Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
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.

As seen in "Crimson Tide".

I would have taken Denzel's side- and if the radio hadn't been fixed, I
would have turned the key.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
We shoot one of our ones in North Dakota at them, and stages one and two
are going to fall somewhere in the U.S. .

That's why you paint all the ID in Cyrillic or Arabic characters :P

Scott Hedrick wrote:
Right, and I've seen one design that didn't involve a nuke.

This is something that could not effectively be deployed with a TBDS.

The Russians were ahead of us in this technology, but the range was very
limited, unless it was focused in one direction (you can do that).
What we could do with something the size of a oil drum, they could do
with something around the size of a coffee can.
We've had non-nuclear EMP warheaded ALCMs in service for some time,
according to AW&ST.


Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:

I would have taken Denzel's side- and if the radio hadn't been fixed, I
would have turned the key.


That would break one of the main rules of nuclear weapons release for
action.
If you're even slightly in doubt, don't.
There's somebody else out there who can do the job, and you can afford
to be safe.
In "Crimson Tide" another boomer would have been given the job if
contact was lost with the Alabama.
That wasn't realistic in that regard; the captain would have realised
that was SOP, and not launched unless he had complete assurance that the
orders were still in effect.
Very fun movie though, and some great acting by all concerned.
The "Silver Surfer" discussion is a classic. :-D

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
The "Silver Surfer" discussion is a classic. :-D

Who the hell is Moebius?

"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

:
:"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Scott Hedrick wrote:
:
: "Bill Bonde" wrote in message
: ...
: You can zap warheads, of course, if you have that technology. What I'm
: saying is that you cannot retaliate with thermonuclear weapons just
: because someone sends a missile your way. You need to wait to see if
: it's a WMD attack or not.
:
: No, I don't. I *don't* have to wait for the first warhead to impact in
: order
: to assume the worse and act accordingly. Moreover, I would be highly
: irresponsible to do so.
:
: 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.

If there are any incoming missiles.

: Well, I guess you could end it
: right there by going nuclear and then say, "I thought he was attacking
: with nukes so I nuked him."
:
:Exactly. Launching anything other than NBC weapons on an ICBM is
:monumentally stupid, and even launching BC weapons would be pretty foolish.

And yet there are plans here in the US to build *PRECISELY* such
systems.

: After 60 years of even losing wars such as the Korean War and the
: Vietnam War by not using nuclear weapons, you would just use them to no
: advantage by launching on warning?
:
:Actually, I would use them for the advantages already stated. For rational
arties, a known launch on warning policy decreases the chance that either
:would launch in the first place. Moreover, as I have already stated, it's
:just not that simple.

Fortunately, we don't let folks with your mindset get near real
weapons.

--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."

-- Confucius

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:52:56 GMT, "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.

Yes, but "legal order" and "order from the ultimate legal military
authority", are two different things. It takes more than rank and
whim to constitute a legal order, and even for the president there
are procedures which must be followed.


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.

How so?

I mean, *maybe* in the old Cold War scenario of thousands of Rooskie ICBMs
suddenly coming over the pole you could make that argument. Though as it
turns out we apparently didn't, planning instead to ride out the strike
before deciding on a response.

But if it's one Iranian missile headed for New York City, or to be more
precise one blip on the radar that looks like an Iranian missile headed
for NYC, what's the argument for instant retaliation?

How is that scenario any different than, "The President's staff tarot card
reader just advised him that Iran is planning on nuking Manhattan, Real
Soon Now, so we'd better go ahead and nuke Iran first"?

In both cases, the Iranians may or may not be planning to nuke Manhattan,
and we don't yet know for sure.

In both cases, if the Iranians *are* planning to nuke Manhattan, there is
probably nothing we can do to stop them; we can only retaliate

In both cases, we can retaliate any time - our missiles aren't going any
where, and neither are Iran's cities.

In both cases, if we sit back and wait a little while, we'll know for sure
whether we're dealing with an Iranian nuclear missile that calls for a
massive retaliation, an Iranian conventional missile that would better be
met with limited retatliation, or a glitch in the radar, or a lunatic
president.


So if you're going to argue that it's legal for the President to Nuke Iran
Right Now Dammit Half An Hour From Now Is Too Late!, on account of a blip
on a radar screen, you pretty much have to argue that it's legal for him
to nuke Iran on a whim just because a psychic told him to, and that the
military has to blindly obey because he's the president and he says its
urgent.

I don't think that's what you want to do.

And I know for certain that what *I* want, is to wait half an hour to be
absolutely certain that retaliation is necessary rather than launching
while the issue is the least bit in doubt. Yes, that means Tehran gets
nuked forty-five minutes after NYC rather than fifteen minutes. That's
no big deal.

It also means there is absolutely no possibility that we nuke Tehran over
what turns out to have been a false alarm on our part, or a bluff on
theirs. That's a *huge* deal.

In fact, I might recommend waiting a full day or two before nuking Tehran,
depending on the circumstances. And I think quite a few generals and
presidents would agree. Tehran's not going any were; we don't need to
rush.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Pat Flannery wrote:

: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.

The idea that someplace like Iran is going to have 'cold launch'
capability is, to put it mildly, fairly amusing.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Another sockpuppet loon heard from...

No. Just someone that stopped, read your post, and then left a
followup post...


wrote:

:On Feb 19, 6:40 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "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
:
:...All that can be said in this case is that your reputation as a
:moron is well and truely deserved.

On Feb 19, 11:52 pm, Greg D. Moore wrote:
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 guys with the red buttons aren't going to wing it, certainly not
in this situation. They've got a set of rules and procedures and in a
case like this they aren't going improvise or deviate, not one bit.
They're drilled to Go By The Book, and if The Book says get
confirmation first, that's going to happen. Someone rushing into the
room shouting "New Orders! Prez says launch! Shoot!" isn't going to
change that.

To put it another way, if The Book says an order is definitely not
valid until confirmed then the officers going to treat such an order
as not valid until it is confirmed: the tendency is not going to be to
figure out what to do about a new order but rather if anything become
more robotic about following established procedure.