A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #41  
Old February 18th 07, 05:57 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Jim Oberg wrote:
It's unclear to me if the INF treaty has, like the ABM treaty did have,
the legal option for parties to withdraw with appropriate notice -- or was
it open-ended? The US did not 'break' the ABM treaty -- the question
remains, do the Russians intend now to 'break' the INF treaty, or are
they legally exercising a codacile in it?



http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf2.html


"Article XV

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the
right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its
supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to
the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such
notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."



"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
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...reaty_999.html

Pat



Ads
  #42  
Old February 18th 07, 06:55 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Stephen Horgan wrote:
The ayatollahs may chant a lot, but they are as keen to get destroyed as
TV evangilists are to have Christ really show up and start passing out
the judgments on people.


You do not base the safety of your people on such simplistic
psychological analysis. These are the people who run mass
demonstrations where the chant is 'death to America'. It is possible
that they mean it.


Yeah, but are they the ones with the launch codes?

Pat
  #43  
Old February 18th 07, 10:31 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Pat Flannery wrote:
Yeah, but are they the ones with the launch codes?


Ahmadinejad would be the guy with the launch codes. The one who dreams
about a future world without those twin monsters of evil, Israel and
the United States of America.

I would take steps now to ensure no Iranian nuclear-armed missile can
reach Israel, let alone the United States. Because Israelis, like
Americans, or Dutchmen for that matter, are peace-loving people who,
like us, simply want their children to get a good education and have a
bright future. They do not think being a suicide terrorist is the way
to go to heaven!

John Savard

  #44  
Old February 18th 07, 01:33 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Quadibloc wrote:

I would take steps now to ensure no Iranian nuclear-armed missile can
reach Israel, let alone the United States. Because Israelis, like
Americans, or Dutchmen for that matter, are peace-loving people who,
like us, simply want their children to get a good education and have a
bright future.


They also are the fourth largest exporter of arms on the face of the
planet, bettered by only the U.S., France and Russia in that order-
which is mighty impressive given their small size:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...5903&C=mideast
With a population of 6,200,000 and $4.86 billion in arms sales in 2006
that works out to be a per-capita amount of $783 in arms sales per Israeli.
That gives the diminutive country (10,840 sq miles, less than a third
again as big as my home state of North Dakota's 70,704 sq miles) 15% of
the world's arms trade.
With a population of 301,000,000 and arms sales last year of 12.75
billion, the comparable figure for the U.S. is $42.
So for being a peace-loving country, they seem to have around 18 times
as much arms export related income as we do per capita, and we're no
slouches in the arms export business.


Pat
  #45  
Old February 18th 07, 02:42 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Pat Flannery wrote:

That gives the diminutive country (10,840 sq miles, less than a third
again as big as my home state of North Dakota's 70,704 sq miles) 15%
of the world's arms trade.


That should read "only around a sixth as big as North Dakota"; Israel is
about the size of Massachusetts.

Pat
  #46  
Old February 18th 07, 03:30 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Henry Spencer wrote:

Exactly. Which means that if you're the Maximum Leader of Flanneristan,
and you expect that reversing your "reclaim those lost provinces even if
the US objects" policy would lead to your being deposed and executed, then
deterrence is useless against you. Going head-to-head with the US,
despite the risk of starting a nuclear war, is your smartest move. It
might work, and the alternative is certain death.

Changing that "might" to "probably won't" would be a big, big improvement.


But this also means my lickspittle toadies must take my orders and
launch the missiles; it's more likely that one of them will simply
depose me rather than get killed.
When it looked like Nixon was maybe loosing it and might want to start
WW III rather than get impeached, the big boys at the Pentagon decided
that any odd orders coming from The White House were going to be
politely ignored.
What spooks me about Iran is that it borders the former Soviet Union.
How is Moscow going to react if they see us starting to approach them
from the south? We'd be a little concerned if the Russians started large
scale military actions in Central America.
The Iranians can't do much to retaliate against us other than terrorist
actions (although everyone's so hyped up about their nuclear program
that they seem to forget chemical and biological warfare, which the
Iranians probably can do pretty well, and which will make some very
effective terrorist weapons), but the Russians are a whole other ball of
wax, and the last thing you want to do is give them the impression that
you're backing them into a corner where _they_ have nothing to lose if
WW III starts.
We are playing for some very high stakes here with very little
forethought about where this could all lead if things go wrong.
And the history of wars has a lot of examples where things go very wrong
in very unexpected ways, particularly for the country that initiates the
war with the first overt act. Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa both
come to mind.



