twilight2000-digest Sunday, July 9 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 156 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: Missle Defense Re: # of divisions in the world Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense What ever happened to the Navy? Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 22:14:02 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense Thanks for the 3 responses so far. I appreciate your thoughts, especially Scott's long post with detailed reasons. The funniest thing is that I don't deny most of the points brought up, I just don't feel that those points justify not building one. If anyone has additional arguments against the ballistic missle defense projct, please post them or email me personally. Thanks! Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:09:15 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world > Yes, you are correct, US Army Operations Orders generally do not explicitly > define their objectives in terms of casualties. What I was trying to say is > that accomplishing most military objectives involves causing casualities on > the enemy, so it's related in that way. The idea I was disagreeing with you > on is when you said "The other thing to remember is that to win a battle you > don't just have to cause casualties." My point was that, you may not have > to, but you CAN win by JUST causing casualties. I think I began to go off track in my last post but the point I was making is completely opposite to the one made above. Yes you can win by inflicting casualties alone. You can also win without inflicting a single casualty or only inflicting minor casualties on the enemy also (see morale arguement). > I don't think the morale of the US forces that were actually over there > played a large role. I think the morale of the politicians and the US > public played a FAR larger role. A question here...So you would say that the morale of the US & allied forces would not have been a problem if they had not been pulled out of the war?. > Afganistan is just like Vietnam. The Russians just didn't want it bad > enough ... To say this in my opinion is nieve, the problem as with Vietnam is that you need to distinguish the enemy from the normal population. If you can't then you will be fighting a losing war in the long term. This is especially so if the enemy is fanatical about getting you out of the country. If you trace the history of Vietnam back you can not say that they were anything less than fanatical about removing foreign influences from the country, similarly in Afganistan. > I was probably not very clear. Stategic MILITARY goals are different from > political goals. Yes, I do believe there can be big picture goals of the > military that exist seperately from the politicans who start the wars ... Still the strategic goals must ultimately be there to support the political goals, whether the military believes in them or not. If we take Vietnam or the gulf war as examples, the military developed strategic plans to bring about the aims of the political goals. In the gulf it was the liberation of Kuwait, in Vietnam it was the support of the SV Govt. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:57:21 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Walter Rebsch wrote: > > Thanks for the 3 responses so far. > > I appreciate your thoughts, especially Scott's long post with detailed > reasons. The funniest thing is that I don't deny most of the points brought > up, I just don't feel that those points justify not building one. > > If anyone has additional arguments against the ballistic missle defense > projct, please post them or email me personally. > > Thanks! > > Walter > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. This entire arguement reminds me of the arguements used against the Reagan military build-up during the 1980's. I remember how the greatest threat to mankind was the US deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles, while the tremendous build-up of Soviet nuclear forces was strangely ignored. If long range missiles aren't a threat to the US, then why has China threatened to launch them against us? Why do North Korea, Libya, Iran, and other dictatorships continue to work on them? If the "bomb in a briefcase" were such a threat, then those countries would be directing ALL of their efforts in that direction - yet they are not. As for whether or not it works, not all of the tests have failed. Anyone who says that all of them have failed doesn't know what they are talking about. Currently, we are 1 success out of 3 tests. For those who say that there's a good chance it won't work, if it's never built, then they're right. BTW, if we don't even try; how many millions of American lives are we willing to lose? I'd like the number to be ZERO. Remember, during the 1980's, there were people who wanted the US to unilaterally disarm because otherwise we would antagonize the Soviets. If you allow the potential enemy to run roughshod over you then you DESERVE to lose! Defending yourself is never pointless, unless you want to lose. It's humorous to hear people talk about our treaties with the Soviet Union. I hate to break the news to them, but there is no longer a Soviet Union. Maybe they would like to sign a treaty with Austria-Hungary? How about Czechoslovakia? I can name a dozen countries that no longer exist. Of course, they forget entirely about the massive treaty violations of the old Soviet Union. I guess that the US was always the enemy of some people, no matter who was pointing missiles at us. As for me, I really don't care how Russia feels. I'm not going to let them dictate terms to us. If we're going to allow that, we may as well surrender to anyone who threatens us. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 14:49:50 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > As for me, I really don't care how Russia feels. I'm not going to let >them dictate terms to us. If we're going to allow that, we may as well >surrender to anyone who threatens us. > > John II I fully applaud you concern for your people John, it's a good thing. The ABM system does make your allies rather nervous though. Your non-nuclear allies look at this kind of stuff with a huge amount of alarm, you have to remember that the US actively discourages anyone else having nukes but makes theirs meaner and nastier as time goes on. We sit here in the shadow of everyones nukes and wait until some idiot lets fly. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:03:40 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense This reminds me of a couple fitting definitions for this discussion. Overkill: The ability to kill the complete population of your enemy a number of times over. Strategic Armament: Possessing more overkill than your enemy. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 05:55:36 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Ballistix wrote: > I'm glad we didn't listen then. I'd hate to live in the United Soviets of America. John II > > Ballistix > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 05:59:41 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > > > As for me, I really don't care how Russia feels. I'm not going to let > >them dictate terms to us. If we're going to allow that, we may as well > >surrender to anyone who threatens us. > > > > John II > > I fully applaud you concern for your people John, it's a good thing. The > ABM system does make your allies rather nervous though. Your non-nuclear > allies look at this kind of stuff with a huge amount of alarm, you have to > remember that the US actively discourages anyone else having nukes but makes > theirs meaner and nastier as time goes on. We sit here in the shadow of > everyones nukes and wait until some idiot lets fly. > Jim > I hope you're not saying that we would all be safer if everyonw had nuclear weapons. Our allies should remember that we're the primary target, not them. The reason that we make our nuclear arsenal meaner and nastier is to hopefully discourage anyone from using them. A reason for a missile defense would be to let the enemy know that all they would accomplish by launching against us, or our allies, would be losing everything they have. John II > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:53:41 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > I hope you're not saying that we would all be safer if everyonw had > nuclear weapons. > Our allies should remember that we're the primary target, not them. > The reason that we make our nuclear arsenal meaner and nastier is to > hopefully discourage anyone from using them. A reason for a missile > defense would be to let the enemy know that all they would accomplish by > launching against us, or our allies, would be losing everything they > have. Ahh yes and to think that Hitler was elected to govt too. Who is to say the US is immune to such a person being elected?...In fact who is to say that any democratic country is immune to it happening. And before you go on flaming about this and that and how the people wouldn't let that sort of thing happen in our country because it is wrong. The majority of the german people believed whole heartedly that he was right. I once saw a movie called the wave I think it was. Basically it was a movie about a history teacher that put in place this same scenario inside a high school in the US. At the end he said he would show them their leader as they had all been caught up in 'the wave' that the movement had caused through the school. The picture he showed was of Aldolf Hitler. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 02:45:52 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 04:57 AM 7/8/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > This entire arguement reminds me of the arguements used against the >Reagan military build-up during the 1980's. I remember how the greatest >threat to mankind was the US deployment of Pershing II and cruise >missiles, while the tremendous build-up of Soviet nuclear forces was >strangely ignored. There was no tremendous buildup--the arms race essentially ended after SALT was signed in the 1970's. At any rate, the situation isn't quite analagous, because, first of all, there was no treaty violation involved in the 1980's buildup, and, secondly, are relations with Russia are much better now. > If long range missiles aren't a threat to the US, then why has China >threatened to launch them against us? They haven't, as far as I know (unless we launch missiles at them, of course). At any rate, this isn't about China, which has a fairly large nuclear force, but rather about the "rogue state" you mentioned below. >Why do North Korea, Libya, Iran, >and other dictatorships continue to work on them? If the "bomb in a >briefcase" were such a threat, then those countries would be directing >ALL of their efforts in that direction - yet they are not. Well, I suppose that a missile is indeed better than a smuggled-in bomb, especially if you want to deliver more than one device. It may well be worth the extra cost to build a missile. However, that does _not_ necessarily imploy that it's worth the extra cost to _defend_ against a missile, because defense is a LOT more costly than offense in this area. It's also entirely possible that they're doing this