Bye-bye INF treaty?

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:
Sure I can. I'm *not* going to wait to find out. I'm going to do my best
to zap the warheads I can, and I'm going to make as many martyrs on their
end as I can. Best bet for them is to not launch any missiles my way, or
give me any other reason to open a case of whoop-ass on them.

It would be about the stupidest thing imaginable to attack the U.S. with
conventional ICBMs.
You'd do hardly any damage, and get flattened in return.

Exactly. I'm not saying I would launch *immediately*- if it's possible to
determine whether or not a launch is accidental, I'd like to give that a
try. It would take a bit of time to determine where it's going to land, and
that in part will determine whether or not it's an accident. I may not
launch at all. But I *am not* going to base my decision on what comes out of
the warhead when it lands, and I would be highly irresponsible if I did.

"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.

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?

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? That seems like the
error. 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.



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.



--
Bush say global warm-warm not real
Even though ice gone and no seals
Polar bears can't find their meals
Grow as thin as Ally McBeals

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. 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."


Feel free to explain how Iraq could fire conventional missiles at Israel
and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War and not risk getting nuked (as
long as it didn't use WMDs).

Because the powers that be decided not do so, of course. Duh.

Would missile attacks on Europe constitute
something materially different from those on Israel?

I suppose that would be up to those in power in Europe and Israel.

So would Europe
retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons,
assuming Europe even had such things.

If they wanted to.

The next step is what makes it
different if an ICBM is fired at New York City.

Different people in charge. If I were in charge, I *would not* wait to see
what's in the warhead aimed at me, and I would be irresponsible if I did so.

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?



--
Bush say global warm-warm not real
Even though ice gone and no seals
Polar bears can't find their meals
Grow as thin as Ally McBeals

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

snip
About the time an Iranian ICBM came down on the U.S., whatever its
warhead type, Iran is going to find all sorts of interesting stuff
flying its way.

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, not least because the
detection systems weren't 100% trusted (quite rightly not, as witness some
notorious false alarms).

Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given
that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow.

Henry,

Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way
then how Pat described it?

Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first
and then shoot anyone who asks questions.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:47:41 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given
that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow.

Henry,

Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way
then how Pat described it?

Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first
and then shoot anyone who asks questions.

Yes, that would explain why they immediately nuked Mecca right after
911.

Oh, wait...

rolling eyes

Charles Buckley wrote:

:Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way
:then how Pat described it?
:
:Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first
:and then shoot anyone who asks questions.

Jesus, another loon creeps out under the baseboard.

Do you ever get in touch with reality, or do you perpetually smoke
crack?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:47:41 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

Their track record indicates a certain predisposition to shoot first
and then shoot anyone who asks questions.

....Not exactly correct. We - regretfully - didn't nuke Mecca or any
other Iraqi or Afghan city off the face of the earth on 9/12 as we
should have, and as most Democrats conveniently fail to recall Dubya's
predecessor launched a few cruise missiles against Iraq less than a
few hours after being sworn in.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:47:16 -0800, Bill Bonde
wrote:

You gain *nothing* by responding on warning with a nuclear weapon to a
single or several incoming missiles.

....You miss the point. The idea is to make sure that *they* gain
-nothing- by launching a single or several incoming missiles against
us.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:43:45 -0800, Bill Bonde
wrote:

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.

....Not if you're using the "accepted subtitute" for a nuke, the
Large-Scale Fuel Air Bomb. Seven of these - six in a hexagon with a
core - should have been detonated over Tora Bora the second we found
out Bin Laden was holed up there. The resulting firestorm and oxygen
disruption would have suffocated those who weren't immolated, US
troops wouldn't have died, and there would have been no resulting
Cherenkov Effects to worry about.

You mean a payload that guarantees you get nuked? That seems like the
error. 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.

....Which is why you make sure they understand that if they even so
much as build a SAM and point it against anything associated with the
US, then another Iranian city will become a glassed-over parking lot
with its own nighttime natural lighting.

When the Village Idiot refuses to behave himself, you have to do
whatever's necessary to get it through their thick skulls that
misbehaving is not worth the pain and suffering. And if they can't
grasp that basic concept, put them out of your misery...

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[