A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old February 20th 07, 02:03 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Bill Bonde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 02:19 AM 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:
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  
Old February 20th 07, 02:20 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 02:25 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 02:28 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 02:43 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Bill Bonde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 02:47 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Bill Bonde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 03:47 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 04:02 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 04:24 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default 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

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
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 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.