twilight2000-digest Sunday, July 9 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 157 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Missle Defense Re: Mueseum pieces and improvised armored vehicles Site is coming along Re: What ever happened to the Navy? RE: Mueseum pieces and improvised armored vehicles Re: Missle Defense RE: What ever happened to the Navy? Any Kiwi's? Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: Any Kiwi's? Re: Any Kiwi's? Re: Any Kiwi's? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:19:01 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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. Maybe you missed the cold war. > > 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:58:36 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Mueseum pieces and improvised armored vehicles >Mr Lawrie: > I sent this to the T2K list yesterday morning and it has not appeared. >Do you have any idea what I'm doing wrong? Is there a long delay on posts >being remailed? After delurking I'm interested. > Thanks > Bryon Call me 'Jim' mate, only bill collectors call me Mr Lawrie! You scared the hell outta me! I'll forward it for you and we can compare addresses. Cheers, Jim >Greetings! > I've been 'lurking' on the list for awhile. The recent discussions on >armor have been very interesting. I ran a T2K campaign set in middle >Tennessee several years ago when I was in college. The campaign had very >low levels of military technology. Vehicles were not that uncommon, they >were just allmost all civilian. > One of the things that the players did, with the help of the people of a >small town, was de-mothball a M-4 Sherman tank that sets in front of a local >VFW post. It was fun to roll play, as it required lots of improvisation. >The players then had to try and find ammo for a 75mm gun. Of course, none >was avaialbe so they ended up manufacturing their own, using black powder as >the propellent. As a result, they had a Sherman tank, (WV=9) that only >fired low velocity solid shot and bee-hive rounds. They were able to >replace the co-axle MG. They only had one MG so they put a 12 ga shotgun in >the bow MG position. They used it to counter-attacked a well organized but >comparatively poorly armed warlord's gang that had been raiding the town. >Allot of suspense, as I was making them roll breakdown every few minutes and >they kept expecting a RPG or LAW rocket to brew them up. > Same campaign, they rebuilt a catapiller D-7 dozer into an armored >vehicle with 1/2 sheet steel 'armor' on the front and sides, the rear was >unarmored due to weight restrictions. They mounted a flamethrower on the >front and they had a M-60 MG with gunshield behind the driver. Top speed >was 5 miles an hour! It was an effective 'infantry support vehicle' in an >area were there were almost no anti-tank weapons. > Other "funnies" encountered in that campaign included a Brinks armored >car mounting a browning .50 cal in an improvised turret (the players >destroyed it by command detonating a 30 pound dynamite charge under it), a >armored "semi truck" with railroad tie armor and many riflemen shooting from >it, and a 25 ton dump truck armored with steel and reinforced concrete and >mounting a civil war era 12 pounder en-portee and allot of soldiers armed >with sten-like SMGs (one of my female players "took this vehicle out" by >seducing the commander). > All of these vehicles would have been easy meat in a fight against >troops with modern AFVs or ATGMs but they were usefull and allot of fun in a >campaign with little military technology. > A rogue Soviet paratrooper BMD-2 (30mm cannon) did show up in the >campaign and wrecked havoc for awhile, until the PCs baited it into a town >and engaged it from third and higher floors of an adjacent building with >30-06 hunting rifles and molotov cocktails. > Bryon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:47:16 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Site is coming along I'm slowly putting my junk up on my site, it's only just started but there's a few things there. Climax, can you fit my UN troops in Europe into your Aussie ORBATs? Anyone interested, it's at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/7031/ 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, 09 Jul 2000 10:04:08 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Peter wrote: > ----- 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?" > > > 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? I assumed that the Air Force personnel would be impressed into Army duty, and I have them organized into "Field Security Groups". They are basicly ultra-light infantry, providing basic "leg" duties, occupation, convoy escort and secured area (rear area) patrolling. The actual Security Police, form the cadre for these outfits and are sometimes used as an "elite" formation, within the Groups. I see Naval personnel being re-assigned and used in a "brown water" sort of organization. My campaign has moved back to the States, and the Mississippi and Ohio rivers have suddenly become prime real estate, falling back to the steam era of American history. I see the campaign as sort of a cross between the American Civil war and Apocalypse Now. So the Navy is going to be responsible for the river transportation and security. - -- Craig S. Gulledge "If you hear a redneck exclaim, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" Stay out of his way. These are likely the last words he will ever say." - - Rule #8 from "Advice for Moving to Texas"- *************************************************************************** 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 12:09:02 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Mueseum pieces and improvised armored vehicles Bryon, Thanks for delurking, it's always nice to have another active member. I'm posting this response to the list incase there are others who have tried to post, but never bothered to ask anyone why it didn't appear. You might want to check and make sure the 'from' address is the same as the address that is subscribed to the list. In order to send messages from work: I have to hit 'reply' to an existing message, even if I want to start a new one. Thats because: on my work machine, the email system it uses supplies my work email address, not my home one, by default. And my home one is the one that is subscribed to the list. The list will reject any email that comes from someone not subscribed to the list. Of course, I could always subscribe a second time under my work email address, but that seemed kinda silly to me since I have an easy enough work around. Anyway, it's just a thought, in case you have multiple email accounts... 