I could almost picture North Korea being whacko enough do do something
like this, but not Iran.


I actually am inclined to agree with this... today. The current Iranian
government probably *can* be deterred.

However, that wasn't always the case. In particular, even though he was
theoretically the US's buddy, the Shah was a dangerous man, who wanted to
re-establish the Persian Empire and wasn't above taking some big chances
to do it. Despite the odious nature of the regime that replaced him, I'm
not sorry to see him gone. However, there are more like him around, and
ten years from now, one of them might be in charge again.


If the oil companies have their way there almost certainly will be;
thats how he got in there in the first place.
At least by holding elections, the Iranians are taking a step in the
direction we want them to go; and in the recent local elections a lot of
the religious zealots got tossed out, which indicates that things may
well be moving toward a more moderate country, so the last thing we
should do is attack them and give the ayatollahs a perfect excuse to say
"See! We told you so!"... so that's no doubt exactly what we'll do.
We'll take a Islamic republic and turn it into a radicalized Islamic
republic.
And if that keeps happening, sooner or later the whole Mideast rises,
throws out our corrupt little friendly governments, and pulls the plug
on the west's oil supply.





which leaves us with Crazy Islam standing in the line-up of the usual
suspects.


Right beside Crazy Imperialist -- both the Shah and Saddam Hussein being
recent examples of would-be Mideast Hitlers whose motives had little or
nothing to do with Islam.


That's why we should have kept him around. Iraq and Iran being at each
other's throat was a very good balancing force in the area. I think all
we done in Iraq is given Iran a real opportunity to grab around 1/3 of
the country as soon as we leave.
Given the choice between social chaos and suicide bombers or the
"kindly" Iranians to help them fight the Sunnis, the Shia majority of
Iraq is not going to have a hard time making up its mind about what to do.
And once they get all that oil revenue from south-eastern Iraq, you can
start kissing other countries goodbye, starting with Kuwait.
Like I mentioned in a posting several months back, that invasion of Iraq
is going to be the one big mistake from which all the other problems are
going to emanate.
That's where it all starts going to pieces.

Pat

  #47  
Old February 18th 07, 04:49 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Hyper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 18, 5:30 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

That's why we should have kept him around. Iraq and Iran being at each
other's throat was a very good balancing force in the area.


It would have been even better had the US managed to keep BOTH OF THEM
around.
Funny how tirants become acceptable when it hits the fan.


  #48  
Old February 18th 07, 06:44 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : 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, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
: : : problem?
: : :
: : :So that is why we allowed nukes in Cuba? Oops, we didn't allow them
: : :and we don't have plans to shoot at Cuba either. Counterintel just
: : :isn't your bag is it Freddy?
: :
: : Sense just isn't your bag is it El Chimpko?
: :
: : What, pray tell, does your preceding spew have to do with ANYTHING?
: :
: : : So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
: : : want to get back into the IRBM business for?
: : :
: : : So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
: : : building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?
: : :
: : :I guess it all depends where we plan on putting ours.
: :
: : We're talking about US deployment of AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND
: : AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******. *WE* are not talking about
: : "putting ours" anywhere at all.
: :
: :Yes, yes the Department of Defense doesn't attack, they merely defend.
:
: So you ignore THE FACTS and just bleat. Typical El Chimpko.
:
:What facts? Making the words in a caps doesn't explain them. You are
:vague yet again because you again have nothing real to say.

Eric, what is vague about "We're talking about US deployment of AN
ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******.
*WE* are not talking about "putting ours" anywhere at all."?


So US deployment isn't ours? What the hell does that mean? Poland and
Czechoslovakia are customers as opposed to US being its own customer?


You really cannot read and understand simple declarative sentences.


No, you are totally unclear. Why, is what I don't know.

:
: :You have the nerve to call me a stupid ******* yet you believe that we
: :are beyond attacking anyone and merely defend ourselves.
:
: Where did I say that, you stupid *******?
:
:The implication that an anti-missile system would never be used to
:attack, in all caps at that.

How do you 'attack' with an anti-missile system, Eric?


Makes as much sense as saying an airport can only be used for landings
and never takeoffs.

: :Iraq, you stupid *******!
:
: Irrelevant, you dumb ****.
:
:Nope, you old fart.

The only stinking thing here is your intellectual void.


No, your lies stink much worse. There is truth and there is US
sanctioned truth (i.e. propaganda). You speak the latter.

