twilight2000-digest Tuesday, July 11 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 161 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Ye olde .50 cal of Johne Browning Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense RE: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:57:30 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments > No, it doesn't. Your arguement implies that it's the US that's the bad >guy. That the US will just start nuking everyone because they won't be >able to defend themselves while we will be invulnerable. If that's the >case - then why haven't we started doing that already? > John II C'mon John, I was answering Walters comment about allowing a further dissemination of ABM Technology and it's effects on the global nuclear balance. Don't get too touchy there John, even though it's the US that are the only people to have used nukes so far, I *personally* feel that it undoubtedly saved lives as the invasion of Japan wouldn't have had a bunch of crazy Ivans prepared to throw away around 600k lives per city. What I was saying is that allowing ABMs (and Scott mentioned this earlier) to gain widespread use puts the nuke back in the military toolbox, as a citizen of a non-nuke country (although we don't seem shy about selling our yellowcake!) I'd like to avoid that. Let's look at it a little further . . . The US builds a new ABM system that is about 85% successful, Australia as an ally and fearfull of some of our northern neighbours who are signing arms deals with China asks to have access to the technology so we can protect our citizens too. The US can say "no" and alienate an ally or say "yes" and then hope we don't start to share it around. The Kiwi's are our friends, although they must be at the bottom of the target list maybe they should have it too? And so on, can you stop the transfer of defensive technology? Most people can fully understand the desire to halt armageddon weapons, but if one guys has a counter to it his allies will want it too, and then their potential enemies start to view that bloc as a serious threat indeed. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:04:56 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 07:38 PM 7/9/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > I got it from history books, which I had to read when I was getting a > degree in the field of international affairs, with an emphasis in security > studies. The person who taught me was one of the arms control negotiators > during the 1970's and 1980's. And CNN/Time got their "Tailwind" story from government documents too. They interviewed people directly involved. Does that make what they reported true? > > >> 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"? > > > More than a handful--China, the last I recall, had about 100 missiles, with > nukes, that could reach the U.S., and that's a lot more than "a few". In terms of the US ans Russian arsenals, that's still only a few. > > >> >> 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? > > Huh? According to the old anti-nuclear groups, the only reason for the US to have had multi-billion-dollar nuclear forces was to assuage an irrational fear, that we would be attacked by the Soviet Union. To eliminate that fear, unilateral US disarmament was their preferred choice. > > > Nothing irrational about protecting yourself. MAD is irrational. > > > How? Killing everyone isn't irrational? > > >> >> 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. > > > Name them. How about the team that led SDI during the Reagan years. Sounds like people with good credentials to me. > > > 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. > > > That wasn't the question. The question was, "Did the Soviets _believe_ the > U.S. might be an aggressor?" They did, and they did so without bothering > to find out whether _you_ thought that belief was reasonable or not. You > have to deal with what the enemy's perceptions _are_, not what _you_ think > they _should_be_. Here we're dealing with YOUR perceptions. Again, please show HOW the US was the agressor. > > >> > 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,. > > > We haven't been an in wars serious enough to merit it (though the threat > was certainly made in Iraq, where by all accounts it deterred Iraqi NBC > weapons). The idea here is not that the U.S. would go around nuking people > all over the place, but rather that, in a tight situation, it might use > nukes when otherwise it would not have (that is, the threshold for using > them is lower). Please give an example of that situation. Enemy troops marching on Washington? > > >> 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. > > > Yes, it does, because those efforts didn't amount to a hill of beans. Had > they been at all successful, they too would have been destabilizing. The > fact that both sides were doing it wouldn't have made it less > destabilizing--it would have made it _more_ destabilizing. > > >> 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. > > > I don't recall any evidence to this effect--though they certainly _tried_ > to reach this state, through civil defense and so on. Also, I don't recall > any period in which their forces were significantly larger than ours, > except in the heads of U.S. policymakers (during the period of the mythical > "missile gap"). As someone who was IN the USAF, it was a lot more than just "in the heads of US policymakers". > > >>>>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. > > > Yes, and if we can negotiate something great--but doing it unilaterally > would be a bad idea. So, if the US does anything unilaterally, it's a bad idea? > > >> 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. > > The whole point of non-profliferation is to stop exactly those countries > from getting nukes. The more countries we have cooperating to stop them, > the easier that is. Cooperating? Sounds like guillibility to me. > > >> > 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? > > > No one yet. If we stop respecting the ABM Treaty, _we'll_ be saying it. Again, please show how North Korea is more respectable than we are. > > >> 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". > > > They obeyed far more than they cheated. As I said, the treaties limited > their actions--so much so that we voulntarily chose to ignore the > occasional cheating. You actually believe that? Maybe AFTER Reagan began to get tough with them. Until then, they didn't care. