Bye-bye INF treaty?

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
estimated 2003 GDP (2005 World Almanac): Iran, $477.8G; US, $10.98T.
For purposes of comparison, the Gross *State* Product of Florida in 2001
was $491.5G.

Iran doesn't support the same socially-liberal populace that any Western
nation does. If that nation chooses to build a few gross of ICBMs, they will
easily be able to afford to do so.

And it will be easier still for the US to afford to match and exceed that
with interceptors, should the occasion arise.

...The Iranians are not idiots, so it's most unlikely that
they will even try.

If they're not idiots, why do you think a ABM solution directed at their
putative capacity is a good idea?

Because *without* an interception capability in place, a small ICBM force
is a very attractive form of deterrent. Only when there start to be two
sides to the race does it matter which can run faster.

Note also that -- to my mind -- we're talking about an ABM capability
directed at that whole *region* and at its uncertain *future* governments,
not at one particular current regime. The current regime in Iran, despite
some of its more obnoxious utterances, is probably sensible enough to balk
at rolling the big dice. But it won't last forever, and if its replacement
is an ambitious madman like the Shah...

For only an idiot would consider nuking this country after all.

You're confusing attack with deterrence. Only an idiot would attack the
US with nuclear weapons, yes, but *credibly threatening* to attack the US
with nuclear weapons can be a very sensible move. Especially if you have
prior reason to fear that the US will attack you -- rather obviously a
legitimate concern for Iran. Raising the stakes discourages such gambles.

...Notably, Britain decisively won the pre-WWI battleship race.)

In terms of pure numbers, sure. In terms of quality, German ships were
substantially better-built and better-armored than British ships.

By and large, they had better armor because they needed it -- they were
facing bigger guns mounted on faster ships. That was a difference in
design priorities rather than a competitive edge. Yeah, on the whole,
the German ships probably were of better quality... but it made little
difference in the face of such massive numerical superiority.

For that
matter, the German navy acquitted itself remarkably well in that conflict.

In a number of small but significant ways, they were better prepared for
it -- e.g., they took fighting at night or in bad weather more seriously.
(Mind you, that was also partly making a virtue of necessity, given an
opponent with overwhelming superiority in good conditions.) That helped,
but not enough.

Numbers aren't everything either. The mere threat of Germany's substantially
smaller force effectively kept the Grand Fleet "trapped" in Scapa Flow as
much as the Grand Fleet keep the German High Seas fleet trapped in Kiel.

And every day with both fleets sitting ready but idle was a victory for
the Grand Fleet and a defeat for the High Seas Fleet, another day in which
Allied command of the seas remained unquestioned and Britain's food supply
from overseas remained secure. (Or at least, command of the *surface* of
the seas remained unquestioned, and the food supply remained secure
against *surface* attack...)

If the Allies decided to try an amphibious landing at Gallipoli, the Grand
Fleet could support it with battleships, and the High Seas Fleet couldn't
do anything to interfere. As gas-mask filter canisters got larger, German
soldiers had to carry the weight dangling in front of their chins, because
blockaded Germany couldn't get the rubber to equip millions of masks with
flexible hoses going to separate canisters. If Germany's Far East cruiser
squadron made difficulties, the Grand Fleet could detach some dreadnoughts
to go off and smash the nuisance flat, and all the High Seas Fleet could
do was grind its teeth in frustration.

Numbers aren't everything, but in this case, they unquestionably decided
the outcome.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On 24 Feb 2007 11:11:14 -0800, "Jordan"
wrote:


What would a "calm and rational" response to Iran launching a war
against America by firing ICBM's at American cities look like? As
opposed to the "panic" one?

- Jordan

The response could be exactly the same. The immediate response would
be the politically correct one. The delayed response would show a
political weakness of the Commander in Chief to take action. After
weeks of study, focus groups, public opinion polls, building
congressional support, public debate, etc., the response would seem
cold and calculating, rather than dutiful.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:04:02 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
Alan Jones wrote:
(Actually, lest we forget how this discussion started, the *safe* thing to
do is to equip yourself with the means to *intercept* small attacks, so
you don't *have* to make such a choice based on inadequate evidence under
intense time pressure. Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)

Intercepting a missile solves nothing.