: :Would YOU trust any country putting anti-missile sites around the US
: :as being merely prudent as you seem to think we are in Eastern Europe
: :doing the same damn thing!?
:
: El Chimpko, you dumb ****, look at the FACTS. Such weapons in the
: places described are no good at stopping weapons aimed at the US from
: Russia or China (or even North Korea).
:
:No **** you dumb ass, I was talking about protecting other countries
:from attacks by US! You really think we are beyond attacking anyone
:and that if someone acts as if we might that that action is somehow an
:act of aggression. Your mentality is at the root of the problem.

What are you gibbering on about now? What connection does the
preceding spew have to ANYTHING?


The fact that you implicitly believe we are beyond making attacks and
attacks that are simply wrong. That somehow we are pure. You forget
what Thomas Jefferson said and have somehow been swept into a
Orwellian reality where the government is beyond being questioned.
That in the face of you claiming to being sane simply because you have
a paper to prove it! Sorry I go back to my American roots that
question authority as being implicitly good. In that regard you are
not free but I am.

:Again, would you trust a country placing anti-missile sites around the
:US to protect itself from the US as an act of being prudent as you
:seem to think placing anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe is prudent
n our part as protection for us?

Already answered. Again, you don't read very well.


You said Cuba and Mexico knowing full well that there is no threat to
us from the southern hemishere. You are intellectually dishonest in
the guise of being coy.

: If someone wants to put anti-missile sites in Cuba or Mexico, why,
: more power to them!
:
:Oh really? How about Canada or the Arctic?

Different case. Russia would have better grounds to complain about
that. But that's not what they're complaining about, now is it?


What are they complaining about, McClod?

: :We are so easy because too many people think just like you and not
: :like the enemy. Again, counterintel-challenged aren't you Freddy?
:
: Need to smarten up to work your way UP to 'dumb ****', don't you, El
: Chimpko?
:
:Hey, just because you're a janitor at a nuclear facility doesn't give
:you the right to act so cocky. Perhaps you're a farmer with a silo?
:hahahahahaha

ANY of those would know more than you apparently do.


You have no idea what I do.

You really need to stop laughing at your own 'jokes', El Chimpko. It
just makes you look even stupider (and while that is something of an
achievement, I wouldn't think it would be one you'd be striving
toward).


Looking stupid because you say so is pure victory.

--
"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


  #49  
Old February 18th 07, 07:26 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:Stephen Horgan wrote:
: The ayatollahs may chant a lot, but they are as keen to get destroyed as
: TV evangilists are to have Christ really show up and start passing out
: the judgments on people.
:
:
: You do not base the safety of your people on such simplistic
: psychological analysis. These are the people who run mass
: demonstrations where the chant is 'death to America'. It is possible
: that they mean it.
:
:
:Yeah, but are they the ones with the launch codes?

You're assuming that they'll even have 'launch codes'. Note that the
demonstrations mentioned above are orchestrated by the folks who would
have such codes if they existed.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #50  
Old February 18th 07, 07:40 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: : :
: : : :On Feb 16, 1:50 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : 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, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what is the
: : : : problem?
: : : :
: : : :So that is why we allowed nukes in Cuba? Oops, we didn't allow them
: : : :and we don't have plans to shoot at Cuba either. Counterintel just
: : : :isn't your bag is it Freddy?
: : :
: : : Sense just isn't your bag is it El Chimpko?
: : :
: : : What, pray tell, does your preceding spew have to do with ANYTHING?
: : :
: : : : So, if the Russians have no plans to shoot at Europe, what do they
: : : : want to get back into the IRBM business for?
: : : :
: : : : So, who do you think the Europeans will blame for the Russians
: : : : building a nuclear arsenal aimed straight at them?
: : : :
: : : :I guess it all depends where we plan on putting ours.
: : :
: : : We're talking about US deployment of AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND
: : : AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******. *WE* are not talking about
: : : "putting ours" anywhere at all.
: : :
: : :Yes, yes the Department of Defense doesn't attack, they merely defend.
: :
: : So you ignore THE FACTS and just bleat. Typical El Chimpko.
: :
: :What facts? Making the words in a caps doesn't explain them. You are
: :vague yet again because you again have nothing real to say.
:
: Eric, what is vague about "We're talking about US deployment of AN
: ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM IN POLAND AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA, you stupid *******.
: *WE* are not talking about "putting ours" anywhere at all."?
:
:So US deployment isn't ours? What the hell does that mean? Poland and
:Czechoslovakia are customers as opposed to US being its own customer?

What the hell are you gibbering about now? The preceding bears no
relationship to anything said previously BY ANYONE.

