Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 23, 9:06 pm, Alan Jones wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:17:56 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
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.

It stops it from hitting whatever it was aimed at. Surely this is
better than having it strike its target?

A full nuclear retaliation
solves "it" quite effectively.

What prevents one from intercepting an enemy strike, in part or in
full, and _then_ retaliating?

- Jordan

On Feb 24, 7:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:

Yes, you *might* prevent a follow-on launch, but the chances seem small.
Set against the arguments for caution and delay -- most notably, the
distinct possibility that the launch warning is simply wrong, and that a
hasty reaction will *cause* a war -- this isn't compelling.

Since their (at the moment, non-existing) ICBM ...

That's right. The Iranians have a few IRBM's, and scads of SRBM's,
but _as yet_ no ICBM's.

... would probably use
hypergolics, getting another one on the pad and ready to go could be a
matter of a hour or two.

Once they have launched (especially if it was a nuclear missile),
there is a very good chance that we're going to send something nasty
at each and every Iranian missile launch facility of which we are
aware. This would be a fairly _minimal_ American response. In the
case of missiles launched from warships or bombers crusing in the
area, the response could be on target in a matter of 10 minutes to an
hour, depending on the speed at which the President decides to order
it in.

If it used solids, then it could be faster.

Indeed.

Also, this assumes only one pad...they might have more than one pad. (in
fact, you'd assume more than one pad, and a salvo launch)

That's how _I_ would do it if I were the Iranians, yes. Especially
versus an ABM defense, because I would want to know that I'd actually
killed some infidels in the strike that I had just given my life and
the lives of millions of my countrymen to execute.

If you detected a launch from inside Iran via our launch detection
satellites, followed by one or more incoming objects being sighted on
U.S. radar on a trajectory that would cause them to impact within the
U.S., then I think you could be fairly certain that a attack was under way.
Sure, you might be wrong, and it could all be some sort of terrible and
very unlikely mistake, and sure, such rapid relaunch capability on their
part could be unlikely. But like I said, it would be far better to be
safe than sorry, and the launch site should be destroyed with all
possible haste.

Indeed, but here's the problem.

Absent ABM's, _all_ you can do is retaliate for the civilians the
enemy has just murdered. With ABM's, you can avoid or at least limit
the death and destruction to your own side -- and you can STILL strike
the foe. This is a better scenario, from YOUR point of view.

(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.)

Let's follow up on that idea; something gets shot at us from Iran, we
hit it via one of the Polish ABMs (there's some sort of a joke
there)...and then what? What did we just shoot down? Was it nuclear,
conventional, or a failed satellite launch?

That could take days or weeks to figure out.

No, you'd probably be aware of what it was within a matter of hours
(and almost certainly _not_ a "failed satellite launch," because to
avoid just that misperception the Iranians would _inform_ you of any
peaceful launch that was crossing your territory). In the meantime,
Iran has just started a war against NATO, no matter _what_ it was;
your task now is to win that war..

At the very least you are probably going to want to do a conventional
attack on the launch site, and that will be an act of war.

Um, the Iranian attack was _also_ an act of war.

So you still end up at war, but you've given your opponent time to try
again.

Not necessarily, and there is the important difference that whatever
city that missile was targeted on has _not_ been destroyed. Are you
really arguing in favor of permitting friendly cities to be destroyed
in order to serve as canaries in the coal mine?

I can't quite understand what exactly our policy is here; on the one
hand, we are saying that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, on the
other hand we are intending to deploy the Polish ABM system to defend
against Iranian ICBM attack.

Makes sense to me. We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, _and_
we want to make sure that if they do get nuclear weapons, they are as
useless to them as possible.

If you want to send the wrong signal, this is the way to do it... we are
basically indicating to Iran that we expect them to develop ICBMs, which
means we do not really intend to stop them from doing that.

Why, what's wrong with having a policy in which we try to stop them
from developing nuclear ICBM's, _and_ rendering the ones they do
develop as useless to them as possible? Are you seriously arguing
that our having ABM's makes them MORE likely to build ICBM's? If so,
why?

It's reminiscent of North Korea...they had better not detonate a nuclear
weapon, or we'll give them a whole ****load of money. :-D

Actually, that was the opposite policy -- we're telling the Iranians
that if they develop nuclear weapons we will embargo them _and_ deploy
ABM's in such a manner as to make their nuclear weapons far less
useful.

- Jordan

Scott Hedrick wrote:
I, too, have a problem with the behavior of the state of Israel. Only a
moron would translate that to hating Jews. On the other hand, many of the
distasteful things that Israel does, such as building a fence and racial
profiling, have proven to be highly effective.