Sure it does: it prevents the missile from hitting the US, which surely
is the US's single highest priority in the matter.

Sure, if you can. But you also have the risk that our commander in
chief, just says "Ha ha, we blocked your shot; we are great; we are
invulnerable; no harm, no foul." Meanwhile the US People have soiled
themselves, realizing that they just dodged a bullet. That is not
security. Neutralizing the enemy is security.


(Anyone who disagrees
has drunk the old MAD kool-aid to the point of being unable to think
rationally.)

We are not discussing a MAD situation here. What we have is
essentially a situation where a madman is losing, knows he can't win,
but he still tries to get in a sucker punch. (I don't expect that
sucker punch to even come from an ICBM launched from his homeland.)

A full nuclear retaliation solves "it" quite effectively.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Unless you melt the whole country down to slag
(which requires ridiculous numbers of warheads and has potentially-ugly
side effects, apart from involving mass murder of innocents on a scale not
even Hitler or Stalin ever achieved), there might still be a missile or
two hidden away somewhere... and the ones that were fired have hit the
US... so tell me, exactly what has that approach "solved"?

Increased US security by neutralizing an enemy. You do not have to
melt the whole country down to slag. You do not even have kill every
man, woman, and child. Obviously you must destroy their offensive
military capability. However, the neutralization can be taken further
to destroy the leadership, the religious ideology that spawned the
madman, the economy that enabled the offensive development, the
schools that educated the people enough to build offensive weapons,
the people who empowered the madman...

You're confusing ends with means. Trying to deter attack by threatening
devastating counterattack is only a means to an end. Moreover, it's not a
very good one... and if missiles have been fired, it has already failed.

No, the end is enhanced US security by neutralizing an enemy.
Deference, is not real security, but in the absence of madmen, it will
get you through the day. When neutralization is not possible, or
warranted, deference is the next best thing. Now, the madman may be
in his after life knowing that he sucker punched the US, but the
fruits of his actions will taste bitter knowing that they came at the
cost of his people, culture, and homeland. This realization may even
deter some madmen.

It is not my vision that the US should be the biggest, strongest, most
invulnerable, and most punitive nation on earth. Rather, we should be
loving, and peaceful, with concern for other people and nations, and
bolster security with stronger social and economic co dependance.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : You equate someone asking if you want them to publish your office
: : phone number with threatening physical violence?
: :
: :What physical threats? I have never threaten you or anyone else on
: :USENET. And if you think me mistaken, then produce the proof right now
: r post a retraction.
:
: You're lying.
:
:And your proof is?

Your prior threats, which you now deny.

Prior threats? Where? Why don't you find a post of mine that was a
prior threat. I bet you can't.


: And we've had this whole conversation before about how,
: unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than dredge
: through hundreds of your old posts to 'prove' to you that you said
: something that has, as usual, slipped your memory.
:
:So you feel threatened by me but are too lazy to dig up proof? Hmm...
:seems like it's a case of not much of a threat or no threat.

Poor Eric. He'll do anything to try to get someone to play his stupid
Usenet games. But none of the other reindeer will let him join in.

USENET games? Freddy, USENET games are making claims which don't get
backed up. If you have evidence that I threatened anyone, then produce
it. Otherwise admit you are wrong or allow your inability to produce
the evidence admit that you are wrong.

:
: : So being called an idiot is how you convince yourself that you matter?
: :
: :No, I matter because I declare that I do so. It is all that is needed.
:
: snicker
:
:Fine go ahead. Changes nothing.

Quite right, it doesn't. You're still an idiot.

That still manages to have you stating I'm an idiot over and over
again.

If I admit that I am an idiot, will you admit that you are an
asshole?

