Bye-bye INF treaty?

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:17:56 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
(in article ):

Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)

And better still would have been (and might still be) engaging the moderates
in Iran without meddling with their internal politics - there is yet the
possibility that this train-wreck-of-a-Middle-Eastern-policy may be stopped
before Iran becomes nuclear-capable, WITHOUT requiring air strikes, blockades
OR marginally-effective multi-billion-dollar interceptors of very dubious
operational capability.

Herb, one of your best posts. I agree. The preventive approach is much
better than dealing with the alternative.

Eric



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

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:37:20 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:11:59 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
(in article ):

However, as I've observed before, diplomacy is basically buying time --
time to do what? Sooner or later, diplomacy isn't going to work on
*someone*. And then you're really going to want those interceptors; even
if they are not all that effective, they *might* work, and so they make
ICBMs much less appealing as "equalizers", diverting people's attention to
weapons that are easier to deal with. The question is whether, when you
want interceptors, you'll have them. Now is not too soon to get started.

There's a very good Congressional study from the late 80's on the policy
implications of marginally-effective or otherwise limited ABM technology.
You really should read it. If I had my boxes of books available at the
moment I'd be able to give you an ISBN.

The late '80s was a completely different world than the one today.
Then, the primary issue was how to deal with an enemy with hundreds of
missiles, not a few.

Good point. The war on terrorism WRT WMD is not like the Cold War WRT
WMD. But that begs the question, can we, the world, keep WMD in the
hands of a larger enemy (i.e. nation) and out of the hands of a
smaller enemy (i.e. terrorist cells)? Clearly the former is more safe.

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:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :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.
:
:Why don't you elaborate on what the US plans to install in Eastern
:Europe, if you even understand it...

Why don't you buy a ****ing newspaper, if you even can read?

We're talking about putting a missile defense radar in the Czech
Republic and anti-ballistic missile interceptors in Poland.

: :
: : 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.
:
:Right.

Why do I think you're going to get this wrong 'real soon now'?

: One more time with the question you refuse to answer - HOW DO YOU
: 'ATTACK' WITH AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM?
:
:You don't. You attack from the same location using missiles.

Except THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY OFFENSIVE MISSILES IN THE SAME LOCATION,
YOU STUPID *******.

right


: : : :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.
:
:Right, and an airport is only used for landings.

I knew you couldn't get through without getting it wrong and spewing
some stupid non sequitur. See above.

: : :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?
:
:None.

You hide it well, given the idiocy you bleat above.

: : : 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.
:
:Would you if the roles were reversed?

Asked and answered.

: : : :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?
:
:Sure, go ahead.

Shall I post your office number here so that others can do so, as
well?

I' d rather you not. Why do you post this?

How about your home number?

Anyone can find that. Your point?

:Better, why don't we meet in person and allow me to give you a tour of
:my facility and have you recant all the 'moron' and 'idiot' comments
:you have been making about me? Unless you're chicken of course?

Given the numerous physical threats you have made to me, should we
ever meet in person I would be terrified that you intended to follow
through on those threats and compelled to act in self-defense.

Right, yet you are the one ready to post my info on-line...

: : 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.
:
:...only to you McClod...

If you believe that, you're more deluded than I thought.

Eric, name a few people who do NOT think you are an idiot based on
what you post here.

Anyone that responds to my posts including you. If you REALLY thought
me a waste of time and an idiot, then you would not respond to every
one of my posts, as you do.

Most likely anyone that thinks me an idiot, thinks you are an idiot,
and ignores us both.

Anyone want to comment? Go ahead, I can take it and Fred can't.

Eric

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
: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:
: : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :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.
: :
: :Why don't you elaborate on what the US plans to install in Eastern
: :Europe, if you even understand it...
:
: Why don't you buy a ****ing newspaper, if you even can read?
:
: We're talking about putting a missile defense radar in the Czech
: Republic and anti-ballistic missile interceptors in Poland.
:
: : :
: : : 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.
: :
: :Right.
:
: Why do I think you're going to get this wrong 'real soon now'?
:
: : One more time with the question you refuse to answer - HOW DO YOU
: : 'ATTACK' WITH AN ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM?
: :
: :You don't. You attack from the same location using missiles.
:
: Except THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY OFFENSIVE MISSILES IN THE SAME LOCATION,
: YOU STUPID *******.
:
:right

Quite right. Sadly, I think you really are stupid enough that you
think you have some 'point' there.

:
: : : : :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.
: :
: :Right, and an airport is only used for landings.
:
: I knew you couldn't get through without getting it wrong and spewing
: some stupid non sequitur. See above.
:
: : : :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?
: :
: :None.
:
: You hide it well, given the idiocy you bleat above.
:
: : : : 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.
: :
: :Would you if the roles were reversed?
:
: Asked and answered.
:
: : : : :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?
: :
: :Sure, go ahead.
:
: Shall I post your office number here so that others can do so, as
: well?
:
:I' d rather you not. Why do you post this?

Your claim is that I "have no idea what [you] do". Yet I know right
where you work.

Of course, given your history I can't say I'm surprised at yet one
more simple thing that you just don't quite 'get'.

: How about your home number?
:
:Anyone can find that. Your point?

See above.

: :Better, why don't we meet in person and allow me to give you a tour of
: :my facility and have you recant all the 'moron' and 'idiot' comments
: :you have been making about me? Unless you're chicken of course?
:
: Given the numerous physical threats you have made to me, should we
: ever meet in person I would be terrified that you intended to follow
: through on those threats and compelled to act in self-defense.
:
:Right, yet you are the one ready to post my info on-line...

