twilight2000-digest Wednesday, July 12 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 163 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense SAS in Iraq Books Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense Fallout RE: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Iraq Books OT: was Re: Iraq Books Re: OT: was Re: Iraq Books Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense Re: Iraq Books Re: Iraq Books Re: Missle Defense OT: NZ, Aussie, Sheep, 'net lag, etc, etc Re: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:19:06 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense shaari ladue wrote: > > 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 GIven the number of nuclear weapons, a gatling gun would be more apt. Also, the anology misses an important point. The Soviet/Russian missiles were designed and intended to threaten and intimidate everyone else. The US missiles were built as a response to that threat. When one party is determined to kill and destroy the other and the other party simply wants to survive, then why would the party who wants peace act in a condescending manner? You've also yet to show how the US would be more likely to engage in actions that might result in a firefight. John II > ________________________________________________________________________ > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 16:32:26 EDT From: "shaari ladue" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Here's purely hypothetical situation that could lead the the U.S. considering a nuclear response. Terrorists backed by some dinky country smuggle in a nuke. They then detonate it in a city within the U.S. (personally, I'd pick somewhere in the grainbelt, and make my bomb as dirty as possible. Nuking some midwest capital city is a lot easier, IMO, than taking out, say, washington.) Now, a nuke has gone off on U.S. soil, killing x number of civies. Investigations proceed. It is discovered (for some semblance of reality, remember the guy who got caught trying to cross from canada into the U.S. right around Y2K?) that the terrorists were backed by some other country. Let's pick Libya for example. What, diplomatically speaking, is the appropriate U.S. response? We've lost lots of people, our main farming areas have been polluted, and our sense of national pride is stung, and we're probably going to be hollering for blood. Do we a) send in the spec ops folks and kill/imprison every son of a gun associated? b) mobilize conventionally and go beat them up? c) do lots of trade sanctions? (woo hoo.) d) nuke them back? If so, how much? I'm willing to bet that most of the U.S. would want option d, being the blood thirsty folks we are. ;) Now, say that some other nuclear power intervenes on libya's behalf, and threatens to nuke us, if we nuke the libyans. Now, we might back down, and instead take one of the other options, under the current status quo. However, should we have a missile defense system up, we may just tell them.. go ahead, cause we're gonna get libya whether you like it or not. So, admittedly this is very hypothetical, but I think it's a possible scenario. One could certainly make a case for the potential of a "briefcase nuke" being lit up somewhere in the american heartland. What do you guys think the American response would be/should be? 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:14:54 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: SAS in Iraq Books >Ok. I found it on Amazon. > >The title is "Bravo Two Zero: The True Story of an Sas Patrol Behind the >Lines in Iraq". That's the one by Andy McNab, if I am not mistaken. There is also another one called "The One That Got Away", can't remeber the author. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:28:12 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Missle Defense >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. Great! It's about time this whole thread got back to Twilight 2000! Does anybody else use groundwater poisoning, incremental fallout etc? 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 17:48:17 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Missle Defense At 09:45 AM 7/11/00 -0500, 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. > This you can't blame on Clinton--this decision, like the entire decision to deploy an ABM system, was dictated by the Republican majority in Congress. I don't think Clinton is even in favor of the thing. >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. No, some of them aren't the price of innovation and invention. Spending money on the B2, for instance, contributed almost nothing to our national defense (because it has no clear mission), and even the few technology spin-offs could have been had cheaper if they'd been done as part of other project that needed them. Whenever you have money to spend, there are good ways and bad ways to spend it. If you're going to spend X on defense, you can't get away with the argument that any weapons system has value. You have to consider carefully which ones are needed and which aren't, and then put al your effort behind the useful ones. You also have to decided when hiring and taking care of personnel is more important than new weapons systems: the USAF, for example, would get a lot more value from hiring more pilots than it would from the F-22 (given that the threats to our present aircraft just aren't out there, while the threat to pilot retention to do overly long deployment is very real and present). >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. This is a myth, although I understand that it's a very common one. The bottom line is that if you want new technology, it's cheaper to invest in the new technology itself rather than relying on spin-offs--it is ALWAYS cheaper that way. Spin-offs can _defray_ the cost of new weapons systems, but since you could always get _more_ technology by spending just on technology, the spin-offs can't justify the weapon system by themselves--the weapon system _has_ to do something useful. 