Russia: We will hit NATO missile defenses in Europe

[David E. Powell]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/

<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-
strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/>

Did they pass this on to Vladimir? Yikes!

[Andrew Swallow]

The Russians have never accepted that they are minor enemies of the West.

Andrew Swallow

[Jim Yanik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:G6idnQxxTLO93z7S...@bt.com:

Russia knows the US has a pussy for a "leader".
Thus they feel safe in making such threats.

Russia dislikes ballistic missile defense because then they cannot dominate
Europe.
Plus,it would defeat Iran's threat against the West.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 04:42, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:

>> Did they pass this on to Vladimir? Yikes!
>
> The Russians have never accepted that they are minor enemies of the West.

minor ? Mah... It's true that there are the long-sought natural Limes,
(plus a pair of buffer countries) but the geostrategic issue remain that
until some substantial climate change happens in the Arctic Sea, or
Japan suddenly sunks or the Bosphorus widens 20+ times Russian will
always seek for their national myth, the "Warm Waters"

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 04:53, Jim Yanik ha scritto:
> Andrew Swallow<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:G6idnQxxTLO93z7S...@bt.com:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 00:57, David E. Powell wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike
>>> -nato-missile-defense-sites/
>>>
>>> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-
>>> strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/>
>>>
>>> Did they pass this on to Vladimir? Yikes!
>>
>> The Russians have never accepted that they are minor enemies of the
>> West.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>
> Russia knows the US has a pussy for a "leader".
> Thus they feel safe in making such threats.
>
> Russia dislikes ballistic missile defense because then they cannot dominate
> Europe.

ballistic missiles isn't a tool for domination; the correct one still
are seapower and direct invasion.

I remain convinced that the fixed bases in poland is a grave mistake,
having hit directly the russian pride (because of the implication of
mistrust) and enticing poland to eventually cock up, not necessarily
eastward; I'm more in favour of US pledging the costant presence of ABM
CGs and DDGs in the North and/or Baltic seas (I suspect that having a
setup capable of selectively cooling down one, two, and even all three
of the trio of nationalities historically disagreeing on borders &c. is
a definitive plus for USA, whose was already drawn in two true major
wars and a really long para bellum because of these disagreements...)

[David E. Powell]

On May 3, 11:42 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
> Il 04/05/2012 04:53, Jim Yanik ha scritto:
>
>
>
>
>

> > Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com>  wrote in

Dottore, this is a very good idea. The ships would not have to be home
ported in Poland but could make plenty of friendly visits to Gdansk.
They could be ported out of several places in Europe. Germany, Norway,
Denmark, Benelux, France, or England. They could then do regular
patrols in those seas. It also falls into the Naval missile defense
model that has been popular in the past few years, like when the
falling satellite got shot down.

Russia doesn't see a permanent land base or home port, but they're
close enough to get Poland's back, and the other new NATO nations with
some serious area defense capability.

[jonathan]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:ieIor.165757$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

I like the idea of having missile defense systems deployable, which
the naval forces and X-47b will allow. But Russia seems to have
an over inflated sense of their own importance. Their economy
is slightly larger than Mexico, and Mexico doesn't have to pay
for a large military. For instance, Russia has only one large
overseas military base left and it's in...Syria.

I think the time to stop feeling sorry for the Russians for their
great collapse, and start treating them like the minor player
they are in world affairs.

We should do what we need yodefend ourselves from
rogue states. Why does Russia have any say in Poland?

We should stop trusting them, cut Russia out of our missile
defense plans and make them pay for their own systems.
Putin stole the last election, Russia is becoming just another
rogue state, and should be treated accordingly.

Russia is now a rogue state. Our missile defense systems
should be able to defend against them as well. There's
no way Russia can afford to stay with us with very
expensive missile defense systems.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 06:20, David E. Powell ha scritto:

>> ballistic missiles isn't a tool for domination; the correct one still
>> are seapower and direct invasion.
>>
>> I remain convinced that the fixed bases in poland is a grave mistake,
>> having hit directly the russian pride (because of the implication of
>> mistrust) and enticing poland to eventually cock up, not necessarily
>> eastward; I'm more in favour of US pledging the costant presence of ABM
>> CGs and DDGs in the North and/or Baltic seas (I suspect that having a
>> setup capable of selectively cooling down one, two, and even all three

>> of the trio of nationalities historically disagreeing on borders&c. is

>> a definitive plus for USA, whose was already drawn in two true major
>> wars and a really long para bellum because of these disagreements...)
>
> Dottore, this is a very good idea. The ships would not have to be home
> ported in Poland but could make plenty of friendly visits to Gdansk.
> They could be ported out of several places in Europe. Germany, Norway,
> Denmark, Benelux, France, or England. They could then do regular
> patrols in those seas. It also falls into the Naval missile defense
> model that has been popular in the past few years, like when the
> falling satellite got shot down.

Thanks.

It's the major logic behind the decision of choosing the SM-*/AEGIS
system as principal US ABM system; they is more than the perfect tool
not only in war, but also in peace and on top of it their role during
crisis can be decisive (because they can help key local allies in
joining coalitions against their neighbours with ballistic missiles and
WMDs)

No wonder that was one of the first decisions of the Obama
administration, and a clear signal abroad that US want to seriously seek
world consensus.

> Russia doesn't see a permanent land base or home port, but they're
> close enough to get Poland's back, and the other new NATO nations with
> some serious area defense capability.

Indeed. I guess that no late than Obama's mid-2nd term there will be an
diplomatic accord on shifting missile defense of Poland on the sea
(perhaps also together with the sorely needed redefinition of the
pathetically obsolete Montreux convention's concept of warship ?)