You equate someone asking if you want them to publish your office
phone number with threatening physical violence?

You're well beyond stupid and into sociopathic at this point, Eric.

: : : 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.
: :
: :...only to you McClod...
:
: If you believe that, you're more deluded than I thought.
:
: Eric, name a few people who do NOT think you are an idiot based on
: what you post here.
:
:Anyone that responds to my posts including you.

So being called an idiot is how you convince yourself that you matter?

That's really quite sad.

:If you REALLY thought
:me a waste of time and an idiot, then you would not respond to every
ne of my posts, as you do.

Uh, I don't respond to every one of your posts, El Chimpko. Obviously
you spew so much **** that even you can't keep track.

Poor El Chimpko...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Henry Spencer wrote:
Crediting Iran with not only ICBMs, but also rapid reload capability (and
the desire to use it -- for someone not constrained by a SALT treaty,
building more launch sites is much the smarter move), strains credulity
pretty near the breaking point.

Yes, you *might* prevent a follow-on launch, but the chances seem small.
Set against the arguments for caution and delay -- most notably, the
distinct possibility that the launch warning is simply wrong, and that a
hasty reaction will *cause* a war -- this isn't compelling.
Since their (at the moment, non-existing) ICBM would probably use
hypergolics, getting another one on the pad and ready to go could be a
matter of a hour or two.
If it used solids, then it could be faster.
Also, this assumes only one pad...they might have more than one pad. (in
fact, you'd assume more than one pad, and a salvo launch)
If you detected a launch from inside Iran via our launch detection
satellites, followed by one or more incoming objects being sighted on
U.S. radar on a trajectory that would cause them to impact within the
U.S., then I think you could be fairly certain that a attack was under way.
Sure, you might be wrong, and it could all be some sort of terrible and
very unlikely mistake, and sure, such rapid relaunch capability on their
part could be unlikely. But like I said, it would be far better to be
safe than sorry, and the launch site should be destroyed with all
possible haste.

This is a case of better safe than sorry.


Correct -- and the safe thing to do is to wait and see whether the attack
is real.

(Actually, lest we forget how this discussion started, the *safe* thing to
do is to equip yourself with the means to *intercept* small attacks, so
you don't *have* to make such a choice based on inadequate evidence under
intense time pressure. Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)

Let's follow up on that idea; something gets shot at us from Iran, we
hit it via one of the Polish ABMs (there's some sort of a joke
there)...and then what? What did we just shoot down? Was it nuclear,
conventional, or a failed satellite launch?
That could take days or weeks to figure out.
At the very least you are probably going to want to do a conventional
attack on the launch site, and that will be an act of war.
So you still end up at war, but you've given your opponent time to try
again.
I can't quite understand what exactly our policy is here; on the one
hand, we are saying that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, on the
other hand we are intending to deploy the Polish ABM system to defend
against Iranian ICBM attack.
If you want to send the wrong signal, this is the way to do it... we are
basically indicating to Iran that we expect them to develop ICBMs, which
means we do not really intend to stop them from doing that.
It's reminiscent of North Korea...they had better not detonate a nuclear
weapon, or we'll give them a whole ****load of money. :-D

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)


And better still would have been (and might still be) engaging the moderates
in Iran without meddling with their internal politics - there is yet the
possibility that this train-wreck-of-a-Middle-Eastern-policy may be stopped
before Iran becomes nuclear-capable, WITHOUT requiring air strikes, blockades
OR marginally-effective multi-billion-dollar interceptors of very dubious
operational capability.



I agree with that fully, except that by "engaging the moderates" could
be perceived as meddling in their internal politics by the Iranians. If
they don't see us as trying to do that, they might well just vote the
ayatollahs out of office, or have a home-grown revolution to get rid of
them.
That would certainly be the ideal situation to end up in.
I'd say let them do whatever they want, while making it known to them
that any aggression against other countries in their neighborhood will
be met by overwhelming force, like was done during the first Gulf War.
If they keep sinking huge amounts of money into a nuclear and missile
program while an impoverished populace sees at best the weapons are
pointless, and at worst they might result in their country's
destruction, they themselves might demand a stop to the weapons
programs... like happened in that other over-armed impoverished state,
the Soviet Union.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

That seems, unfortunately, quite unlikely. Unless the Iranian people
themselves finally rise up and throw off the mullahs.


They did vote a lot of them out during the recent local elections.

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
There's a very good Congressional study from the late 80's on the policy
implications of marginally-effective or otherwise limited ABM technology.
You really should read it. If I had my boxes of books available at the
moment I'd be able to give you an ISBN.


Would that be "Military Space Forces" from 1989?
ISBN on that is 0-08-037432-8.

Pat

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:07:58 -0600, Henry Spencer wrote
(in article ):

In the 20th century, when such scenarios involved the USSR as the enemy,
that was indeed true. Please look at the digits at the top of a calendar
before citing such historical facts as relevant to the current discussion.

The same advice could be given to you - Iran is not a technological backwater
filled with starving people ruled by an economically bankrupt regime like
North Korea. Once they figure out how to build an ICBM, they won't stop
after building a dozen or two. Get used to it.

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

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:16:59 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote
(in article ):



Herb Schaltegger wrote:
There's a very good Congressional study from the late 80's on the policy
implications of marginally-effective or otherwise limited ABM technology.
You really should read it. If I had my boxes of books available at the
moment I'd be able to give you an ISBN.


Would that be "Military Space Forces" from 1989?
ISBN on that is 0-08-037432-8.

Pat

No, it's an actual study on ABM capabilities and requirements and
first/second strike policy implications. I've got it in a box somewhere in
the garage, along with hundreds of others.

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