: : That's really quite sad.
: :
: :No, you're really quite sad and delusional.
:
: snicker
:
: : Uh, I don't respond to every one of your posts, El Chimpko. Obviously
: : you spew so much **** that even you can't keep track.
: :
: :We're quite even in that regard.
:
: Wrong again.
:
: : Poor El Chimpko...
: :
: :How so? Because YOU say so? Sorry, that isn't enough.
:
: Because this is your life, you sad little ****e.
:
:I have a hint for you Freddy, you should be so concerned with your own
:life as you are with others', as that is really where only you can
:make a difference, and it is needed.

Yeah, I just feel all horrible about my life every time I leave my
nice house, hop in my Mercedes sports car, and drive to my well-paying
job. I'll really have to work on that.

All material things, which sort of define you as shallow. Does someone
born of wealth impress you? I mean Paris Hilton could buy and sell
you. Does that impress you?


snicker

Is that supposed to make me feel small? Sorry, old chum, you lack
anything in your being to make me feel humble as I have more wealth
than you even realize.

Poor Freddy, values life in the context of dollars.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : :
: : : You equate someone asking if you want them to publish your office
: : : phone number with threatening physical violence?
: : :
: : :What physical threats? I have never threaten you or anyone else on
: : :USENET. And if you think me mistaken, then produce the proof right now
: : r post a retraction.
: :
: : You're lying.
: :
: :And your proof is?
:
: Your prior threats, which you now deny.
:
:Prior threats?

Yes.

:Where?

Here.

:Why don't you find a post of mine that was a
rior threat.

Because, unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than play
stupid Usenet games.

:I bet you can't.

I bet I won't. It's not the same thing.

:
: : And we've had this whole conversation before about how,
: : unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than dredge
: : through hundreds of your old posts to 'prove' to you that you said
: : something that has, as usual, slipped your memory.
: :
: :So you feel threatened by me but are too lazy to dig up proof? Hmm...
: :seems like it's a case of not much of a threat or no threat.
:
: Poor Eric. He'll do anything to try to get someone to play his stupid
: Usenet games. But none of the other reindeer will let him join in.
:
:USENET games? Freddy, USENET games are making claims which don't get
:backed up. If you have evidence that I threatened anyone, then produce
:it. Otherwise admit you are wrong or allow your inability to produce
:the evidence admit that you are wrong.

We've already heard from another eye witness to your behaviour. But
no doubt you think it's all a vast conspiracy against you and that
you're right and everyone else is wrong.

: :
: : : So being called an idiot is how you convince yourself that you matter?
: : :
: : :No, I matter because I declare that I do so. It is all that is needed.
: :
: : snicker
: :
: :Fine go ahead. Changes nothing.
:
: Quite right, it doesn't. You're still an idiot.
:
:That still manages to have you stating I'm an idiot over and over
:again.

Yes. Well, reality will persist in rearing its ugly head...

:If I admit that I am an idiot, will you admit that you are an
:asshole?

I'll admit I tend to be an asshole toward adamantine idiots. But
then, my tolerance for fools tends to be fairly low.

: : : That's really quite sad.
: : :
: : :No, you're really quite sad and delusional.
: :
: : snicker
: :
: : : Uh, I don't respond to every one of your posts, El Chimpko. Obviously
: : : you spew so much **** that even you can't keep track.
: : :
: : :We're quite even in that regard.
: :
: : Wrong again.
: :
: : : Poor El Chimpko...
: : :
: : :How so? Because YOU say so? Sorry, that isn't enough.
: :
: : Because this is your life, you sad little ****e.
: :
: :I have a hint for you Freddy, you should be so concerned with your own
: :life as you are with others', as that is really where only you can
: :make a difference, and it is needed.
:
: Yeah, I just feel all horrible about my life every time I leave my
: nice house, hop in my Mercedes sports car, and drive to my well-paying
: job. I'll really have to work on that.
:
:All material things, which sort of define you as shallow. Does someone
:born of wealth impress you? I mean Paris Hilton could buy and sell
:you. Does that impress you?

