A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 16th 07, 06:04 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Allen Thomson" wrote:

"What Russia Has to Be Afraid Of

"It is highly likely that the missile threat from "problem" states is
not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system
by the Americans. The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar
undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic
capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear
missiles,


Which should surprise no one - as America tends to work in such a
fashion as to support and further it's own national goals. What
bothers me is that so many deluded people accept _other nations_ doing
so (supporting and furthering) - but boggle at the concept of the US
doing so.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Ads
  #13  
Old February 16th 07, 07:50 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Pat Flannery wrote:

:Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
:because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
:worth the paper it was written on?
:Well, guess what?:
:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html

So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
problem?

So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
want to get back into the IRBM business for?

So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #14  
Old February 16th 07, 07:52 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

You really aren't quite sane, are you?

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
: So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
: withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
: or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?
:
:
:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...nse_999.htm l
:The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put
:in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North
:Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started
:deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile
:attack.
:What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
:against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
:against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..
:Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so
:that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this?
:Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we
:can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it.
:With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted
:more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them.
:In the spirit of the treaty, the Russians are abiding by the means to
:withdraw from it:
:http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm
:"Article XV
:
:1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
:
:2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
:right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
:events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
:supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
:the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
:notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
:notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."
:Having a foreign country deploying missiles on your border would
robably be considered an extraordinary event that jeopardized your
:supreme interests, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed.
:So they are now going to have some fun at our expense, I imagine.
:Our ABMs are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, so I imagine
:they'll get working on hypersonic cruise missiles now.
:If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that
:we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star
:Wars, which would be quite ironic really.
:
:Pat
:
  #15  
Old February 16th 07, 08:01 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 16, 12:15 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:04:18 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:





"Allen Thomson" wrote:


"What Russia Has to Be Afraid Of


"It is highly likely that the missile threat from "problem" states is
not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system
by the Americans. The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar
undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic
capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear
missiles,


Which should surprise no one - as America tends to work in such a
fashion as to support and further it's own national goals. What
bothers me is that so many deluded people accept _other nations_ doing
so (supporting and furthering) - but boggle at the concept of the US
doing so.


That's because Amerikkka is obviously evil and imperialistic, and the
worse country in the history of the world, other than Israel.


Rand, have you been hanging out at the UN again?

I don't know what is worse, those that are brainwashed into thinking
that the US and Israel are the worst countries in the world or those
that are brainwashed into thinking that they are best countries in the
world.

Eric

  #16  
Old February 16th 07, 08:03 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 16, 1:52 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
You really aren't quite sane, are you?


Clearly Pat is on to something when you use the 'insane' approach.

Freddy, this isn't a totalitarian country, at least not yet; you don't
have to kiss the ass of the govt. at every turn.


Pat Flannery wrote:

:
::Rand Simberg wrote:

: So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
: withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
: or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?
:
:
:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...tic_Missile_De...
:The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put
:in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North
:Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started
:deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile
:attack.
:What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
:against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
:against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..
:Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so
:that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this?
:Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we
:can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it.
:With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted
:more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them.
:In the spirit of the treaty, the Russians are abiding by the means to
:withdraw from it:
:http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm
:"Article XV
:
:1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
:
:2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
:right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
:events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
:supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
:the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
:notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
:notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."
:Having a foreign country deploying missiles on your border would
robably be considered an extraordinary event that jeopardized your
:supreme interests, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed.
:So they are now going to have some fun at our expense, I imagine.
:Our ABMs are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, so I imagine
:they'll get working on hypersonic cruise missiles now.
:If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that
:we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star
:Wars, which would be quite ironic really.
:
:Pat
:



  #17  
Old February 16th 07, 08:21 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

:Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
:because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
:worth the paper it was written on?
:Well, guess what?:
:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ..._Quit_INF_Trea...

So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
problem?


So that is why we allowed nukes in Cuba? Oops, we didn't allow them
and we don't have plans to shoot at Cuba either. Counterintel just
isn't your bag is it Freddy?

So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
want to get back into the IRBM business for?

So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?


I guess it all depends where we plan on putting ours.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn



  #18  
Old February 16th 07, 11:28 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:On Feb 16, 1:52 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: You really aren't quite sane, are you?
:
:Clearly Pat is on to something when you use the 'insane' approach.
:
:Freddy, this isn't a totalitarian country, at least not yet; you don't
:have to kiss the ass of the govt. at every turn.

Usual stupid El Chimpko non sequitur.

:
: Pat Flannery wrote:
:
: :
: ::Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: : So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't
: : withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were,
: : or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general?
: :
: :
: :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...tic_Missile_De...
: :The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put
: :in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North
: :Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started
: :deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile
: :attack.
: :What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
: :against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
: :against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..
: :Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so
: :that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this?
: :Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we
: :can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it.
: :With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted
: :more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them.
: :In the spirit of the treaty, the Russians are abiding by the means to
: :withdraw from it:
: :http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm
: :"Article XV
: :
: :1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
: :
: :2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
: :right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
: :events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
: :supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
: :the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
: :notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
: :notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."
: :Having a foreign country deploying missiles on your border would
: robably be considered an extraordinary event that jeopardized your
: :supreme interests, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed.
: :So they are now going to have some fun at our expense, I imagine.
: :Our ABMs are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, so I imagine
: :they'll get working on hypersonic cruise missiles now.
: :If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that
: :we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star
: :Wars, which would be quite ironic really.
: :
: :Pat
: :
:
  #19  
Old February 16th 07, 11:30 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Pat Flannery wrote:
:
: :Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move,
: :because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't
: :worth the paper it was written on?
: :Well, guess what?:
: :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ..._Quit_INF_Trea...
:
: So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
: problem?
:
:So that is why we allowed nukes in Cuba? Oops, we didn't allow them
:and we don't have plans to shoot at Cuba either. Counterintel just
:isn't your bag is it Freddy?

Sense just isn't your bag is it El Chimpko?

What, pray tell, does your preceding spew have to do with ANYTHING?

: So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
: want to get back into the IRBM business for?
:
: So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
: building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?
:
:I guess it all depends where we plan on putting ours.

We're talking about US deployment of AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND
AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******. *WE* are not talking about
"putting ours" anywhere at all.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #20  
Old February 16th 07, 11:55 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless
against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use
against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S..
Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so
that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this?


We've been through this before, Pat: it makes no sense *if* you assume
that the leadership in Iran (and its neighbors) will always be rational
enough and secure enough that deterrence will work. Unfortunately, it's
easy to think of reasons why that might not be the case. Notably, in
countries where the consequences of political failure often include sudden
death, a leader who's backed himself into a corner may personally have
nothing to lose by playing nuclear Chicken with the US.

As one P. Flannery was heard to say a couple of months back:

You'll say: "But yes! But a nuclear war could wipe out all of our nation."
Oddly enough, anyone it wipes out _after_ me isn't of much concern to me
in any concrete form. :-D

--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bye-bye INF treaty? Pat Flannery Policy 418 March 20th 07 04:12 AM
Limited ASAT test ban treaty Totorkon Policy 3 March 9th 07 03:19 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.