Bye-bye INF treaty?

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

:On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:07:58 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
in article ):
:
: In the 20th century, when such scenarios involved the USSR as the enemy,
: that was indeed true. Please look at the digits at the top of a calendar
: before citing such historical facts as relevant to the current discussion.
:
:The same advice could be given to you - Iran is not a technological backwater
:filled with starving people ruled by an economically bankrupt regime like
:North Korea. Once they figure out how to build an ICBM, they won't stop
:after building a dozen or two.

Why not? Resources poured into an ICBM force (and such forces are
expensive) cannot be spent elsewhere.

Ask yourself how many ICBMs has China built and fielded and why...

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

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Hyper wrote:
(watch out for Mexicans with arab
accents :-).


(Cut to image of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi cutting a "Z" into a wall with a
scimitar.) :-) *

Catherine Zeta-Jones in a burqa...what a waste



--
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 Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:24:07 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

It does seem to represent a change in tactics. Why change tactics if
your old tactics were working so well? This suggests that the old
tactics were not working so well. Could it be that opposition
successes in Iraq are being exaggerated by the media? Nah...

So what brought the Sea Knight down?

A soldier with great aim and good luck, most likely.

Please don't tell me you were expecting a war in which the US has no
losses along the way. Hint: we lost huge numbers of aircraft in World
War II. That doesn't mean we were losing the war. War is bloody,
afterall. This war has been bloodier than it could have been, thanks
to spectacular incompetence by Rumsfeld & Co. But only an idiot
expected this war to be a bloodless affair.

Anyway, some would say why the frell are we still flying 1950s-design
helicopters in combat zones in the 21st century? Get the damned V-22s
in there already... 100mph more speed would sure make it harder for
the opposition with shoulder-fired missiles to bring one down.

Brian

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:59:35 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

What's really troubling about the helicopter shot-downs is that the
reason that they are getting hit is that we are using them more and more
instead of ground transport in Baghdad due to all of the IEDs.
We're moving all the people around via helicopter, as well as bringing
in supplies the same way.
And apparently the insurgents have figured out some new way of
destroying them.

The real question is how many of our troops would have died in the
convoy attacks instead, and how many innocent bystanders would have
been caught in the blast. Helicopter downings have been on the rise,
but they are considerably less common than roadside bombs taking out
dozens in a convoy were.

This means you could send in a anti-insurgent strike team via
helicopter, and have them get stuck on the ground and surrounded...like
in Somalia, because you have no way of reaching them for evacuation by
ground.
That's the perfect set-up for a ambush.

Of course, this hasn't actually happened in Iraq. Once a helicopter is
hit, the escorts (Cobras and Apaches) start shooting back, and then
the game is pretty much up for that particular "ambush", because the
opposition simply can't take on a flight of Cobras. They're still
basically just terrorists with good weapons (thanks, Iran!), they're
not an organized Army capable of taking on same.

You lure them in, get them on the ground, knock out the helicopters sent
to evacuate them, and make the ground vehicles sent to get them out run
a gauntlet of IEDs.

Good in theory, but far more difficult to achieve in practice. The
opposition has knocked down troop and scout helicopters, but
successfully taking out a Cobra or Apache has proven serously
difficult, especially with AC-130s and A-10s buzzing around for even
more cover, and there is good reason to believe that each successful
attack on a troop helicopter has actually resulted in more enemy
deaths than American deaths. Iraq is not the half-assed situation we
had in Somalia.

Brian

Terrell Miller wrote:
(Cut to image of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi cutting a "Z" into a wall with a
scimitar.) :-) *


Catherine Zeta-Jones in a burqa...what a waste


Boy, was she a knock-out in that first movie...God, those beautiful,
beautiful, eyes!
If I ever run into a woman that has that beautiful of face and eyes in
real life, and I'll probably just smile from ear-to-ear, make confused
blubbering sounds, and keel over in a dead faint, all inside of five
seconds.
I didn't know who she was before seeing it, so assumed she was
Latin-American based on the "Zeta" part of her name, and her black hair.
Of course she's Welsh, and being around 3/4s Welsh myself (despite the
name) it was obviously a case of the blood asserting itself. :-)

Pat

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:43:51 -0600, Brian Thorn wrote
(in article ):

Get the damned V-22s
in there already... 100mph more speed would sure make it harder for
the opposition with shoulder-fired missiles to bring one down.

Aren't they grounded again at the moment?

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

Brian Thorn wrote:
So what brought the Sea Knight down?


A soldier with great aim and good luck, most likely.


Take a look at the smoke trail on the video - it homes on the chopper
and its engine burns out just before impact.

Please don't tell me you were expecting a war in which the US has no
losses along the way. Hint: we lost huge numbers of aircraft in World
War II. That doesn't mean we were losing the war.
Lost a hell of a lot in Vietnam also... point?
War is bloody,
afterall. This war has been bloodier than it could have been, thanks
to spectacular incompetence by Rumsfeld & Co. But only an idiot
expected this war to be a bloodless affair.

Anyway, some would say why the frell are we still flying 1950s-design
helicopters in combat zones in the 21st century? Get the damned V-22s
in there already... 100mph more speed would sure make it harder for
the opposition with shoulder-fired missiles to bring one down.


You don't know about the Osprey's little problem in desert conditions,
do you?
The downwash from the two rotor/propellers causes a plume of sand and
dust to rise from below, and travel over both sides of the fuselage as
it creates an updraft under the fuselage during landing. For about the
last fifty feet of landing the pilot experiences zero visibility and
doesn't know where exactly he is going to touch down, or what his
descent rate is.
Now, put two and two together- the thing's already a maintenance
headache, it's hard to land in a desert because of the dust upwelling
under it...and where does the dust and sand go once it's upwelled over
the sides of the fuselage?
I'll tell you where it goes...it gets sucked right back down through the
rotor/propellers and goes straight into the upward facing turbine
intakes, that's where it goes.

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:
Of course, this hasn't actually happened in Iraq. Once a helicopter is
hit, the escorts (Cobras and Apaches) start shooting back, and then
the game is pretty much up for that particular "ambush", because the
opposition simply can't take on a flight of Cobras. They're still
basically just terrorists with good weapons (thanks, Iran!), they're
not an organized Army capable of taking on same.


Have you noted our Apache losses of late?
They are apparently using something that flares and IR jammers aren't
effective against.
If you're looking for some Iranian connection, this is where to start.
Although I suspect this is Russia saying: "Thanks for all the Stingers
that shot down our Hinds in Afghanistan".

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Aren't they grounded again at the moment?


(Looks at watch: "Saturday? Yeah, that's in the deployment schedule.)

Pat

On Feb 16, 4:28 am, 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 what?

We pulled out of the ABM Treaty using the method agreed upon when it
was signed. If Russia pulls out of the INF treaty using the method
agreed upon when it was signed, very well; if not, then they are
dishonored and lose diplomatic trustworthiness points.

What's more important, we are now free to defend our own population.
That's more precious than any scrap of paper.

- Jordan