|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Pat Flannery wrote: Bill Bonde wrote: Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as long as it didn't use WMDs). They did risk getting nuked in the case of Israel. If they'd used WMDs. Israel let the scuds land and then had their civil defence respond as if they were chemical or biological weapons. They didn't, however, nuke Iraq. We told the Israelis we'd send Patriot missiles to defend them, and also pay them a whole ****load of money outright not to start shooting stuff back at Iraq. As long as Iraq kept it convention, however, Israel would as well. That being said, it still amazes me they didn't nuke Baghdad around ten minutes after the first Scud hit on general principles. You are making that argument for what the US will supposedly do in case it's shot at with ICBMs. Using a nuclear weapon is a huge deal and I suspect that a long missile that is likely conventional doesn't raise to the point of warranting such a thing. Would missile attacks on Europe constitute something materially different from those on Israel? So would Europe retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons, assuming Europe even had such things. The next step is what makes it different if an ICBM is fired at New York City. I think range is perceived as intent. The further you send it, the more dangerous it's perceived to be. I know that's the feeling, that an ICBM could only have a nuke in it, however I've been arguing that's by no means some ironclad long term rule. It was just true because the US and the USSR did it that way in the Cold War. That's what killed the conventionally warheaded Trident SLBM program, we may know it has a conventional warhead, but the Russians wouldn't, and might do something silly when they saw one launched via their radar and satellites... you know... like launching on warning. I don't think you have to launch on warning if you see one enemy missile coming your way. Maybe you could launch whatever that missile was seen as targeting, especially if it's ballistic. In any case, the rules are changed now that longer range missiles are coming into the hands of even rogue powers. -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: Unless you were using chemical or biological weapons* as warheads, the actual damage that conventinally warheaded ICBMs would do is laughable considering the likely accuracy of a first generation system. The actual *direct* damage they would do is laughable... in the same way that the direct damage done by the Sept 11th terrorist attacks was only maybe a billion dollars (a good fraction of it being the cost of four airliners). (Okay, maybe run it up to a few billion if you include the business disruption and infrastructure damage in lower Manhattan.) It's the indirect effects that get expensive, especially if the US's leaders panic, as they did on and after Sept 11th, rather than displaying actual leadership by reacting calmly and rationally. About the time an Iranian ICBM came down on the U.S., whatever its warhead type, Iran is going to find all sorts of interesting stuff flying its way. Maybe, and maybe not. US policy for a long time (and possibly still today) was that detection of incoming objects -- even lots of them -- wasn't sufficient grounds for a retaliatory strike, not least because the detection systems weren't 100% trusted (quite rightly not, as witness some notorious false alarms). Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Bill Bonde" wrote in message ... You can zap warheads, of course, if you have that technology. What I'm saying is that you cannot retaliate with thermonuclear weapons just because someone sends a missile your way. You need to wait to see if it's a WMD attack or not. No, I don't. I *don't* have to wait for the first warhead to impact in order to assume the worse and act accordingly. Moreover, I would be highly irresponsible to do so. Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as long as it didn't use WMDs). Because the powers that be decided not do so, of course. Duh. Would missile attacks on Europe constitute something materially different from those on Israel? I suppose that would be up to those in power in Europe and Israel. So would Europe retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons, assuming Europe even had such things. If they wanted to. The next step is what makes it different if an ICBM is fired at New York City. Different people in charge. If I were in charge, I *would not* wait to see what's in the warhead aimed at me, and I would be irresponsible if I did so. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Scott Hedrick wrote: Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best to zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their end as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or give me any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them. It would be about the stupidest thing imaginable to attack the U.S. with conventional ICBMs. You'd do hardly any damage, and get flattened in return. Exactly. I'm not saying I would launch *immediately*- if it's possible to determine whether or not a launch is accidental, I'd like to give that a try. It would take a bit of time to determine where it's going to land, and that in part will determine whether or not it's an accident. I may not launch at all. But I *am not* going to base my decision on what comes out of the warhead when it lands, and I would be highly irresponsible if I did. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Bill Bonde" wrote in message ... Can the US justify using nuclear weapons in what amounts to a like in kind response, the conventional ICBM? Yes. Precisely because conventional weapons on ICBMs would be a momumentally stupid and expensive idea, it's far more reasonable to assume that they are equipped with a payload worthy of an ICBM. It looks to me like you want two different sets of rules, one for Iran and one for the US. Why is that a problem? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Scott Hedrick wrote: "Bill Bonde" wrote in message ... Can the US justify using nuclear weapons in what amounts to a like in kind response, the conventional ICBM? Yes. Precisely because conventional weapons on ICBMs would be a momumentally stupid and expensive idea, it's far more reasonable to assume that they are equipped with a payload worthy of an ICBM. You mean a payload that guarantees you get nuked? That seems like the error. I'll bet that bringing the fight to an American city in the form of an ICBM would be exactly what Tehran would do in some fight, if it could. It looks to me like you want two different sets of rules, one for Iran and one for the US. Why is that a problem? Which rules apply to Europe, which can be attacked with mid-range missiles. -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Scott Hedrick wrote: "Bill Bonde" wrote in message ... You can zap warheads, of course, if you have that technology. What I'm saying is that you cannot retaliate with thermonuclear weapons just because someone sends a missile your way. You need to wait to see if it's a WMD attack or not. No, I don't. I *don't* have to wait for the first warhead to impact in order to assume the worse and act accordingly. Moreover, I would be highly irresponsible to do so. You gain *nothing* by responding on warning with a nuclear weapon to a single or several incoming missiles. Well, I guess you could end it right there by going nuclear and then say, "I thought he was attacking with nukes so I nuked him." Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as long as it didn't use WMDs). Because the powers that be decided not do so, of course. Duh. Would missile attacks on Europe constitute something materially different from those on Israel? I suppose that would be up to those in power in Europe and Israel. So would Europe retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons, assuming Europe even had such things. If they wanted to. The next step is what makes it different if an ICBM is fired at New York City. Different people in charge. If I were in charge, I *would not* wait to see what's in the warhead aimed at me, and I would be irresponsible if I did so. After 60 years of even losing wars such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War by not using nuclear weapons, you would just use them to no advantage by launching on warning? -- Bush say global warm-warm not real Even though ice gone and no seals Polar bears can't find their meals Grow as thin as Ally McBeals |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Pat Flannery wrote: snip About the time an Iranian ICBM came down on the U.S., whatever its warhead type, Iran is going to find all sorts of interesting stuff flying its way. Maybe, and maybe not. US policy for a long time (and possibly still today) was that detection of incoming objects -- even lots of them -- wasn't sufficient grounds for a retaliatory strike, not least because the detection systems weren't 100% trusted (quite rightly not, as witness some notorious false alarms). Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow. Henry, Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way then how Pat described it? Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first and then shoot anyone who asks questions. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:47:41 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow. Henry, Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way then how Pat described it? Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first and then shoot anyone who asks questions. Yes, that would explain why they immediately nuked Mecca right after 911. Oh, wait... rolling eyes |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Charles Buckley wrote:
:Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way :then how Pat described it? : :Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first :and then shoot anyone who asks questions. Jesus, another loon creeps out under the baseboard. Do you ever get in touch with reality, or do you perpetually smoke crack? -- "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
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 |