteman to get there or around ten to fifteen minutes for a Trident to reach it assuming that it's fairly close to the area. Every second you wait could be the second another missile lifts off. This is a case of better safe than sorry. OK, Pat- in my time zone it's about 1:00AM, February 22, 2007. I've just made you President of the United States. Congratulations. But just now, Iran has launched an ICBM torwards NYC. You really think it has a nuclear warhead? And there are many more to follow? With all we currently know about Iran's nuclear program, you'll order a nuclear attack? 68 million people live in Iran, BTW. Probably a few more downwind. In response to an earlier post of yours- no, I don't think you're a knee-jerk pacifist. Your fascination with the nazis disabused me of that notion long ago Dale |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Dale Carlson wrote: OK, Pat- in my time zone it's about 1:00AM, February 22, 2007. I've just made you President of the United States. Congratulations. But just now, Iran has launched an ICBM torwards NYC. You really think it has a nuclear warhead? And there are many more to follow? With all we currently know about Iran's nuclear program, you'll order a nuclear attack? Yes I will... on the launch site, not on Tehran. At most such an attack will probably kill a thousand people or so, unless they've decided to launch it from downtown Tehran. The reason for the attack isn't to kill Iranians, it's to prevent them from firing more missiles at us. In regards to Tehran, I'll wait till their missile impacts and see that its warhead is. If its nuclear and detonates with the loss of thousands of American lives, then Tehran does indeed get nuked, and the country EMPed. If it's nuclear, but is a dud or detonates off target, without much loss of life, then Iran gets EMPed, followed by conventional cruise missile attacks and air strikes on military and C&C targets till it surrenders. If it's conventional (though I hardly think this is likely, as ICBMs are too expensive to use for conventional attack) then Iran gets hit with conventional cruise missiles and air strikes on military and C&C targets till they surrender. If it's chemical or biological, then what happens depends on the death toll: if it's light, then it's EMP time followed by cruise missiles and air strikes. If it's heavy, then it's back to nuking Tehran and EMPing the country. These all presume that the Iranians attack first, not in response to an attack on them by the U.S., which might modify my actions as long as there wasn't a huge loss of life from their attack. But you don't ever let any country detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S. or cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties with chemical or biological weapons without making them pay as high a price as possible, because that would set a terrible precedent. You can see I'm a big fan of EMP attack; I like it because it doesn't involve vast numbers of civilian casualties, will pretty much completely disable an opponent, and is inherently extremely scary to the civilian population of the country that is attacked in this way, in the same way that Klaatu's little demonstration was in "The Day The Earth Stood Still". If you do the EMP attack at night and the skies are clear, the huge auroral display following it will certainly add greatly to the fear it causes, particularly at these southern latitudes where aurora are uncommon, as suddenly all the power lines short, then everything goes black, and it looks like the sky is on fire. A detonation at an altitude of around 60 miles centered at 54 degrees E by 32 degrees N, between the towns of Ardakan and Yazd would knock out electrical power over around 70% of Iran, including Tehran, while leaving adjoining nations unaffected, assuming an effect radius of around 300 miles, which could be adjusted by yield. Due to the low burst height, satellites should be unaffected by the Argus effect, and all fallout would be limited to the materials of the bomb itself. 68 million people live in Iran, BTW. Probably a few more downwind. In response to an earlier post of yours- no, I don't think you're a knee-jerk pacifist. Your fascination with the nazis disabused me of that notion long ago The Nazi's fascinate me because they serve as a warning about what happens when you get people in power who instead of defending their nation, set out to destroy and subjugate other nations under the guise of bringing them the blessings of The True Philosophy, while whipping up the dark side of human instincts to divide the world into "Us" and "Them", with the vast majority of it being "Them". You live in a constant state of fear that somewhere someone is plotting against you, and you may have to give up a few rights to thwart their plans...and once you start down that path, you are going nowhere good. What we are trying to do in the Mideast is reminiscent of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and not surprisingly also has a lot to do with oil resources. Pat |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching. It'll take around one half hour for a Minuteman to get there or around ten to fifteen minutes for a Trident to reach it assuming that it's fairly close to the area. Every second you wait could be the second another missile lifts off. This is a case of better safe than sorry. And we have a winner! My point exactly. Tehran shouldn't be the priority target; wherever the missile came from is target numero uno. The delay to launch should be approximately equal to the time to determine that it's not equipment failure plus the time needed to retarget some missiles. This *may* be long enough that we can find out what the initial load is. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Pat Flannery writes:
Paul Repacholi wrote: (Derek Lyons) writes: A) Trident's don't patrol in the Med. (We gave that up as soon as we could.) There is a special term for subs in the Med. `Dead Meat' No where to hide, no where to dive... The Mediterranean Sea's average depth is 1,500 meters; that's probably over three times the maximum safe depth of a Trident submarine. Oh Really? about 5000' less a bit. So, if that is the average, what is the maximum depth? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Scott Hedrick wrote: The delay to launch should be approximately equal to the time to determine that it's not equipment failure plus the time needed to retarget some missiles. This *may* be long enough that we can find out what the initial load is. The thing that you could get there the fastest would be a Trident missile: I may have read somewhere that our Trident subs carry a couple of missiles with only a single warhead on them for cases like this. Otherwise you'd have the problem about what to do with the rest of the MIRVs, as if they all come down on the same spot you end up with warhead fratricide. Since even the smaller of the two types of warheads it can carry has a 100 kt yield, that should put the launch site out of commission; if the large one is used it has 475 kt yield, so it will really trash the place. I imagine you could have the other ones just drive into the ground in a unarmed state, and deal with the plutonium contamination at some future date. Speaking of Iran, whatever became of that second carrier group we were sending over there? It seems like I first heard about it over a month ago, but it seems to always be "on its way there" without arriving; what are they doing - rowing it all the way over there? Pat |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Paul Repacholi wrote: Oh Really? about 5000' less a bit. So, if that is the average, what is the maximum depth? 5,267 meters at the Calypso deep in the Ionian Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea However, during WW II it was realized that the clarity of the waters allowed submarines to be seen from the air at a depth of three to four hundred feet in calm conditions. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Limited ASAT test ban treaty | Totorkon | Policy | 3 | March 9th 07 02:19 AM |
Outer Space Treaty | John Schilling | Policy | 24 | May 24th 06 03:14 PM |
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 7 | April 2nd 05 08:02 PM |