 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Missile hits bull's-eye!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 20 Jul 01 - 03:02 PM LEs
Was it not Lord St Vincent (John Jervis) Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Les from Hull Date: 20 Jul 01 - 06:30 AM DougR - sorry to be late in getting back to you, but I was not pointing out the futility of defence but the futility of relying too much on a single (and very expensive) method of defence. The UK's Maginot Line was always the wet stuff that surrounds us, combined with the Royal Navy. The advantage of the Royal Navy over the Maginot Line was that it could do other things as well, like sinking surface raiders and submarines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: thosp Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:27 PM ????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Greg F. Date: 19 Jul 01 - 08:25 PM ????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 19 Jul 01 - 02:58 AM Simple Greg, it means ...free capitalist! Free, as in "Free." "Capitalist," as in capitalist! Free Economy! A capitalist economy! Is that better? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: thosp Date: 18 Jul 01 - 10:31 PM DougR --- you stumpped me --- i'm trying to figure out what "free capitalist" means |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Greg F. Date: 18 Jul 01 - 10:17 PM Well, if you want musical content there's always THIS HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 18 Jul 01 - 08:35 PM Kendall: sounds like sound advice, sir. Fionn: Surley you jest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 18 Jul 01 - 07:05 PM Fionn My history of the Far East (at least the East from my desk) is a bit hazey - British history teaching is so self centered. But didn't China have its turn ? Trying to invade Japan and Viet Nam, new weapons of mass destruction based on gunpowder, rockets and biological warfare. Oops have we not been here before ? Wasn't there a song about the "Universal Soldier" ? Perhaps there should be one about the "Universal Dictator", or is that a possible subject for a song competition ? Gareth
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 18 Jul 01 - 04:43 PM Fionn, China may indeed have its turn, if and when its people overturn their repressive system of political serfdom and dump the Mao Dynasty. China has always been one of the most paranoid, inward-turning countries on earth, where the leader was sanctified by God, and the people were all expendable. These traits do not a World Leader make, since about the 1300s anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: SDShad Date: 18 Jul 01 - 04:39 PM Is it just me, or is this thread distressingly lacking in musical content? If any topic calls for a song after so much discussion, it's this one. Okay, so it ain't folk, but....some day, it will be.
Political Science |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Jul 01 - 04:25 PM Doug, you might as well just square up to it: the Spanish, the Ottomans, the Brits had have had their turn. America had the 20th Century. Now it's China's turn again. And there ain't anything you can do that's going to stop it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 18 Jul 01 - 03:42 PM Doug, my innocent friend, I have never won an argument with a woman in my life, so, better stick to the "loving" part. I'm not well versed in the technology aspect of Star Wars, but, I saw a group of scientists who worked on it under the Reagan administration, and they testified that it was an expensive political boondoggle. They should know, they were there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 18 Jul 01 - 03:14 PM Good post, Whistle Stop. I agree with most everything you wrote. Fionn: I have no idea. To me, the subject of Terriorism, such as would be caused by containers arriving to the U.S. or car bombs, things like that, is an entirely different subject from SDI. Those are real threats too, and I would guess even more difficult to guard against than the threat of missiles. As I said in a post sometime ago (I think). When I was a small boy, people came out of their houses to gaze up when an airplane flew over our little town. Who would have thought, in those days, while gazing up at the full moon that the U. S. would ever send a man to the moon? That the aeroplane we were all so curious to see flying through the airspace of my small Texas town would someday fly at speeds faster than sound! That's why arguments from those of you who are evidently far more familiar with the technology required than I, that SDI will never work, is not wholeheartedly embraced by me. I have lived through too many miracles. Kendall, I'm sure you're right. A Liberal lady for me! When we weren't lovin' we could be fightin' DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Whistle Stop Date: 18 Jul 01 - 08:37 AM The most powerful nation on earth will always be perceived as evil by those with less power. Currently the USA is the most powerful nation on earth, hence we come in for a lot of criticism. We aren't perfect, and have made our share of mistakes, but I can't think of any other "superpower" nation in history that has handled this kind of power more responsibly. The Romans? The