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
  #91  
Old February 20th 07, 05:28 PM 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:
...there are well-defined rules about what
sorts of orders they are to follow immediately, and what sorts have to be
confirmed properly before action. (In particular, the possibility that a
President might become irresponsible or mentally ill was considered.)


At the moment, we don't even have to be attacked to use them...


Never have, at least not if "attacked" means "with WMDs". It has *long*
been US doctrine that nuclear first strike is a legitimate option once a
war has begun; this was an inevitable consequence of the 1950s decision to
rely on nuclear weapons and not maintain sufficiently-large conventional
forces to stop a Soviet conventional attack.

(Now mind you, even then, there were differences between official doctrine
and how a war would actually be fought. In practice, going nuclear is
such a grave decision with such unpredictable consequences that it would
have been resisted. Had a Soviet attack started out non-nuclear, Western
politicians inevitably would have dug in their heels and told the military
to stop the attack, somehow, without using nuclear weapons.)

As I recall, the Soviets did proclaim a "no first use" policy, but that
was easy for them, given (a) stronger conventional forces, (b) opponents
who were unlikely to start a war, and (c) fewer people who would comment
if weapons and training didn't quite match announced policy.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #92  
Old February 20th 07, 05:31 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given
that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow.


And that's why I'd have to check where the boomers are, first.


  #93  
Old February 20th 07, 05:34 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message Those rules can't
be
bypassed by Administration fiat, not even Presidential fiat.


No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority.

Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial.


Possibly- but I believe something like the ending in the book version of The
Sum of All Fears was something considered.



  #94  
Old February 20th 07, 05:41 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...


You gain *nothing* by responding on warning with a nuclear weapon to a
single or several incoming missiles.


Sure I do- I ensure that the weapons I launch don't get destroyed by the
incoming missile.


Given the supposed launching nation was someone like Iran, the majority, if
not all land-based missiles will survive any initial attack. Combine that
with the other legs of our triad and you can still fire back with
overwhelming force if required,.



  #95  
Old February 20th 07, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...


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?


There's no other payload that justifies the effort and expense of an ICBM.
Even chemical and biological weapons aren't cost effective on ICBMs.


A pure EMP weapon is probably more effective in many ways. A decent EMP
pulse over the Eastern Seaboard would probably do more economic damage than
any number of nukes a nation like Iran could launch.




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


  #96  
Old February 20th 07, 05:51 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?


wrote in message
oups.com...
...All that can be said in this case is that your reputation as a
moron is well and truely deserved.


And your posting *one sentence* while quoting such a lengthy post shows that
you have up close and personal knowledge of moron-hood.


  #97  
Old February 20th 07, 06:16 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
...there's a considerable body of *rules* about how these
things are done... precisely to require angry or frightened politicians to
slow down and think and get concurrence from others...


Given an incoming missile threat, I think a good argument could be made that
a retalitory strike ordered by the President with little to no consultation
might be considered a valid, legal order...


The problem is, how do you *know* there's an incoming missile threat? The
complex electronic systems can lie to you -- on occasion, they have, e.g.
because a training tape was accidentally played live.

My understanding is that a Presidential order for nuclear use always
requires confirmation. *Positive evidence* of a nuclear attack on the US
does qualify as confirmation, but that means verified nuclear explosions
on US soil, not just blips on a radar screen. In the absence of such
unequivocal evidence, confirmation has to come from a second official --
doesn't have to be the SecDef, but does have to be someone from a fairly
short list.

(And there's the story that in
Nixon's final days, any orders regarding use of nuclear weapons originating
from the WH be verified).


If I recall correctly, the instructions were that *any* order coming
direct from the White House was questionable -- that a legitimate order
would always come through the normal chain of command. The concern was
less about misuse of nuclear weapons than about attempts to overrule the
political process by force. (Maybe Nixon was capable of such a thing and
maybe he wasn't, but it was a legitimate worry for the military.)

In any case, I can't see Bush in any condition authorizing release of
nuclear weapons in the original scenario of Iran launching something. Short
of a full-scale attack from Russia, whether folks like it or not, it's
almost certainly better to ride out the initial attack and then respond.
Worse case scenario actually would be the incoming warheads to be not be
WMDs and for us to have wiped out a country.


No, worst-case scenario is that there *were* no incoming warheads, and
you've just started a nuclear war -- which may then come to include *real*
incoming warheads -- because of an electronic mistake. People worried
about this a lot in the early Cold War. Hence the long-standing aversion
to "launch on warning" policies -- what if the warning is wrong?

This is why there were -- and I think still are -- provisions for getting
the President out of DC quickly on a moment's notice, 24x7: so he can opt
for a "ride it out" approach without worrying about his personal safety.

I have no great respect for Bush, but am inclined to agree that even he
would opt to wait and see. It's just too grave a decision to take in
haste on indirect evidence.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #98  
Old February 20th 07, 07:15 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:
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...

Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way
then how Pat described it?


Actually, yes. Now, some members of the Administration might or might not
start screaming for the immediate nuking of Tehran or wherever... but one
of the reasons that there's a considerable body of *rules* about how these
things are done is precisely to require angry or frightened politicians to
slow down and think and get concurrence from others. Those rules can't be
bypassed by Administration fiat, not even Presidential fiat.


No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority.

Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial.


You are correct, it could result in a court-martial. But in the
meantime, refusing to follow the order puts a speed bump in place.
(We used to have a joke that ended: "If you do that, they'll court
martial you!" "So? That means I survived.")

The CinC can't simply turn to the #2 man as say "well, Admiral X won't
do it - will you General Y?" as they do in the movies. The folks the
next level down know dammed well that Admiral X should be giving the
orders, and will not obey General Y without an indication that
authority has been properly transferred. (And no, the CinC simply
stating that "Admiral X has been relieved" does not constitute proper
transfer.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #99  
Old February 20th 07, 07:19 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:
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...

Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way
then how Pat described it?

Actually, yes. Now, some members of the Administration might or might
not
start screaming for the immediate nuking of Tehran or wherever... but
one
of the reasons that there's a considerable body of *rules* about how
these
things are done is precisely to require angry or frightened politicians
to
slow down and think and get concurrence from others. Those rules can't
be
bypassed by Administration fiat, not even Presidential fiat.


No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority.

Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial.


You are correct, it could result in a court-martial. But in the
meantime, refusing to follow the order puts a speed bump in place.
(We used to have a joke that ended: "If you do that, they'll court
martial you!" "So? That means I survived.")


Yeah, I was going to say something like that. And of course there's always
the "Yes Sir, we'll follow out your orders, but a backhoe has taken out the
secure line to NORAD, we're attempting other channels, they may take a bit
longer." Meanwhile you figure out what else to do.


The CinC can't simply turn to the #2 man as say "well, Admiral X won't
do it - will you General Y?" as they do in the movies. The folks the
next level down know dammed well that Admiral X should be giving the
orders, and will not obey General Y without an indication that
authority has been properly transferred. (And no, the CinC simply
stating that "Admiral X has been relieved" does not constitute proper
transfer.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL


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


  #100  
Old February 20th 07, 07:20 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



Scott Hedrick wrote:
You gain *nothing* by responding on warning with a nuclear weapon to a
single or several incoming missiles.


Sure I do- I ensure that the weapons I launch don't get destroyed by the
incoming missile.


Assuming you can hit the launch site in short order, you can also avoid
a possible second attack as the launchers get reloaded.

Pat
 




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 12:40 PM.


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.