Money doesn't buy happiness, but it will sure let you shop for it in
better neighborhoods, Eric.

:
: snicker
:
:Is that supposed to make me feel small? Sorry, old chum, you lack
:anything in your being to make me feel humble as I have more wealth
:than you even realize.

Well, if anyone ever shows up wanting to buy stupid, you have a large
supply.

:Poor Freddy, values life in the context of dollars.

Poor Eric. This is the usual response of those who don't have it.

All in all, I'd rather be rich...

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : :
: : : You equate someone asking if you want them to publish your office
: : : phone number with threatening physical violence?
: : :
: : :What physical threats? I have never threaten you or anyone else on
: : :USENET. And if you think me mistaken, then produce the proof right now
: : r post a retraction.
: :
: : You're lying.
: :
: :And your proof is?
:
: Your prior threats, which you now deny.
:
:Prior threats?

Yes.

:Where?

Here.

:Why don't you find a post of mine that was a
rior threat.

Because, unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than play
stupid Usenet games.

So you claiming I made physical threats is a game?


:I bet you can't.

I bet I won't. It's not the same thing.

:
: : And we've had this whole conversation before about how,
: : unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than dredge
: : through hundreds of your old posts to 'prove' to you that you said
: : something that has, as usual, slipped your memory.
: :
: :So you feel threatened by me but are too lazy to dig up proof? Hmm...
: :seems like it's a case of not much of a threat or no threat.
:
: Poor Eric. He'll do anything to try to get someone to play his stupid
: Usenet games. But none of the other reindeer will let him join in.
:
:USENET games? Freddy, USENET games are making claims which don't get
:backed up. If you have evidence that I threatened anyone, then produce
:it. Otherwise admit you are wrong or allow your inability to produce
:the evidence admit that you are wrong.

We've already heard from another eye witness to your behaviour.

Yes, one that has you in his killfile.

But no doubt you think it's all a vast conspiracy against you and that
you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Nope. Just looking for evidence. That is all. You have none.

: :
: : : So being called an idiot is how you convince yourself that you matter?
: : :
: : :No, I matter because I declare that I do so. It is all that is needed.
: :
: : snicker
: :
: :Fine go ahead. Changes nothing.
:
: Quite right, it doesn't. You're still an idiot.
:
:That still manages to have you stating I'm an idiot over and over
:again.

Yes. Well, reality will persist in rearing its ugly head...

Only to those with a doomed interpretation of reality.

:If I admit that I am an idiot, will you admit that you are an
:asshole?

I'll admit I tend to be an asshole toward adamantine idiots.

Well there you have it.

But then, my tolerance for fools tends to be fairly low.

Then you must have no tolerance at all being a fool and all.

: : : That's really quite sad.
: : :
: : :No, you're really quite sad and delusional.
: :
: : snicker
: :
: : : Uh, I don't respond to every one of your posts, El Chimpko. Obviously
: : : you spew so much **** that even you can't keep track.
: : :
: : :We're quite even in that regard.
: :
: : Wrong again.
: :
: : : Poor El Chimpko...
: : :
: : :How so? Because YOU say so? Sorry, that isn't enough.
: :
: : Because this is your life, you sad little ****e.
: :
: :I have a hint for you Freddy, you should be so concerned with your own
: :life as you are with others', as that is really where only you can
: :make a difference, and it is needed.
:
: Yeah, I just feel all horrible about my life every time I leave my
: nice house, hop in my Mercedes sports car, and drive to my well-paying
: job. I'll really have to work on that.
:
:All material things, which sort of define you as shallow. Does someone
:born of wealth impress you? I mean Paris Hilton could buy and sell
:you. Does that impress you?

Money doesn't buy happiness, but it will sure let you shop for it in
better neighborhoods, Eric.

The quote I recall is, "money won't buy you happiness, but it sure
goes a long way preventing sadness".

But what good is your wealth to me? Sorry to come off practical and
all, but I think you need a dose of it.

:
: snicker
:
:Is that supposed to make me feel small? Sorry, old chum, you lack
:anything in your being to make me feel humble as I have more wealth
:than you even realize.