USSR? The Chinese? Perfection is beyond our reach in such a large and complex world, but can anyone give me an example of another superpower that has shown more "respect for the dignity and rights of each and every human being" than the United States? It is unrealistic to think that nuclear weapons would never have been developed if not for the USA. And it is unrealistic to think that, once developed, they would not have been used if not for the USA. It was inevitable that nuclear weapons were going to be invented and used, and it is the world's great fortune that they have only been used twice. As precarious as the current world situation is, I shudder to think of what the outcome might have been if another nation had developed these weapons before the USA did. We can debate the wisdom of our actions at the end of WWII from now until the end of time, but once all the points have been made, it's really kind of a meaningless exercise. The facts are: (1) we were on the "right" side of the most desperate war the world has ever seen, against an incredibly cruel, fanatical, and still powerful enemy; (2) we were facing the prospect of sustaining AND inflicting enormous casualties (military and civilian) in the pending invasion of the Japanese home islands; (3) most historians agree that the Japanese militarists would have blocked any move towards settlement without an overwhelming shock such as was provided by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings; and (3) under the circumstances, we exercised a good deal more restraint than any of the other major parties to that war would likely have shown in those circumstances. I understand that we were the victors in that war, and the victors traditionally get to put their own spin on the historical record, but does anyone seriously think that we engaged in anything approaching the systematic cruelty that the Japanese or Germans (or the USSR, for that matter) showed in their brutal occupations of the lands they conquered -- even after we won a total victory, and could pretty much do as we pleased? I don't intend to give the impression that I think the USA is always right (in fact, I agree with others who feel that we have mishandled our relations with Cuba since well before Castro came to power). But I also live in the real world, rather than some fanciful but completely artificial utopia. No nation as big and powerful as the USA will be universally loved and respected by less powerful nations, but in my opinion no nation on earth has ever handled this kind of power as well as we have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 18 Jul 01 - 08:23 AM Yes, I did leave out Cuba. Who the hell does Castro think he is anyway? We stole Cuba fair and square back in our Imperial days. Also, according to the history I know, Castro came here looking for help and Richard Nixon met with him, then wrote a memo to Ike saying that Castro is a communist, and must be eliminated! I also left out Viet Nam. Ho Chi Mihn came to us after ww2 for help to get the French out of his country. We refused, so, they got the help they deserved from the communists. And, of course, our history with the natives in our own country is nothing short of obscene. Doug, you would stand a better chance with a liberal woman! what do you think "Liberal" means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: GeorgeH Date: 18 Jul 01 - 07:29 AM The US Government has probably caused more unnecssaray and avoidable deaths than any "tyrant" regime currently on its hate list. That statement is not in any way "anti-Yank" - it's anti US Government, and more generally anti the mindset which puts self interest above a respect for the dignity and rights of each and every human being, regardless of where they happen to be domiciled. It's equally anti the current (New Labour) and immediate past (Conservative) UK governments. And I'm sorry, Bill D, but on balance I'd say the US uses her power unreasonably more often than reasonably. Its criteria for the use of the power are not "reasonableness" or "justice" but (perceived) self-interest and whether they can get away with it without causing opposition at home. Here in the UK we have much less power, but its use is at least equally unreasonable. (I wrote this thinking of military power, but it's even more true of commercial power.) G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Jul 01 - 07:12 AM Doug, you don't seem to have addressed Gareth's first point at all. On that specific point, You might be interested to check out how many containers arrive in the US from, say, China, in, say, an hour. However rich America is, and whatever the impoverishment in which it might seek to confine other nations, America will never make itself a safe place to be, simply by force of arms. Anyway, is it not the case that National Missile Defence would be dependent on UK-based radar input? Blair may be a poodle, and he may have a parliamentary majority of millions, but he still managed to get his government defeated in the House of Commons the other day. So just suppose the UK won't play this particular game with Bush. Can you think of any other friendly nations that might come to his rescue? