|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Allen Thomson wrote: 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.) 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. What hits me as odd about that is that it doesn't make any sense from an Iranian first strike perspective, as we would simply nuke them off the face of the earth if they fired at us with a few missiles. But it does make sense if what we are worried is a retaliatory Iranian attack after a U.S. attack or invasion of Iran. In short, this could be step one on the road to covering our ass for The Big Oil Grab at some point in the future. But if that were the case, we should have made sure the Russians understood that, as they are very paranoid about unfriendly armed states on their borders after what happened to them in WW I and II. Their basic concept after WW II was to establish a one-country-deep buffer zone of either friendly, or at least neutral states around themselves, so that any invader would have to cross those nations first before they got to the Soviet Union proper, and they'd have time to deploy their military forces to battle the invaders before they made inroads into Soviet territory, while at the same time keeping any tactical use of nuclear weapons from occurring on their home soil. 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. I can think of a million smarter things to do than firing a missile of some sort towards Russia and seeing how they react. These are the guys who almost started WW III over a unexpected launch of a sounding rocket from Norway. Pat |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:58:51 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. What hits me as odd about that is that it doesn't make any sense from an Iranian first strike perspective, as we would simply nuke them off the face of the earth if they fired at us with a few missiles. Yes, you can't imagine that they might actually believe the apocalyptic rants that they spout daily, and are actually interested in immanentizing the eschaton. (Hint: MAD only works when both parties want to survive) But it does make sense if what we are worried is a retaliatory Iranian attack after a U.S. attack or invasion of Iran. In short, this could be step one on the road to covering our ass for The Big Oil Grab at some point in the future. Ahhhh...of course. It's all an Amerikkkan plot to steal the Ooooiiiillll! Has it ever occurred to you that you're a living parody of the conspiracy leftist? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Rand Simberg wrote: Yes, you can't imagine that they might actually believe the apocalyptic rants that they spout daily, and are actually interested in immanentizing the eschaton. (Hint: MAD only works when both parties want to survive) The ayatollahs may chant a lot, but they are as keen to get destroyed as TV evangilists are to have Christ really show up and start passing out the judgments on people. Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted us to. We want the end of the world to occur ASAP, that's what they'd think. Has it ever occurred to you that you're a living parody of the conspiracy leftist? Yup, me and Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...576593,00.html Pat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Henry Spencer wrote: You'll say: "But yes! But a nuclear war could wipe out all of our nation." Oddly enough, anyone it wipes out _after_ me isn't of much concern to me in any concrete form. :-D By that I meant that I didn't want to get killed in one, nor do I imagine much of the population does. After I get vaporised, whatever the fate of the rest of Earth's history is like is pretty moot as far as I'm concerned. I could almost picture North Korea being whacko enough do do something like this, but not Iran. And even in North Korea's case, their nuclear test seems to have generated the exact political response they wanted, so it wasn't as crazy as it was clever. And North Korean missiles aren't going to be flying anywhere near Poland on there way to the U.S., so we can leave them out of this equation, which leaves us with Crazy Islam standing in the line-up of the usual suspects. The Iranian government will give a lot of lip service to a glorious Islamic death in Jihad, but I'm pretty sure if you were to hold a candle up to one of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears and peered into the other one, you would not see Allah in there. At least among the upper levels of Iranian society and government, Islam is something probably treated a lot like Christianity is here in the U.S. among our politicians. Sure, theoretically everyone believes in it if asked, but if you found someone who really did believe in it in public office, you'd strongly suspect that they were either stupid or had mental problems. It's a salve for the poor, who don't have money but do have their holiness deposited in the bank of heaven. In fact, as I pointed out, we seem to have our own pack of nuts franticly wishing for the end of the world after some huge holy war in which they can fight and then be taken up in The Rapture, and yet we haven't decided to nuke Magog to speed things up. You want a country with nuclear weapons that would be every bit as dangerous as Iran if the wrong people got their hands on them? May I nominate Israel? A country that has more splinter groups of oddball religious zealots running around in it than even the U.S., and which is franticly waiting around for the Messiah to show up, leaving them open to the Holyman-of-the-week club, as was quite accurately show in Monty Python's "Life Of Brian". Everybody remembers Jesus, but they forget we was only one in a long line of would-be Messiah Rabbis from that period of time, including the one from a few years before who when asked it people should pay taxes to the Romans, said "No" and was crucified pronto for that statement. Between our own right-wing nutjob reverends looking to get the battle of Armageddon going in Israel by the middle of next year at the latest, and a bunch of desperate Rabbis peeking under every rock to find the Messiah, you could picture something going very wrong indeed in regards to the Israeli nuclear arsenal, every bit as much as you could with the Mahdi showing up in Tehran next Tuesday. Pat |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:04:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Which should surprise no one - as America tends to work in such a fashion as to support and further it's own national goals. What bothers me is that so many deluded people accept _other nations_ doing so (supporting and furthering) - but boggle at the concept of the US doing so. That's because Amerikkka is obviously evil and imperialistic, and the worse country in the history of the world, other than Israel. Like me, you sometimes omit the smiley when the intention is obvious. The United States, being a free country, should indeed advance the interests of its people in staying free and secure. When countries ruled by tyrants advance their interests - including their interest in being able to commit acts of aggression - that is what people should take exception to. John Savard |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
