A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old February 20th 07, 12:11 PM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Bye-bye INF treaty?



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.
Baron Richard Cheney:
http://www.jabtv.com/takeajab/takeaj...ges/cheney.jpg
The Beast Rumsfeld:
http://www.charm.net/~profpan/upload...le1-740688.jpg
Fayd-Rice: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200411/r35732_89169.jpg
Mentat Karl Rove:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...rove/story.jpg
Reverend Mother Nancy Reagan:
http://smokeonthewater.typepad.com/s...ancyReagan.jpg
Irulan and Wensicia Bush:
http://www.theamericanmind.com/image...ins-vogue1.jpg
A thopter on Arrakis: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic293.jpg
A crashed thopter:
http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/Chec...pacheCrash.jpg
A carry-all dilivers a new thopter:
http://www.olive-drab.com/gallery/ph...ng_helo_sm.jpg
The Guild: http://www.scandoil.com/moxie/moxiepix/t1151.jpg
Freman: http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialrepo...120_iraqis.jpg
Freman women: http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/r1864871125.jpg
Fedaykin:
http://img.search.com/thumb/1/1a/Fed...een-Saddam.jpg
The Worm:
http://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/archiv.../feat6_oil.jpg
St. Alia:
http://www.magnumad.com/adm/photo/10...rl_NYC5958.jpg
Yeah, someone should sue for plagiarism. :-P

Pat
  #102  
Old February 20th 07, 12:24 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 01:22 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 01:29 PM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 03:14 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 03:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:00 PM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,849
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:24 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:28 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
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. |
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 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.