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:06:15 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 07:23 PM 7/9/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > There's no factual basis for this statement. Not from your biased view. The statement is based totally in fact. 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:09:52 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > > > No, it doesn't. Your arguement implies that it's the US that's the bad > >guy. That the US will just start nuking everyone because they won't be > >able to defend themselves while we will be invulnerable. If that's the > >case - then why haven't we started doing that already? > > John II > > C'mon John, I was answering Walters comment about allowing a further > dissemination of ABM Technology and it's effects on the global nuclear > balance. Don't get too touchy there John, even though it's the US that are > the only people to have used nukes so far, I *personally* feel that it > undoubtedly saved lives as the invasion of Japan wouldn't have had a bunch > of crazy Ivans prepared to throw away around 600k lives per city. > What I was saying is that allowing ABMs (and Scott mentioned this > earlier) to gain widespread use puts the nuke back in the military toolbox, > as a citizen of a non-nuke country (although we don't seem shy about selling > our yellowcake!) I'd like to avoid that. Let's look at it a little further . > . . Back in the toolbox by who? If the US is the only country with it, please show me where it would make us any more inclined to use nuclear weapons! > The US builds a new ABM system that is about 85% successful, Australia > as an ally and fearfull of some of our northern neighbours who are signing > arms deals with China asks to have access to the technology so we can > protect our citizens too. The US can say "no" and alienate an ally or say > "yes" and then hope we don't start to share it around. The Kiwi's are our > friends, although they must be at the bottom of the target list maybe they > should have it too? And so on, can you stop the transfer of defensive > technology? Most people can fully understand the desire to halt armageddon > weapons, but if one guys has a counter to it his allies will want it too, > and then their potential enemies start to view that bloc as a serious threat > indeed. > Jim A situation similar to NORAD with Canada could be worked out. I can't remember anyone ever questioning that arrangement, at least within the last 30 years. 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:49:20 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Ye olde .50 cal of Johne Browning One of the great things about being a gun nut in a land were they aren't appreciated, is that gun books are always marked down and in the bargain bin. A great book with a *lot* of T2K potential is "The Browning M2 HMG" in the "Classic Weapons Series" by Terry J. Gander. It shows all the multiple mounts for the Ma Duece and a lot of the field applications for them, I've been designing guntrucks (up on the site soon) and they're very good for that application. Also, the aircraft weapon had a big increase in fire rate, it was 450 to 555 r/m for the groung gun and 1,150 to 1,250 for the air gun. It's a totally different weapon though, but anti aircraft M2's are often this model. At a Princely AUS$5.45 (about US$3.50) it was well worth the buy! 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:21:07 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments > > > No, it doesn't. Your arguement implies that it's the US that's the bad > >guy. That the US will just start nuking everyone because they won't be > >able to defend themselves while we will be invulnerable. If that's the > >case - then why haven't we started doing that already? > > John II > > C'mon John, I was answering Walters comment about allowing a further > dissemination of ABM Technology and it's effects on the global nuclear > balance. Don't get too touchy there John, even though it's the US that are > the only people to have used nukes so far, I *personally* feel that it > undoubtedly saved lives as the invasion of Japan wouldn't have had a bunch > of crazy Ivans prepared to throw away around 600k lives per city. > What I was saying is that allowing ABMs (and Scott mentioned this > earlier) to gain widespread use puts the nuke back in the military toolbox, > as a citizen of a non-nuke country (although we don't seem shy about selling > our yellowcake!) I'd like to avoid that. Let's look at it a little further . > . . Back in the toolbox by who? If the US is the only country with it, please show me where it would make us any more inclined to use nuclear weapons! I think Jim was getting at the point that nukes then become a possible weapon if the US can't get hit by nukes in return. Whereas without the ABM system the nuclear deterent has been in operation since the 50's. There is a common belief that the US or Soviets were less likely to use the weapons if in doing so the otherside could still fire back. The creation of a reliable defense system