|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
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...reaty_999.html Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:28:14 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the bounds of the treaty. Well, guess what?: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were, or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
It's unclear to me if the INF treaty has, like the ABM treaty did have,
the legal option for parties to withdraw with appropriate notice -- or was it open-ended? The US did not 'break' the ABM treaty -- the question remains, do the Russians intend now to 'break' the INF treaty, or are they legally exercising a codacile in it? "Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... 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...reaty_999.html Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Rand Simberg wrote: So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were, or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general? http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...nse_999.htm l The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile attack. What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S.. Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this? Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it. With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them. In the spirit of the treaty, the Russians are abiding by the means to withdraw from it: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm "Article XV 1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration. 2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests." Having a foreign country deploying missiles on your border would probably be considered an extraordinary event that jeopardized your supreme interests, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed. So they are now going to have some fun at our expense, I imagine. Our ABMs are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, so I imagine they'll get working on hypersonic cruise missiles now. If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star Wars, which would be quite ironic really. Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:53:31 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were, or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general? http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_...nse_999.htm l The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North Korea, in much the same way we would think it odd if Russia started deploying ABMs in Mexico or Canada to defend Moscow from Chinese missile attack. What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S.. Iran would realize an attack by that few missiles would be suicidal, so that doesn't make sense either, so what's the point of all this? Simple; the point of all this is to act like real assholes and see if we can **** off the Russians, and rub their little red noses in it. With luck they'll start a new cold war, and then we can spend uncounted more hundreds of billions defending ourselves against them. Yes, obviously, that's the real point. rolling eyes If they can fake us out by pretending to have some super technology that we must counter, they can bankrupt us the way we did them with Star Wars, which would be quite ironic really. Dream on, Pat. Dream on. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
-- -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting sql (at) greenms.com "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:28:14 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the bounds of the treaty. Your imagination really must be working over time. He never said we abrogated it. But hey, don't let what he actaully said get in the way of what you want to say. Well, guess what?: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...reaty_999.html So? Do you really fantasize that they wouldn't do this if we hadn't withdrawn from ABM? And do you really imagine that the Soviets were, or Russians are, punctilious about treaties in general? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Jim Oberg wrote: It's unclear to me if the INF treaty has, like the ABM treaty did have, the legal option for parties to withdraw with appropriate notice -- or was it open-ended? The US did not 'break' the ABM treaty -- the question remains, do the Russians intend now to 'break' the INF treaty, or are they legally exercising a codacile in it? http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/index.html http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/inf/text/inf.htm "Article XV 1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration. 2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests." They consider the ABMs in Poland to meet that criteria, and I don't blame them one bit for seeing it like that. What's really tragic about all this is that it was a very good treaty that was mutually beneficial to both our countries. Because of the short distances between launch sites in Russia and European capitals there was a real potential for a decapitating nuclear strike that wouldn't be detected till it was too late, which threw the MAD concept in the trashcan. If they have any brains, the EU will tell Poland to ditch this idea pronto, under threat of economic sanctions against Polish products, as if this goes through all of Europe is going to be a lot less safe five years down the road. Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:07:32 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the bounds of the treaty. Your imagination really must be working over time. He never said we abrogated it. It was implied. Or at least I (reasonably, I think) inferred it, based on the context. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
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...reaty_999.html Do you have a reference from a source more reliable than the Weekly World News? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 16, 7:53 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
The Russians are having a hard time figuring out why ABMs are to be put in Poland to defend the U.S. against missile attack from Iran or North Korea, Surprisingly enough, there's a not-bad discussion of possible Russian worries in this regard from a Russian analyst at http:// www.kommersant.com/p741700/strategic_weapons/ . (Most such analysis coming out of the FEE fails to impress.) "Now the American military is covering itself against Iran. From the military point of view, placing interceptor missiles in Poland and radar facilities in the Czech Republic is a sound idea. The trajectory of middle-range or intercontinental missiles, if they are created, and aimed at targets in Europe or North America, is such that Poland looks like the optimal location for interceptors. [snip] "What Russia Has to Be Afraid Of "It is highly likely that the missile threat from "problem" states is not the genuine reason for the creation of the missile defense system by the Americans. The real motivation of the multibillion-dollar undertaking is the desire to expand U.S. military and strategic capacities and constrict those of other states that have nuclear missiles, Russia and China most of all. Even a limited missile defense system injects a high degree of indeterminacy into the strategic plans of other countries and undermines the principle of mutual nuclear deterrence. With Russia continuing to reduce its nuclear arsenal significantly and China maintaining a low missile potential, the Americans' ability to down even a few dozen warheads could deprive the other side of guaranteed ability to cause the U.S. unacceptable damage in a nuclear war. "If current tendencies continue, Russia will be unlikely to have the capacity to maintain more than 400-500 nuclear warheads by 2020. Russian experts have estimated that the U.S. could down half of that quantity with its missile defense system. That would be an especially heavy blow if the Americans delivered a disarming nuclear missile first strike and the remaining Russian missiles could be eliminated almost completely. "Of course, the first ten U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland will not make a serious dent in Russian nuclear potential for the first few years. But the Russian Army is buying six or seven Topol-M ballistic missiles per year. The destruction of just one of two of them by the American missile defense system would have a high price for Russia. And the placement of a strategic weapons system in Poland, even a defensive one, is a challenge to Moscow by Washington. "Practically the only way to prevent a slow growth of the American strategic advantage is a significant increase in the purchase of new ballistic missiles by Russia. But the current Russian leadership is not prepared for that, mainly for political reasons. Therefore, Russia's reaction to the news of the possible placement of American interceptor missiles by the Russian border was loud and disorderly, both in political circles and in the press. Officials, as usual, made a number of contradictory statements that amounted to the usual vague threats to "take adequate measures," boasting ad unconvincing justification for their helplessness. The Russian leadership had the same initial reaction to the expansion of NATO and the U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Everything possible has been done to convince the West that there is no need to pay attention to Russia and Moscow's loud objections. For an "energy superpower," it is more important to be able to pump its energy resources westward than to maintain any strategic balances." What makes it so pointless is that 10 ABMs in Poland are worthless against a North Korean attack and so would only be of any possible use against a Iranian attack that overflew Europe on the way to the U.S.. It's instructive to fire up Google Earth and draw great circles between a site in Iran (I use central Iran, but choose your own launch point), Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. Remember to lead the targets by a few degrees to take earth rotation into account. The trajectory to DC does run right over the proposed Polish GBI sites in the vicinity of Slupsk, but those towards more westerly CONUS targets pass over western Russia. So either the GBIs would have to be fired in the direction of Russia and intercept the Iranian warhead over Russia, or wait until the warheads got over the Arctic Ocean and do a stern chase. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Limited ASAT test ban treaty | Totorkon | Policy | 3 | March 9th 07 02:19 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 |