[Arved Sandstrom]

Well, Jim, assuming for the moment that the US does in fact have a pussy
for a leader, what do you think that a strong, dominant,
clear-of-purpose Mitt Romney would do in the face of such a Russian
threat? <face puce with effort to keep from laughing/>

AHS
--
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
--Napoleon

[Kerryn Offord]

A pussy for a leader?

The guy who ordered more intense drone attacks in Afghanistan and even
into Pakistan.. The guy who increased the attacks beyond the efforts of
your friend Bush (To the point where they actually seem to have started
to achieve something...)? the guy who ordered his special forces to
launch a covert attack inside a "friendly" nation... Ignoring the
potential political fallout if the information wasn't good, or the
operation failed..

The guy who managed to keep the US out of Libya, while lending a hand..

What you probably mean is the current leader of the USA is an
intelligent man who actually thinks before acting. Unlike your hero,
GWB. Who was capable of going off half-cocked without thinking about the
consequences...

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Kerryn Offord wrote:
> Unlike your hero,
> GWB. Who was capable of going off half-cocked

It doesn't seem fair to complain about Bush if you think he set
the correct course for the country...that Obama is following.
;-)

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:ieIor.165757$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

> Il 04/05/2012 04:53, Jim Yanik ha scritto:
>> Andrew Swallow<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
>> news:G6idnQxxTLO93z7S...@bt.com:
>>
>>> On 04/05/2012 00:57, David E. Powell wrote:
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-stri
>>>> ke -nato-missile-defense-sites/
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-
>>>> strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/>
>>>>
>>>> Did they pass this on to Vladimir? Yikes!
>>>
>>> The Russians have never accepted that they are minor enemies of the
>>> West.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>
>>
>> Russia knows the US has a pussy for a "leader".
>> Thus they feel safe in making such threats.
>>
>> Russia dislikes ballistic missile defense because then they cannot
>> dominate Europe.
>
> ballistic missiles isn't a tool for domination; the correct one still
> are seapower and direct invasion.

ballistic missiles are a form of BLACKMAIL.

>
> I remain convinced that the fixed bases in poland is a grave mistake,
> having hit directly the russian pride (because of the implication of
> mistrust) and enticing poland to eventually cock up, not necessarily
> eastward; I'm more in favour of US pledging the costant presence of
> ABM CGs and DDGs in the North and/or Baltic seas (I suspect that
> having a setup capable of selectively cooling down one, two, and even
> all three of the trio of nationalities historically disagreeing on
> borders &c. is a definitive plus for USA, whose was already drawn in
> two true major wars and a really long para bellum because of these
> disagreements...)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>

Considering that Poland was invaded by Russia at the start of WW2,and then
unwillingly held by Russia as "part" of the USSR,it's understandable that
Poland wants defense against Russia,including missile defense.
Poland has suffered greatly at the hands of the Russians.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:bsKor.165762$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

what makes you think a AEGIS ship in a Baltic port is going to be in
position to cover what a land based ABM system would cover?
It's fact the AEGIS ships wil not always BE there either.
ship movements are known and can be accounted for in any attack plan.
Plus,ships are more vulnerable to attacks.

[Bill]

In article <XnsA048E90A16498...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:G6idnQxxTLO93z7S...@bt.com:
>
> > On 04/05/2012 00:57, David E. Powell wrote:
> >> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike
> >> -nato-missile-defense-sites/
> >>
> >> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-
> >> strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/>
> >>
> >> Did they pass this on to Vladimir? Yikes!
> >
> > The Russians have never accepted that they are minor enemies of the
> > West.
> >
> > Andrew Swallow
> >
>
> Russia knows the US has a pussy for a "leader".

Him and Osama bin Ladin both...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Bill]

In article <XnsA0496574AFE18...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>

> Considering that Poland was invaded by Russia at the start of WW2,and then
> unwillingly held by Russia as "part" of the USSR,it's understandable that
> Poland wants defense against Russia,including missile defense.
> Poland has suffered greatly at the hands of the Russians.

There's another side to that.

Russia will have plenty of intelligence assets on the ground in Poland,
they could see their exit coming from a long way off and there hasn't
been any major house cleaning there either.

It is reasonable to assume that the Russian intelligence service has
plenty of people there in official positions.

[Andrew Swallow]

If you are looking for warm water Britain and Alaska are the wrong way
to go.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

Possible he could ask how much profit it makes and then asset strip it.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

A better description is a cat's paw. Looks like soft fur until the
killer claws come out.

Andrew Swallow

[Dean]

On May 4, 10:01 am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote innews:bsKor.165762$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

How do you reason ships are more vulnerable to attack than a fixed
land base?

[Paul F Austin]

>> borders&c. is a definitive plus for USA, whose was already drawn in

>> two true major wars and a really long para bellum because of these
>> disagreements...)
>>
>> Best regards from Italy,
>> dott. Piergiorgio.
>>
>
> Considering that Poland was invaded by Russia at the start of WW2,and then
> unwillingly held by Russia as "part" of the USSR,it's understandable that
> Poland wants defense against Russia,including missile defense.
> Poland has suffered greatly at the hands of the Russians.
>

Here's a reminder: Poland is a member of the NATO alliance. If the
Russians choose to attack Poland (whether aiming at a BMD site or the
port at Gdansk), that invokes Article 5, the mutual defense clause of
the NATO treaty. Russia is and needs to be reminded of being (possibly
on a back-channel basis) an ex-superpower. NATO's response is not
required to be a tit for tat, shoot at Poland's missiles, we'll shoot at
the missiles that shot out the Polish ones.

Paul

[Andrew Swallow]

Simple, you cannot put 30 feet of concrete on top of a ship without it
sinking.

Andrew Swallow

[Keith W]

In this context warm means ice free in winter and British ports meet that
requirement as do most of the major Alaskan ports.