would revolutionise the world as we have know it. It is another step in the US path to world domination. First they destroyed the British empire during WW1then the US finished it off after WW2, then you provoked the Russians until you have destroyed their empire until the only Super power left was the US Empire. Whilst no land has been taken directly, there has been an ongoing cultural and economical warfare since the 50's at least. Now the US seeks to create a system to stop the only weapon that can effect them. If you weren't an american wouldn't you be alarmed. (OK I have taken it to extremes but what the hey) *************************************************************************** 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 19:45:10 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Missle Defense . > I haven't heard > about violent rebels in Arabia, Kuwait, or Singapore > trying to overthrow a > gov't or regime. > Seems I've heard something about "antigovernment" attacks in Saudi. From fundamentalist who feel the government is too much in bed with the infadels. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:44:58 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Rebsch To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 1:35 AM 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 ... I'm basing this on one of Samuel Katz's books on Israeli Special Forces. Some of the recent tell all SAS books mention the fighting patrols on the ground, Delta had the north of 'Scud Alley', the SAS the south. The US had and has much better long range SOF transports. As for aircraft killing Scud's, the jury is still out. I'd have to check the dates but diverting 25% of the aircraft for the 'Scud Hunt' didn't slow the launch rate. Once the ground teams went in the launch rate dropped a lot. Unless the aircraft is actually on top of the launch point its still 5-30 minutes out. Some of the supposed Scud kills were actually road oil tankers heading to and fromo Jordan, breaking sanctions. > 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 This would have been the road watch teams, but what about the mobile patrols? 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:52:49 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: John H. Schneider II To: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:40 AM Subject: Re: Missle Defense The Russian ABM system surrounding Moscow was deactivated in December 1998. The interceptors used nuclear warheads to kill missiles. Exploding nuclear missiles over your own city doesn't make a lot of sense. The SA-5 was rumoured to have a nuclear warhead version, see above for the problems with that. The SA-10 has originally deployed on fixed concrete pads surrounding cities, etc. Its primary role was anti-cruise missile defence, although its probably as good as Patriot PAC-2 against missiles. That is it provides around 10-20 km coverage hardly a nation wide system. SA-12 was designed to shoot down Pershing II. Range is given as 40-50 km against missile threats. Again, hardly a nation wide system. Besides if the US is having problems with its current day system, how would have the Soviet Union have gone with its inferior computer technology? The Patriot PAC-1 of Gulf War fame sole modification was to increase the radar look angle, no wonder they didn't hit much or anything. PAC-2 is similar to SA-10, did the US break the ABM treaty? 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 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Missle Defense I don't remember the > specific casualty numbers > but it was the largest loss of U.S. personnel during > Desert Storm. > The losses all occured in a reserve unit from PA IIRC. The Patriot of the desert, is not the patriot of today.. it has been "improved" upon, but wheter any ADA missle will destroy the warhead totally short of the nuclear warheads found on the old Nike systems, remains to be seen. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:59:34 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 8:35 AM Subject: Re: Missle Defense > >Singapore? How do you figure no political development for Singapore? > > > There's no place with "no" political development--but Singapore hasn't > developed as much as, say, Australia, Thailand, or even Hong Kong. > > Scott Orr Depends on what you mean by developed. I've heard Singapore politicians say how inferior Australian and 'Western' systems are inferior to what they have. One remark was the 'poor white trash of Asia'. The simple fact of the matter is, 'Asian' politics work for Singapore and 'Western' works for Australia. 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 20:14:06 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: RE: Missle Defense > And while we are spending money, how about we just > increase the defense > budget 50% and give the guys a much deserved raise! I'm > sick of hearing > about privates that are married with kids having to live > off food stamps. > This is not a new concept in the military.. in 1970 I arrived at my new duty station in California, a semi isolated one with no on base housing for married troops.. the first questions the top kick asked all E5 and below were are you married? is your family with you? If you annswered the affirmative to both, he handed you forms to fill out for welfare "low" pay ofor the troops is nothing new, and isnt about to change drastically in the near future unfortunately __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.