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Bill D Date: 17 Jul 01 - 09:14 PM it's just a matter of fact...large entities(human OR political) with resources eventually get perceived as threatening....and often are. It is very hard to be big and rich and powerful and not USE that power... the USA does about as well as anyone who has clout and 'mostly' uses it reasonably....but ANY time someone big does something, there are those who attribute evil intent.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 08:10 PM I can't swear it's true, but I did hear that Bill bought a Army surplus M1, Rob. Yep, we've already been through the genie bit, and as I stated, it is thought to have saved far more lives than it killed. We were at war with Japan, remember. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:51 PM DougR the Russians and Chinese have pretty good reason to fear. USA did let the Nuclear genie out of the bottle. Reagan did make the evil empire speech. USA held a grudge against China for many years until market forces opened it up. USA still holds a grudge against Cuba. USA business have scary power worldwide. Heaven help Canada if Bill Gates decides to take up moose hunting ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:46 PM Kendall, I'll think on your suggestion, but first there is the problem of finding a willing, interested er ...you know. And she wouldn't even have to be a Conservative! Gareth, I think your idea of a drink at the Mudcat Pub or anyplace else is a great idea! On the question of Fidel, as I recall, Fidel made his political leanings known well before the end of the revolution, and he leaned more toward the Bear than the Eagle. Had he not been committed to the Communist philosophy, when Russia pulled it's support he could have embraced a free capitalist philosophy and Uncle Sam probably would have come running with bags of money. American corporate interests would have returned also, and the citizens of Cuba would be enjoying a better life. Just my opinion, of course. If I ever find myself in Cardiff, you owe me a Guinness! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:45 PM Just an aside...this is a very interesting discussion, with well thought-out points of view all around. Very enjoyable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: thosp Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:33 PM blueclicketything Kendall - you left out cuba peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:26 PM Perhaps, Doug R. you might wish to consider why, the US of A is so unpopular - Its not the fear of the Reverand Nemiah Scudder, though, if this goes on, it might be. Its not the thought of the Grand Senate, and election manipulation, though that might be our future history. Its not that the US of A will boldly go, and we will find the Enterprise in our back yard. Its more a perception that might is taken as right. And consensus is subordinate to, what President Ike called the the industrial/military consortiam. My father fought from Normangy to Kiel (mentioned previously) In a USA built M10 (TD to you). His supplies were brought up by General Motors trucks. When supplies of fresh food could not be looted (reqisitioned) the diet included Spam, and K rations. He had an imense respect for the capabilities, courage, and the abilities to learn of the USA. (though little respect for thier target recognition or fire discipline - too many instances of friendly fire) No don't think that we are vicerial anti-yank. There is a point that even in the U.K. the forign policy of the states is seen as bullying - The World Trade Agreement, the disputes over alledged "subsidies" to Airbus, even the right of the European Union to form it's own defence capability, are suboridinate to American business intersts. Question to think about Doug. If Fidel C had had support, post revolution, of the US of A in reforming and rebuilding Cuba, would he have ended up in the arms of the Bear ? Or was policy dictated by the losses of Bacadi, Sugar interests, and mafia gambling saloons. Just a thought - I'd be interested to hear your views, possibly over a pint in the Mudcat Bar, or Cardiff if you visit the UK. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 17 Jul 01 - 06:57 PM I've said my piece, and we still have over three years of resident Bush to go. Now, Doug, if you want to be a lover once more, try YOHIMBE or DAMIANA. I read somewhere that they are powerful libido stimulants! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 06:41 PM But! The purpose of SDI is not to make us safe so that we can dump bombs on somebody else! Also, keep in mind that Bush has plans to share the SDI with our allies! (of course since the system will NEVER work, that offer has little value, I guess) I do see Walrus and RobDale's points though. The U.S. has been painted as the bad guy for years by many foreign governments so that their citizens fear us. Too bad. Actually, we are not fighters; we are lovers! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 01 - 04:50 PM Exactly Walrus! The fact that Americans justify the use of the WWII bombs is what makes the whole situation so scary. I personally would not want to see ANY country develop their defences to the point that they believed they could drop The Bomb with impunity. And even though I don't think they'll ever reach that point, I'd rather they didn't try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: The Walrus Date: 17 Jul 01 - 04:39 PM The problem with "Agressive America" is not whether it's true or not, it's whether it is *Perceived* to be true. The Russians and Chinese have has 80+ & 50+ years of propaganda respectively, in the eyes of many of them , America IS aggressive because that is what they've grown up being taught and the propaganda has been spread (Speak softly and carry a big stick? Too many cannot hear the words but DO see the stick). The problem is that most Americans KNOW that their government would never use offensive nuclear weapons unless attacked, most westerners are fairly certain of that (unless the US electorate has a collective brain-storm and some of the real "loopies" get in), but the rest of the world can only *hope* it will never happen. This SDI must seem to many like building a fortress from which to attack and they fear being the target. Is this making sense? Walrus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 04:17 PM Gareth, I have heard the figure throught the years of two million. I could not support that figure if challenged though. Whistle Stop, Losesome E.J.: Good posts. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 17 Jul 01 - 02:52 PM Ahh ! It's that time of the day when us european residents come on line. Les - Nice one, to use that hackned phrase, "If we don't remember and learn from history we are doome to repeat it" A point to ponder, did the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrible though they were, save more loss of life in the long run ? What ever the arguments pro and con on the willingness of the Japanese Government to surrender the can be little doubt that this provided the opportunity to do so. My late father, who had fought from Normandy to Keil, was not overpleased with the news that the battalion was to requip, and was earmarked for the far east in May 1945. Do any Military Historians have any access to the expected casualties expected on the Rangoon and Japanese Home Island landings ? Gareth
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Whistle Stop Date: 17 Jul 01 - 02:25 PM I'll confess that I have mixed feelings about this. Like Doug, I feel that the President's number one job is to ensure that there is an adequate national defense, and that it is a good idea to advance the technology of defense whenever we have the opportunity to do so. This isn't a question that can be answered with a party game about "where would you spend your dollar?"; it's an important priority, notwithstanding the fact that we would all prefer to spend money on pretty, happy things rather than on the implements of war. I also agree that the 1972 ABM treaty is outdated, and that our military needs to move beyond the age-old trap of "fighting the last war" and update both its weaponry and its strategic thinking. The arguments against missile defense seem curious to me. On the one hand, it'll never work; on the other hand, it will allow us to scrap the old "mutual assured destruction" doctrine and engage in nuclear blackmail. I don't see how both can be true. If the Russians and Chinese are really scared about this, it must be because they are more confident in the prospects of success than many of our domestic critics are. No, a single successful test (under tightly controlled conditions) does not equate to a successful defense system; Doug's initial posting was more confident than the circumstances warranted. By the same token, we should not assume that a new technology is doomed to failure just because we haven't completed the development process. We also should not be so naive as to think that anyone could rely on this as their only line of defense against nuclear weapons -- and to be fair, I don't think the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Doug, or anyone else ever suggested that we should. However, I do think that both Reagan and Bush fell into the same trap of pushing for public acceptance of a missile defense program before any of us had much to go on; contrast that with the secrecy of the Manhattan Project, which we did not announce until we had accomplished our goal. They also neglected the essential diplomatic work that should have preceded their policy announcements, thereby hardening international opposition before they had anything to counter it with. Reagan put the cart before the horse when he announced his SDI intentions in the mid-1980's, and Bush has repeated his mistake. No clear position on this one, but I just wanted to make a few points that I thought should be considered. I'll continue to follow this discussion with interest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 17 Jul 01 - 01:32 PM I think that the use of nuclear weapons is different than any other form of aggression, because of the results of their only previous use against Japan. We now understand the wide ranging impact. I agree with Doug that the US would never launch an attack. However, the nuclear card was played at least once by the US to force a Russian retreat from Northern Iran shortly after the end of World War 2, to the best of my memory. The potential for Nuclear Blackmail has not existed since the