Bye-bye INF treaty?

Paul Repacholi wrote:
Oh Really? about 5000' less a bit. So, if that is the average, what is
the maximum depth?


5,267 meters at the Calypso deep in the Ionian Sea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea
However, during WW II it was realized that the clarity of the waters
allowed submarines to be seen from the air at a depth of three to four
hundred feet in calm conditions.

Pat

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
...Just putting more troops in country, doing more of
the same old thing, is not the answer. Whether the White House and DoD
fully grasp that fact, or are just giving it lip service, remains to be
seen...

Not to people who've been actually observing what's going on.
Petraeus' plan involves much more than "more troops"...

The issue is not what the plan says, but whether it will be followed,
especially after it starts to run into difficulties (which it inevitably
will).
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site
ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching.

Crediting Iran with not only ICBMs, but also rapid reload capability (and
the desire to use it -- for someone not constrained by a SALT treaty,
building more launch sites is much the smarter move), strains credulity
pretty near the breaking point.

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.

This is a case of better safe than sorry.

Correct -- and the safe thing to do is to wait and see whether the attack
is real.

(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.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:17:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is a case of better safe than sorry.

Correct -- and the safe thing to do is to wait and see whether the attack
is real.

(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.)

But Henry, that way lies (an end to) MADness. Defend ourselves?
Instead of incinerating the enemy? Why, that's immoral!

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:55:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
...Just putting more troops in country, doing more of
the same old thing, is not the answer. Whether the White House and DoD
fully grasp that fact, or are just giving it lip service, remains to be
seen...

Not to people who've been actually observing what's going on.
Petraeus' plan involves much more than "more troops"...

The issue is not what the plan says, but whether it will be followed,
especially after it starts to run into difficulties (which it inevitably
will).

If that's the issue, you wouldn't know it to hear people talk about
"just more troops." You may have a valid argument, but it's not the
one most critics make. And the results, so far, are give reason for
cautious optimism.

For months, even years, the Dems were demanding that Bush send in more
troops. Now that he's done it, they demand that he stop doing it.
One has to think that the primary logic of their position is blind
hatred of and opposition to George W. Bush. It's certainly the only
explanation that accommodates all the facts.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:17:56 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
(in article ):

Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)

And better still would have been (and might still be) engaging the moderates
in Iran without meddling with their internal politics - there is yet the
possibility that this train-wreck-of-a-Middle-Eastern-policy may be stopped
before Iran becomes nuclear-capable, WITHOUT requiring air strikes, blockades
OR marginally-effective multi-billion-dollar interceptors of very dubious
operational capability.


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

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:05:09 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:17:56 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
(in article ):

Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)

And better still would have been (and might still be) engaging the moderates
in Iran without meddling with their internal politics - there is yet the
possibility that this train-wreck-of-a-Middle-Eastern-policy may be stopped
before Iran becomes nuclear-capable, WITHOUT requiring air strikes, blockades
OR marginally-effective multi-billion-dollar interceptors of very dubious
operational capability.

That seems, unfortunately, quite unlikely. Unless the Iranian people
themselves finally rise up and throw off the mullahs.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:55:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
...Just putting more troops in country, doing more of
the same old thing, is not the answer. Whether the White House and DoD
fully grasp that fact, or are just giving it lip service, remains to be
seen...

Not to people who've been actually observing what's going on.
Petraeus' plan involves much more than "more troops"...

The issue is not what the plan says, but whether it will be followed,
especially after it starts to run into difficulties (which it inevitably
will).

If that's the issue, you wouldn't know it to hear people talk about
"just more troops." You may have a valid argument, but it's not the
one most critics make. And the results, so far, are give reason for
cautious optimism.

True, any argument can be made if you snipped the context.

Reason for cautious optimism? What, you're joking right? Let's see, more
helicopters are being targetted. And now they using poor man's chemical
weapons. That's an improvement?


For months, even years, the Dems were demanding that Bush send in more
troops. Now that he's done it, they demand that he stop doing it.

Wow.. yes.. the Dems were all demanding a paltry increase in troop
deployment.

Oh wait, no that's NOT what they and many others were arguing for.


One has to think that the primary logic of their position is blind
hatred of and opposition to George W. Bush. It's certainly the only
explanation that accommodates all the facts.

Only when you twist them to your agenda. But I've come to expect nothing
less from you.



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:31:48 -0600, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote
(in article et):

True, any argument can be made if you snipped the context.

Reason for cautious optimism? What, you're joking right? Let's see, more
helicopters are being targetted. And now they using poor man's chemical
weapons. That's an improvement?

Worse than that, they've discovered how to make shaped-charges quickly and
cheaply and are using them to great effect against up-armored Humvees and
trucks.

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

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:31:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:55:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
...Just putting more troops in country, doing more of
the same old thing, is not the answer. Whether the White House and DoD
fully grasp that fact, or are just giving it lip service, remains to be
seen...

Not to people who've been actually observing what's going on.
Petraeus' plan involves much more than "more troops"...

The issue is not what the plan says, but whether it will be followed,
especially after it starts to run into difficulties (which it inevitably
will).

If that's the issue, you wouldn't know it to hear people talk about
"just more troops." You may have a valid argument, but it's not the
one most critics make. And the results, so far, are give reason for
cautious optimism.

True, any argument can be made if you snipped the context.

Reason for cautious optimism? What, you're joking right? Let's see, more
helicopters are being targetted. And now they using poor man's chemical
weapons. That's an improvement?

It's an adaption. Overall, it's an improvement. Hell, just having
Mookie high-tail it to Iran is an improvement.