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. You have the nerve to call me a stupid ******* yet you believe that we are beyond attacking anyone and merely defend ourselves. Iraq, you stupid *******! 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!? We are so easy because too many people think just like you and not like the enemy. Again, counterintel-challenged aren't you Freddy? Eric -- "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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Eric Chomko wrote:
I don't know what is worse, those that are brainwashed into thinking that the US and Israel are the worst countries in the world or those that are brainwashed into thinking that they are best countries in the world. Canada and New Zealand are much nicer! They are more friendly and peaceful. Dishonest police officers running "speed traps", or framing black motorists for traffic offences in order to search their vehicles without being accused of racial profiling, are unheard of! Citizens of these countries of Arab origin can go from place to place without harassment! Universal health care is paid for by the government! But do I feel like lording this over the United States? No. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea are not as comfortable to live in as Canada. The lives of people in those countries are regimented in some ways that our lives are not. Young men have to serve a term in the armed forces in those countries (and in Greece, Britain, and in much of Continental Europe, in fact, too). That's because countries like Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea happen to have hostile neighbors close beside them. They are under a genuine threat of attack. So the problems of life in *those* countries are not the fault of their regimes... they are the fault of their enemies. All right, so what is the United States' excuse? One of your former Presidents, Harold "S" Truman, kept a notice on his desk with the wording of which you may be familiar. Before World War II, the American people thought that they could practise the policy of isolationism. Let foreigners squabble over their silly differences and kill each other; America is far from these squabbles, and strong enough to defend itself, so it need not court trouble. It can just mind its own business, and enjoy peace forever. It took Pearl Harbor to shock America out of that thinking. And then the liberation of Belsen caused many to question the morality of isolationism. Then the Soviet theft of the secret of the Atom Bomb meant that the world was a small place, and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans no more guaranteed security than the Rhine, the Elbe, or the Danube. The strangling of the infant democracies of Eastern Europe, so soon before freed from the Nazi jackboot, made it clear that Stalin was an enemy of freedom. To preserve its own freedom, the United States had to fight the Cold War itself. Unlike the rest of the world, it didn't have a bigger democratic superpower that would hold off the Communist menace so that it could irresponsibly bask in low taxes. Best country in the world? The United States has its internal problems. Because it had certain international responsibilities to live up to, however, it has not had the luxury of concentrating exclusively on fixing them. John Savard |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"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. :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 *******? :Iraq, you stupid *******! Irrelevant, you dumb ****. :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). If someone wants to put anti-missile sites in Cuba or Mexico, why, more power to them! :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? -- "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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: After I get vaporised, whatever the fate of the rest of Earth's history is like is pretty moot as far as I'm concerned. Exactly. Which means that if you're the Maximum Leader of Flanneristan, and you expect that reversing your "reclaim those lost provinces even if the US objects" policy would lead to your being deposed and executed, then deterrence is useless against you. Going head-to-head with the US, despite the risk of starting a nuclear war, is your smartest move. It might work, and the alternative is certain death. Changing that "might" to "probably won't" would be a big, big improvement. I could almost picture North Korea being whacko enough do do something like this, but not Iran. I actually am inclined to agree with this... today. The current Iranian government probably *can* be deterred. However, that wasn't always the case. In particular, even though he was theoretically the US's buddy, the Shah was a dangerous man, who wanted to re-establish the Persian Empire and wasn't above taking some big chances to do it. Despite the odious nature of the regime that replaced him, I'm not sorry to see him gone. However, there are more like him around, and ten years from now, one of them might be in charge again. And note that I said "(and its neighbors)". That general area is not noted for its stability. Given the lead times, establishing a missile- interceptor base is more about tomorrow's politics than today's. which leaves us with Crazy Islam standing in the line-up of the usual suspects. Right beside Crazy Imperialist -- both the Shah and Saddam Hussein being recent examples of would-be Mideast Hitlers whose motives had little or nothing to do with Islam. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye-bye INF treaty? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 418 | March 20th 07 03:12 AM |
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 |