Well, if anyone ever shows up wanting to buy stupid, you have a large
supply.

Yet as stupid as I am I still seem to know as much or more about
computers as you do.


:Poor Freddy, values life in the context of dollars.

Poor Eric. This is the usual response of those who don't have it.

I own two houses, have a nice IRA, and a decent salary. Sorry Freddy,
you're mistaken yet again...

All in all, I'd rather be rich...

Than stupid? Or pompous?

Why not rich, nice and smart? Freddy, always limiting himself with his
self-limiting beliefs.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
ups.com...

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : :
: : : You equate someone asking if you want them to publish your
office
: : : phone number with threatening physical violence?
: : :
: : :What physical threats? I have never threaten you or anyone else on
: : :USENET. And if you think me mistaken, then produce the proof right
now
: : r post a retraction.
: :
: : You're lying.
: :
: :And your proof is?
:
: Your prior threats, which you now deny.
:
:Prior threats?

Yes.

:Where?

Here.

:Why don't you find a post of mine that was a
rior threat.

Because, unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than play
stupid Usenet games.

So you claiming I made physical threats is a game?


:I bet you can't.

I bet I won't. It's not the same thing.

:
: : And we've had this whole conversation before about how,
: : unlike you, I have better things to do with my life than dredge
: : through hundreds of your old posts to 'prove' to you that you said
: : something that has, as usual, slipped your memory.
: :
: :So you feel threatened by me but are too lazy to dig up proof? Hmm...
: :seems like it's a case of not much of a threat or no threat.
:
: Poor Eric. He'll do anything to try to get someone to play his stupid
: Usenet games. But none of the other reindeer will let him join in.
:
:USENET games? Freddy, USENET games are making claims which don't get
:backed up. If you have evidence that I threatened anyone, then produce
:it. Otherwise admit you are wrong or allow your inability to produce
:the evidence admit that you are wrong.

We've already heard from another eye witness to your behaviour.

Yes, one that has you in his killfile.

But no doubt you think it's all a vast conspiracy against you and that
you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Nope. Just looking for evidence. That is all. You have none.

: :
: : : So being called an idiot is how you convince yourself that you
matter?
: : :
: : :No, I matter because I declare that I do so. It is all that is
needed.
: :
: : snicker
: :
: :Fine go ahead. Changes nothing.
:
: Quite right, it doesn't. You're still an idiot.
:
:That still manages to have you stating I'm an idiot over and over
:again.

Yes. Well, reality will persist in rearing its ugly head...

Only to those with a doomed interpretation of reality.

:If I admit that I am an idiot, will you admit that you are an
:asshole?

I'll admit I tend to be an asshole toward adamantine idiots.

Well there you have it.

But then, my tolerance for fools tends to be fairly low.

Then you must have no tolerance at all being a fool and all.

: : : That's really quite sad.
: : :
: : :No, you're really quite sad and delusional.
: :
: : snicker
: :
: : : Uh, I don't respond to every one of your posts, El Chimpko.
Obviously
: : : you spew so much **** that even you can't keep track.
: : :
: : :We're quite even in that regard.
: :
: : Wrong again.
: :
: : : Poor El Chimpko...
: : :
: : :How so? Because YOU say so? Sorry, that isn't enough.
: :
: : Because this is your life, you sad little ****e.
: :
: :I have a hint for you Freddy, you should be so concerned with your
own
: :life as you are with others', as that is really where only you can
: :make a difference, and it is needed.
:
: Yeah, I just feel all horrible about my life every time I leave my
: nice house, hop in my Mercedes sports car, and drive to my well-paying
: job. I'll really have to work on that.
:
:All material things, which sort of define you as shallow. Does someone
:born of wealth impress you? I mean Paris Hilton could buy and sell
:you. Does that impress you?

Money doesn't buy happiness, but it will sure let you shop for it in
better neighborhoods, Eric.