Keith

[Dean]

But ships are mobile....even satellites have difficulty tracking
them. I highly doubt anti-missile batteries on land are going to have
30 feet of concrete over them for protection.

[David E. Powell]

On May 4, 10:39 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/2012 10:21, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12-05-03 11:53 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:

> >> Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com>  wrote in

Or continue the US trend toward Natural Gas exploration, become a
bigger player in Gas, then start moving into markets where Russia has
historically used their monopoly as a lever.

Also, moving new fighter tpyes and Patriot batteries into Europe as
cover for any land or sea based ABM system, if it gets really bad.

Note that the "rogue" threat that exists from Iran wouldn't be there
if Russia were serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program.

[David E. Powell]

On May 4, 11:21 am, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 9:57 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > "dott.Piergiorgio"<chiedet...@ask.me>  wrote in

> >news:ieIor.165757$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>
> >> Il 04/05/2012 04:53, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

> >>> Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com>   wrote in

+1 to this. I would believe that a threat could lead to more force
being deployed, in the form of Patriots and interceptor fighters.
Germany might actually take a big role there, pushing for European
forces to deploy.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:G6idnQxxTLO93z7S...@bt.com:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 00:57, David E. Powell wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-strike
>>> -nato-missile-defense-sites/
>>>
>>> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/3/russia-threatens-
>>> strike-nato-missile-defense-sites/>
>>>
>>> Did they pass this on to Vladimir? Yikes!
>>
>> The Russians have never accepted that they are minor enemies of the
>> West.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>
> Russia knows the US has a pussy for a "leader".
> Thus they feel safe in making such threats.
>

And the 2008 South Ossetia War or Russo-Georgian War, took place under
who's watc, Jim ? Here have a boo at this Wiki page to remind yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

A *pussy* eh ?
Would this be the same pussy who greenlighted the operation in Abbottabad,
Pakistan, to take out Bin Laden, Jim ?

[David E. Powell]

On May 4, 4:02 pm, Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de>
wrote:

> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Or continue the US trend toward Natural Gas exploration, become a
> > bigger player in Gas, then start moving into markets where Russia has
> > historically used their monopoly as a lever.
>

> You're welcome to build a gas pipeline from the US to Europe ;-)

Use LNG tankers....

> > Also, moving new fighter tpyes and Patriot batteries into Europe as
> > cover for any land or sea based ABM system, if it gets really bad.
>

> Uh... move in ABMs to protect ABMs?

Yes, defense in depth, other Patriots to guard the ABMs.

> > Note that the "rogue" threat that exists from Iran wouldn't be there
> > if Russia were serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program.
>

> And do what? Bomb Iran?

Stop selling them nuclear gear and giving aid, or threaten to cut off
other arms sales.

> Irans threat would go away if Israel allowed UN inspectors to check
> THEIR nuclear weapons... paranoia is up to 11 by now :-(

Possibly, but the day after that the UN will try to pass resolutions
telling Israel to give theirs up, which they won't do....

The problem is that many in the West are unwilling to openly say that
Israel having a nuke is not a problem to them, as much as someone like
Iran or North Korea having one. The policy and events have not kept
pace.

> --
> Juergen Nieveler

[Paul F Austin]

The days of Russia threatening Europe with General Winter (and paying
off German ex-Chancellors) are coming to an end. The same drilling
technology that is unlocking shale gas and oil in the US will shortly be
used to open up large gas formations in Europe and off Israel. It's
early days in estimating the available gas but huge geological
formations seem to be showing up where ever exploration has done. Here's
a link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-idUSBRE83G0LE20120417.
The days of "oil weapons" look to be history.

The Russian economy, such as it is, depends heavily on extractive
industries. The net value added of the _rest_ of Russian economic
activity is modest to negative. If and when the boom in gas (and oil)
finds turns into production, the accompanying slump in hydrocarbon
prices will hit Russia especially hard (OPEC as well).

Iran may be a self-solving problem for the same reasons. The Iranian
economy is heavily subsidized petro-exports. Without that cash flow for
instance, the imports of finished petroleum products gets dialed 'way
back. The Mullahs may get their wish to live in the Dark Ages.

Paul

[Andrew Swallow]

Also the Western armies are returning from the Middle East and the
nuclear missiles never went.

Andrew Swallow

[David E. Powell]

> a link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i....

> The days of "oil weapons" look to be history.

This is a very good point. From what I have seen in the past couple
years, since the oil bubble briefly popped in 2008 and the price
dropped a large amount for several months, has been that either thr
bubble of speculation will burst again, like the gas industry in the
early 1980s, or that pressures will lead to new supplies being drilled
in new areas. The Falklands, and the areas you mentioned. Israel being
a new energy power would be fascinating for several reasons. Ditto the
UK at the Falklands.

> The Russian economy, such as it is, depends heavily on extractive
> industries. The net value added of the _rest_ of Russian economic
> activity is modest to negative. If and when the boom in gas (and oil)
> finds turns into production, the accompanying slump in hydrocarbon
> prices will hit Russia especially hard (OPEC as well).

Yes. Right now, a lot of nations that have interests counter to
western nations have been getting quite a boost, and that commodity
values boost could change if commodity prices slide.

> Iran may be a self-solving problem for the same reasons. The Iranian
> economy is heavily subsidized petro-exports.

I'm fairly certain that this is one of the biggest reasons, perhaps
the biggest one, why Iran keeps pushing certain buttons. The big
commodity speculators are all too eager to play along. If the oil
bubble goes, you're right, the profits from selling oil not only slide
on weapons, but on covering the cost of Iran having product refined
outside of Iran's borders and then re-imported.

I'd also be fascinated to see who profits from refining their oil and
selling it back to them as refined products. That would be an
interesting relationship.

