Bye-bye INF treaty?

In article , says...
In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
(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

The pilot of Air Force One at the time (Ralph Albertazzie) has stated in
his memoirs that on Nixon's retirement flight -- the President's
resignation became effective somewhere over Kansas -- was unique in that
there was no man with the "football" on board. If, a couple of minutes
before resignation, Nixon wanted to order nuclear attack, he wouldn't
have been able to do so.

That's probably both unConstitutional and a very wise idea.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:24:02 -0600, Kevin Willoughby wrote
(in article ):

That's probably both unConstitutional and a very wise idea.

It may have been in violation of certain statutes and federal regulations
dealing with the implementation of the presidential role as commander in
chief, but it's not unconstitutional.

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

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:52:56 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


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.


Agreed, my point though is ultimately, unless someone has a reference
otherwise, (and I'm guessing Goldwater-Nichols Act might) one can't dismiss
the possibility that the President does have that authority. Based on the
Constitution itself, there's really nothing restricting him. He can and
does order troop movements and actions. The only limitation inherent in the
Constitution is the ability to declare war. Now, any reasonable President
is going to consult his advisors, etc. But ultimately as far as the
Constitution goes, I don't see anything that denies him the legal ability to
launch a nuclear attack at will.



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.


See argument above. Now agreed, given that it may be valid and legel does
not make it prudent.


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?


Personally I don't think there is a GOOD one. Simply that one exists. I'm
on the side of "ride it out and then react".


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"?


Really none.

snipped

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.


Actually that's about what I want to do.

Let's put it this way, what would constitute an illegal order from the
President? And how would we know it was illegal? Again, I'm not familiar
with any specific Act that would prevent the President to order a launch in
response to a perceived threat. Yes, it may certainly exist (and I suspect
there are several that lean that way). In addition, I highly suspect that
any officer given such an order probably would think twice about obeying it.
Just because it's "valid and legal" doesn't meean it's a good idea. Despite
the flaws in Crimson Tide, it does raise these questions. At what point do
you obey an order vs. follow it? Generally it's critical for military
discipline for orders to be followed, but when it comes to nukes, you do
sort of want someone saying at the upper levels, "hmm, is this really
right?"


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.

Again, I agreed.


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.

Tehran's not true. But their leaders might be. In which case nuking it
would be wanton slaughter.

In which case you might simply decide other options are far better.





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

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

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?



Personally I don't think there is a GOOD one. Simply that one exists. I'm
on the side of "ride it out and then react".


As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site
ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching.
It'll take around one half hour for a Minuteman to get there or around
ten to fifteen minutes for a Trident to reach it assuming that it's
fairly close to the area.
Every second you wait could be the second another missile lifts off.
This is a case of better safe than sorry.




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.


Again, I agreed.


Tehran shouldn't be the priority target; wherever the missile came from
is target numero uno.



Tehran's not true. But their leaders might be. In which case nuking it
would be wanton slaughter.

In which case you might simply decide other options are far better.



You really want to get their attention in no uncertain terms, hit the
country with a EMP detonation; about the time that everything electric
in the country ceases to work, you will find them to be in a very
tractable situation for a negotiated settlement on very favorable terms,
without having to kill the populace.
Unlike Afghanistan, Iran does have a centralized government, so this
should work.
The problem of blowing up their government is that you are left with no
one to negotiate with.
However, this is all getting ahead of the situation; a couple of days
ago, I read that a Iranian nuclear weapon might be a decade away still,
and they still have to develop a missile to get it here.
Everyone worries about "The Islamic Bomb" but Pakistan has had The
Islamic Bomb since at least 1998 (probably a lot longer than that
although they didn't test it till then), and the world hasn't ended
yet... despite some wackos in Pakistan like this guy:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/5795/
At least the radical right and Pakistanis have something in common -
their loathing of Bill Clinton, as the parade float on that page will show.

Pat

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:47:08 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

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?

Personally I don't think there is a GOOD one. Simply that one exists. I'm
on the side of "ride it out and then react".

As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site
ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching.
It'll take around one half hour for a Minuteman to get there or around
ten to fifteen minutes for a Trident to reach it assuming that it's
fairly close to the area.
Every second you wait could be the second another missile lifts off.
This is a case of better safe than sorry.

OK, Pat- in my time zone it's about 1:00AM, February 22, 2007. I've
just made you President of the United States. Congratulations. But
just now, Iran has launched an ICBM torwards NYC. You really think it
has a nuclear warhead? And there are many more to follow? With all we
currently know about Iran's nuclear program, you'll order a nuclear
attack? 68 million people live in Iran, BTW. Probably a few more
downwind.

In response to an earlier post of yours- no, I don't think you're a
knee-jerk pacifist. Your fascination with the nazis disabused me of
that notion long ago

Dale

Dale Carlson wrote:

OK, Pat- in my time zone it's about 1:00AM, February 22, 2007. I've
just made you President of the United States. Congratulations. But
just now, Iran has launched an ICBM torwards NYC. You really think it
has a nuclear warhead? And there are many more to follow? With all we
currently know about Iran's nuclear program, you'll order a nuclear
attack?

