|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Jun 3, 5:51*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: : :Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM :system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten * :missiles? :Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten :interceptor vehicles: :http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x.... : Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US. But not in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia into Europe. We say they are to intercept missiles flying from Iran *into Europe or the US... then we also say that we are never going to let Iran have IRBMs or ICBMs....so building the European ABM system is basically sending them the message that we expect them to develop such systems and aren't going to stop them when they do...so they can go ahead and develop them without us stopping them. That's a great example of the kind of "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" logic the Bush administration is noted for. Who is our ally in the war on terror? Pakistan. Who developed the nuclear weapons technology that got leaked to Iran, Syria, and North Korea? Pakistan. Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast? Saudi Arabia. Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 911 attack come from? Saudi Arabia. Where has heroin production gone through the roof? Afghanistan. Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to eradicate the poppy fields via military means? Us, of course. Pat I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real world scenario worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia. US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for- tat game? Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it. US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
eatfastnoodle wrote:
: :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real :world scenario worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia. : Why does Russia care? : :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for- :tat game? : Iran. : :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it. : So what are they so ****ed off about, again? That single statement is a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia. : :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game. : And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such missiles. And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United States has given for their deployment. Funny how that works, isn't it? So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the immediate future? -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Jun 6, 10:54*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
eatfastnoodle wrote: : :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real :world scenario *worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia. : Why does Russia care? Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern European countries more tightly to the US. : :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for- :tat game? : Iran. No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia and US were on good terms with each other. : :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it. : So what are they so ****ed off about, again? *That single statement is a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia. It's not just military, it's political. : :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game. : And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such missiles. *And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United States has given for their deployment. Funny how that works, isn't it? Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology with far higher success rate. So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the immediate future? No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non- stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its threat) -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Jim Davis wrote: Afghanistan: former British colony Really? I don't think so. Well, at least we tried. Rudyard Kipling The Khyber Pass |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Pat Flannery wrote:
Jim Davis wrote: Afghanistan: former British colony Really? I don't think so. Well, at least we tried. Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British, the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the American government would have noticed this, but apparently not. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Scott Dorsey wrote: Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British, the Russians and a few others, have all failed. Including Alexander The Great - that's where he finally said "screw this noise" and gave up. Pat |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
Pat Flannery wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British, the Russians and a few others, have all failed. Including Alexander The Great - that's where he finally said "screw this noise" and gave up. Yeah, the Russians actually tried it three times and they are apparently considering trying again. At least the British knew when they were beaten. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple interceptor ABMs
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:11:08 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote: Including Alexander The Great - that's where he finally said "screw this noise" and gave up. ....No, his *men* were the ones who essentially gave up. One of the rather interesting facts that history teaches us is that when told not to fraternize with the local women, troops will do exactly wnat they're not told to do. What Alexander discovered was that when told *to* mix with the locals, knock their women up and thus make them part of their people, they had to forced to under point of spear and sword. This led to much of the dissention that previously had been only limited to "gee, I wish I was at home spending all this plunder and maybe seeing mom!" Ergo, when it comes to fracking around with the local women, the grunts will always do the opposite of what the CO wants them to do. ....On a side note, there are a few historical pieces that may or may not be apocryphal, but give another reason as to why Alexander's army didn't willingly mix with the local women. It basically translates into their "tasting" and "smelling" too foreign for their tastes. Considering that bathing in a desert region is a rare luxury, this should surprise no one :-) OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Multiple interceptor ABMs | Pat Flannery | Policy | 40 | June 15th 08 10:55 PM |
multiple universes? | DaveJr | Misc | 25 | September 6th 06 03:17 PM |
Soviet space interceptor missile | Pat Flannery | History | 2 | December 30th 05 08:31 AM |
Multiple Solos | readme_D0t_Text | History | 7 | October 4th 04 06:17 PM |
Multiple systems - How are they determined to be multiple? | Chris L Peterson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | October 6th 03 06:47 AM |