twilight2000-digest Tuesday, July 11 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 162 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Missle Defense Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments OT--Democracy and GDP Re: Missle Defense 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: Missle Defense Re: Steyr AUG stats... RE: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:20:48 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 02:06 AM 7/10/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >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. > Would you care to present the facts in question? 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 23:21:57 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments At 02:09 AM 7/10/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: >> >> 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! > Right, just like the U.S. was the only country with nukes in 1945. That lasted a whole 4 years. 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:11 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: OT--Democracy and GDP At 12:59 PM 7/11/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > >----- 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. > That's the Lee Kuan Yew line, but virtually no political scientist would agree with him. All countries that develop economically eventually become democracies. There's nothing "Western" about this: it's happened in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines, and you can see movement in that direction in other countries, such as Indonesia. It's happened in Latin America, and it's happened in a few countries in Africa. As a matter of fact, 40 years ago people were wasying that democracy was a "northern European", and that the Catholic culture of southern Europe just wasn't suitable to democracy. Now all of the countries that argument was applied to are strong democracies. Almost every country becomes democratic at some in economic development betwen about $4,000 per capita GDP and $8,000 per capita (these are the "middle income" countreis). There are in fact very good reasons to believe that a country can't advance economically beyond this point without become democractic, because only democracies drastically curtail corruption and monopolies. Most of the exceptions (such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) are countries that had wealth dumped on them from heaven, rather than having to earn it through developing their own industry. The one exception to the other exceptions is Singapore; the jury is still out on why Singapore is different from all the other countries (able to maintain a high standard of living, based on manufacturing rather than oil wealth, but still undemocratic), but the obvious answer is that it has something to do with being a city-state rather than a full-sized country. Undoubtedly, the fact that Singapore _must_ conduct most of its business through international trade (rather than domestically) means that it's much more subject to the discipline of the international market than are other authoritarian countries, and this brings about economic efficiency. However, from a more basic standpoint, Singapore is really just one city, part of a larger economy, and not really a "country" unto istelf, economically speaking (remember, for a while it was a part of Malaysia). If you took the largest city in any Third-World country and measured the per capita income just there, the income would be much higher than the national average, because income is always concentrated in that principle city. If you took the further step of preventing poor people from migrating from the countryside to look for work, thereby eliminating the slums typical of Third World capitals, your per capita income would be even higher. Therefore, I'm not sure that Singapore's high standard of living is quite as impressive an achievement as it seems at first glance. 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:00:41 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense A relevant article: http://jdw.janes.com/sample/jdw5607.html 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 15:05:32 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missile defence and the inevitable political arguments Adam Betteridge 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! > > 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. Then nukes should be a possible weapon right now against most countries in teh world, since they can't hit us even without NMD. > 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) BTW, smae cold war arguements, exactly the same. The US is ALWAYS the agressor, while peaceful, peace loving USSR is merely the victim of US agression. LMAO! 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 09:45:06 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: Scott David Orr > > 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. Somehow I don't find that suprising. Look who we have in office ... I still find in incredible that Bush was voted out for the Clintster. Bush did an excellent job IMO. > > > >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. Yeah, these relative risks are what this whole debate is really about. > 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? Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers ... > 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". Fine. You convinced me. Legalize drugs and end the drug war, tax the s*$# out of the drugs and use that money to fund the damn project, then divert all the freed up anti-drug assets to start being anti-nuke assets. At least we'll have a better chance at stopping them than now. Maybe I shouldn't say this, now we might debate the drug war ... ok, everyone ignore my last statement. > 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. Those other boondoggles you refer to are IMO just the price you pay for innovation and invention. Using it as an excuse to reduce expenditures on high tech stuff is IMO very short sighted. Besides the SDI program helped significantly in science research. The work they've done on high speed computers, super-conductors, lasers, and adaptive optics may never have taken place without such a far out idea driving the development. Do you realize that soon ground based telescopes will be able to match the Hubble because of adaptive optics? That was specifically invented to help track and aim lasers or particle beam weapons to the required accuracy to achieve a hit. I say MORE BOONDOGGLES! They're great! The worse it works for the military, the faster it'll be declassified and usable in the private sector. The better it works for the military, then great again! We now have better military stuff. It's win/win. Ok, I know I'm a high tech and research fanatic, but reducing expenditures because of mistakes is IMO the wrong reaction. 