Yes I will... on the launch site, not on Tehran.
At most such an attack will probably kill a thousand people or so,
unless they've decided to launch it from downtown Tehran.
The reason for the attack isn't to kill Iranians, it's to prevent them
from firing more missiles at us.
In regards to Tehran, I'll wait till their missile impacts and see that
its warhead is.
If its nuclear and detonates with the loss of thousands of American
lives, then Tehran does indeed get nuked, and the country EMPed.
If it's nuclear, but is a dud or detonates off target, without much loss
of life, then Iran gets EMPed, followed by conventional cruise missile
attacks and air strikes on military and C&C targets till it surrenders.
If it's conventional (though I hardly think this is likely, as ICBMs
are too expensive to use for conventional attack) then Iran gets hit
with conventional cruise missiles and air strikes on military and C&C
targets till they surrender.
If it's chemical or biological, then what happens depends on the death
toll: if it's light, then it's EMP time followed by cruise missiles and
air strikes. If it's heavy, then it's back to nuking Tehran and EMPing
the country.
These all presume that the Iranians attack first, not in response to an
attack on them by the U.S., which might modify my actions as long as
there wasn't a huge loss of life from their attack.
But you don't ever let any country detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S.
or cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties with chemical or
biological weapons without making them pay as high a price as possible,
because that would set a terrible precedent.
You can see I'm a big fan of EMP attack; I like it because it doesn't
involve vast numbers of civilian casualties, will pretty much completely
disable an opponent, and is inherently extremely scary to the civilian
population of the country that is attacked in this way, in the same way
that Klaatu's little demonstration was in "The Day The Earth Stood Still".
If you do the EMP attack at night and the skies are clear, the huge
auroral display following it will certainly add greatly to the fear it
causes, particularly at these southern latitudes where aurora are
uncommon, as suddenly all the power lines short, then everything goes
black, and it looks like the sky is on fire. A detonation at an altitude
of around 60 miles centered at 54 degrees E by 32 degrees N, between the
towns of Ardakan and Yazd would knock out electrical power over around
70% of Iran, including Tehran, while leaving adjoining nations
unaffected, assuming an effect radius of around 300 miles, which could
be adjusted by yield.
Due to the low burst height, satellites should be unaffected by the
Argus effect, and all fallout would be limited to the materials of the
bomb itself.


68 million people live in Iran, BTW. Probably a few more
downwind.

In response to an earlier post of yours- no, I don't think you're a
knee-jerk pacifist. Your fascination with the nazis disabused me of
that notion long ago

The Nazi's fascinate me because they serve as a warning about what
happens when you get people in power who instead of defending their
nation, set out to destroy and subjugate other nations under the guise
of bringing them the blessings of The True Philosophy, while whipping up
the dark side of human instincts to divide the world into "Us" and
"Them", with the vast majority of it being "Them".
You live in a constant state of fear that somewhere someone is plotting
against you, and you may have to give up a few rights to thwart their
plans...and once you start down that path, you are going nowhere good.
What we are trying to do in the Mideast is reminiscent of Japan's
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and not surprisingly also has a
lot to do with oil resources.


Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
As I pointed out, there is a very good reason to attack the launch site
ASAP; you might prevent a follow-on launching.
It'll take around one half hour for a Minuteman to get there or around ten
to fifteen minutes for a Trident to reach it assuming that it's fairly
close to the area.
Every second you wait could be the second another missile lifts off.
This is a case of better safe than sorry.

And we have a winner! My point exactly.

Tehran shouldn't be the priority target; wherever the missile came from is
target numero uno.

The delay to launch should be approximately equal to the time to determine
that it's not equipment failure plus the time needed to retarget some
missiles. This *may* be long enough that we can find out what the initial
load is.

Pat Flannery writes:

Paul Repacholi wrote:
(Derek Lyons) writes:


A) Trident's don't patrol in the Med. (We gave that up as soon as
we could.)


There is a special term for subs in the Med.

`Dead Meat'

No where to hide, no where to dive...



The Mediterranean Sea's average depth is 1,500 meters; that's probably
over three times the maximum safe depth of a Trident submarine.

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

Scott Hedrick wrote:
The delay to launch should be approximately equal to the time to determine
that it's not equipment failure plus the time needed to retarget some
missiles. This *may* be long enough that we can find out what the initial
load is.




The thing that you could get there the fastest would be a Trident
missile: I may have read somewhere that our Trident subs carry a couple
of missiles with only a single warhead on them for cases like this.
Otherwise you'd have the problem about what to do with the rest of the
MIRVs, as if they all come down on the same spot you end up with warhead
fratricide.
Since even the smaller of the two types of warheads it can carry has a
100 kt yield, that should put the launch site out of commission; if the
large one is used it has 475 kt yield, so it will really trash the place.
I imagine you could have the other ones just drive into the ground in a
unarmed state, and deal with the plutonium contamination at some future
date.
Speaking of Iran, whatever became of that second carrier group we were
sending over there? It seems like I first heard about it over a month
ago, but it seems to always be "on its way there" without arriving; what
are they doing - rowing it all the way over there?

Pat

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