Without that cash flow for
> instance, the imports of finished petroleum products gets dialed 'way
> back. The Mullahs may get their wish to live in the Dark Ages.

Yep. Iran's government is a lot weaker than the West seems to give
them credit for, politically. They are currently bracketed by
Democracies, or perhaps "Proto-Democracies" like South Korea was for
several decades. The people are seeing that work, and don't like their
system. Plus their population is young and the Iranian economy is
terrible. All the economic problems of some other nations, and then
some, plus the people feel they have no voice in it.

I am more and more convinced that the way to topple the Mullahs is the
way of 1970s-1980s Poland rather than anything military. In the
fashion of most dictatorships their own people want them gone even
more than anyone else does.

> Paul

[Daryl]

On 5/4/2012 2:02 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> "David E. Powell"<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Or continue the US trend toward Natural Gas exploration, become a
>> bigger player in Gas, then start moving into markets where Russia has
>> historically used their monopoly as a lever.
>

> You're welcome to build a gas pipeline from the US to Europe ;-)

Easy, but not inexpensive way, Build more ships to handle it in
liquid form.

>
>> Also, moving new fighter tpyes and Patriot batteries into Europe as
>> cover for any land or sea based ABM system, if it gets really bad.
>

> Uh... move in ABMs to protect ABMs?

The Patriot was pressed into service for Scuds. It did an okay
job but it's not really what it was intended for. It is a SAM.
There are ABMs out there that do a much better job.

>
>> Note that the "rogue" threat that exists from Iran wouldn't be there
>> if Russia were serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program.
>

> And do what? Bomb Iran?
>

> Irans threat would go away if Israel allowed UN inspectors to check
> THEIR nuclear weapons... paranoia is up to 11 by now :-(
>

Irans threat would go away as well as Israels if Iran and it's
terror country sats would allow Israel to exist openly. Take
Israels ability to protect itself from more than a few armed
countries attacking it would be tantamount to Genocide.


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Bill]

In article <XnsA049E0137953...@nieveler.org>,
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...

>
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>

> > Or continue the US trend toward Natural Gas exploration, become a
> > bigger player in Gas, then start moving into markets where Russia has
> > historically used their monopoly as a lever.
>

> You're welcome to build a gas pipeline from the US to Europe ;-)
>

> > Also, moving new fighter tpyes and Patriot batteries into Europe as
> > cover for any land or sea based ABM system, if it gets really bad.
>

> Uh... move in ABMs to protect ABMs?
>

> > Note that the "rogue" threat that exists from Iran wouldn't be there
> > if Russia were serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program.
>

> And do what? Bomb Iran?
>
> Irans threat would go away if Israel allowed UN inspectors to check
> THEIR nuclear weapons... paranoia is up to 11 by now :-(

The problem here is that Israel is a reasonably stable representative
democracy and Iran, erm, isn't...

[Bill]

In article <jo1n0q$274$1...@dont-email.me>, dh...@nospami70west3.com
says...

>

> > You're welcome to build a gas pipeline from the US to Europe ;-)
>
> Easy, but not inexpensive way, Build more ships to handle it in
> liquid form.
>
>

They have proven not to be the safest form of transport for that
particular form of energy.

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/4/2012 7:43 PM, Bill wrote:
> In article<jo1n0q$274$1...@dont-email.me>, dh...@nospami70west3.com
> says...
>>
>
>>> You're welcome to build a gas pipeline from the US to Europe ;-)
>>
>> Easy, but not inexpensive way, Build more ships to handle it in
>> liquid form.
>>
>>
> They have proven not to be the safest form of transport for that
> particular form of energy.
>

Shipping LNG may become a shrinking industry. Very large shale gas
deposits seem to be showing up everywhere the explorers look. China has
turned up very large deposits on shore (not the South China Sea) as an
example and Western Europe looks to be self-sufficient for gas in the
near future. The only iffy thing (the "fraking is going to kill all the
baby seals!" crowd seems to be proven wrong) is whether a falling market
price for gas (as is happening here) will allow economic extraction. The
lies in the North Sea have the advantage of existing infrastructure that
will help things a lot.

Have you a link to LNG carriers suffering an actual mischief?

Paul

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 16:01, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

>> Indeed. I guess that no late than Obama's mid-2nd term there will be an
>> diplomatic accord on shifting missile defense of Poland on the sea
>> (perhaps also together with the sorely needed redefinition of the
>> pathetically obsolete Montreux convention's concept of warship ?)

>

> what makes you think a AEGIS ship in a Baltic port is going to be in
> position to cover what a land based ABM system would cover?
> It's fact the AEGIS ships wil not always BE there either.
> ship movements are known and can be accounted for in any attack plan.
> Plus,ships are more vulnerable to attacks.

aside the easy joke that Russians are indeed daring and fearless, but
aren't Japanese, I?m confident that an surprise attack involving nuclear
weapons centered on a successful sneak SEAD attack isn't something a
Russian Admiral or General will consider...

For the Russian perspective, the issue is protecting the Mother Russia
from nuclear first and not first strikes: the cold war was started
because in these days of B-29, piston B-36 and heavy and bulky fission
bombs, soviet (russian at core) military leadership sees in a large
buffer area as EW and air defense line against nuclear-armed heavy bombers.

Then the Rodina's security was achevied in the balance of terror, whose
hinges on the certainly of the delivery of the nuclear rain of destruction.

Today the latter point is no more certain, and Russia's nuclear weaponry
are too few for guareenting security thru the potential reprisal, and
the poland-based ABM is felt as a shield whose can be used as a for
cover for a lance with the tip placed inches to the heart.

This is why the best solution for all the parties (diplomatic sense)
involved is a mobile ABM, whose currently can be only on sea.