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 17:57:28 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Missle Defense At 02:41 PM 7/11/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: > >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 ... > I've heard suggestions that the buy who wrote that one is a poser, and not terribly credible. 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 17:06:14 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: shaari ladue > > > So, admittedly this is very hypothetical, but I think it's a possible > scenario. One could certainly make a case for the potential of a > "briefcase > nuke" being lit up somewhere in the american heartland. What do you guys > think the American response would be/should be? > > Shaari > This is the subject of the Tom Clancy novel "The Sum of All Fears". It was pretty entertaining, but I wouldn't call it much more than just fiction with a reasonable attempt at plausability. Obviously the response would depend on the size of the weapon, the certainty of our laying blame on someone, the authenticity of the protective threat from the other nuclear power, the level of percieved aid/involvement given to the terrorists, the protective effectiveness of the ABM system against the other nuclear powers arsenal, and the mood of the American people (very fickle). By varying those variables any one of the options can become quite likely. However, the difference between having a ABM system and not having an ABM system I think would only be a small part of that decision. Also, for another nuclear power to side with some small 'rogue nation' (or is it 'nation of concern' or some crap like that now?) in such a manner would be tantamount to openly approving of the use of the nuke on America. In which case, I think we would declare war on them. And I think the level of outrage would quickly exceed that of Pearl Harbor, especially if the evidence is strong on 'who done it' and it seemed like the level of backing and intent was there with the other government, and not just some rogue individuals. WWIII would seem very likely if the larger power did much of anything more than sit there and keep their mouths shut ... Lastly, I think the authenticity of the protective threat is overrated. How many countries are willing to commit suicide to defend nuclear terrorism? If anything would provoke a pre-emptive strike, that might ... especially since all we have to do is launch B2's to take out their silos with nukes. Before they knew we launched, their nuclear capability would be gone. Unless it was Russia, of course. But I don't think the Russians are stupid/criminal enough to defend nuclear terrorism with their very existence. 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 17:53:58 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Fallout > From: Jim & Peta Lawrie > > Great! It's about time this whole thread got back to Twilight 2000! > > Does anybody else use groundwater poisoning, incremental fallout etc? > Jim > Yeah, I know we digress a lot. But its better than the silent list of last month ... :) This seems particularly relevant to estimating effects of fallout: A useful rule-of-thumb is the "rule of sevens". This rule states that for every seven-fold increase in time following a fission detonation (starting at or after 1 hour), the radiation intensity decreases by a factor of 10. Thus after 7 hours, the residual fission radioactivity declines 90%, to one-tenth its level of 1 hour. After 7*7 hours (49 hours, approx. 2 days), the level drops again by 90%. After 7*2 days (2 weeks) it drops a further 90%; and so on for 14 weeks. The rule is accurate to 25% for the first two weeks, and is accurate to a factor of two for the first six months. After 6 months, the rate of decline becomes much more rapid. The rule of sevens corresponds to an approximate t^-1.2 scaling relationship. These radioactive products are most hazardous when they settle to the ground as "fallout". The rate at which fallout settles depends very strongly on the altitude at which the explosion occurs, and to a lesser extent on the size of the explosion. If the explosion is a true air-burst (the fireball does not touch the ground), when the vaporized radioactive products cool enough to condense and solidify, they will do so to form microscopic particles. These particles are mostly lifted high into the atmosphere by the rising fireball, although significant amounts are deposited in the lower atmosphere by mixing that occurs due to convective circulation within the fireball. The larger the explosion, the higher and faster the fallout is lofted, and the smaller the proportion that is deposited in the lower atmosphere. For explosions with yields of 100 kt or less, the fireball does not rise abve the troposphere where precipitation occurs. All of this fallout will thus be brought to the ground by weather processes within months at most (usually much faster). In the megaton range, the fireball rises so high that it enters