twilight2000-digest Wednesday, July 12 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 164 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: NZ, Aussie, Sheep, 'net lag, etc, etc Re: Missle Defense OT: ANZAC leg-pulling 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: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: Missle Defense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:10:12 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: NZ, Aussie, Sheep, 'net lag, etc, etc >(humour) >Q: What do you call an Aussie with 10,000 girlfriends >A: A sheep farmer > >Go the A.B.'s! > >Cheers >Andrew Tiffany Hah! We use that joke here for Kiwi's! If you know the Kiwi accent, try this one: I guy is travelling through Kiwi-Country when he see's a farmer haveing sex with a sheep, "Oiy! Mate!" He yells, "Shouldn't you be *shearing* that sheep?!" "Get your own" The farmer snarls back, "I'm not shearing her with anyone!" ABs don't have a chance 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 09:26:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: Re: Missle Defense On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > Scott David Orr wrote: > > > > >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. There is, just not the way YOU think... In general you (i mean the US) seams to be certain these so called "rouge states" wanna go after you with their handfull of nukes which IMO is a bit hilarious. Havn't you noticed that the nuclear race is over??? You (and russia) have already finnished far far ahead, every body else is just fighting for a distant third. So for instance North Korea might want a long range missile to fire at China or India, posibly even Japan or Australia but the US? Nice way to turn your country into a radioactive wasteland for a few decades. The people who run places like North Korea or Iraq may be mad, but they're not stupid. (Getting and holding on to power in totalitarian states like that takes to much brains and/or survival instincts for their leaders to be irrational fools.) The other main reason that smaller and/or poorer nations try to get Nukes and/or missile technologhy is simply because of (inter)national prestige. It's a good way to get to sit at the grown ups table in international matters. /Bjorn *************************************************************************** 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 19:31:15 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: OT: ANZAC leg-pulling > > ABs don't have a chance Hah! yourself. Enjoy your World Cups while you've got them, the Kiwi hunt for the return of the silverware is on..... I tell you, we are getting brutal this year. Just look what Dempsey did to South Africa and the Soccer World Cup, and what John Reid did to those two Pakistani bowlers.... :-] (actually, both of those are embarrasing....) 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 18:20:36 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense shaari ladue wrote: > > 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 It depends on just who is president. I don't see a nuclear response though, especially if it's a country like Libya or North Korea. More likely we would throe w in such a conventional force against them that they might wish we had used a nuclear weapon. Now, the other point you made, someone coming to their defense saying that they would make a nuclear response if we attacked a country that just detonated a nuclear weapon within ours, that's more likely. This might be a lose-lose situation for the US. Do we allow someone to set off a nuclear bomb in our won country and get away with it? 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 18:27:34 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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. I salute the Congress for that decision. Remember, clinton is selling our nuclear technology for illegal campaign donations. Those donations are why he's president. > > >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). Hmmm...If I remember correctly, the biplane was perfectly adequate as an air-to-air fighter in 1924. Would you care to fly a modernized version of that same biplane in 1944? > > >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. It's not a myth, but the opponents of new technology always say that it is. > 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. 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:33:29 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Ballistix wrote: > > > 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. The way most of the arguements against NMD is that the US is the bad guy. It's the only to make those arguements sound plausible. John II > > Ballistix > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:40:43 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > 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. > I never said the opposite. I said that the US position was to defend against agression, not promote it. If you think that the Warsaw Pact was a DEFENSIVE alliance, then you have news coming. > > 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.) Biased logic? Please show me ONE instance of where the US treated anothe country as the Soviet Union treated Hungary. Just ONE! When the US was asked to leave Libya, we did! When the Soviet Union was asked to leave Hungary, they invaded with tanks and crushed all opposition. Please show me how that makes the US the agressor. > > 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. If it's such a "pesky missile defense", then why all they hysteria against it? > > /Bjorn > > *************************************************************************** > 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:42:28 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > Scott David Orr wrote: > > > > > > >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. > > There is, just not the way YOU think... In general you (i mean the US) > seams to be certain these so called "rouge states" wanna go after you with > their handfull of nukes which IMO is a bit hilarious. Havn't you noticed > that the nuclear race is over??? You (and russia) have already finnished > far far ahead, every body else is just fighting for a distant third. > > So for instance North Korea might want a long range missile to fire at > China or India, posibly even Japan or Australia but the US? Nice way to > turn your country into a radioactive wasteland for a few decades. The > people who run places like North Korea or Iraq may be mad, but they're not > stupid. (Getting and holding on to power in totalitarian states like that > takes to much brains and/or survival instincts for their leaders to be > irrational fools.) Hmmm...purposefully starving children to death to build your military is rational? > > The other main reason that smaller and/or poorer nations try to get Nukes > and/or missile technologhy is simply because