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

Multiple interceptor ABMs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 6th 08, 12:01 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

wrote:

Afghanistan: former British colony


Really? I don't think so.

Jim Davis
  #12  
Old June 6th 08, 03:31 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
eatfastnoodle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 03:54 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 04:16 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
eatfastnoodle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 04:27 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 04:48 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 05:11 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 06:50 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old June 6th 08, 07:59 PM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,849
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 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.