the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, and no weather processes exist there to bring fallout down quickly. Small fallout particles will descend over a period of months or years. Such long-delayed fallout has lost most of its hazard by the time it comes down, and will be distributed on a global scale. As yields increase above 100 kt, progressively more and more of the total fallout is injected into the stratosphere. An explosion closer to the ground (close enough for the fireball to touch) sucks large amounts of dirt into the fireball. The dirt usually does not vaporize, and if it does, there is so much of it that it forms large particles. The radioactive isotopes are deposited on soil particles, which can fall quickly to earth. Fallout is deposited over a time span of minutes to days, creating downwind contamination both nearby and thousands of kilometers away. The most intense radiation is created by nearby fallout, because it is more densely deposited, and because short-lived isotopes haven't decayed yet. Weather conditions can affect this considerably of course. In particular, rainfall can "rain out" fallout to create very intense localized concentrations. Both external exposure to penetrating radiation, and internal exposure (ingestion of radioactive material) pose serious health risks. Explosions close to the ground that do not touch it can still generate substantial hazards immediately below the burst point by neutron-activation. Neutrons absorbed by the soil can generate considerable radiation for several hours. The megaton class weapons that were developed in the US and USSR during the fifties and sixties have been largely retired, being replaced with much smaller yield warheads. The yield of a modern strategic warhead is, with few exceptions, now typically in the range of 200-750 kt. Recent work with sophisticated climate models has shown that this reduction in yield results in a much larger proportion of the fallout being deposited in the lower atmosphere, and a much faster and more intense deposition of fallout than had been assumed in studies made during the sixties and seventies. The reduction in aggregate strategic arsenal yield that occurred when high yield weapons were retired in favor of more numerous lower yield weapons has actually increased the fallout risk. It's from here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:40:48 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: RE: Missle Defense At 17:57 11/07/00 -0400, you wrote: >At 02:41 PM 7/11/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: >> >>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 ... >> >I've heard suggestions that the buy who wrote that one is a poser, and not >terribly credible. Yep. The guy who wrote the other one I mentioned did so in part because of the first guy being a poser, and wanting to get 'the real story' out (whatever his own motives), AFAIK. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:28:44 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Rebsch To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 1:45 PM 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. Mentioned in the books listed below. > 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 ... The SAS calims no Scud launches at all after 26th January. The UN found at least 100 Scuds, 18 mobile launchers, etc. The books below mentioned the Iraq's thought a groundinvasion had taken place and moved the missiles into other areas. The launch rate for the first week was around 5 a night it dropped it 1 for the remainder of the war. As you say most of the kills same from aircraft that were vectored in by ground teams. > 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. The SAS suffered 4-5 KIA and 4-5 WIA but they were on the ground from the day after the air war started. Delta didn't deploy till later. They admit to 1 KIA. 1st & 2nd Squadron along with a compaby of Rangers were in the region. > 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! The SAS used Land Rovers as the FAV range was too short. The accounts below mention lots of fighting between the SAS/Delta/5th SFG and the Iraq forces. > 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 The US side of the Scud hunt is told in: 'Crusade, the Untold Story of the Gulf War' by Rick Atkinson 'Triumph without Victory' by Staff at US News 'Twilight Warriors' by Martin C. Arostegui The SAS side: 'Bravo Two Zero', by Andy McNab 'Who Dares Wins', by Tony Geraghty 'The Shooting Gallery', by Gaz Hunter 'Chinook!', David McMullon 'Ghost Force', Ken Connor SBS side: 'First Into Action', Duncan Falconer There's been a few other SAS books about Bosnia, etc and the MoD has made all its SF operators sign agreements not to write books. 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:12:47 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Missle Defense - ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Tiffany To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 9:40 AM Subject: RE: Missle Defense > >I've heard suggestions that the buy who wrote that one is a poser, and not > >terribly credible. > > Yep. The guy who wrote the other one I mentioned did so in part because of > the first guy being a poser, and wanting to get 'the real story' out > (whatever his own motives), AFAIK. > > Andrew Tiffany I've heard the opposite, that Chris Ryan author of 'The One That Got Away' is the one who had issues with Andy McNab, but whatever. 