|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Henry Spencer wrote: Mythology notwithstanding, there is no "red button" on the President's desk. The guys with their fingers on the buttons are professional military men, not politicians, and 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: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091001053.html Pat |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Another sockpuppet loon heard from...
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. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Dale Carlson wrote: The city of Kandahar didn't attack the World Trade Center. There are over 300,000 people living in the city of Kandahar. "But Lex, my mother _lives_ in Kandahar!" Looks down at watch...raises eyebrows, slowly shakes head. People assume I'm a knee-jerk pacifist; I'm not. I'm a isolationist* who thinks that America should have as little involvement in the rest of the world as possible; a nice live-and-let-live philosophy. This was the concept that the founding fathers had, as they warned us again and again about the seductive lure of getting involved in world politics, or trying to establish an empire. It hinges on the rest of the world not doing anything harmful to America. They may interpret that as weakness, and in that case an example needs to be made to show that there is a line you cannot cross, without something very bad happening to you. Killing 300,000 people because 3,000 of our own had been killed on 911 sounds pretty horrible, I'll admit. But the Taliban were hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda, and their headquarters was at Kandahar (and considering they are taking over Afghanistan again, may be there in the future) Who knows how many people we've been responsible for getting killed in Iraq while accomplishing little more that giving Al Qaeda a great recruiting tool - 100,000? 200,000? : http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf So as long as we're going to kill people by the tens or hundreds of thousands, let's at least accomplish something worthwhile while doing it. I can guarantee you after that strike on Kandahar, every country who had Islamic extremists in it would have them lined up against a wall inside of a week, as a simple matter of self-survival. Of course if we hadn't been sticking our little oil-hungry fingers into the Mideast in the first place, setting up crooked governments that are despised by their people, or supplying Israel with HueyCobra helicopters that they use to shoot U.S. made missiles into Palestinian refugee camps after a suicide bomber blows some of them away in that charming little conflict, then 911 probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. * I prefer to think of it by the term "non-interventionism". Pat |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... OM wrote: ...And the Kwizatz Haderach will kick all their butts :-) http://www.september11news.com/OsamsBinLaden2Lrg.jpg "Mahdi...Mahdi...Muad'Dib...Muad'Dib..." Emperor Bush II deploys 22,000 more Sardaukar to Arrakis, says tide has now turned. ;-) I always wonder if Herbert himself had foreseen the future to some extent; all one has to do is replace "Spice" with "Oil" and it starts looking a little familiar. To an extent yes, he specifically had. Pat -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: I always wonder if Herbert himself had foreseen the future to some extent; all one has to do is replace "Spice" with "Oil" and it starts looking a little familiar. To an extent yes, he specifically had. I always thought one of his main influences might have been Lawrence Of Arabia; the outsider who shows up to lead the desert peoples against a decaying empire (the Ottoman Turks). Pat |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:21:01 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: I always thought one of his main influences might have been Lawrence Of Arabia; the outsider who shows up to lead the desert peoples against a decaying empire (the Ottoman Turks). ....On the other hand, I suspect that future generations will not look upon Sir Lawrence with such admiration. After all, much of the current state of the Middle East was the result of his meddling. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"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. 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. 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 parties, 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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"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. That seems like the error. It would certainly be an error to launch such a thing at the United States. I'll bet that bringing the fight to an American city in the form of an ICBM would be exactly what Tehran would do in some fight, if it could. And *that* is why I would ensure that Tehran would become a memory, about 45 minutes later. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and don't throw rocks at someone who can bombard you from orbit. It looks to me like you want two different sets of rules, one for Iran and one for the US. Why is that a problem? Which rules apply to Europe, which can be attacked with mid-range missiles. That would be up to the Europeans, of course. *Ask them*. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
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. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye-bye INF treaty? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 418 | March 20th 07 04:12 AM |
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 |