just because they know it scares us and will make them a little more fearful of crossing them--even if that fear isn't entirely rational. > As for whether or not it works, not all of the tests have failed. >Anyone who says that all of them have failed doesn't know what they are >talking about. Currently, we are 1 success out of 3 tests. > But the tests have been under ideal conditions, and the one that worked didn't even include a decoy. > For those who say that there's a good chance it won't work, if it's >never built, then they're right. BTW, if we don't even try; how many >millions of American lives are we willing to lose? I'd like the number >to be ZERO. Remember, during the 1980's, there were people who wanted >the US to unilaterally disarm because otherwise we would antagonize the >Soviets. If you allow the potential enemy to run roughshod over you then >you DESERVE to lose! Defending yourself is never pointless, unless you >want to lose. Relying on deterrence rather than a positive defense is not "allow[ing] the potential enemy to run roughshod over you." Both are forms of defense, and both can be effective in different situations. As it happens, in the field of nuclear warfare, most experts on the subject believe that deterrence is more effective than anti-missile defenses, particularly sense anti-missile defenses make it more likely that the defended side will start a nuclear war (which in turn tends to make the other side a little crazier itself). Mind you, deterrence doesn't allow you to "win" a nuclear war, but instead defends you by preventing the war entirely--but who wants to fight a nuclear war, anyway? > > It's humorous to hear people talk about our treaties with the Soviet >Union. I hate to break the news to them, but there is no longer a Soviet >Union. Maybe they would like to sign a treaty with Austria-Hungary? How >about Czechoslovakia? I can name a dozen countries that no longer exist. What's humorous here is that you don't understand that each of the countries mentioned has one or more "successor states" that inherited its treaty obligations (and also its debts, assets, and so on). That Russia is bound by the USSR's treaties, and that the other signatories are equally bound, is not even slightly in dispute. This is a cut-and-dried issue. > Of course, they forget entirely about the massive treaty violations of >the old Soviet Union. I guess that the US was always the enemy of some >people, no matter who was pointing missiles at us. Pointing out treaty violations, in particular the violations of the Helsinki Final Act, was one of the most important measures that helped bring about the fall of Communist Parties in Eastern Europe. If we break treaties, we lose the ability to do that. Not only that, but no one has any incentive to make treaties with us anymore--so you can probably throw out any new treaties with Russia (and a lot of the old ones), including current arms control measures, but also trade treaties and treaties on dealing with organized crime. If you break enough treaties, then you can throw out your relations with other countries as well, which means no World Trade Organization, no extradition agreements, no nothing. > > As for me, I really don't care how Russia feels. I'm not going to let >them dictate terms to us. If we're going to allow that, we may as well >surrender to anyone who threatens us. > I don't really regard having someone demand you respect your commitments as "dictating terms". Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 02:40:10 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 05:59 AM 7/8/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > I hope you're not saying that we would all be safer if everyonw had >nuclear weapons. > Our allies should remember that we're the primary target, not them. >The reason that we make our nuclear arsenal meaner and nastier is to >hopefully discourage anyone from using them. A reason for a missile >defense would be to let the enemy know that all they would accomplish by >launching against us, or our allies, would be losing everything they >have. > It would also encourage them to build even more missiles, requiring more defense on our part, and it would encourage them to bild their own defense, requiring more missiles on our part. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 03:08:52 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 01:53 PM 7/9/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: > >Ahh yes and to think that Hitler was elected to govt too. Who is to say the >US is immune to such a person being elected?...In fact who is to say that >any democratic country is immune to it happening. > >And before you go on flaming about this and that and how the people >wouldn't let that sort of thing happen in our country because it is wrong. >The majority of the german people believed whole heartedly that he >was right. > Okay, before this gets silly, let me step in and claim expertise here: as a matter of fact, for a living I do research on democracy theory. Without getting into a long discussion, it's pretty safe to say that in a stable, long-standing democracy in the rich, industrialized world, there's zero chance of an elected official becoming a dictator; even if someone wishing to do this were by some fluke elected, the checks in the system (which include the way public opinion works, not just things like vetoes) would prevent it. If anyone really wants to know more about this, I can provide basic reading lists. >I once saw a movie called the wave I think it was. Basically it was a movie >about a history teacher that put in place this same scenario inside a high >school in the US. At the end he said he would show them their leader as >they had all been caught up in 'the wave' that the movement had caused >through the school. The picture he showed was of Aldolf Hitler. > Yeah, but it's a movie, not real life. And even if it were real life, it's a few hundred high school students, not an entire country of adult voters. