Bye-bye INF treaty?

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can
respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear
strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs.

Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best to
zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their end
as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or give me
any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them.

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.

Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel
and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as
long as it didn't use WMDs). Would missile attacks on Europe constitute
something materially different from those on Israel? So would Europe
retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons,
assuming Europe even had such things. The next step is what makes it
different if an ICBM is fired at New York City.


--
Bush say global warm-warm not real
Even though ice gone and no seals
Polar bears can't find their meals
Grow as thin as Ally McBeals

On Feb 19, 4:08 pm, Bill Bonde wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:


Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really
were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted
us to.

I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone.

See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35036

" wrote:

On Feb 19, 4:08 pm, Bill Bonde wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really
were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted
us to.

I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone.

See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35036

OK, you trolled me. I hope you're proud. That text doesn't even mention
Iran.



--
Bush say global warm-warm not real
Even though ice gone and no seals
Polar bears can't find their meals
Grow as thin as Ally McBeals

Rand Simberg wrote:

Many were pushing for that early on. Regime change was the policy of
the Clinton administration...

This guy's fingers were all over everything involving Iraq:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19210/

Pat

Bill Bonde wrote:

Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can
respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear
strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. And if you find
out that they aren't, you certainly can't.


Unless you were using chemical or biological weapons* as warheads, the
actual damage that conventinally warheaded ICBMs would do is laughable
considering the likely accuracy of a first generation system.
You shoot at the White House, and to the President it sounds like a car
backfired a couple of blocks away.
About the time an Iranian ICBM came down on the U.S., whatever its
warhead type, Iran is going to find all sorts of interesting stuff
flying its way.

* And that's not as far out as it sounds; the Soviets were thinking
about equipping some of their SS-18 missiles with anthrax warheads:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r36m.htm

Pat

Bill Bonde wrote:

I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone. I've heard that
Robertson thinks he can pilot hurricanes, if I were ever likely to take
him seriously. It should be noted that he's not any part of the
government while the religious leaders in Iran certainly are in fact in
ultimate control.


Meet the fun End Times movement, something every bit as crazy as
anything Islam has come up with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_times
http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines
The Iranians are awaiting the Mahdi, The Israelis are awaiting the
Messiah, The Christians, in a somewhat downbeat mood, are awaiting the
Antichrist.
The world is as nuts as ever. ;-)


Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:
Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best to
zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their end
as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or give me
any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them.

It would be about the stupidest thing imaginable to attack the U.S. with
conventional ICBMs.
You'd do hardly any damage, and get flattened in return.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:
Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best to
zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their end
as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or give me
any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them.

It would be about the stupidest thing imaginable to attack the U.S. with
conventional ICBMs.
You'd do hardly any damage, and get flattened in return.

That's the usual claim but it makes the assumption that the US really
can flatten you in return for what is really just an ordinary military
attack. Israel didn't flatten Iraq for firing missiles, if you'll
recall.



--
Bush say global warm-warm not real
Even though ice gone and no seals
Polar bears can't find their meals
Grow as thin as Ally McBeals

Pat Flannery wrote:

Bill Bonde wrote:

Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can
respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear
strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. And if you find
out that they aren't, you certainly can't.


Unless you were using chemical or biological weapons* as warheads, the
actual damage that conventinally warheaded ICBMs would do is laughable
considering the likely accuracy of a first generation system.

Potshots on the US eastern seaboard would likely hit something and
that's really all that matters to create chaos.



You shoot at the White House, and to the President it sounds like a car
backfired a couple of blocks away.

If you are that accurate, you've got the potential to start shooting at
parts of cities with skyscrapers in the them. Taking potshots at
Manhattan, for example.


About the time an Iranian ICBM came down on the U.S., whatever its
warhead type, Iran is going to find all sorts of interesting stuff
flying its way.

Justified by what? Let's say that the US is dropping bombs on Tehran
because there is some sort of attack on their uranium enrichment
facilities going on. Can the US justify using nuclear weapons in what
amounts to a like in kind response, the conventional ICBM? It looks to
me like you want two different sets of rules, one for Iran and one for
the US.

Bill Bonde wrote:

Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel
and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as
long as it didn't use WMDs).

They did risk getting nuked in the case of Israel.
We told the Israelis we'd send Patriot missiles to defend them, and also
pay them a whole ****load of money outright not to start shooting stuff
back at Iraq.
That being said, it still amazes me they didn't nuke Baghdad around ten
minutes after the first Scud hit on general principles.

Would missile attacks on Europe constitute
something materially different from those on Israel? So would Europe
retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons,
assuming Europe even had such things. The next step is what makes it
different if an ICBM is fired at New York City.


I think range is perceived as intent. The further you send it, the more
dangerous it's perceived to be.
That's what killed the conventionally warheaded Trident SLBM program, we
may know it has a conventional warhead, but the Russians wouldn't, and
might do something silly when they saw one launched via their radar and
satellites... you know... like launching on warning.

Pat