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:12:00 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 11:12 12/07/00 +1000, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Andrew Tiffany >To: >Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 9:40 AM >Subject: RE: Missle Defense > > >> >I've heard suggestions that the buy who wrote that one is a poser, and >not >> >terribly credible. >> >> Yep. The guy who wrote the other one I mentioned did so in part because >of >> the first guy being a poser, and wanting to get 'the real story' out >> (whatever his own motives), AFAIK. >> >> Andrew Tiffany > >I've heard the opposite, that Chris Ryan author of 'The One That Got Away' >is the one who had issues with Andy McNab, but whatever. > >Peter G Sorry, that's what I meant..... Ryan wanted to clear up the 'history' of what McNab wrote. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:16:13 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Iraq Books Allright Andrew, quit using non-specific terms and say it clearly ... I think your 'other one' and 'first one' has got everything mucked up ... :) Andrew says that the other one [Chris Ryan?] wrote his book because the first one [Andy NcNab?] is a poser? Peter says it's the opposite, that Chris Ryan had issues with Andy McNab? Now Peter, that sounds the same not the opposite, or did the pronouns get you backwards? But afterwards, Peter includes McNab on his reading list and omits Ryan? So you think McNab's book is the more credible? WTF!?!? I'm beginning to wonder about you down under types ... you guys should know better than to drink that disgusting Aussie beer and smoke kangaroo droppings at the same time ... :) Meanwhile, JC is recommending the McNab book ... but I don't know where he's from. It's probably all his fault anyway since he started this book recommending thing! Walter PS: Either way, I already orded the damn McNab book from Amazon. It's only 5 bucks ... so it's not a big loss if it ends up sucking. *************************************************************************** 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 14:38:44 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: OT: was Re: Iraq Books >WTF!?!? > >I'm beginning to wonder about you down under types ... you guys should know >better than to drink that disgusting Aussie beer and smoke kangaroo >droppings at the same time ... :) (joke mode on) Hey! That's it, I've had it with all down-under tyeps being called Aussies, I'm a New Zealander! You *&^%$ Yanks and your lack of geographical knowledge, it's no wonder you bomb the wrong embassies/countries/each other. Now we know what the missile shield is really all about, it's a safeguard in case a Yank fires a nuke and the target gets screwed up, and it starts heading for Moscow, ID or Moscow, KY, instead of Moscow, USSR. :-] Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, when they have gone to Mars on Calvin's trolley-cart, and on the way back he is trying to get back home and says something like "We live somewhere near the big 'E' in 'STATES'..." Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:01:37 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: OT: was Re: Iraq Books >I'm beginning to wonder about you down under types ... you guys should know >better than to drink that disgusting Aussie beer and smoke kangaroo >droppings at the same time ... :) Q: What has American Beer and sex on the beach got in common? A: They are both F*cking close to water. *************************************************************************** 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 00:38:08 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > 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 ... Don't believe what you read in it 99% of it is crap. There is also another book published by another member of his patrol. It contradicts a large portion of what he states in his. He then published a second book bagging the other guy. Simple fact is that neither of them are able to tell you what happened due to their secrecy clauses. So take it with a pinch of salt. It is an entertaining read as a novel though. 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 00:40:38 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > GIven the number of nuclear weapons, a gatling gun would be more apt. > > Also, the anology misses an important point. The Soviet/Russian > missiles were designed and intended to threaten and intimidate everyone > else. The US missiles were built as a response to that threat. When one > party is determined to kill and destroy the other and the other party > simply wants to survive, then why would the party who wants peace act in > a condescending manner? > You've also yet to show how the US would be more likely to engage in > actions that might result in a firefight. I have a feeling that it would not matter what analogy the rest of us used to describe the situation. For some reason it comes across that you believe the whole arguement to be an attack on the US and we think they are the bad guys. For that reason this will be the last post on this by me, I'm sure some of the others may feel the same way. 