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:11:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: Missle Defense > Ahh yes and to think that Hitler was elected to govt too. Who is to say the > US is immune to such a person being elected?...In fact who is to say that > any democratic country is immune to it happening. First of all, Hitler was elected into a coalition gov't, and represented a small portion of the vote...since it was a coalition though, he became the speaker for the Reichstag, and railroaded Hindenberg into making him Chancellor. He basically became the undisputed despot of Germany, after they (probably) burned the Reichstag, they had complete control. The US does not have a gov't that works in this way. Our constitution has a series of Checks and Balances (tm), but even should that fail (and I suppose it could). The US is not starving, feeling worthless, and maligned by a shitty treaty. we also have alot more minorities then Germany in the 30's who wouldn't sit quietly for it. Trust me. > And before you go on flaming about this and that and how the people > wouldn't let that sort of thing happen in our country because it is wrong. > The majority of the german people believed whole heartedly that he > was right. For sure, but for many of them, he was the best thing since sliced bread, up until the killing...before that, he was a feather in the cap of Germany. > I once saw a movie called the wave I think it was. Basically it was a movie > about a history teacher that put in place this same scenario inside a high > school in the US. At the end he said he would show them their leader as > they had all been caught up in 'the wave' that the movement had caused > through the school. The picture he showed was of Aldolf Hitler. Yup, it took place in Southern California. There are many psychological tests that have been performed on subjects that indicate human beings are capable of great cruelty. Suffice to say, human beings have alot in common with chimps, and alot of it isn't nice behavior. Ray *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:15:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: Missle Defense > Yeah, but it's a movie, not real life. And even if it were real life, it's > a few hundred high school students, not an entire country of adult voters. It was based on a true story of a 70's social experiment gone wrong. If you don't think adults are capable of nasty behavior, I wanna know what you are doing on this list. :) I do agree, as my earlier post states, that a despot like Hitler could not come to power in the US. Ray *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 19:13:44 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: What ever happened to the Navy? Someone mentioned a while back "What ever happened to all the Navy and Air Force personnel?" Well, as for the Navy, I can see the Marines claiming most of them and the Air Force going to Army units, but what are they going to do? Not really knowing what they do normally, I can't really fit them into the other two services but I know we have a bunch of guys here who represent them. Maybe they could give us an idea of what role they may play in the ground based Twilight War? I assume that the majority of guys who work in transport will go right on doing that and with the decline of other forms of transport, riverways will suddenly become arteries of supply so the sailors who piloted smallcraft will retain their rolls as well. Does anyone want to elaborate? Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 03:11:48 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? > I assume that the majority of guys who work in transport will go right >on doing that and with the decline of other forms of transport, riverways >will suddenly become arteries of supply so the sailors who piloted >smallcraft will retain their rolls as well. Some specialties in the Navy should be able to adapt to being landbound. I can see the Motor Mechs and Electrical Technicians maintaining vehicles, small generators, radios etc; but I'll be darned if I can figure out what you could do with ratings such as Sonarman, Radarman, Torpedoman, etc. A friend of mine served on a OHP several years back and he mentioned that some of the Gunner's Mates were trained to use machine guns and that they had a pair of M-60s and a .50 cal on board, which would definately be a handy skill to have in T2k. As for the Air Force, they have an enormous amount of support/maintenance personnel, but there wouldn't be much high tech electronics or aircraft engines and other assorted parts to maintain. Other than possibly recruiting some of the engine specialists to work on the gas turbines of the few surviving M1's I really can't think of too much for the support personnel to do. The pilots and aircrew would likely be out of luck because of the shortage of aircraft, parts, and fuel. Regards, JC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:58:47 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim & Peta Lawrie To: T2K Forum-A ; T2K forum Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 7:13 PM Subject: What ever happened to the Navy? > Someone mentioned a while back "What ever happened to all the Navy and > Air Force personnel?" > > Well, as for the Navy, I can see the Marines claiming most of