The quote I recall is, "money won't buy you happiness, but it sure
goes a long way preventing sadness".

But what good is your wealth to me? Sorry to come off practical and
all, but I think you need a dose of it.

:
: snicker
:
:Is that supposed to make me feel small? Sorry, old chum, you lack
:anything in your being to make me feel humble as I have more wealth
:than you even realize.

Well, if anyone ever shows up wanting to buy stupid, you have a large
supply.

Yet as stupid as I am I still seem to know as much or more about
computers as you do.


:Poor Freddy, values life in the context of dollars.

Poor Eric. This is the usual response of those who don't have it.

I own two houses, have a nice IRA, and a decent salary. Sorry Freddy,
you're mistaken yet again...

All in all, I'd rather be rich...

Than stupid? Or pompous?

Why not rich, nice and smart? Freddy, always limiting himself with his
self-limiting beliefs.


guys, please take this sort of stuff offline. You guys have been flaming
each other over and over *and over* for a hell of a long time. I'm getting
tired of having to ignore all those posts. I'd rahter not have to kf the
both of you, so how about taking your little battle to email and leave the
rest of us out of it, eh?

--
Terrell Miller


"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the
work of one extraordinary man."
- Elbert Hubbard

On Feb 25, 9:49 pm, Alan Jones wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:04:02 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
Alan Jones wrote:

Intercepting a missile solves nothing.

Sure it does: it prevents the missile from hitting the US, which surely
is the US's single highest priority in the matter.

Sure, if you can. But you also have the risk that our commander in
chief, just says "Ha ha, we blocked your shot; we are great; we are
invulnerable; no harm, no foul." Meanwhile the US People have soiled
themselves, realizing that they just dodged a bullet. That is not
security. Neutralizing the enemy is security.

There is no system of defense _or_ deterrence which can provide
competent military leadership. At best, it can provide competent
military leadership the weapons and tactics needed to achieve victory.

Refusing to build ABM's in order to _ensure_ that enemy missiles hit
us, thus providing us with the motivation to strike back, is a
seriously bizarre and even suicidal policy. And you are ignoring the
likelihood that, in the absence of such strategic defenses, an
incompetent President would be frozen deer-in-the-headlights fashion
before _any_ enemy with _any_ nuclear ICBM capability, because he
would know that in an exchange the enemy would be almost _guranteed_
to do serious damage to our homeland.

We are not discussing a MAD situation here. What we have is
essentially a situation where a madman is losing, knows he can't win,
but he still tries to get in a sucker punch. (I don't expect that
sucker punch to even come from an ICBM launched from his homeland.)

In a situation where the losing madman tries to get in the sucker
punch, it is better if we block this punch than suffer its damage.
Such an attack would be far more likely to be achievable by ICBM
because a _losing_ madman might not have the time to dispatch a covert
action team, submarine, or surface missile ship before going down.
And regardless of the situation, we are better off with ABM capability
_and_ other defense capabilities than we would be with other defense
capabilties and _no_ ABM capability, because in the latter case we are
leaving open an obvious avenue of attack.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Unless you melt the whole country down to slag
(which requires ridiculous numbers of warheads and has potentially-ugly
side effects, apart from involving mass murder of innocents on a scale not
even Hitler or Stalin ever achieved), there might still be a missile or
two hidden away somewhere... and the ones that were fired have hit the
US... so tell me, exactly what has that approach "solved"?

Increased US security by neutralizing an enemy. You do not have to
melt the whole country down to slag. You do not even have kill every
man, woman, and child. Obviously you must destroy their offensive
military capability. However, the neutralization can be taken further
to destroy the leadership, the religious ideology that spawned the
madman, the economy that enabled the offensive development, the
schools that educated the people enough to build offensive weapons,
the people who empowered the madman...

Sure, _in the long run_. In the _short_ run, though, your problem
might be "the Iranians have just launched nuclear ICBM's," in which
case ABM's would work better for saving friendly lives than would any
long-term plan for occupation and reconstruction of their country.
One can always launch the ABM's, then continue prosecuting the war by
whatever means chosen -- it is not an either-or situation.