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 15:10:53 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Walter Rebsch wrote: > > > 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! Hmmm...This does kind of explain the eagerness of the Iraqi troops to surrender to anything western, including RPV'S! JOhn II > > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 15:18:02 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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. To you. > > >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? Yes! > > >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". Then why are they going the missile route? A briefcase/panel van is a lot cheaper and easier to make. They must think that there's some advantage to a missile. > > >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. They have yet to be proven to be boondoggles. YOU may not like them, but that's a different story. > > 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:20:10 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 02:06 AM 7/10/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > >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. > > > Would you care to present the facts in question? Why don't you present the so-called "facts" of how the ABM Treaty caused a reduction in the nuclear arsenals? Your statement came first. My facts are not in question, exzcept by those with a political agenda. > > 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:28:37 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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.) More opinion, and only yours. Not fact. > > Given this, and given that I'd never heard of the Casey Institute, I poked > around, and found some interesting pages on the website. I can see why that you had never heard of it. > > 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 We should build more B-2 bombers. > > This page is about how international global warming treaties threaten U.S. > security: > > http://www.security-policy.org/warming.html Considering how "global warming" is a lie to begin with, why should we sign treaties that validate scientific frauds? > > 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 Hmmm...I take it that you trust Saddam Hussein to be honest about his country and their military programs. Remember the "baby milk factory"? > > 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 Can't disagree with this one. Memories of "The Voyage Of The Damned" come to mind. > > 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. Sorry, in the modern US, they're politically incorrect. Jusct check out CNN and CBS. That's politically correct. Maybe you think that left-wing ideological groups should post opposing views on their web sites too. Think that'll ever happen? The impression that I got was that this site was set up to refute the outrageous lies repeated by the liberal left. > > 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. For you this is ideological. That makes it easy to dismiss it. > > 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:32:33 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Peter wrote: > > A relevant article: > http://jdw.janes.com/sample/jdw5607.html > > Peter Grining Cool. Someone else has finally realized that an EMP bomb can be more effective against a technological opponent than just nuking a city. 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 13:20:15 EDT From: "shaari ladue" Subject: Re: Missle Defense I've been watching this discussion from the shadows, and here's what I think Scott was trying to say, regards to the nuclear weapons being back in the "toolbox". Two men stand facing each other, both with a Colt .45. Both are equally good at shooting, both know that if either man fires, most likely both will die as a direct result. Then, one of the two men puts on a bullet proof vest. The other is still clad in his normal dress. Now, instead of both men being certain of death should they fire, both see a SLIGHT chance that, due to the vest, one of the men MIGHT survive the confrontation. So, the man with the vest (U.S.) is more likely to act in a condescending manner to the man without (Russia) simply due to the fact that he know there's a chance he could survive. Russia, on the other hand, resents the fact that he doesn't have a vest too, and is more likely to go for a sudden head shot, if provoked. Plus, the U.S. is now more likely to engage in actions which may lead to a firefight, simply because he believes that he has a chance for survival. Now, to illuminate the fears of those from other countries. Instead of a .45, they see both countries (U.S. and Russia) with Flamethrowers. They are the bystanders, the crowd, if you will, watching these two tough guys stand off with each other. If either man gets toasted, someone in the crowd is going to be close enough to be affected, one way or another. When the russians lost chernobyl (sp?) the fallout from that affected Europe for a goodly amount of time. With nukes, what happens, does not just affect the U.S, or just Russia. It affects the world, and I think these non nuclear nations have some just fears in being worried as they watch the two biggest guys on the block face off, time and time again. Anyway, hope the analogies help. Shaari ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:39:55 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense exactly Shaari 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:13:52 EST From: "Jonathon Graham" Subject: Re: Steyr AUG stats... >From: "Merondil Twiceborn" >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: >Subject: Steyr AUG stats... >Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:58:17 +0300 > >Hey... > >Anyone got the stats for Steyr AUG or someone know an URL where I could >find >'em? > >Thanks anyway... > >-Eero Haapamäki > Hi, this is Jonathon. Stats for Steyr AUG as follows Ammo; 5.56N Wt; 3.3kg Price $400 (S/R) ROF 5 Dam 3 Pen 1-Nil Blk 4 Mag 30 Recoil SS 3 Brst 8 Range 50 Bye ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:50:58 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: shaari ladue > > > When the russians lost chernobyl (sp?) the fallout from that > affected Europe > for a goodly amount of time. With nukes, what happens, does not > just affect > the U.S, or just Russia. It affects the world, and I think these > non nuclear > nations have some just fears in being worried as they watch the > two biggest > guys on the block face off, time and time again. I think most of us understood the analogy the first time, but now there shouldn't be much room for misunderstanding. There is still plenty of room to depate the appropriateness of the analogy. And plenty of room to debate the psychology of the parties involved. But those issues are so neubulous and hard to quantify, that I personally don't see the point of trying to debate it to a resolution. The resolution will never come since the issues are very debatable by their very nature. But the last point you made is of a more technical nature and can be resolved with a certain degree of certainty. I'm not a leading authority on nukes, but I do know a little. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I get anything wrong ... From my understanding of Chernobyl, that accident released approximately 1000 times the radioactive fallout of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. I'm not talking about the gamma and neutron wave that comes and goes in about 2 seconds, but the actual radioactive material that is kicked into the atmosphere and is highly dangerous to those areas where it lands. While I am not disagreeing that nuclear weapons are very dangerous even if your not in the blast area, I think the level and magnitude of that danger is highly exagerated by the news media and popular press. And if your talking about modern US weapons, as opposed to the old WWII ones, they are significantly cleaner than the Hiroshima bomb. Just get out of the fallout zone for a week or so and you'll probably be fine. Closer in, where the majority of the heavier debris from the cloud returns to earth, it'll take longer. So yes, other countries would have to worry about being affected, even with a limited exchange. But try to keep it in perspective and realistic. Unless you were within about 100 miles of the upwind area of Chernobyl, the effects were not a whole lot more than throwing away some vegetables which had radioactive dust on them, staying indoors as much as possible, possibly wearing a dust masks while outdoors, and putting up with the hysteria and geiger counters everywhere. I know I'm going to get a pile of flak about increased cancer rates and all that. And I agree, it's bad. But I'm just trying to say, it isn't AS BAD as the popular press makes out most of the time. Definately not the end of the world. 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 12:15:48 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: Missle Defense >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. > My brother bought one a few years back, it was fairly interesting reading. I can't remember the exact title but I think it had phoenetic alphabet words in it. I want to say it was something like Bravo Romeo Five. One of the more interesting points in it I think was how poorly equipped the SAS was. At one point the book mentions how the entire company/squadron had only one pair of NVG's. Pretty low level of equipment for a spec ops unit IMO. Most regular US infantry platoons would have more than that. Regards, JC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:41:09 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: JC > > > My brother bought one a few years back, it was fairly interesting reading. > I can't remember the exact title but I think it had phoenetic alphabet > words in it. I want to say it was something like Bravo Romeo Five. One > of the more interesting points in it I think was how poorly equipped the > SAS was. At one point the book mentions how the entire > company/squadron had only one pair of NVG's. Pretty low level of > equipment for a spec ops unit IMO. Most regular US infantry platoons > would have more than that. > > Regards, > > JC > Ok. I found it on Amazon. The title is "Bravo Two Zero: The True Story of an Sas Patrol Behind the Lines in Iraq". GEEZE!!! It's $84.95. WTF! A bunch of damn greedy bastards ... I guess I'll just have to take your word on it ... 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 14:44:01 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense Oh, never mind. Thats the Audio cassette version. The paperback is $5.59 ... Ok I guess I'll unload the AK-47 and simmer down ... :) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:12:17 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Walter Rebsch wrote: > > > From: Scott David Orr > > > > Actually, Russia has proposed cooperating to build a system that, by > > targeting the launch sites rather than covering the target areas, would be > > guaranteed to be effective only against the "rogue states" we're concerned > > about, and would also be able to defend both countries (as well as anyone > > else). We've rejected the proposal. > > Somehow I don't find that suprising. Look who we have in office ... I still > find in incredible that Bush was voted out for the Clintster. Bush did an > excellent job IMO. > > > > > > >The price of failure is simply too high not build it. In human > > cost and in > > >money. > > > > > I think the counterargument is that building it poses an even bigger risk > > to life. > > Yeah, these relative risks are what this whole debate is really about. > > > The other solution is just not to piss off anyone who has nuclear weapons. > > In the India-Pakistan scenario, India would have the brains not to try to > > overrun a nuclear power. I mean, is anyone _really_ that stupid? > > Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers ... > > > I don't see how it's a separuate issue, if a country that can't do one > > immediately heads to the other. And I can't even _imagine_ how you'd > > prevent smuggling of nuclear weapons--I mean, look at our success in the > > "drug war". > > Fine. You convinced me. Legalize drugs and end the drug war, tax the s*$# > out of the drugs and use that money to fund the damn project, then divert > all the freed up anti-drug assets to start being anti-nuke assets. At least > we'll have a better chance at stopping them than now. Maybe I shouldn't say > this, now we might debate the drug war ... ok, everyone ignore my last > statement. > > > 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. > > Those other boondoggles you refer to are IMO just the price you pay for > innovation and invention. Using it as an excuse to reduce expenditures on > high tech stuff is IMO very short sighted. Besides the SDI program helped > significantly in science research. The work they've done on high speed > computers, super-conductors, lasers, and adaptive optics may never have > taken place without such a far out idea driving the development. Do you > realize that soon ground based telescopes will be able to match the Hubble > because of adaptive optics? That was specifically invented to help track > and aim lasers or particle beam weapons to the required accuracy to achieve > a hit. I say MORE BOONDOGGLES! They're great! The worse it works for the > military, the faster it'll be declassified and usable in the private sector. > The better it works for the military, then great again! We now have better > military stuff. It's win/win. Ok, I know I'm a high tech and research > fanatic, but reducing expenditures because of mistakes is IMO the wrong > reaction. Hmmm...in the 1950's, the US rocket program could have been (and probably was) called a boondoggle. It was incredible. Every rocket that we tried came to the smae end, crashing back to earth in a fantastic explosion. I've seen the films. Thankfully, we didn't pack it in and stop trying. John II > > Walter > > *************************************************************************** > 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 #162 *************************************