USSR got the Bomb in the early 50s, but with SDI their is certainly potential for return to those tactics. One thing is certain though. The developed nations of the Earth are far more commercially entwined than they were during the Cold War. Even China, that rogue Superpower, is more interested in the US as a market for their products than as an adversary. I'm convinced that we have much more to fear from the "have nots" of the world, the countries dominated by monomaniac dictators or religious fanatics, than from any other nation who is benefitting from the "global economy". And what should our approach be to the "have nots"? We should combine forces with other developed nations to force compliance to nuclear non-proliferation controls, while emphasizing democratic government and basic human rights. Sound too much like "One World Government"? Perhaps. But the world seems to be drifting in that direction under its own momentum. Why not attempt a consensus on a goal, and not just a direction? SDI accomplishes nothing except to emphasize a separateness for the US from the surrounding world, a separateness that is fast slipping away since the Cold War's end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 01 - 01:04 PM I may be conservative. PAY OFF THE DEBT G.W.B!!!!!!!!!! But I don't enjoy it as much as you seem to. :<) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:56 PM Bottom to top: GUEST (can't imagine why you are ashamed to identify yourself but ...) And they STOPPED WWII! They saved perhaps a million or more lives had the Allies been forced to invade Japan. Whadda you think? The U. S. was just gonna leave Japan alone after the war in Europe was over? RobDale: you may rue the day that you ever identified yourself as a conservative on THIS forum! :>) Kendell: Unfortunately I have not experienced anything rising for far too long!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: GUEST Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:39 PM Did we not use nuclear weapons against Japan the minute we had one to use? And after we levelled Hiroshima, did we not use the second nuclear weapon dropped on Nagasaki, "just so we'd know" how the second device worked compared to the first? Do we not remain the ONLY country in the world ever to have used our nuclear weapons? Not an aggressor? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:35 PM DougR, I'm probably as conservative as you. My problem with SDI is that it can't work. It's only net result is to scare the SH** out of people with nuclear weapons. Scared people do stupid things. It's called destablization. It's just stupid Doug, Stupid. DougR Look at it from the other country's point of view. Russian and Chinese generals look at the U.S. and see the ONLY county EVER to have used Nuclear weapons in anger. There has got to be a better way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 17 Jul 01 - 12:21 PM Not going to attack anyone? did we not attack Spain? did we not invade Canada? Did we not invade Granada? Did we not create the country of Panama to have our own way in building the canal? Did we not invade Haiti?, the Dominican republic? Did we not land troops in Russia right after WW 1 with the intent to overthrow their government? Doug, people like you and I are not agressive, BUT, our govenment sure as hell has been , and that is what scares our enemies and even our friends. (ps, you must have Taurus rising!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 11:46 AM Arghhhhhhhh! RobDale, the United States is not an aggressor nation! We are not going to attack anyone unless we are attacked first! Les: I suppose your theory is nations should develop no defense at all. I'm glad you weren't advising Churchill while the Battle of Britain was going on in the early 40's. :>) No, Kendall my friend, I'm am not a Taurus! I am a Pisces, which might explain why I am constanstly swimming upsteam against you Liberal Bozos! **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 01 - 10:49 AM Hi Eagle. The reason China and Russia are upset is because of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. This was the Idea of the US and basically states that even if you blow the hell out of me, I can kill you in return so both sides are deterred from striking first. They are worried that if the United States has a missle sheild, they will be able to use Nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation. As we have pointed out, the SDI system is both overkill and inadequate for defense against so called rogue states. China and Russia fear that the missile defense is to allow the US to attack them with impunity. I think their fear may be justified. If a terrorist country wants to Nuke the US they will send the bomb by ship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Ringer Date: 17 Jul 01 - 10:11 AM I don't get it. If development of a purely defensive missile system stirs up so much opposition amongst both foes and allies, it suggests to me that those foes and allies have an agenda which includes offence. Otherwise, why the fuss? And if they are inclined to offence, are not the US military planners being wise? Or am I just being naïf? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 17 Jul 01 - 09:33 AM Doug, are you a Taurus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: GeorgeH Date: 17 Jul 01 - 07:33 AM Doug R Anyone who says "Sadam has plenty of money" is clearly talking out of the wrong orrifice. Not that it matters . . he has enough to deliver a nuclear strike at some point in the forseeable future. And if he strikes anywhere it would be at Israel rather than the US. Far more kudos . . . There is simply no logical basis for incurring the cost of this system to guard against a virtually non-existent risk. Except, of course, that it provides the US with the means of continuing their "subsidy through inflated budgets" subsidy of their aerospace industry - a neat way of circumventing their "philosophical opposition" to state support for industry. G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Les from Hull Date: 17 Jul 01 - 06:52 AM Any defence system encourages potential enemies to find a way around that system. So the very expensive Maginot Line was outflanked by the Germans, who also attacked the Belgian forts at Eben Emal (sp?) with glider troops. There are enough alternatives already mentioned here, cruise missiles fired from submarines, clandestine attack with nuclear or biological devices. Sabotage is another possibility. A mass attack by ICBMs with many decoys will very likely swamp any anti-missile defence. So you Americans have to ask yourselves, what is it all for? It's about time that politicians stopped taking everything that their military and big business partners say as gospel. There's another agenda here. These people want money. The politicians control the money. 'Nuff said? Les |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 17 Jul 01 - 01:49 AM Mebbe so, Kendall, but the last time I tried to borrow money from a Russian, he pled poverty! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: kendall Date: 16 Jul 01 - 10:41 PM So, "They cant afford it" eh? Remember when Germany was on her knees after ww 1? How could they afford to build up the huge war machine which they came up with in only 15 years or so? If they believe that their very existence depends on a missle attack system, they will afford it, they cant afford NOT to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: DougR Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:55 PM Of course it was high tech when it was built, Gareth, and had a war occured a year or so after it was built, perhaps it would have been effective, who knows? Your kinda adding fuel to Bush's argument that the disarmament treaties we have now are obsolete! That's what he feels the ABM treaty is. Other folks think it's right up to date (just as those folks did when the Maginot was built I suppose). Guest RobDale, the Russians and the Chinese are going to dash out and build a bunch of missiles! They havent' got the capital! Okay Walrus, you see a half empty glass, where I see a half filled one! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: Gareth Date: 16 Jul 01 - 07:32 PM What is militarily and engineeringly possible may :- Be Political unfeasable, Of no practicle use. Doug R - You still have not answered the point on the Maginot Line - which was "high tec" at the time it was built. Or what happened to the Dutch and Belgium equivalents. A standard 40 foot ISO shipping container has a pay load of 30 long tons. Can a mercantile nation such as the USA quarantine (well off shore) and search every container ? Gareth
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: GUEST,RobDale Date: 16 Jul 01 - 05:54 PM Geese DougR, The President is not fulfilling any oath to protect the country by doing this. It can't work! It is only marginally effective against certian types of weapons delivery systems. He will be spending billions just to encourage China, Russia et al to build cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles. He is also Pi**ing them off and forcing them to ally against the U.S.A. Congrats on the Bulls-eye and buy defense stocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Missile hits bull's-eye! From: The Walrus Date: 16 Jul 01 - 05:39 PM DougR, >>There are two factors to be remembered before claiming >>that any system works >>1) Repeatablility - Can you do it again (and again) >>with the same kit. >(1) That's why they do tests. Accepted, but I maintain that with the success rate achived so far, it is a little early to declare the results a sucess. >>2) Reproducability - Can another operator, using the >>same technique reproduce your results. >(2) They can if they can afford it. Who would that be? Well, unless you plan to have all your defensive missiles in one place and controlled from one unit, The USA! It's no good it the system works with the kit delivered to, say, Alaska if the system in Florida can't achieve the same result (and remember, despite the budget, any government system is still a collection of economies and lowest bids). >As to 50% success rate, again, that's why they are doing >tests Fine, but it's still not the triumph it's being trumpeted as. As to the claims that it won't work, I'm afraid I have to agree with the majority here, it may work technically, but as a political weapon its about as useful as a viking helmet with the horns on the inside, it does more harm than good. Regards Walrus
|