:
: You really cannot read and understand simple declarative sentences.
:
:No, you are totally unclear. Why, is what I don't know.

Because you can't read, which is both why I seem "totally unclear" to
you and why you "don't know".

: :
: : :You have the nerve to call me a stupid ******* yet you believe that we
: : :are beyond attacking anyone and merely defend ourselves.
: :
: : Where did I say that, you stupid *******?
: :
: :The implication that an anti-missile system would never be used to
: :attack, in all caps at that.
:
: How do you 'attack' with an anti-missile system, Eric?
:
:Makes as much sense as saying an airport can only be used for landings
:and never takeoffs.

El Chimpko gibbers again.

In order to use an anti-missile system THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO BE FIRING
MISSILES AT YOU, El Chimpko.

One more time with the question you refuse to answer - HOW DO YOU
'ATTACK' WITH AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM?

: : :Iraq, you stupid *******!
: :
: : Irrelevant, you dumb ****.
: :
: :Nope, you old fart.
:
: The only stinking thing here is your intellectual void.
:
:No, your lies stink much worse. There is truth and there is US
:sanctioned truth (i.e. propaganda). You speak the latter.

El Chimpko gibbers again.

: : :Would YOU trust any country putting anti-missile sites around the US
: : :as being merely prudent as you seem to think we are in Eastern Europe
: : :doing the same damn thing!?
: :
: : El Chimpko, you dumb ****, look at the FACTS. Such weapons in the
: : places described are no good at stopping weapons aimed at the US from
: : Russia or China (or even North Korea).
: :
: :No **** you dumb ass, I was talking about protecting other countries
: :from attacks by US! You really think we are beyond attacking anyone
: :and that if someone acts as if we might that that action is somehow an
: :act of aggression. Your mentality is at the root of the problem.
:
: What are you gibbering on about now? What connection does the
: preceding spew have to ANYTHING?
:
:The fact that you implicitly believe we are beyond making attacks and
:attacks that are simply wrong. That somehow we are pure. You forget
:what Thomas Jefferson said and have somehow been swept into a
:Orwellian reality where the government is beyond being questioned.
:That in the face of you claiming to being sane simply because you have
:a paper to prove it! Sorry I go back to my American roots that
:question authority as being implicitly good. In that regard you are
:not free but I am.

What the **** are you gibbering about now? Where did I say anything
even remotely resembling "we are beyond making attacks"?

I merely recognize that AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM can't attack. You in
your ideological stupidity fail to recognize that.

: :Again, would you trust a country placing anti-missile sites around the
: :US to protect itself from the US as an act of being prudent as you
: :seem to think placing anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe is prudent
: n our part as protection for us?
:
: Already answered. Again, you don't read very well.
:
:You said Cuba and Mexico knowing full well that there is no threat to
:us from the southern hemishere. You are intellectually dishonest in
:the guise of being coy.

Horse manure. US defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia are,
from the perspective of Russia, the precise equivalent of Russian
systems in Cuba and Mexico. Such systems in Poland CANNOT PREVENT
RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES AND ARE USELESS IN THE EVENT
THAT THEY DO.

Which part of that is beyond you?

: : If someone wants to put anti-missile sites in Cuba or Mexico, why,
: : more power to them!
: :
: :Oh really? How about Canada or the Arctic?
:
: Different case. Russia would have better grounds to complain about
: that. But that's not what they're complaining about, now is it?
:
:What are they complaining about, McClod?

Eric, do you not even know what we're talking about? They're
complaining about the deployment of US anti-missile equipment in
Poland and Czechoslovakia and threatening to withdraw from a treating
banning IRBMs in response.

: : :We are so easy because too many people think just like you and not
: : :like the enemy. Again, counterintel-challenged aren't you Freddy?
: :
: : Need to smarten up to work your way UP to 'dumb ****', don't you, El
: : Chimpko?
: :
: :Hey, just because you're a janitor at a nuclear facility doesn't give
: :you the right to act so cocky. Perhaps you're a farmer with a silo?
: :hahahahahaha
:
: ANY of those would know more than you apparently do.
:
:You have no idea what I do.

You keep making stupid remarks like this. Would you like me to call
you at work?

: You really need to stop laughing at your own 'jokes', El Chimpko. It
: just makes you look even stupider (and while that is something of an
: achievement, I wouldn't think it would be one you'd be striving
: toward).
:
:Looking stupid because you say so is pure victory.

Then you 'win', because you have succeeded in looking abysmally
stupid.

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




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 02:19 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 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.