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:45:00 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: Andrew Tiffany > > Sorry, that's what I meant..... Ryan wanted to clear up the 'history' of > what McNab wrote. > > Cheers > > Andrew Tiffany I guess if I waited 30 more seconds before sending my complaint, you would have cleared it up yourself ... Or heck, it probably takes an extra 10 minutes for email to get all the way to New Zealand. They probably have to get the messages over from the big down under island to the little down under island via smoke signals or something ... :) 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:58:34 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Iraq Books - ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Rebsch To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:16 PM Subject: Iraq Books > Allright Andrew, quit using non-specific terms and say it clearly ... > > I think your 'other one' and 'first one' has got everything mucked up ... :) > > Andrew says that the other one [Chris Ryan?] wrote his book because the > first one [Andy NcNab?] is a poser? > > Peter says it's the opposite, that Chris Ryan had issues with Andy McNab? > > Now Peter, that sounds the same not the opposite, or did the pronouns get > you backwards? Andy McNab wrote 'Bravo Two Zero' (call sign of the patrol) in 1993, Chris Ryan wrote 'The One That Got Away' (as he was the only patrol member to escape and evade successfully). Andy McNab tells his story with little bias and no blaming anyone. Chris Ryan largely blames Andy McNab and disrespects some of the dead. This upset some of the families when 'The One That Got Away' was released. 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:13:31 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Iraq Books >Andy McNab wrote 'Bravo Two Zero' (call sign of the patrol) in 1993, Chris >Ryan wrote 'The One That Got Away' (as he was the only patrol member to >escape and evade successfully). Andy McNab tells his story with little bias >and no blaming anyone. Chris Ryan largely blames Andy McNab and disrespects >some of the dead. This upset some of the families when 'The One That Got >Away' was released. > >Peter G > The Bravo Two Zero patrol is detailed in the *book* "Great Military Blunders" and takes a more detached view and shifts the blame primarily to poor planning and equipment, plus a few mistakes here and there that exacerbated the situation. Some of the troops died of exposure, it was a tragic situation that shouldn't have happened. 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:24:28 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > I guess if I waited 30 more seconds before sending my complaint, you would > have cleared it up yourself ... > > Or heck, it probably takes an extra 10 minutes for email to get all the way > to New Zealand. They probably have to get the messages over from the big > down under island to the little down under island via smoke signals or > something ... :) Message Sheep actually 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 18:26:53 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: OT: NZ, Aussie, Sheep, 'net lag, etc, etc At 01:24 12/07/00 +0800, you wrote: >> I guess if I waited 30 more seconds before sending my complaint, you would >> have cleared it up yourself ... >> >> Or heck, it probably takes an extra 10 minutes for email to get all the >way >> to New Zealand. They probably have to get the messages over from the big >> down under island to the little down under island via smoke signals or >> something ... :) > >Message Sheep actually (grumble) Telecom NZ is installing a new Internet cable to Aussie/US at the moment - we need it, download speeds (during business hours) usually clock in anywhere between 0.5 - 5.0 kB/s) (humour) Q: What do you call an Aussie with 10,000 girlfriends A: A sheep farmer Go the A.B.'s! Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:02:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: Re: Missle Defense On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > Also, the anology misses an important point. The Soviet/Russian > missiles were designed and intended to threaten and intimidate everyone > else. WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?! Now my memory of post WW-II history may be playing tricks on my but IIRC this is how things were done. Who built the first A-bomb, US or USSR??? Answer: US Who built the first H-bomb??? Also the US Which military alliance was formed first, NATO or Warsaw Pact? Answer: NATO Similiar arguments could be made for who made the first intercontinental bomber, first ICBM, first ballistic missile sub etc etc. Now, i'm not saying that the USA was always the aggresive party either, but to say the opposite is simply not in occordance with the facts. > The US missiles were built as a response to that threat. When one > party is determined to kill and destroy the other and the other party > simply wants to survive, That's a pretty damned biased logic. I'm sure the russians were just as afraid that the US would try to kill and destroy them. (Maybe even more so given the historical tendency of whatever nation is current "top dog" to sooner or later go after mother russia.) Besides, given the current post cold war situation I see very little reason for the US to see Russia as an enemy (or vice versa for that matter) good relations should be both possible and desirable. After all, in geopolitical terms Russia and the USA have very few conflicting interests and many areas of common concern. All in all i would think good relations (posibly even an alliance once russia gets a little furter with its democracy and market reforms) with russia would have far greater national security advantages than some pesky misile defense. /Bjorn *************************************************************************** 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 #163 *************************************