twilight2000-digest Monday, July 10 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 159 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: OT:human behavior was Missile Defense Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: Kiwi's Re: OT:human behavior was Missile Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: recoilless rifles Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: What ever happened to the Navy? Re: Missle Defense Re: Hitler & Nazi's was Missle Defense Re: What ever happened to the Navy? RE: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:35:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: OT:human behavior was Missile Defense > << 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. >> > > I'm not sure if anyone here has heard of the Zimbardo Study. It was a psych > study done at Stanford in the 70's or 80's I believe. The researchers set up > a mock prison and recruited test subjects to be prison guards and prisoners. > They let the prison guards run the mock prison and observed them over time. > Both sides played their roles, although the prison guards played them to > closely. Over the course of the study, they became more and more abusive and > brutal. Because of this, the researchers cut the study short and sent > everyone home. Wasn't familair with this one! Sounds like an experiment we did at my alternative High School in Alaska though. > There was another study done in the 1950's, the name escapes me at the > moment. The researchers were studying obedience, specifically, why people > would follow orders to inflict pain on another person. A test subject was to > ask a second test subject a series of questions. Both test subjects were in > different rooms so they couldn't see each other. For every wrong answer the > second test subject gave, the first test subject was to administer an > electrical shock. As the number of wrong answers grew, so did the strength > of the electrical shock. What the first test subject didn't know was that > the other person was actually an actor and there was no electrical shocks. > Anyways, to make a long story short, several test subjects willingly > administered stronger and stronger shocks, even as the second "test subject" > screamed in agony that he couldn't take it anymore. One test subject kept > administering shocks even as the second "test subject" pretended to have a > heart attack and failed to answer any questions. This is one of my favorite examples. Feeling like a part of a team or machine call lead to nasty nasty behavior with little or no remorse. > Anyways, to relate this back to T2k, these, along with the movie "The Great > Escape" and the TV show "Hogan's Heroes" were sources of motivation for my > PBEM, set in a prison camp. Does it have to relate to t2k directly? I thought as long as we were discussing war type info, war time behavior, weapon and vehicle stats, and other modern army trivia, it was kosher :) 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:30:09 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" 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 ... I was just talking to Orrin and the thought came up, if they do form Air Force brigades those guys have some awesome Air Defence Artillery! If they are set up as light infantry, dont mess with their base, it's got 20mm vulcans on the perimeter! 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 18:09:34 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Kiwi's Jim, >From the Kiwi Defence page.... http://www.army.mil.nz/ops/easttimor.cfm they have people in East Timor Part of UNTAET Bougainville Island Part of the PMG (peace monitoring group) Bosnia Part of SFOR (stabilisation force) Middle East part of UNTSO (united nations truce supervision organisation) dealing with the state of Israel since 1952. Duty stations are in Jerusalem, on the western side of the Suez Canal in Egypt, in Nahariya and Tiberias in northern Israel, in the Syrian capital Damascus, and in the Lebanese capital Beirut. Sierra Leone Two officers posted to Sierra Leone working as Military Observers with the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). They have been involved in peace keeping operations in Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola. This continues the involvement along with other current deployments in Egypt and Mozambique. Sinai, Egypt Part of MFO (multinational force and observers). Covering the Israel and Egypt border. Currently 26 personnel currently serve in this force. Hope that helps Ballitisx *************************************************************************** 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 03:43:42 EDT From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: OT:human behavior was Missile Defense In a message dated 07/10/2000 12:40:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ray@cloudfactory.org writes: << Does it have to relate to t2k directly? I thought as long as we were discussing war type info, war time behavior, weapon and vehicle stats, and other modern army trivia, it was kosher :) Ray >> No but I thought some of you would get a kick out of it, especially the "Hogan's Heroes" bit. orrin *************************************************************************** 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 03:45:12 EDT From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Missle Defense In a message dated 07/10/2000 12:34:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jimpeta@primus.com.au writes: << According to "Great Military Blunders" on AusBC TV, (no relation to the book of the same name) they had a high 'interception' rate but a zero kill rate, due to the way the warhead was set up. Evidently the warhead only fired after the hostile warhead had gone past, it would shatter the hull of the SCUD but leave the warhead intact. Jim >> Didn't something like this happen during Desert Storm. A patriot hit the SCUD but failed to destroy the warhead, which then came down on top of an Army reserve unit barracks. I don't remember the specific casualty numbers but it was the largest loss of U.S. personnel during Desert Storm. orrin *************************************************************************** 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 17:54:28 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: recoilless rifles - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 3:55 PM Subject: Re: recoilless rifles > The British had a spring-loaded rocket launcher in WWII--the rocket only > ignited after it was airborne. I can't remember the name right now, though. > > Scott Orr PIAT. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:03:48 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:13 PM Subject: Re: Missle Defense > People have suggested this before, but it hasn't really borne out. There > are in fact places that are rich but not at all democratic (Saudi Arabia, > Kuwait, Singapore), because, while they've gained rapid wealth from > resources or trade, they haven't undergone _political_ development. > > Scott Orr Singapore? How do you figure no political development for Singapore? 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:25:47 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim & Peta Lawrie To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Missle Defense > >Speaking of missile defense, how good is patriot > > According to "Great Military Blunders" on AusBC TV, (no relation to the > book of the same name) they had a high 'interception' rate but a zero kill > rate, due to the way the warhead was set up. Evidently the warhead only > fired after the hostile warhead had gone past, it would shatter the hull of > the SCUD but leave the warhead intact. > Jim The Patriot PAC-1 as used in the Gulf War only featured software changes. As the fuze and warhead had not been modified not chance of an intercept. The documentary Jim mentions has shows several 'kills'. These kills were the warhead exploding after the Scud had passed. At the time the poor showing wasn't mentioned to keep Israel out out of the war. Israeli F-16s actually took off, but the US refused to provide IFF codes. Israel had also planned to send in commando teams to invade Western Iraq and stop the launches. The British SAS and US Delta ended up doing this. The early 1990s PAC-2 had some capability against theatre ballistic missiles (TBM), I've heard of Dutch, German and US units firing Patriot missiles in 'dumb' mode (as targets) and shooting them down with PAC-2. PAC-3 has only just entered service and have an effective range of around 18 km. Supposedly these work against Scud type targets. A Scud hits at around 1400 mps, a longer ranged North Korean No Dong 1 at 2600 mps and an ICBM around 3500 mps. The treaty that the US and Russia has signed, forbids work against targets greater than 3 km/second. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:41:45 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ballistix To: Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 6:57 PM Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? > A family friend of ours used to be in the navy. According to him the Quarter > Master Gunners (I think that's the right name for them) are the guys you'd > be snatching up if you need anyone to fire heavy machine guns. They are > good at their jobs, and I'm positive it would be a lot harder to hit a > target > with a 50 cal while the decks pitching up and down than if you were on > dry ground. AFAIK the name has changed to Bosun's Mate. A frigate sized ship would have around 30 Steyrs, 8 50 cal MG and some Shotguns and Browning 9mm pistols. The 50 cal are used for air defence and the only practical use is to try and throw attacking aircraft off target. > > 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. Avionics is electronics thermal imagers, radios, hydraulics, etc. All common with other useful stuff. Most Air Force's have EOD, runway repair and so on. I suspect they'd be a lot more useful than most people give them credit for. Just reading up on the Iranian Air Force during the Iran Iraq War. In 1980 they had ~40 operational F-4 Phantom. The embargo, purges of trained personnel, no spares and hanager queens kept them flying till into 1982/83. Afterwards Israel flew in spares, unfortunately they were all worn out and mostly useless. The US ended up flying parts to Israel, changine planes and flying them in. The point being that Iran managed to keep its own aircraft flying for 2-3 years. The bombs in T2k dropped in 1997, so as in RDF Sourcebook, East European Sourcebook, etc some aircraft would still be flying. The problem of course being lack of aviation fuel. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:48:18 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:45 PM Subject: Re: Missle Defense > In a message dated 07/10/2000 12:34:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > jimpeta@primus.com.au writes: > > << According to "Great Military Blunders" on AusBC TV, (no relation to the > book of the same name) they had a high 'interception' rate but a zero kill > rate, due to the way the warhead was set up. Evidently the warhead only > fired after the hostile warhead had gone past, it would shatter the hull of > the SCUD but leave the warhead intact. > Jim >> > > Didn't something like this happen during Desert Storm. A patriot hit the > SCUD but failed to destroy the warhead, which then came down on top of an > Army reserve unit barracks. I don't remember the specific casualty numbers > but it was the largest loss of U.S. personnel during Desert Storm. > > orrin The system went into reset and failed to engage. One Scud missed one of the port facilities. Alongside was one of the LPD and the wharf front was full of 155mm ammunition. It missed by around 200-300 yards. Peter G *************************************************************************** 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 06:56:24 