|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow. And that's why I'd have to check where the boomers are, first. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ... "Henry Spencer" wrote in message Those rules can't be bypassed by Administration fiat, not even Presidential fiat. No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority. Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial. Possibly- but I believe something like the ending in the book version of The Sum of All Fears was something considered. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Dale Carlson" wrote in message ... The city of Kandahar didn't attack the World Trade Center. There are over 300,000 people living in the city of Kandahar. Whatever you were drinking tonight, maybe try something else The 300,000 people in Kandahar were supporting the Taliban. The Taliban was responsible. Ipso facto the people in Kandahar were responsible. Before there are any arguements over the definition of "support", it *does not* include being in favor of or wanting the existence of. It means paying tribute or taxes and NOT rising up against. It's just the same as someone in the United States who says they are against the war- if they pay taxes, they *are* supporting the war effort. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
... 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. Given the supposed launching nation was someone like Iran, the majority, if not all land-based missiles will survive any initial attack. Combine that with the other legs of our triad and you can still fire back with overwhelming force if required,. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
... "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. A pure EMP weapon is probably more effective in many ways. A decent EMP pulse over the Eastern Seaboard would probably do more economic damage than any number of nukes a nation like Iran could launch. -- Greg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... So as long as we're going to kill people by the tens or hundreds of thousands Pat, how many of those suicide bombers were *recruited by, trained by and paid for by* the United States? It's easy to claim numbers- how many civilians have actually been killed by US and Coalition forces, and how can you prove it? DON'T blame the US for Sunni/Shiia violence. Sunday's Doonsbury has a far better explanation. On the whole, though, I believe you are correct. A fundamental flaw in US policy is our insistance that we want to be everyone's friend, and act as if that's the case. I much prefer the philosophy espoused by what was my AOL sig- we don't have to like each other, we only have to live with each other. I thought of this while watching Yugoslavia break down. Just because the threat of Tito was lifted *did not* obligate anyone to fire the first shot. In Iraq, just because Saddam was gone *did not* oblige anyone to start killing anyone else. It's voluntary and self-inflicted and NOT the fault of the US. We might be better off spending another $10 billion digging a trench around the border of Iraq and killing everything and everyone who tries to cross the trench, either way. Seal off Iraq for a few years until they kill enough of themselves, then salvage the rest. Cooperate with each other, find your own solution, or die. I also think we should have annexed a portion of Iraq near the Iraqi/Saudi neutral zone, as well as a coridoor to the sea, and made that a permanent base. That way, we wouldn't need to depend on any of the local nations for military support. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
wrote in message oups.com... ...All that can be said in this case is that your reputation as a moron is well and truely deserved. And your posting *one sentence* while quoting such a lengthy post shows that you have up close and personal knowledge of moron-hood. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote: ...there's a considerable body of *rules* about how these things are done... precisely to require angry or frightened politicians to slow down and think and get concurrence from others... Given an incoming missile threat, I think a good argument could be made that a retalitory strike ordered by the President with little to no consultation might be considered a valid, legal order... The problem is, how do you *know* there's an incoming missile threat? The complex electronic systems can lie to you -- on occasion, they have, e.g. because a training tape was accidentally played live. My understanding is that a Presidential order for nuclear use always requires confirmation. *Positive evidence* of a nuclear attack on the US does qualify as confirmation, but that means verified nuclear explosions on US soil, not just blips on a radar screen. In the absence of such unequivocal evidence, confirmation has to come from a second official -- doesn't have to be the SecDef, but does have to be someone from a fairly short list. (And there's the story that in Nixon's final days, any orders regarding use of nuclear weapons originating from the WH be verified). If I recall correctly, the instructions were that *any* order coming direct from the White House was questionable -- that a legitimate order would always come through the normal chain of command. The concern was less about misuse of nuclear weapons than about attempts to overrule the political process by force. (Maybe Nixon was capable of such a thing and maybe he wasn't, but it was a legitimate worry for the military.) In any case, I can't see Bush in any condition authorizing release of nuclear weapons in the original scenario of Iran launching something. Short of a full-scale attack from Russia, whether folks like it or not, it's almost certainly better to ride out the initial attack and then respond. Worse case scenario actually would be the incoming warheads to be not be WMDs and for us to have wiped out a country. No, worst-case scenario is that there *were* no incoming warheads, and you've just started a nuclear war -- which may then come to include *real* incoming warheads -- because of an electronic mistake. People worried about this a lot in the early Cold War. Hence the long-standing aversion to "launch on warning" policies -- what if the warning is wrong? This is why there were -- and I think still are -- provisions for getting the President out of DC quickly on a moment's notice, 24x7: so he can opt for a "ride it out" approach without worrying about his personal safety. I have no great respect for Bush, but am inclined to agree that even he would opt to wait and see. It's just too grave a decision to take in haste on indirect evidence. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... In article , Charles Buckley wrote: Maybe, and maybe not. US policy for a long time (and possibly still today) was that detection of incoming objects -- even lots of them -- wasn't sufficient grounds for a retaliatory strike... Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way then how Pat described it? Actually, yes. Now, some members of the Administration might or might not start screaming for the immediate nuking of Tehran or wherever... but one of the reasons that there's a considerable body of *rules* about how these things are done is precisely to require angry or frightened politicians to slow down and think and get concurrence from others. Those rules can't be bypassed by Administration fiat, not even Presidential fiat. No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority. Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial. You are correct, it could result in a court-martial. But in the meantime, refusing to follow the order puts a speed bump in place. (We used to have a joke that ended: "If you do that, they'll court martial you!" "So? That means I survived.") The CinC can't simply turn to the #2 man as say "well, Admiral X won't do it - will you General Y?" as they do in the movies. The folks the next level down know dammed well that Admiral X should be giving the orders, and will not obey General Y without an indication that authority has been properly transferred. (And no, the CinC simply stating that "Admiral X has been relieved" does not constitute proper transfer.) D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
OM wrote: ...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. Lookie what I found: http://www.spookybug.com/origins/dune.html Pat |
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 |