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 22:45:37 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: Peter > > I'm basing this on one of Samuel Katz's books on Israeli Special Forces. > Some of the recent tell all SAS books mention the fighting patrols on the > ground, Delta had the north of 'Scud Alley', the SAS the south. The US had > and has much better long range SOF transports. I don't have any hard info for or against this. It just seems really odd to use the Delta Force to do something so out of character for them. Fighting patrols behind the lines in a hot war is NOT the place for Delta. The best unit I know of which the US has is the US Army Rangers for a mission like that. They have excellent LRRP teams with fighting capability and would be much more suited for the job than Delta. If they really did use Delta, then it may have been some commander in SOCOM cashing in a favor to get his boys some action, because it seems to me to be a really poor choice of resource allocation. > As for aircraft killing Scud's, the jury is still out. I'd have > to check the > dates but diverting 25% of the aircraft for the 'Scud Hunt' > didn't slow the > launch rate. Once the ground teams went in the launch rate dropped a lot. > Unless the aircraft is actually on top of the launch point its still 5-30 > minutes out. Some of the supposed Scud kills were actually road > oil tankers > heading to and fromo Jordan, breaking sanctions. Even if the launch rate dropped after ground teams went in, it wouldn't prove a cause/effect relationship. What if they were just running out of rocket fuel trucks at the same time? Proving the cause/effect relationship would require something more than the coincidence of a timetable. Maybe they were a big help in finding the scuds and I didn't hear about it. Being just an S2 puke, I wasn't privy to everything after all ... > > This would have been the road watch teams, but what about the mobile > patrols? > > Peter G > Again, I just didn't hear about any mobile patrols in Iraq before the ground war started. I must have missed that. It wouldn't be the first time. If they did have mobile patrols in numbers large enough to be effective, you would think they would have bumped into Iraq forces on occasion and taken some casualities. I guess they were just lucky ... or I missed the casualty/contact reports also. Do you know what the mobile patrols used for transport? FAV's? It's just incredible to me that they got away with it. I know the Iraq's sucked and all, but they had their own roving patrols running around looking for deserters. They would round them up, return them to their units, and execute them in front of their old buddies. A real morale booster! But even if our guys were well disguised as Iraq's, those patrols would have challenged them to make sure they weren't deserters. Do you have any more info on how many, where and when? Or the name(s) of the 'SAS tell all books'. It would be cool reading to hear what they did and how. 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 23:14:25 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments > From: Adam Betteridge > > I think Jim was getting at the point that nukes then become a > possible weapon if > the US can't get hit by nukes in return. Whereas without the > ABM system the > nuclear deterent has been in operation since the 50's. There is a common > belief that the US or Soviets were less likely to use the weapons > if in doing so > the otherside could still fire back. The creation of a reliable > defense system > would revolutionise the world as we have know it. I agree with Jim, in part, that the ABM would change slightly the role nukes play on the world stage. Exactly what the change is ... well, it's all speculation and is probably HIGHLY dependent on exactly HOW the ABM system was deployed and what it capabilities really were. However, I am confident that a way can be found to deploy an ABM system without increasing the threat from nukes. > It is another step in the US path to world domination. First > they destroyed the > British empire during WW1then the US finished it off after WW2, then you > provoked the Russians until you have destroyed their empire until > the only Super > power left was the US Empire. Whilst no land has been taken > directly, there has > been an ongoing cultural and economical warfare since the 50's at > least. Now > the US seeks to create a system to stop the only weapon that can > effect them. > If you weren't an american wouldn't you be alarmed. (OK I have > taken it to > extremes but what the hey) Wow, I didn't know we were that good! We did all that? Really? Wow! I think I'm going to wallpaper my whole house with American flags now ... 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 02:37:10 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > Hmmm... I might be tempted to go back in, if I had confidence that the > military wasn't going to be used as an international "meals-on-wheels" > or as a way to divert attention from the crimes of the president. For once John I agree with you :) I would like you to cut the previous post still though, but I can't have everything :) 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 23:08:21 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 07:40 PM 7/9/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >> > >>> > It's not lunacy, as it was >>> >in Reagan's day, but it's still destabilizing >>> >>> Russia has a missile defense system. Why isn't that destablizing, >>> too? >>> >> >> Because it protects one site. > Some experts would disagree with you. > > >Found at: > >http://www.security-policy.org/papers/2000/00-F37.html > The article in question doesn't actually provide a citation for the evidence it presents, nor does it even describe the nature of that evidence, in other than vague terms. That makes it impossible for me to evaluate that evidence. (The silly stuff in the article about USSR treaties losing effect when the USSR broke up also really hurts its credibility.) Given this, and given that I'd never heard