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: Hitler & Nazi's was Missle Defense If I understand your question correctly, sure, it could happen in a lot of places. Even (given a lot of the right conditions) in an otherwise unlikely country like the US or Australia. In fact, the whole New America movement in some of the original Twilight:2000 adventures was based on this premise. I think anyplace that could have marauders could potentially have a dictator. And if enough people are starving and desperate, a dictator will have a following. - -Rob Ballistix wrote: > > 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. > > This is a little off track and I admit I helped it to go there but it's > given me a GM > idea. After the war is there any reason this wouldn't start to happen in an > area > that the players encounter?. An ethnic minority in a country for example, > there > are still lots of minorities now that are basically being persecuted. Any > thoughts > or suggestions. > > 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:09:04 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: What ever happened to the Navy? > I think some of the Air Force and Naval personnel would remain in service and gradually be merged with whatever military or militia force was in the area or - --if they have more valuable skills-- put to work maintaining machinery or vehicles of some sort. I think a lot of Air Force and Navy bases were targets of attacks, so there might be a lot fewer of them around to worry about. In my campaign, the only major Naval presence on the East Coast in based out of what's left of the Chesapeake Bay ports (Norfolk, Newport News, etc.) and it doesn't amount to a whole lot. The West Coast has the remnants of Navy forces at San Francisco (Oakland/Alameda) and Seattle. Also, Honolulu in Hawaii. Beyond that, any surviving US Navy forces are trapped overseas like everyone else. Same with the Air Force, except they tend to be located closer to major Army units. There are still a few modern fighters and other aircraft based out of MilGov territory, but they seldom fly given supply and fuel restrictions. *************************************************************************** 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 10:35:09 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > > The system went into reset and failed to engage. One Scud missed > one of the > port facilities. Alongside was one of the LPD and the wharf front was full > of 155mm ammunition. It missed by around 200-300 yards. > > Peter G > I remember driving over to Damman port in October, when the boats carrying the second half of our Battalions ground vehicles finally arrived. On the docks, I've never seen so much ammo in my life. It kinda reminded me of the last scene in "Raider's of the Lost Ark" when they stuck the ark into a warehouse that went on forever. They had pallets of 155 shells stacked 15 feet high and 20 feet wide in a row a hundred feet long. Then rows of MRLS rockets. Then more aritllery, bombs, missles ... everything ... lined up in nice neat rows for almost a mile. That was also the first time I got to see some of the heavier forces that were arriving. It took everyone seemingly forever to get there, meanwhile we were living like sand rats in the open desert wishing the war would start soon ... Anyway, I wanted to mention a couple things about the Scuds. Some of the Scuds were not fired upon because they were going to land in the Gulf. A couple others were shot at targets which were not far enough away from the launchers, so they re-entered the atmosphere at too steep an angle and burned up on re-entry. I think the minimum range was something like 200 miles, but I could be off ... it's been a long time. Also, someone mentioned that the Israelis were refused the IFF codes, so thats why they didn't do any airstrikes of their own. I heard the same thing through official channels while I was over there, so I would agree that it was true. However, the sending in commando teams after Scuds I don't believe is true for the most part. It may have happended once or twice, but if we has a Scud's coordinates, aircraft were IMMEDIATELY vectored over to destroy it. There wasn't any screwing around with commando teams, just to blow up a lousy truck carrying a missle. That would be way slower than using aircraft, and getting those Scuds was a TOP priority. They had an entire squadron of A-10's who's sole mission was to hunt for Scuds. And believe me, you don't want an A-10 loaded with cluster bombs after your ass, no matter what kind of vehicle your in ... Men were used primarily for recon purposes on areas they wanted continuous eyes on target so they wouldn't miss anything and where they wanted closer personal judgement calls on quality and type that you can't get from satellite photos. Then they would typically insert, dig holes, and hide, never moving. What the hell good would men on the ground looking for Scuds do anyway? The only problem was finding them. Once we had a grid coordinate, it was history very quickly. 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:00:12 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > However, the sending in commando teams after Scuds I don't believe is true > for the most part. It may have happended once or twice, but if we has a > Scud's coordinates, aircraft were IMMEDIATELY vectored over to destroy it. > There wasn't any screwing around with commando teams, just to blow up a > lousy truck carrying a missle. That would be way slower than using > aircraft, and getting those Scuds was a TOP priority. They had an entire > squadron of A-10's who's sole mission was to hunt for Scuds. And believe > me, you don't want an A-10 loaded with cluster bombs after your ass, no > matter what kind of vehicle your in ... > > Men were used primarily for recon purposes on areas they wanted continuous > eyes on target so they wouldn't miss anything and where they wanted closer > personal judgement calls on quality and type that you can't get from > satellite photos. Then they would typically insert, dig holes, and hide, > never moving. What the hell good would men on the ground looking for Scuds > do anyway? The only problem was finding them. Once we had a grid > coordinate, it was history very quickly. > If I recal properly SAS troopers and such provided some of the laser designation to SCUD sites for those strikes also. That is after they found them through their recon patrols. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:43:50 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: Ballistix > > If I recal properly SAS troopers and such provided some of the laser > designation to > SCUD sites for those strikes also. That is after they found them through > their recon > patrols. > > Ballistix > That sounds very likely, if any Scuds drove past where they were hiding. I can't imagine there was much foot patrolling going on in Iraq. From what I heard and saw, they primarily set up OP/LP's. They might reposition during the night for time to time, or sneak in towards a town for a better look, then sneak back. But that seems about it. I know for certain there were several US Army SF teams in Iraq before the air war started, but I wasn't privy to what the British guys were doing. I just assume they were doing stuff similiar to the US guys. Also, early on in the war, some of the Scud sites were fixed. Thus we could send a commando team in to assist the aircraft in hitting the target and assessing afterwards that the targets were really destroyed. But after about a week, the only scuds left were on mobile launchers. The launcher trucks would hide by day and drive to new hiding places by night. One of the big problems was getting the mobile erector launcher truck, and the rocket fuel trucks to rendevous in the middle of nowhere without having their commo detected. Because many of their hiding places couldn't fit both trucks at the same time. You could only erect the missle unfueled, then fuel it, and there was no way to defuel them. Once fueled, you HAD to shoot it or leave it standing there. They were basically big unguilded bottle rockets. A complete piece of crap that was militarily useless, but had a decent sized political effect. 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, 09 Jul 2000 19:20:33 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Andrew Tiffany wrote: > > 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. :-] You would. I would be even more afraid of a biological-chemical war than I am now. > > >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. Remember the Kamikaze? How about the PLO or Hamas terrorists who strap bombs on themselves so that they can detonate the bombs in the middle of a bus full of school children? These things happened. I hope that you're not telling me that a country like North Korea, where they are purposefully starving children just so they can build their militay, is 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. > > > > 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. Which reinforces my point. > > > 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..... I'd rather spend money than lives. This isn't about employment anyway. Where'd you get that idea? > > 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. 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, 09 Jul 2000 19:23:20 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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. I WAS PART OF the Cold War. I was DIRECTLY involved. The ABM treaty did exactly the opposite. What caused both sides to reduce their nuclear arsenals was the firm committment by the Reagan administration to build SDI and rebuild a gutted military. John II > > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 19:38:18 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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. Sorry, IT DID HAPPEN. You should stop getting your news from cnn and dan rather. > >> > >> > 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. How many do you consider 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. Then you want unilateral US disarmament? Nothing irrational about protecting yourself. MAD is irrational. > > > 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 can name even more. BTW, my experts aren't from the PC crowd, they believe in real science. 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. The old "US is the agressor" arguement? Please find for me ONE instance since 1935 when the US has tried to expand it's own territory through intentionally invading someone else specifically for territorial gain. > > > 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. WHY would the US launch? You have yet to give even a SINGLE reason why the US would launch a first strike. If we use your theory, then we should be nuking everyone around the world who disagrees with us, because we can. It isn't happening,. > 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. And of course, this totally ignores their efforts to track our missile subs with their attacfk 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. For years, the Soviet leadership believed that they could weather a nuclear war and come out on top. Especially when their nuclear forces were seen as larger than ours. > > >> > 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. Which is why we're negotiating. > > 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. I'm glad that they believe Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq better than they do the US. That doesn't make them "allies" anymore. > > > 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. Who said that we're going to stop doing that? > > > 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. On occasion? Sorry, a lot more than just "on occasion". John II > > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 #159 *************************************