[Bill]

In article <DOydnXQlwZeC8DnS...@supernews.com>,
pfau...@bellsouth.net says...

>

> Have you a link to LNG carriers suffering an actual mischief?
>

No. I know someone who worked on them as a radio officer, he was
undoubtedly most safety concious guy I ever worked with.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 15:57, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

>> I remain convinced that the fixed bases in poland is a grave mistake,
>> having hit directly the russian pride (because of the implication of
>> mistrust) and enticing poland to eventually cock up, not necessarily
>> eastward; I'm more in favour of US pledging the costant presence of
>> ABM CGs and DDGs in the North and/or Baltic seas (I suspect that
>> having a setup capable of selectively cooling down one, two, and even
>> all three of the trio of nationalities historically disagreeing on
>> borders&c. is a definitive plus for USA, whose was already drawn in
>> two true major wars and a really long para bellum because of these
>> disagreements...)

> Considering that Poland was invaded by Russia at the start of WW2,and then
> unwillingly held by Russia as "part" of the USSR,it's understandable that
> Poland wants defense against Russia,including missile defense.
> Poland has suffered greatly at the hands of the Russians.

Aside that you seems to lack in history and historical political
geography (Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact, NOT of the USSR proper)
you seems to not have read well above: "TRIO of nationalities" Poland is
the middle one... and having fixed ABM bases in poland is asking to be
drawn again into European quarrels; if Poland has (again) issues and
disagreement with Germany, and ask for US support for their pleas,
Germany felt their traditional security menace (being in the middle of a
pincer...) and BM3 is dangerously short-fused....

EU and Russia's interlock of security and perceived menaces remains the
same since the middle ages: a string of large countries from the Bay of
Biscay to the Volga & Don river, whose can be beaten more or less easily
with a pincer coalition (look up the history of the partition and
ultimately loss of independence of Poland)

this is why I call the Neck of Euruope the true and natural Limes: the
only way for a really durable peace in Euruope and Russia lies in TWO
strong (super)Powers with the back safely covered (and gives back US's
actual strength, lost since 1945: economic growth because of small
military establishment)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 22:02, Juergen Nieveler ha scritto:

>> Note that the "rogue" threat that exists from Iran wouldn't be there
>> if Russia were serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program.
>

> And do what? Bomb Iran?
>
> Irans threat would go away if Israel allowed UN inspectors to check
> THEIR nuclear weapons... paranoia is up to 11 by now :-(

trouble is many of the balance in middle east lies in Israel being NOT
officially a member of the nuclear club; until the ignition of the Holy
Fire of Agni and the subsequent one of the Wrath of Khan, this balance
of power keeps because officially there was no needs of muslim nuclear
power.

Now with India and Paki nuclear power, we have the same, and much
larger, european geostrategic issue, a string of large countries
vulnerable to pincer warfare and since then the Shia Iran felt encircled
by Israeli or Sunni countries from west and the Sunni pakistan from
east, pakistan more or less the same, with India eastward (and let's
stop on the Indian ocean, the geostrategic and balance of power massive
SNAFU can stretch from Med to the Pacific Ocean)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 22:20, David E. Powell ha scritto:

>> You're welcome to build a gas pipeline from the US to Europe ;-)
>
> Use LNG tankers....

it's the same thing of asking terrorists to hit *really* hard US and/or
EU shores....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 04/05/2012 19:15, Keith W ha scritto:

>>> minor ? Mah... It's true that there are the long-sought natural
>>> Limes, (plus a pair of buffer countries) but the geostrategic issue
>>> remain that until some substantial climate change happens in the
>>> Arctic Sea, or Japan suddenly sunks or the Bosphorus widens 20+
>>> times Russian will always seek for their national myth, the "Warm
>>> Waters" Best regards from Italy,

>> If you are looking for warm water Britain and Alaska are the wrong way
>> to go.

> In this context warm means ice free in winter and British ports meet that
> requirement as do most of the major Alaskan ports.

Apologies to everyone for the empty reply above....

Anyway, I have taken for granted that was understand that for arctic sea
I refer to a "north-east passage" as clearly pointed by this map:

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/IBCAO_betamap.jpg

hope is now clear that for "climate change" I refer to a warming up
whose gives all-year access to the northern Russian ports...

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:mfWdnf5r1szcaT7S...@supernews.com:

under someone like Comrade Obama,I'm not so sure America would come to
Poland's aid,treaty or not.And without the US,the rest of NATO will not
either.

[Jim Yanik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in

news:wuudnQkdtulzyznS...@bt.com:

Note Comrade Obama wants to reduce the US nuclear inventory to 300-400
warheads **unilaterally**,AND he's wimping out on missile defense.

Despite China adding more IRBMs and ICBMs every year.
Despite Iran building a missile base in Venezuela.

[Jim Yanik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in

news:R7ydnZfbmePxaT7S...@bt.com:

Submarines can attack a ship(even in harbor),the ship could run into a
mine,it could have SPETNAZ attach a charge to it's hull,or it could suffer
a USS Cole type attack.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:79_or.166138$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

Russia is building UP to the New START limits,and replacing old missiles
with newer,mobile missiles.