them and > the Air Force going to Army units, but what are they going to do? > Not really knowing what they do normally, I can't really fit them into > the other two services but I know we have a bunch of guys here who represent > them. Maybe they could give us an idea of what role they may play in the > ground based Twilight War? > I assume that the majority of guys who work in transport will go right > on doing that and with the decline of other forms of transport, riverways > will suddenly become arteries of supply so the sailors who piloted > smallcraft will retain their rolls as well. > Does anyone want to elaborate? > Jim In the ADF (Australian Defence Force) the RAAF already has Airfield Defence Guard Squadrons (Company level infantry) that are as good as the Army infantry battalions in patrolling etc. As for the rest of the Navy and Air Force, they have signed up 'for the duration of any national emergency' and would be either retrained as infantry, etc or other 'rent-a-crowd' government work. The RAN, Army & RAAF have mechanics, etc that would be invaluable to any rebuilding. Eventually they'd have to start releasing ADF members to go home to see to their own families before morale problems leads to too much AWOL. Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:06:54 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? - ----- Original Message ----- From: JC To: Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 8:11 PM Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? > Some specialties in the Navy should be able to adapt to being landbound. > I can see the Motor Mechs and Electrical Technicians maintaining vehicles, > small generators, radios etc; but I'll be darned if I can figure out what > you could > do with ratings such as Sonarman, Radarman, Torpedoman, etc. A friend > of mine served on a OHP several years back and he mentioned that some > of the Gunner's Mates were trained to use machine guns and that they had > a pair of M-60s and a .50 cal on board, which would definately be a handy > skill to have in T2k. Forgot this. All ADF members have firearms training, definitely not to the point of being infantry. Some RAN sailors man 0.50 cal MG and are trained for ship boarding parties, etc. Having said this I wouldn't want to send Navy or Air Force members straight into infantry actions without extensive training. :-) Peter Grining > As for the Air Force, they have an enormous amount of support/maintenance > personnel, but there wouldn't be much high tech electronics or aircraft > engines > and other assorted parts to maintain. Other than possibly recruiting some > of > the engine specialists to work on the gas turbines of the few surviving M1's > I > really can't think of too much for the support personnel to do. The pilots > and > aircrew would likely be out of luck because of the shortage of aircraft, > parts, > and fuel. > > Regards, > > JC > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:01:31 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Ballistix wrote: > > > I hope you're not saying that we would all be safer if everyonw had > > nuclear weapons. > > Our allies should remember that we're the primary target, not them. > > The reason that we make our nuclear arsenal meaner and nastier is to > > hopefully discourage anyone from using them. A reason for a missile > > defense would be to let the enemy know that all they would accomplish by > > launching against us, or our allies, would be losing everything they > > have. > > Ahh yes and to think that Hitler was elected to govt too. Who is to say the > US is immune to such a person being elected?...In fact who is to say that > any democratic country is immune to it happening. > > And before you go on flaming about this and that and how the people > wouldn't let that sort of thing happen in our country because it is wrong. > The majority of the german people believed whole heartedly that he > was right. > > I once saw a movie called the wave I think it was. Basically it was a movie > about a history teacher that put in place this same scenario inside a high > school in the US. At the end he said he would show them their leader as > they had all been caught up in 'the wave' that the movement had caused > through the school. The picture he showed was of Aldolf Hitler. > > Ballistix And, bill clinton was elected too. This isn't the point. John II > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:18:19 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 04:57 AM 7/8/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > This entire arguement reminds me of the arguements used against the > >Reagan military build-up during the 1980's. I remember how the greatest > >threat to mankind was the US deployment of Pershing II and cruise > >missiles, while the tremendous build-up of Soviet nuclear forces was > >strangely ignored. > > There was no tremendous buildup--the arms race essentially ended after SALT > was signed in the 1970's. > > At any rate, the situation isn't quite analagous, because, first of all, > there was no treaty violation involved in the 1980's buildup, and, > secondly, are relations with Russia are much better now. Sorry, I was there. There were treaty violations, even of the ABM treaty. In fact, the hust ABM radar that the Soviets built in the central USSR is still there, and still in violation of the treaty. > > > If long range missiles aren't a threat to the US, then why has China > >threatened to launch them against us? > > They haven't, as far as I know (unless we launch missiles at them, of > course). At any rate, this isn't about China, which has a fairly large > nuclear force, but rather