of (inter)national prestige. > It's a good way to get to sit at the grown ups table in international > matters. > > /Bjorn > > *************************************************************************** > 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:20:26 GMT From: "Charles York" Subject: Re: Missle Defense >From: "shaari ladue" >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. > I agree that it's not impossible for the US to have a leader to be dimwitted enough to consider a nuclear alternative, but I don't see that likely- I'd bet on a conventional response with "smart" weapons. The nuke probably wouldn't be used as a viable option, because the US would have a hard time, in the aforementioned scenario, selling to the US public that all the potential victims were direct supporters of the movement. "Acceptable Collateral Damage" has become a political suicide phrase. Government decisions today are attributed to the leader, not the people they govern. Aside from bigots (who are plentiful, but IMHO, not a majority) and the simple-minded (an even greater number, but usually too busy watching TV talk shows to vote) there would be little support for nukuking the Libyans back to the stone age (or as they fondly call it, "last week" -Sorry, tasteless Daily Show humor there) I could see, in a case of all-out war, where citizens are actively supporting the war, where such an act would be viable, but not in the above scenerio. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 13:44:18 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Missle Defense > From: John H. Schneider II > > > I salute the Congress for that decision. > Remember, clinton is selling our nuclear technology for illegal > campaign donations. Those donations are why he's president. Clinton made a good decision? Holy cow ... let me run out and see if pigs are flying ... An interesting tid bit on the reputation of our president. At the Op Sail 2000 boating event, there was a Ukrainian vessel that funded its trip by bringing trinkets for sale and opening a shop on the boat once they got here. Know what one of the most popular items at their floating gift shop was? You've all probably seen those Russian dolls that are shaped like bowling pins, are hollow, and have several smaller one inside concentrically? Anyway, their most popular item at the gift shop was a doll of Clinton, inside was a doll of Monica, inside that was a doll of Jennifer Flowers, inside that was a doll of Hillary, and inside that was a cigar. > > > > 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) I guess we all have our opinions. Personally, I thought the B2 was money well spent ... > > 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). > > Hmmm...If I remember correctly, the biplane was perfectly adequate as > an air-to-air fighter in 1924. Would you care to fly a modernized > version of that same biplane in 1944? Not only that, compare the development cycle time of a new jet fighter to the training time of a new pilot. Pretty lopsided, huh? So our ability to respond to new emerging threats is dimished greatly, but we got lots of bodies to throw into the meat grinder. Now atrophy the military industrial complex significantly and compare the development times again ... now we're really in trouble if we want to stay ahead ... or if the intel guys slip up and only give us 6 months warning on a new fighter threat ... > > >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. > > It's not a myth, but the opponents of new technology always say that > it is. Myth or no myth, the maintenence of the military industrial complex alone is worth it. Without continuous use, that R&D capacity will atrophy. But I still say that the boondoggles are definately a reasonable price to pay for being #1. We can agrue the boondoggle to good project ratio forever, but the point I'm trying to make is that the extra cost doesn't bother me nearly as much as the alternative of cancelling projects in mass ... > > 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. Yeah, maybe so. But IMO its still worth it. Simply the price you gotta pay. 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 20:01:55 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Walter Rebsch wrote: > > > From: John H. Schneider II > > > > > > > I salute the Congress for that decision. > > Remember, clinton is selling our nuclear technology for illegal > > campaign donations. Those donations are why he's president. > > Clinton made a good decision? Holy cow ... let me run out and see if pigs > are flying ... LOL! Hmmm...it was Congress! > > An interesting tid bit on the reputation of our president. At the Op Sail > 2000 boating event, there was a Ukrainian vessel that funded its trip by > bringing trinkets for sale and opening a shop on the boat once they got > here. > > Know what one of the most popular items at their floating gift shop was? > > You've all probably seen those Russian dolls that are shaped like bowling > pins, are hollow, and have several smaller one inside concentrically? > Anyway, their most popular item at the gift shop was a doll of Clinton, > inside was a doll of Monica, inside that was a doll of Jennifer Flowers, > inside that was a doll of Hillary, and inside that was a cigar. > > > > > > > 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) > > I guess we all have our opinions. Personally, I thought the B2 was money > well spent ... ...and to only stop at 21...that's the waste. > > > > 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). > > > > Hmmm...If I remember correctly, the biplane was perfectly adequate as > > an air-to-air fighter in 1924. Would you care to fly a modernized > > version of that same biplane in 1944? > > Not only that, compare the development cycle time of a new jet fighter to > the training time of a new pilot. Pretty lopsided, huh? So our ability to > respond to new emerging threats is dimished greatly, but we got lots of > bodies to throw into the meat grinder. Now atrophy the military industrial > complex significantly and compare the development times again ... now we're > really in trouble if we want to stay ahead ... or if the intel guys slip up > and only give us 6 months warning on a new fighter threat ... > > > > > >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. > > > > It's not a myth, but the opponents of new technology always say that > > it is. > > Myth or no myth, the maintenence of the military industrial complex alone is > worth it. Without continuous use, that R&D capacity will atrophy. But I > still say that the boondoggles are definately a reasonable price to pay for > being #1. We can agrue the boondoggle to good project ratio forever, but > the point I'm trying to make is that the extra cost doesn't bother me nearly > as much as the alternative of cancelling projects in mass ... > > > > 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. > > Yeah, maybe so. But IMO its still worth it. Simply the