>
> This is why the best solution for all the parties (diplomatic sense)
> involved is a mobile ABM, whose currently can be only on sea.
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>

Here's a point some seem to have missed;
Russia said that their ICBMs are too fast for our missile defense to
handle.
So,WHY are they worried about our missile defense?
It can't be used in any offensive mode.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:Au_or.166139$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

> Il 04/05/2012 15:57, Jim Yanik ha scritto:
>
>>> I remain convinced that the fixed bases in poland is a grave
>>> mistake, having hit directly the russian pride (because of the
>>> implication of mistrust) and enticing poland to eventually cock up,
>>> not necessarily eastward; I'm more in favour of US pledging the
>>> costant presence of ABM CGs and DDGs in the North and/or Baltic seas
>>> (I suspect that having a setup capable of selectively cooling down
>>> one, two, and even all three of the trio of nationalities
>>> historically disagreeing on borders&c. is a definitive plus for USA,
>>> whose was already drawn in two true major wars and a really long
>>> para bellum because of these disagreements...)
>
>> Considering that Poland was invaded by Russia at the start of WW2,and
>> then unwillingly held by Russia as "part" of the USSR,it's
>> understandable that Poland wants defense against Russia,including
>> missile defense. Poland has suffered greatly at the hands of the
>> Russians.
>
>
> Aside that you seems to lack in history and historical political
> geography (Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact, NOT of the USSR proper)

minor nitpick.Poland was not a voluntary member of the Warsaw Pact.
It essentially was a "part" of the USSR,held there by force.

> you seems to not have read well above: "TRIO of nationalities" Poland
> is the middle one... and having fixed ABM bases in poland is asking to
> be drawn again into European quarrels; if Poland has (again) issues
> and disagreement with Germany, and ask for US support for their pleas,
> Germany felt their traditional security menace (being in the middle of
> a pincer...) and BM3 is dangerously short-fused....

We get drawn into European "quarrels" anyways. We ARE a part of NATO,BTW.

>
> EU and Russia's interlock of security and perceived menaces remains
> the same since the middle ages: a string of large countries from the
> Bay of Biscay to the Volga & Don river, whose can be beaten more or
> less easily with a pincer coalition (look up the history of the
> partition and ultimately loss of independence of Poland)
>
> this is why I call the Neck of Euruope the true and natural Limes: the
> only way for a really durable peace in Euruope and Russia lies in TWO
> strong (super)Powers with the back safely covered (and gives back US's
> actual strength, lost since 1945: economic growth because of small
> military establishment)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>

economic growth without real security?

MAD is a useless,outdated mode of thought. it's ASKING for trouble.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 05/05/2012 03:35, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

>> Today the latter point is no more certain, and Russia's nuclear
>> weaponry are too few for guareenting security thru the potential
>> reprisal, and the poland-based ABM is felt as a shield whose can be
>> used as a for cover for a lance with the tip placed inches to the
>> heart.

> Russia is building UP to the New START limits,and replacing old missiles
> with newer,mobile missiles.

>> This is why the best solution for all the parties (diplomatic sense)
>> involved is a mobile ABM, whose currently can be only on sea.

> Here's a point some seem to have missed;
> Russia said that their ICBMs are too fast for our missile defense to
> handle.
> So,WHY are they worried about our missile defense?
> It can't be used in any offensive mode.

sorry, but seems that you have missed a point, but was perhaps because
of my rethoric & imagery:

"shield whose can be used as a cover for a lance with the tip placed
inches to the heart" (that is, the heart of Mother Russia) whose, out of
rhetoric, means that the poland-based ABM defense (the shield) is seen
in Russia as enabling the usage of western ballistic missiles with good,
if not excellent impunity (and the capability of punishing, e.g.
retaliate, *IS* the core point of the Russian security)

also, please don't forget that a first strike is generally aimed towards
decapitating the most poweful military asset of the enemy (that is, in
the case of a major Nuclear power, their ICBMs and IRBMs sites)

Naval point and context, the SSBN and their SLBM are the best and most
defensible nuclear weapon system but Russia has only limited free access
to sufficiently large and defensible deployment areas (the
soviet/russian "bastions")

and objectively, if the scope of that ABM system is against Iranian
ballistic missiles, why place it in Poland and not more south or
southwest (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece...) ? ballistics is math, so isn't
an opinion, and the course and trajectory of Iranian ICBM has an obvious
bearing sector.

face it, until there are means of re-enabling the simple, fool-proof but
really effective Russian defensive strategy centered on schorched earth,
the three Great Rivers (Volga, Don and Donets) and the General Winter we
will have to deal with a rather ferocious Russian bear (a scared Grizzly
one...)

[Bill]

In article <XnsA049DA21D2996...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

> under someone like Comrade Obama,I'm not so sure America would come to
> Poland's aid,treaty or not.And without the US,the rest of NATO will not
> either.

You really are full of shit.

Are you so afraid of Obama winning that you're prepared to say he'd
abrogate the single most important treaty the US is a party to?

[Bill]

In article <XnsA049DA9C65FA3...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

> Despite Iran building a missile base in Venezuela.

For God's sake, take more water with it...

[Bill]

In article <XnsA049DBDF72D2B...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>

> So,WHY are they worried about our missile defense?
> It can't be used in any offensive mode.

They don't care what it is and what it can do, they're worried about
WHERE it is...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 05/05/2012 03:28, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

> Note Comrade Obama wants to reduce the US nuclear inventory to 300-400
> warheads **unilaterally**,AND he's wimping out on missile defense.

please name a country whose needs more than 300-400 nuclear and
thermonuclear warhead to be reduced to disorganized wasteland....

(notice that even with a sub-optimal targeting roughly one quarter, if
not much less, of this US stockpile suffices to bring even Russia or
china into anarchy and chaos)

best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 05/05/2012 03:40, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

> economic growth without real security?

the security and prosperity of US lies in the free seas and free
commerce... and what free commerce is, if the free enterprise is
hampered by taxations imposed by the need of a large military
establishment ?

> MAD is a useless,outdated mode of thought. it's ASKING for trouble.

correct, but seems that Russian generalship is still based on it...

for the other points, I recommend you an reflection on Sun Tzu's maxim
on knowing your enemies... if you don't take in account enemy's mindset
and strategic thinking, YOU are asking for *real* trouble....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

p.s. if people continues to put underlying ideology in this debate, we
risk to lose the core point, *RUSSIAN* mindset, whose isn't Communist
nor soviet mindset, nor ideology....