about the "rogue state" you mentioned below. They have. Maybe you missed the part where they threatened the US west coast if we came to the aid of Taiwan. > > >Why do North Korea, Libya, Iran, > >and other dictatorships continue to work on them? If the "bomb in a > >briefcase" were such a threat, then those countries would be directing > >ALL of their efforts in that direction - yet they are not. > > Well, I suppose that a missile is indeed better than a smuggled-in bomb, > especially if you want to deliver more than one device. It may well be > worth the extra cost to build a missile. However, that does _not_ > necessarily imploy that it's worth the extra cost to _defend_ against a > missile, because defense is a LOT more costly than offense in this area. > > It's also entirely possible that they're doing this just because they know > it scares us and will make them a little more fearful of crossing > them--even if that fear isn't entirely rational. How would it scare us if we have a missile defense? > > > As for whether or not it works, not all of the tests have failed. > >Anyone who says that all of them have failed doesn't know what they are > >talking about. Currently, we are 1 success out of 3 tests. > > > But the tests have been under ideal conditions, and the one that worked > didn't even include a decoy. And the tests are not yet concluded, huh? I've seen film of the first efforts of the US at getting anything into space. One disaster after another. Any guesses as to who put the first man on the moon? Also, do you know what the test conditions are? I'd be willing to bet that they make the tests as realistic as possible - exactly to defuse the arguement that it won't work. > > > For those who say that there's a good chance it won't work, if it's > >never built, then they're right. BTW, if we don't even try; how many > >millions of American lives are we willing to lose? I'd like the number > >to be ZERO. Remember, during the 1980's, there were people who wanted > >the US to unilaterally disarm because otherwise we would antagonize the > >Soviets. If you allow the potential enemy to run roughshod over you then > >you DESERVE to lose! Defending yourself is never pointless, unless you > >want to lose. > > Relying on deterrence rather than a positive defense is not "allow[ing] the > potential enemy to run roughshod over you." Both are forms of defense, and > both can be effective in different situations. As it happens, in the field > of nuclear warfare, most experts on the subject believe that deterrence is > more effective than anti-missile defenses, particularly sense anti-missile > defenses make it more likely that the defended side will start a nuclear > war (which in turn tends to make the other side a little crazier itself). > Mind you, deterrence doesn't allow you to "win" a nuclear war, but instead > defends you by preventing the war entirely--but who wants to fight a > nuclear war, anyway? Sorry, but I can name just as many experts who don't believe that. What do you think drove the Soviets back to the bargaining table in the 1980's, their good intentions? No, it was the fear that SDI would work. If an enemy knows that his missiles can't get to you, but yours can get to him, he's probably LESS likely to launch. > > > > It's humorous to hear people talk about our treaties with the Soviet > >Union. I hate to break the news to them, but there is no longer a Soviet > >Union. Maybe they would like to sign a treaty with Austria-Hungary? How > >about Czechoslovakia? I can name a dozen countries that no longer exist. > > What's humorous here is that you don't understand that each of the > countries mentioned has one or more "successor states" that inherited its > treaty obligations (and also its debts, assets, and so on). That Russia is > bound by the USSR's treaties, and that the other signatories are equally > bound, is not even slightly in dispute. This is a cut-and-dried issue. > > > Of course, they forget entirely about the massive treaty violations of > >the old Soviet Union. I guess that the US was always the enemy of some > >people, no matter who was pointing missiles at us. > > Pointing out treaty violations, in particular the violations of the > Helsinki Final Act, was one of the most important measures that helped > bring about the fall of Communist Parties in Eastern Europe. If we break > treaties, we lose the ability to do that. Not only that, but no one has > any incentive to make treaties with us anymore--so you can probably throw > out any new treaties with Russia (and a lot of the old ones), including > current arms control measures, but also trade treaties and treaties on > dealing with organized crime. If you break enough treaties, then you can > throw out your relations with other countries as well, which means no World > Trade Organization, no extradition agreements, no nothing. > > > > As for me, I really don't care how Russia feels. I'm not going to let > >them dictate terms to us. If we're going to allow that, we may as well > >surrender to anyone who threatens us. > > > I don't really regard having someone demand you respect your commitments as > "dictating terms". I do believe that the treaty stipulates that we can withdraw from it. Treaties are written that way. As far as "respecting commitments" goes, the US has more credibility in that area than the old Soviet Union ever did. Also, if an enemy ignores the treaty alltogether except for lip service, then they can dictate terms to you. Where were the demands in the 1980's that the Soviets honor their treaties? > > Scott Orr > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #156 *************************************