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 12:21:44 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Thanks everyone for the discussion on missle defenses. I think both sides got to air some of their views. And it didn't even degenerate into a bunch of personal attacks! Cool. I'm still very much in favor of the ballistic missle defense project, but I understand the concerns of those against it. There are a lot of dangers in building such a system. And there are a lot of dangers in NOT building such a system. I think everyone can agree with that. The disagreements come from which dangers are more real than others. And which dangers are worth more than others to defend against. Personally, I think some of the dangers listed as arguments against the system are over-rated. But I can only offer that as a personal opinion. I also think some of the dangers listed against NOT building the system are under-rated. But again, its just a personal judgement call ... Cheers! 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 14:24:07 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: What ever happened to the Navy? > From: JC > > 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. My business partner was a fire control person (I forgot his real title) on a US Navy destroyer. He operated/maintained/repaired the analog fire control computer and radar for the ships 5 inch guns. So if anyone needs questions answered on the older analog systems, I can ask him for some accurate answers. The Navy has gone strictly digital now, so all the analog boats have either been sold to other countries, mothballed, or scrapped. According to him, they had primarily .50 cals and shotguns on board. They practiced internal defense of the ship using the shotguns. Apparently whenever the SEALS would be the ones simulating the attacks they would loose really bad. Most people that operated equipment knew how to maintain and repair it also. So a sonarman probably knew how to work on the device as well as use it. > 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. The airforce apparently has lots of civil engineering types to build/maintain airstrips. My uncle was a colonel in the airforce and commanded a unit whos purpose was to build/run an airport ... anywhere. The airstrip, crew accomidations, C3, maintainence accomidations, security, hangers, water purification, fuel dumps, re-arm/re-fuel equipment, hospital, everything ... a nice unit to have in the post-apocolyptical era ... 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:53:33 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Any Kiwi's? Anyone fron New Zealand here? I'm looking for info on NZ European and African peacekeeping operations, (I'm actually on the lookout for any South Pacific Nations peacekeeping efforts as well but I have Australias) Jim L *************************************************************************** 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 15:11:59 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? > Someone mentioned a while back "What ever happened to all the Navy and >Air Force personnel?" Since the Air Force guys didn't have the skill to fire the weapons on their aircraft anyway ... > > 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? I went through the list of ships in Harpoon and there are a large number of smaller ships that could possibly still be operational in 2000. Brandon ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:48:11 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: Missle Defense Hi all, A few 'IMO' comments...... > 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. Primary targets make little difference with nukes. The comment goes something like "Close only counts with hand grenades and thermonucelar weapons....". Any sizeable strike on the US would probably screw up the whole world. Ergo, why some people think no-one should have the bomb. Hey, if everyone was like New Zealand, nukes would be outlawed and we could all breath more easily. :-] >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. >> > 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. >> >> 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? OK. China, etc, build missiles now partially because you don't have the system, and because it is a great bargaining chip to be part of the nuclear club. In the long run, if the US does build the defense system, then these other country's missiles will be just for show; I am sure that then there would be more serious efforts along the lines of the 'bomb in the suitcase' (assuming they are stupid enough to really want to try to nuke you). Let's face it: no-one just now is going to fire nukes (not even Iraq, when they get one) - doing so is quite literally suiicide. >> >> > 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. The last test was dubbed by Time magazine as 'the test that can't fail' :-] They said that 'Pentagon testing' has the same oxymoron status as 'military intelligence'... ;-] Of the three tests so far, all three have been firing at the same target type, on the same target trajectory, with the same interceptor trajectory, and the decoys have been super-simple (one baloon, plus missile casing). In a real life intercept the number of decoys and their type would be wholly different. That is a surmountable problem, given time and money. However, it is worth noting that of the two failures, neither was due to the missile killer missing the target because it wasn't aimed right; both were due to an internal mechanical failure that disabled the kill vehicle (first was a broken cooliing line(?) that disabled the targeting sensors, the second was the kill vehicle didn't disengage from the rocket). These problems are definitely able to be overcome with time and money. > 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. But more likely to find another way around..... eg bomb in a suitcase, if they are serious/suicidal. Let's face it; this whole thing is not so much about US defense as it is about US employment; specifically a bunch of defense contractors/Congress-people/whatever seeing a possible need and deciding to get as much money out of it as possible. Not much changes in that regard, I am sure. BTW, I am on the fence as to need, but think there are much better ways to spend all that money..... Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** 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 14:14:20 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 01:15 AM 7/9/00 -0700, Ray Wiberg wrote: >> 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. :) > Oh, sure, you can get this kinda stuff in manipulated experiemnts, at least with kidsm, especially where you have them in an environment where you can control all or most of the sources of information. You can get milder effects with adults. And in traditional societies, in fact everyone tends to act that way towards members of other groups (this is actually exactly my area of research). But in a well-established democracy, while there are some people that behave that way (or can be made to), it's simply impossible to do that to the entire population. For one thing, there are some people who just aren't going to go along, and just as importantly, you have to compete with other sources of information--can you imagine, for example, the New York Times going along with this kind of thing? You don't think that would make a difference? >I do agree, as my earlier post states, that a despot like Hitler could not >come to power in the US. > He couldn't come to power in any industrialized democracy--it's really not the U.S. system of checks and balances (in fact, there are many theories who believe that a system of divided government makes dictatorship _more_ likely, an idea they get from observation of Latin American governments), but rather the way the society feels about democracy. Dictatorship is just as inconceivable in Britain, where enormous power is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister. Hitler came to power in a "democracy" that was only about a decade old, and which had never really functioned correctly. If you don't believe the above, look at history--a democracy more than 15 years old or so in a rich country has _never_ fallen. If it were something that really could happen, it would have happened occasionally, and it hasn't. 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 16:39:27 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 12:18 PM 7/8/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >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. > What I meant was that our buildup in the 1980's, of _conventional_ weapons, didn't violate any treaties; this would not be true of an attempt to build an ABM system. Thus, the situations are not the same. There may well have been afew violations on either side during hte 1980's, but there simply was NO "tremendous build-up of Soviet nuclear forces". The reason it was "strangely ignored" was that it didn't happen. >> >> > 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. > Okay, that's true (though I can't imagine anyone believing that threat, since it's not believable that they'd start a nuclear war over the issue)--but the ABM defense wouldn't be aimed at China. We've specifically said it would be designed to handle only a few missiles, and China has more than a few. >> 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? > We don't have a missile defense; ergo, they believe they can scare us by developing missles, even if that fear isn't justified (because smuggled-in bombs are just about as effective). I personally refuse to fund a multi-billion-dollar project whose only purpose is to assuage an irrational fear. > 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. I've heard interviews with people who knew the testing conditions, and all of them said they were ideal conditions. There are sound reasons to do it that way (you want to start with an easy task, and build up capability), but there are also less pure motives for doing it (there are many, many cases in history of someone who really wanted a particular defense system fudging test results, on the theory that any problems hidden could be worked out later, or simply on the theory that the system was important in ways the test couldn't show). The jury's still out on this one, though things aren't encouraging. > >> 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. I don't think you can. I know there are some experts who believe that deterrence isn't really effective, and that other things kept the peace during the Cold War, but I can't imagine anyone saying that a full ABM defense doesn't increase instability. This admittedly isn't my area of study, but I have a few friends whose area it is, and I'm sure I could get the appropriate references from them. Yes, I am familiar with the "war-fighting" school of the 1980's, who saw a nuclear war as "winnable", but everyone else has always regarded them as a little nuts. >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. This is one plausible interpretation, although it ignores other important factors, especially that the USSR's economy could no longer sustain such a large conventional force (strategic forces have always been a very small percentage of both sides' military budgets). In any event, there's solid evidence from declassified Soviet documents that at one point they were convinced, because of our buildup and because of Reagan's statements, that we were going to start a war; destabilizing things like having our attack subs stalk their boomers only reaffirmed this idea. This was a _very_ dangerous situation. Fortunately, nothing bad happened, and really the chances of anything bad happening were quite low--but they were higher than they would have been had we done things differently, and nuclear war is not something I want to take risks with. > 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. > In that one situation, possibly. However, in the period before your defense is completed, he's MORE likely to launch. But probably more important, YOU are more likely to launch, if you misjudge and think his missiles can't hurt you. If he knows (or believes) you're likely to do this, he'll get very edgy, always suspecting you may decide to start a war in a crisis, and he may do something stupid as a result. A good historical example is how the Soviets reacted in the 1980's to our attack subs tracking their missile subs. One reaction he can take is to build up his own arsenal of offensive weapons--as it happens, nukes are cheaper than ABM's, with the result that in the end, you're no safer than you started, although both sides are now poorer (unless, of course, one side can afford _much_ greater expenditures than the other). If BOTH of you build a defense--which is what inevitably will happen eventually if one side builds a defense--either side could at some point believe that it will be able to weather a nuclear return strike, and as a consequence start a war. >> > 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. Some are, yes. But we've proposed to do something that violates the treaty without withdrawing from it. More fundamentally, even though we could legally withdraw from the treaty, all the other arms control treaties will only apply as long as the ABM Treaty is in effect (I'm not sure if they all say that, but they were all made on that understanding). Basically, both sides regarded this from the beginning as an indefinite commitment. Even if we could legally "get out of it", we end up looking like jerks. In addition, most states regard our feelings on the ABM Treaty as indicative of our feeling about nuclear profliferation. A lot of small countries are willing to stop testing as long as we do, and are willing not to build new weapons as long as we don't. When we start putting up an ABM system, we're hinting that we have no intention of reducing our offensive arsenal, and that instead of arms control, we're relying on the ABM for our defense. This also means that our allies don't believe our commitments to arms control measures. > As far as "respecting commitments" goes, the US has more credibility >in that area than the old Soviet Union ever did. Yes, we do, because we usually respect our commitments. If we stop doing that, we won't. > 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? The Soviets never ignored treaties altogether, at least not arms control treaties. They may have cheated on occasion, but the treaties limited their actions. 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 15:17:20 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 12:19 PM 7/8/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> >> 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. > > Maybe you missed the cold war. > Apparently YOU did--it was exactly the enactment of the ABM Treaty that made both sides willing to reduce strategic arsenals. 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 15:44:33 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? At 07:13 PM 7/9/00 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > 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? In a lot of historical cases, personnel no longer needed for one thing have been formed into ad hoc units--for example, the U.S. Navy battalion organized in the defense of Bataan, and the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. In the former case, it make more sense than the latter, because there wasn't really time to retrain the soldiers and integrate them into new units. Where there is time (and training facilities), re-training the soldiers is a good idea: remember that specialists are usually the brightest, most trainable soldiers, and therefore could probably adapt well to other roles. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:52:52 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: Any Kiwi's? At 07:53 10/07/00 +1000, you wrote: > Anyone fron New Zealand here? > > I'm looking for info on NZ European and African peacekeeping operations, >(I'm actually on the lookout for any South Pacific Nations peacekeeping >efforts as well but I have Australias) Yo! So how much do you think the A.B.'s will beat you in this weekend's test by? ;-] (humour for those of Australasian origin/rugby public only) As far as the peacekeeping goes, I know only a little but can probably find out more....several friends in Army/political studies plus one who works for StratFor forcasting..... Reply off-line if you want. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:56:07 NZST From: "Matt Swain" Subject: Re: Any Kiwi's? > Anyone fron New Zealand here? Yup. > I'm looking for info on NZ European and African peacekeeping >operations, >(I'm actually on the lookout for any South Pacific Nations peacekeeping >efforts as well but I have Australias) I'm not completely sure (although I have a friend in the terratorial forces, so I can find out), but I think all we've sent over recently were some troops (again IIRC, Medical mostly) to Bosnia, and some peacekeepers to East Timor (not Europe or Africa). I'll get back to you, 'k? Matt ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:12:43 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: Any Kiwi's? Yo! So how much do you think the A.B.'s will beat you in this weekend's test by? ;-] (humour for those of Australasian origin/rugby public only) I think the A.B's are a spent force, after all they were beaten by the French and didn't even make the World Cup Final. (Had to rub that in) : P Australia by 5 to 10 Go the Wallabies! *************************************************************************** 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 #157 *************************************