A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye-bye INF treaty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old February 20th 07, 05:31 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:34 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:41 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:50 PM posted to sci.space.history
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 05:51 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Hedrick[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 06:16 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 07:15 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old February 20th 07, 07:16 PM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.