I liked the fence idea; it's sad they had to do it, but it should work.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Hell I know a number of JEWS who have problems with the state of Israel.

So where does that leave them? :-)


You have to see this BTW: this one is worthy of Dan Quayle himself:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2507273.shtml
I think those are Cheney's binoculars, the ones he sees us winning the
war through.

Pat

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:12:24 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:
I, too, have a problem with the behavior of the state of Israel. Only a
moron would translate that to hating Jews. On the other hand, many of the
distasteful things that Israel does, such as building a fence and racial
profiling, have proven to be highly effective.

I liked the fence idea; it's sad they had to do it, but it should work.

....I can see it now:

"...Protests among Jewish business owners in Tel Aviv reached new
heights today, as ten thousand businessmen and women stormed the
Knesset, demanding that the harsh restrictions demanding the immediate
deportation of all illegal Palestinians outside of Israel be revoked.
Those protesting who spoke with CNN say that their profits have
suffered without the availability of cheap, undocumented Palestinian
labor, and that unless the government takes down the 50' high
electrified, poison-barbed fence that separates all of Israel from the
rest of the Middle East, costs for every aspect of Israeli commerce
will quadruple inside of a year.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Forces rounded up and deported another 200
sandbacks, this time to a processing camp in Jordan..."

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:
I, too, have a problem with the behavior of the state of Israel. Only a
moron would translate that to hating Jews. On the other hand, many of the
distasteful things that Israel does, such as building a fence and racial
profiling, have proven to be highly effective.

I liked the fence idea; it's sad they had to do it, but it should work.

Israel has repeatedly extended the hand of friendship to the Palestinians,
and had it repeatedly slapped, bitten and shot off. The Israelis have
brought democracy to the Palestinians, and in return are murdered. The Arabs
with the greatest political freedom are Israeli citizens.

Glassing the whole place sounds better and better. Last Sunday's Doonesbury
put it in perspective.

OM wrote:
...I can see it now:

"...Protests among Jewish business owners in Tel Aviv reached new
heights today, as ten thousand businessmen and women stormed the
Knesset, demanding that the harsh restrictions demanding the immediate
deportation of all illegal Palestinians outside of Israel be revoked.
Those protesting who spoke with CNN say that their profits have
suffered without the availability of cheap, undocumented Palestinian
labor, and that unless the government takes down the 50' high
electrified, poison-barbed fence that separates all of Israel from the
rest of the Middle East, costs for every aspect of Israeli commerce
will quadruple inside of a year.


That's exactly how it works BTW: http://tinyurl.com/yv63q5
http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/katava_m...340&sivug_id=4
Who's going to do the **** work?
The Palestinians are going to do the **** work.
Remember when South Africa and Israel were all buddy-buddy while working
on their nuclear weapons program?
That's because they both had similarities in regards to treatment of
certain segments of their populations.

Pat

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:09:33 -0600, in a place far, far away, OM
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:12:24 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:
I, too, have a problem with the behavior of the state of Israel. Only a
moron would translate that to hating Jews. On the other hand, many of the
distasteful things that Israel does, such as building a fence and racial
profiling, have proven to be highly effective.

I liked the fence idea; it's sad they had to do it, but it should work.

...I can see it now:

"...Protests among Jewish business owners in Tel Aviv reached new
heights today, as ten thousand businessmen and women stormed the
Knesset, demanding that the harsh restrictions demanding the immediate
deportation of all illegal Palestinians outside of Israel be revoked.
Those protesting who spoke with CNN say that their profits have
suffered without the availability of cheap, undocumented Palestinian
labor, and that unless the government takes down the 50' high
electrified, poison-barbed fence that separates all of Israel from the
rest of the Middle East, costs for every aspect of Israeli commerce
will quadruple inside of a year.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Forces rounded up and deported another 200
sandbacks, this time to a processing camp in Jordan..."

Administration Immigration Policy Under Renewed Fire

BAGHDAD (APUPI) The Bush administration was reeling from renewed
criticism of its immigration policy today, as many in Iraq demanded a
wall across the Syrian, Jordanian, Iranian and Saudi Arabian borders
to keep out a perceived flood of undocumented insurgents.

"The Bush administration seems indifferent to the number of problems
being caused by these people, and its unwillingness to control the
border," said an angry Iraqi official. "These illegals shoot men
wearing shorts and women who show any skin at all, they plant roadside
bombs, they send explosive-laden cars into crowded market places, they
kidnap us and chop off our heads."