[Andrew Swallow]

On 05/05/2012 03:30, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
{snip}>

> and objectively, if the scope of that ABM system is against Iranian
> ballistic missiles, why place it in Poland and not more south or
> southwest (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece...) ? ballistics is math, so isn't
> an opinion, and the course and trajectory of Iranian ICBM has an obvious
> bearing sector.
>

There is (or was) to be more than one launch pad.

Also China is further East than Iran.

Andrew Swallow

[Paul F Austin]

On 5/4/2012 10:30 PM, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
> and objectively, if the scope of that ABM system is against Iranian
> ballistic missiles, why place it in Poland and not more south or
> southwest (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece...) ? ballistics is math, so isn't
> an opinion, and the course and trajectory of Iranian ICBM has an obvious
> bearing sector.
>

Dott, here's an exercise for you: go to Great Circle Mapper
(http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=THR-JFK%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=mi), select the
mapping function and enter "THR-JFK", the great circle route from Tehran
to JFK. You will see if passes over.... Poland!

Do the same for Abadan (ABD) and JFK and the trajectory again passes
over Poland. The same is true for Abadan-Ohare. There's a hint about why
Poland is the preferred site for US ICBM interceptors.

Ballistic missiles follow great circle trajectories.

Paul

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Bill wrote:
> In article <XnsA049DA9C65FA3...@216.168.3.44>,
> jya...@abuse.gov says...
>
>> Despite Iran building a missile base in Venezuela.
>
> For God's sake, take more water with it...

I pretty sure once they've gone rabid, they can't take water, William...

cheers....Jeff

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 05/05/2012 05:16, Paul F Austin ha scritto:

> Dott, here's an exercise for you: go to Great Circle Mapper
> (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=THR-JFK%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=mi), select the
> mapping function and enter "THR-JFK", the great circle route from Tehran
> to JFK. You will see if passes over.... Poland!
>
> Do the same for Abadan (ABD) and JFK and the trajectory again passes
> over Poland. The same is true for Abadan-Ohare. There's a hint about why
> Poland is the preferred site for US ICBM interceptors.
>
> Ballistic missiles follow great circle trajectories.

do you look that the trajectory pass over baltic sea, north sea, GIUK
gap and Atlantic ocean ? I guess that is a non-sequitur argument in this
debate "land vs sea ABM".....

aside that is also very obvious that when ABM missiles are fired against
iranian ICBM (if exists) Iran has already received a good chunk of
Russian nuclear deterrency... and we return again on the point "russian
perception of mistrust"....

[Daryl]

There shouldn't be much of a debate. Both are needed to keep the
enemy spending to defend against both.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in news:MPG.2a0e81ce64564e2d9898a3
@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <DOydnXQlwZeC8DnS...@supernews.com>,
> pfau...@bellsouth.net says...
>
>> Have you a link to LNG carriers suffering an actual mischief?
>
> No. I know someone who worked on them as a radio officer, he was
> undoubtedly most safety concious guy I ever worked with.

I'd wager he wasn't a smoker--or at least not a smoker when he was at sea.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Paul F Austin]

Sorry but while Aegis/Standard is energetic enough to intercept MRBMs,
it is not fast enough to intercept an ICBM. Not even close.

A couple of years ago, Aegis/Standard was tested against an IRBM (about
5.7 Km/s) and did so successfully. To get the shot, the ship had to be
pre-positioned "based on intelligence" in space and time and employed an
off-ship TPY2 RADAR in a cooperative engagement. In other words, to get
the shot against this, slower, missile, _everything_ had to go right. An
ICBM, about 7Km/s) is too fast for the Standard missiles to intercept.

As a rule of thumb, the interceptor has to be roughly as fast as the
ballistic missile target. That's the reason why the GMD ICBM interceptor
is nearly as large as an ICBM. There isn't room in a cruiser/destroyer
hull to load that large a missile. The GMD missile is approximately 53
feet long and 15 tonnes, compared to 22 feet and 1.3 tonnes. No room in
the hull.

Regarding deterrence, do _you_ want to depend on the threat of a
holocaust falling on Iran to convince Amadinutjob (who repeatedly said
he _looks forward_ to the Armageddon that will precede the re-emergence
of the Twelfth Imam from his well) to build nuclear weapons and the
missiles to deliver them and _not_ use them? I don't.

Paul

[Bill]

In article <XnsA04A44BF93...@88.198.244.100>,
ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com says...

>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in news:MPG.2a0e81ce64564e2d9898a3
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article <DOydnXQlwZeC8DnS...@supernews.com>,
> > pfau...@bellsouth.net says...
> >
> >> Have you a link to LNG carriers suffering an actual mischief?
> >
> > No. I know someone who worked on them as a radio officer, he was
> > undoubtedly most safety concious guy I ever worked with.
>
> I'd wager he wasn't a smoker--or at least not a smoker when he was at sea.

Fanatical non smoker who refused to carry matches, to the extent of
refusing to buy someone a packet when we were in a pub once and it was
his round.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:ph0pr.166145$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

Once the missile sub is "under",it doesn't need a large area of deployment.
It's mostly immune to a first strike.

>
> and objectively, if the scope of that ABM system is against Iranian
> ballistic missiles, why place it in Poland and not more south or
> southwest (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece...) ? ballistics is math, so isn't
> an opinion, and the course and trajectory of Iranian ICBM has an obvious
> bearing sector.

You don't think a Russia ICBM might be "accidentally" launched against
Western targets? that Russia has such good control over their nuke assets?