of the Casey Institute, I poked around, and found some interesting pages on the website. On this page, you can find several links to articles about why the U.S. can't trust Germany: http://www.security-policy.org/westeur.html This page is about why we should build more B2 bombers: http://www.security-policy.org/publications.html This page is about how international global warming treaties threaten U.S. security: http://www.security-policy.org/warming.html This one is about how we can't trust anyone in the Middle East other than the Israeli conservatives: http://www.security-policy.org/israel.html This is covers the security threat posed by Cuba, including an article or two about why we shouldn't have sent home Elian Gonzalez. http://www.security-policy.org/latinamer.html#cuba These guys aren't political extremists; I even agree with some of their views. However, they are way over on one side of the U.S. political spectrum, and, to use John's term, the articles on this site are very much "politically correct"--there's no information on there that would call into question the Institute's ideological predispositions. If one of my students brought me a paper using this website as a source (unless he or she had cross-checked it against other sources), I'd make the student rewwrite the paper. For the record, I've done the same to students who brought in papers based entirely on far-left sources. It isn't a credible source--interesting things I saw in it might prompt me to probe deeper, but I wouldn't base any conclusions on what I read on this site. 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 23:18:49 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Missle Defense At 03:28 PM 7/10/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: > >If Russia gets really bent out of shape over us building a defensive system, >and our foreign policy guys detect they are getting really mad about it and >we have to do something, then why can't we just help them build one of their >own? > >Unfortunately they are too expensive to just build by the dozen and hand out >like candy, but that would be even more ideal. If we can't afford to build >a second, then share control of it with the Russians. The point is that, I >don't give a f*&@ about the Russians! They aren't the threat I'm really >worried about. We should do what we have to do to ease their fears and get >on with it! > Actually, Russia has proposed cooperating to build a system that, by targeting the launch sites rather than covering the target areas, would be guaranteed to be effective only against the "rogue states" we're concerned about, and would also be able to defend both countries (as well as anyone else). We've rejected the proposal. >Remember that Hurricane Andrew caused approximately 25 Billion US dollars in >damage in 1992 in southern Florida. And that's mainly just a bunch of roofs >blown off. Wanna put a price tag on New York City? And it's population? >If it really happened, would you ever be able to live with yourself knowing >you could have prevented ~10 million lives lost (more than the entire >Holocaust in less than 10 seconds) and 10 trillion dollars in damage >(probably more). The lost tax revenue alone would have paid for the system >the first year. > >The price of failure is simply too high not build it. In human cost and in >money. > I think the counterargument is that building it poses an even bigger risk to life. >And if it isn't India/Pakistan, then maybe China/Taiwan, or Isreal/anybody >else in the middle east, or whoever ... it doesn't matter. > >There are a couple points that are indisputeable (in my opinion): > >Rocket Technology is poliferating and cannot be stopped completely. >Nuclear Technology is poliferating and cannot be stopped completely. > >Given those 2 facts ALONE, every country on earth will eventually have the >capability to have ICBM's. Maybe not for 50 years. Maybe a 100. Who >cares? But eventually it WILL HAPPEN. So do you want version 1.0 of >ballistic missle defense up saving your butt when the time comes, or a >version 4.2? I'd prefer version 14. Sooner or later we WILL need it, in my >opinion it is inevitable. It is simply wishfull thinking to assume that it >wont be needed. Like the people that thought WWI was the war to end all >wars. Ha! Some idiot is going to get a nuclear missle eventually, and I >just hope that we have had the sense to defend ourselves before they press >the button. > The other solution is just not to piss off anyone who has nuclear weapons. In the India-Pakistan scenario, India would have the brains not to try to overrun a nuclear power. I mean, is anyone _really_ that stupid? >As for the suitcase bombs, that's a totally separate issue. Why should we >leave 2 avenues of destruction open, when we have the ability to close one? >And since you brought it up, ok, lets spend even more money trying to come >up with a way to defend against the suitcase bombs. Good idea. I don't see how it's a separuate issue, if a country that can't do one immediately heads to the other. And I can't even _imagine_ how you'd prevent smuggling of nuclear weapons--I mean, look at our success in the "drug war". >And while we are spending money, how about we just increase the defense >budget 50% and give the guys a much deserved raise! I'm sick of hearing >about privates that are married with kids having to live off food stamps. > This, to me, is one of the best reasons to cancel the whole ABM program (and a few other technological boondoggles): the money could be much better spent on hiring more military personnel (to relieve the extended deployment problems) and paying them better. 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. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #161 *************************************