Bye-bye INF treaty?

Rand Simberg wrote:

Many were pushing for that early on. Regime change was the policy of
the Clinton administration...

This guy's fingers were all over everything involving Iraq:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19210/

Pat

Bill Bonde wrote:

Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can
respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear
strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. And if you find
out that they aren't, you certainly can't.


Unless you were using chemical or biological weapons* as warheads, the
actual damage that conventinally warheaded ICBMs would do is laughable
considering the likely accuracy of a first generation system.
You shoot at the White House, and to the President it sounds like a car
backfired a couple of blocks away.
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.

* And that's not as far out as it sounds; the Soviets were thinking
about equipping some of their SS-18 missiles with anthrax warheads:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r36m.htm

Pat

Bill Bonde wrote:

I've never heard of them advocating nuking everyone. I've heard that
Robertson thinks he can pilot hurricanes, if I were ever likely to take
him seriously. It should be noted that he's not any part of the
government while the religious leaders in Iran certainly are in fact in
ultimate control.


Meet the fun End Times movement, something every bit as crazy as
anything Islam has come up with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_times
http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines
The Iranians are awaiting the Mahdi, The Israelis are awaiting the
Messiah, The Christians, in a somewhat downbeat mood, are awaiting the
Antichrist.
The world is as nuts as ever. ;-)


Pat

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.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

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.

That's the usual claim but it makes the assumption that the US really
can flatten you in return for what is really just an ordinary military
attack. Israel didn't flatten Iraq for firing missiles, if you'll
recall.



--
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

Pat Flannery wrote:

Bill Bonde wrote:

Even if the missiles had conventional warheads? I don't think you can
respond to an incoming ICBM from Iran with a full retaliatory nuclear
strike until you know that Iran is attacking with WMDs. And if you find
out that they aren't, you certainly can't.


Unless you were using chemical or biological weapons* as warheads, the
actual damage that conventinally warheaded ICBMs would do is laughable
considering the likely accuracy of a first generation system.

Potshots on the US eastern seaboard would likely hit something and
that's really all that matters to create chaos.



You shoot at the White House, and to the President it sounds like a car
backfired a couple of blocks away.

If you are that accurate, you've got the potential to start shooting at
parts of cities with skyscrapers in the them. Taking potshots at
Manhattan, for example.


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.

Justified by what? Let's say that the US is dropping bombs on Tehran
because there is some sort of attack on their uranium enrichment
facilities going on. Can the US justify using nuclear weapons in what
amounts to a like in kind response, the conventional ICBM? It looks to
me like you want two different sets of rules, one for Iran and one for
the US.

Bill Bonde wrote:

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).

They did risk getting nuked in the case of Israel.
We told the Israelis we'd send Patriot missiles to defend them, and also
pay them a whole ****load of money outright not to start shooting stuff
back at Iraq.
That being said, it still amazes me they didn't nuke Baghdad around ten
minutes after the first Scud hit on general principles.

Would missile attacks on Europe constitute
something materially different from those on Israel? So would Europe
retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons,
assuming Europe even had such things. The next step is what makes it
different if an ICBM is fired at New York City.


I think range is perceived as intent. The further you send it, the more
dangerous it's perceived to be.
That's what killed the conventionally warheaded Trident SLBM program, we
may know it has a conventional warhead, but the Russians wouldn't, and
might do something silly when they saw one launched via their radar and
satellites... you know... like launching on warning.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Bill Bonde wrote:

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).

They did risk getting nuked in the case of Israel.

If they'd used WMDs. Israel let the scuds land and then had their civil
defence respond as if they were chemical or biological weapons. They
didn't, however, nuke Iraq.


We told the Israelis we'd send Patriot missiles to defend them, and also
pay them a whole ****load of money outright not to start shooting stuff
back at Iraq.

As long as Iraq kept it convention, however, Israel would as well.



That being said, it still amazes me they didn't nuke Baghdad around ten
minutes after the first Scud hit on general principles.

You are making that argument for what the US will supposedly do in case
it's shot at with ICBMs. Using a nuclear weapon is a huge deal and I
suspect that a long missile that is likely conventional doesn't raise to
the point of warranting such a thing.



Would missile attacks on Europe constitute
something materially different from those on Israel? So would Europe
retaliate while the missiles were in the air using its nuclear weapons,
assuming Europe even had such things. The next step is what makes it
different if an ICBM is fired at New York City.


I think range is perceived as intent. The further you send it, the more
dangerous it's perceived to be.

I know that's the feeling, that an ICBM could only have a nuke in it,
however I've been arguing that's by no means some ironclad long term
rule. It was just true because the US and the USSR did it that way in
the Cold War.



That's what killed the conventionally warheaded Trident SLBM program, we
may know it has a conventional warhead, but the Russians wouldn't, and
might do something silly when they saw one launched via their radar and
satellites... you know... like launching on warning.

I don't think you have to launch on warning if you see one enemy missile
coming your way. Maybe you could launch whatever that missile was seen
as targeting, especially if it's ballistic. In any case, the rules are
changed now that longer range missiles are coming into the hands of even
rogue powers.



--
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

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Unless you were using chemical or biological weapons* as warheads, the
actual damage that conventinally warheaded ICBMs would do is laughable
considering the likely accuracy of a first generation system.

The actual *direct* damage they would do is laughable... in the same way
that the direct damage done by the Sept 11th terrorist attacks was only
maybe a billion dollars (a good fraction of it being the cost of four
airliners). (Okay, maybe run it up to a few billion if you include the
business disruption and infrastructure damage in lower Manhattan.)

It's the indirect effects that get expensive, especially if the US's
leaders panic, as they did on and after Sept 11th, rather than displaying
actual leadership by reacting calmly and rationally.

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.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"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.

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.