No, the end is enhanced US security by neutralizing an enemy.
Deference, is not real security, but in the absence of madmen, it will
get you through the day. ...

We are, unfortunately, living in a world in which "madmen" have or are
very close to having both nuclear weapons and the means of delivering
them across long distances.

When neutralization is not possible, or
warranted, deference is the next best thing. Now, the madman may be
in his after life knowing that he sucker punched the US, but the
fruits of his actions will taste bitter knowing that they came at the
cost of his people, culture, and homeland. This realization may even
deter some madmen.

It is not my vision that the US should be the biggest, strongest, most
invulnerable, and most punitive nation on earth. Rather, we should be
loving, and peaceful, with concern for other people and nations, and
bolster security with stronger social and economic co dependance.

.... and this is harder if we have ABM's, because ... ?

- Jordan

"Terrell Miller" wrote:

:
:guys, please take this sort of stuff offline. You guys have been flaming
:each other over and over *and over* for a hell of a long time. I'm getting
:tired of having to ignore all those posts. I'd rahter not have to kf the
:both of you, so how about taking your little battle to email and leave the
:rest of us out of it, eh?

Jesus, what makes you think I want EMAIL from this twit? It's bad
enough he keeps spewing idiocy to Usenet...

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

On Feb 25, 9:49 pm, Alan Jones wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 11:11:14 -0800, "Jordan"
wrote:

What would a "calm and rational" response to Iran launching a war
against America by firing ICBM's at American cities look like? As
opposed to the "panic" one?
- Jordan

The response could be exactly the same. The immediate response would
be the politically correct one. The delayed response would show a
political weakness of the Commander in Chief to take action. After
weeks of study, focus groups, public opinion polls, building
congressional support, public debate, etc., the response would seem
cold and calculating, rather than dutiful.

???

I think you're missing the point here. Once Iran had launched any
ICBM's at American cities, America and Iran would be at war. Why
would any even marginally-competent President not strike to neutralize
Iranian military assets, especially strategic ones, as rapidly as
possible? The situation would cry out for rapid action, because of
the very strong possibility that the Iranians might have additional
missiles in reserve, missiles which (if we failed to take them out on
the ground) might be launched in a follow-on attack, one which might
take advantage of the fact that we had expended some of our ABM's and
revealed some of our deployment and tactics, and hence be more likely
to penetrate to score severe damage upon American cities, forces or
installations.

I'm not saying that we would have to act before we were ready, but we
_normally_ keep _some_ forces in readiness to deal with just the
scenario given (a surprise nuclear attack). If there was an SSBN
anywhere near the Persian Gulf, it could pop its nukes over Iranian
strategic force targets in a matter of 15-45 minutes (depending on its
position and depth); American ICBM's could be hitting their targets
within 30-60 minues; manned bombers within a matter of hours. I would
be utterly astonished to hear that the Pentagon does _not_ have some
at least basic plans for rapid retaliation against each of the
Terrorist States, or any of them in combination, which they could have
before the President within minutes of such an attack (in this age of
electronic communications).

Taking out the Iranian strategic capability, to ensure that there
would be no follow-on strikes, would be the top priority of any
American President. After the damage caused (if any) by the Iranian
attack had been determined, _then_ there could be war policy meetings
to decide whether our goal should be force neutralization, regime
change, or cultural elimination (a nice way to say "kill the *******s
and hunt down any survivors, so that Farsi will be spoken only in
Hell.").

Force netralization would be certainly the _minimum_ politically
acceptable goal in this scenario. Any President who responded to a
nuclear attack on the American homeland by a third-rate Power like
Iran without at least launching a campaign of _some_ sort against
Iran, and making sure they couldn't launch a second attack, would be
facing impeachment, even if he went into the situation with a majority
in the Congress.

Under far less provocation, Jimmy Carter essentially lost his bid for
re-election for failing to punish that very same country -- I think
that US Presidents can read history!

- Jordan