price you gotta > pay. > > Walter > > *************************************************************************** > 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:41:51 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. It is very possible that the M8 would be used in mech divisions, especially in the armored cav or scout units. This is because they use much less fuel than the Abrams. Also, there is much more user maintenance possible. The entire powerpack can be replaced in about twenty minutes by the three-man crew alone. If the units the tanks are supporting use the FMTV trucks, logistics and maintenance are simplified further by the M8 using the same engine as the 5-ton MTV. Another possibility is the use of Abrams refitted with diesel engines, reducing fuel consumption. Jim sent out a web site a while back about the Sheridan. This site had excellent articles on the M8 and a diesel Abrams. - -Daniel >From: Scott David Orr >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. >Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 13:51:43 -0400 > >At 05:03 PM 7/1/00 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > >> > >>However, light AFV's in a mechanized division would be APC's or >CFV's--not > >>light tanks > >>Scott Orr > > > > This is getting silly, but: > > > > 30 x Stingray Light Tank (105mm) > > 30 x M3 Devers CFV (25mm + TOW) > > 24 x M8 Buford AGS (105mm)* > > >Yes, you already posted this. ? > > > The Stingrays are already being buillt and readyilly available so >I > >added them and just 24 M8's as battlefield replacements. APC's and IFV's >are > >a seperate category. Enough already! > >You said "AFV's", which includes both (and since the M3 is practically >identical to the M2--so much so that it's often referred to as an "M2", I >figured you were lumping them all together). > >My point was that a U.S. mech division would not have light tanks in its >TO&E--period. It would have the M3's in cavalry and scout units, but no >light tanks. Recently, light tanks have been used only in airborne units, >and I don't think the M8 was planned for anything other than light infantry >divisions. The Stingray, AFAIK, isn't even in U.S. service. > >It's certainly possible that the 5th could have received some light tanks, >or acquired them somehow, but you need a story to explain how that >happened--and it would be very improbably for the division to end up with >more light tanks than MBT's. > >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. > ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:59:22 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > 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.) Biased logic? Please show me ONE instance of where the US treated anothe country as the Soviet Union treated Hungary. Just ONE! When the US was asked to leave Libya, we did! When the Soviet Union was asked to leave Hungary, they invaded with tanks and crushed all opposition. Please show me how that makes the US the agressor. John, ever hear of a little place called Cuba or the Bay of Pigs? I seem to recall US involvement there after a revolution that went against them. How about El Salvador? And for that matter Grenada where the US invaded a soveriegn dependency of there ally the UK without being asked. The Cold War was a two way street. Both sides did a lot of shitty things. *************************************************************************** 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 17:31:57 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 09:02 AM 7/12/00 +0200, Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > >Similiar arguments could be made for who made the first intercontinental >bomber, first ICBM, first ballistic missile sub etc etc. > Actually, the Soviets had the first ICBM's--but only about 10 of them. The U.S., frightened by Sputnik and missile tests, jumped out ahead in this area, developing mass production first. 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:01:31 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Missle Defense At 06:40 PM 7/11/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > Biased logic? Please show me ONE instance of where the US treated >anothe country as the Soviet Union treated Hungary. Just ONE! > When the US was asked to leave Libya, we did! When the Soviet Union >was asked to leave Hungary, they invaded with tanks and crushed all >opposition. Please show me how that makes the US the agressor. > Read a history of the Caribbean in the early 20th century. (Would the U.S. do that _now_? No, but you should at least be aware of the history.) 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:14:11 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Missle Defense At 01:44 PM 7/12/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: >I guess we all have our opinions. Personally, I thought the B2 was money >well spent ... > Why? What useful thing does it do? Its original mission was penetrating Soviet airspace to destroy ICBM's before they could be launched. However, a) this is destabilizing (see earlier discussion), b) it probably wouldn't have worked anyway (you have to have near 100% success to make this worthwile, and that success has to be nearly instantaneous, or you spur the enemy into the "use it or lose it" mode), and b) it's _hideously_ expensive. >Not only that, compare the development cycle time of a new jet fighter to >the training time of a new pilot. Pretty lopsided, huh? So our ability to >respond to new emerging threats is dimished greatly.... And that long development time applies equally to emerging threats, right? There are no planes under development that would threaten our our superiority--even if a technologically superior one came along, it couldn't be produced in anywhere near the numbers needed to threaten us. On the other hand, there is very real and present need for more pilots. >...but we got lots of >bodies to throw into the meat grinder. Now atrophy the military industrial >complex significantly and compare the development times again ... now we're >really in trouble if we want to stay ahead ... or if the intel guys slip up >and only give us 6 months warning on a new fighter threat ... > How does buying cheaper jets in place of more expensive ones "atrophy the military industrial complex"? What other country exactly has a military-industrial complex in full swing on a scale that would remotely threaten the U.S.? >Myth or no myth, the maintenence of the military industrial complex alone is >worth it. Without continuous use, that R&D capacity will atrophy. If that's the problem, fund the R&D but not the production. >> > 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. > >Yeah, maybe so. But IMO its still worth it. Simply the price you gotta >pay. > At what price? What's the cost at which it's no longer worth it? Are infinite costs worthwhile? 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 #164 *************************************