A visit to a random street corner in Ramadi displays the scope of the
problem, and the demand for their services. A swarthy Al Qaeda
commander drives up in a pickup with a load of bomb belts, and looks
over a group of Syrians milling around. He casts an experienced eye
over them, sizing them up, judging them for vapid yet maniacal
expressions, willingness to abruptly disassemble themselves and their
neighbors in the name of Allah. He points out to three of them. "You,
you and you. I'm paying forty virgins today." The desperate young men
get in the truck, to go off to their day's task.

Most upsetting to many is the unwillingness of the administration to
deport the miscreants. "They arrest them, they kill them, but they
refuse to return them to their native country," he continued. "They
won't even allow us to report them to the INS."

The administration claims that it's not practical to talk of deporting
all of these people.

Some people, normally at odds with the administration, defend the
administration policy. For instance, film maker Michael Moore made the
case for open borders.

"These are desperate people, with few opportunities to kill infidels
in their native lands," he explained. "If they're willing to brave
many miles of brutal hot desert to seek a new life, and death, it
would be cruel to turn them back."

"Besides," he went on, "they are doing the jobs that Iraqis won't do.
No Iraqi is willing to brutally murder Iraqis, to chop off their
heads, to perforate their bodies with nail bombs. It's hard to find
Iraqis willing to murder young women for wearing nail polish, for any
amount of money or virgins. Most of all, few Iraqis are nuts enough to
strap bombs to their own chests and detonate them. These are the
Minutemen of the insurgency. Without these hardworking immigrants,
creating mayhem that the media can use to show how we're losing the
war, the Iraqi insurgency could completely collapse, and all hopes for
ending the occupation evaporate."

Many analysts claim that this is really part of a larger regional
problem--a symptom of the failure of the neighboring governments.

"The Saudis, Jordanians and Syrians don't allow sufficient freedom of
Islamic extremism in their own countries," explained one expert. "The
governments in some of those states cynically look the other way, and
even encourage and aid those desperate Jihadis emigrating from their
countries, in order to export the problem, and avoid having to deal
with the pressure cooker of their own home-grown issues."

Some think that personal relationships between the president and the
leaders of the neighboring countries are influencing the policy.

"George Bush is still good buds with Prince Bandar," said one critic.
"They go mountain biking when he visits the ranch in Crawford. I think
that goes a long way toward explaining this strange attitude. Besides,
maybe he and Karl Rove imagine that if they're nice to these people,
they'll eventually become Republicans."

In an attempt to assuage the angry Iraqis, the administration is
working with the Senate on a bill to grant amnesty to the new
immigrants, making them Iraqi citizens.

"We're sure that once they are offered a path to legitimacy, they'll
quickly assimilate and restrict their murders to American soldiers,"
explained an administration spokesman.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/007208.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
news
(Looks at watch: "Saturday? Yeah, that's in the deployment schedule.)


No, the line is "That gets installed on Tuesday.'

brought a tear to me eye...


--
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 Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:04:34 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

That you can't use "Wah! They're shooting down our aircraft!" as
evidence that we're losing the war. Go back 65 years to 1942... "Wah!
They're shooting down all our B-17s! We're doomed! Bring the boys home
NOW!"

But that's not the point. The point is that 4 years into the war, they're
apparently getting BETTER at attacking us.

Four years into WWII, Germany was getting worse at attacking us.

Tell that to the airmen who were terrified when the Me-262 first
appeared in 1944. We finally found a way to neutralize that threat,
too, but for a while, even the vaunted P-51s were outclassed. And then
there was Germany's initiation of V-2 attacks in 1944. They were most
decidely not getting worse at attacking the Allies, they were just
running out of time and resources.

1. Fewer maintenance headaches back at base.
2. Extra 100 mph crossing through hostile fire zones.

Hmm... which WILL I choose...

1) Because an aircraft that spends more time on the ground means less time
being useful.

Oh, please... point out one pilot or aircrew who's going to say "Nah,
we don't need any more speed..." Especially when that speed is in the
75-100% increase range. They'll invariably take the speed and deal
with the maintenance issues later.

And that extra 100 mph doesn't help much when a) rockets are still going to
outfly it and b) your hostile zones often extend right up to the landing
zones where that 100 mph doesn't do you much good.

Yes it will, because most of the downed helicopters have been downed
in transit, not during takeoff or landing (when the escorts are
buzzing around close by ready to strike back) the opposition is going
after the easy targets, not the hard, heavily defended ones. They're
not stupid.

Brian