>
> face it, until there are means of re-enabling the simple, fool-proof but
> really effective Russian defensive strategy centered on schorched earth,
> the three Great Rivers (Volga, Don and Donets) and the General Winter we
> will have to deal with a rather ferocious Russian bear (a scared Grizzly
> one...)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>

a limited ABM defense is no "shield" for a first strike against a well-
armed nation like Russia. Russia could easily overwhelm our ABM defenses.
How many ABM missiles do you think an AEGIS ship carries? Not very many.

and,once again,naval ships cannot cover the area necessary.

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:jbudnTFWZLtGhTjS...@supernews.com:

>
> Regarding deterrence, do _you_ want to depend on the threat of a
> holocaust falling on Iran to convince Amadinutjob (who repeatedly said
> he _looks forward_ to the Armageddon that will precede the
> re-emergence of the Twelfth Imam from his well) to build nuclear
> weapons and the missiles to deliver them and _not_ use them? I don't.
>
> Paul
>

These folks would rather some city get incinerated and gamble that it's not
THEIR city,than stand up to the Russians,or anyone else for that matter.

Same thinking as individual self-defense;
protect the criminal and let the ODCs bear the risks and pay the penalties.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:Om0pr.166146$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

After we blow our load on one country,then another country like China might
decide to enter the game.
Not all warheads might get through the enemy defenses,and we DO have a
TRIAD with land-based ICBMs,bombers,and missile subs.
Can't have just a few of each,they'd be much more vulnerable to a first
strike.

then there are tactical warheads for specific situations.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:%y0pr.166147$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

> Il 05/05/2012 03:40, Jim Yanik ha scritto:
>
>> economic growth without real security?
>
> the security and prosperity of US lies in the free seas and free
> commerce... and what free commerce is, if the free enterprise is
> hampered by taxations imposed by the need of a large military
> establishment ?
>

the world's sea lanes stay open largely because of a very large US navy and
airforce. Most free nations are free because of a very large US military.
US economic problems are NOT due to overspending on US military,but on US
socialism,over-regulation of US businesses,and union workforce problems.

>
>> MAD is a useless,outdated mode of thought. it's ASKING for trouble.
>
> correct, but seems that Russian generalship is still based on it...
>
> for the other points, I recommend you an reflection on Sun Tzu's maxim
> on knowing your enemies... if you don't take in account enemy's mindset
> and strategic thinking, YOU are asking for *real* trouble....
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> p.s. if people continues to put underlying ideology in this debate, we
> risk to lose the core point, *RUSSIAN* mindset, whose isn't Communist
> nor soviet mindset, nor ideology....
>

[Bill]

In article <XnsA04AE1013F99E...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>
> You don't think a Russia ICBM might be "accidentally" launched against
> Western targets? that Russia has such good control over their nuke assets?

Stark bonkers.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 06/05/2012 04:17, Jim Yanik ha scritto:

>> the security and prosperity of US lies in the free seas and free
>> commerce... and what free commerce is, if the free enterprise is
>> hampered by taxations imposed by the need of a large military
>> establishment ?
>>
>
> the world's sea lanes stay open largely because of a very large US navy and
> airforce. Most free nations are free because of a very large US military.
> US economic problems are NOT due to overspending on US military,but on US
> socialism,over-regulation of US businesses,and union workforce problems.

seems that you have an eccentric vision of socialism and
socialdemocracy... actually on this side of pond we think US has serious
issues on workers's rights, weak or non-existant core regulating and
rules-enforcing and restraining bad and/or unfair practices of US
businesses....

Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 06/05/2012 12:45, Bill wrote:
> In article<XnsA04AE1013F99E...@216.168.3.44>,
> jya...@abuse.gov says...
>>
>> You don't think a Russia ICBM might be "accidentally" launched against
>> Western targets? that Russia has such good control over their nuke assets?
>
> Stark bonkers.

No, it's at least as likely as a rogue US pilot stealing a bombed-up
aircraft and setting off on a politically-motivated strike mission, as
has happened several times in the US - including at least once with
nuclear weapons.

(It *must* be true, I read about it on the Interwebs and in "Death to
America Weekly")


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Jim Yanik]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in
news:nCtpr.166524$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:

"eccentric vision of socialism and social democracy". LOL.

the US is not a "democracy". It's a Constitutional REPUBLIC.

[Bill]

In article <XnsA04B804482B19...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

> the US is not a "democracy". It's a Constitutional REPUBLIC.

Utter and absolute rubbish.

The USA is, and remains, one of the great liberal democracies.

You'll be telling us all next that if the US flag has a fringe around it
then it denotes the subjugation of that place to aliens from the planet
Tharg...

[Andrew Swallow]

By choice.

The government is not a worker but it may be a third rate aristocrat.

Andrew Swallow

[Daryl]

And you would be correct. The problems you mentioned are the fix
to many of the problems we have. Not to the extent of where
Europe is but Regulation is coming back into fashion. It's the
ownership that won't go to the Government.

[Dean]

On May 6, 12:59 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <XnsA04B804482B19jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>,

Oh dear lord, the Thargians are involved?

[Paul J. Adam]

On 06/05/2012 21:21, Dean wrote:
> On May 6, 12:59 pm, Bill<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article<XnsA04B804482B19jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>,

>> You'll be telling us all next that if the US flag has a fringe around it
>> then it denotes the subjugation of that place to aliens from the planet
>> Tharg...

> Oh dear lord, the Thargians are involved?

No we aren't - I mean, no, the Thargians have not infiltrated every
layer of your so-called society in order to massacre your menfolk,
enslave your women and leer salaciously at your daughters. That would be
just silly.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along!

[Arved Sandstrom]

Speaking purely hypothetically, those poor pondscum the Thargians have
no idea that three commanded gamma-ray bursters are about to remove
their central Dyson systems.

Just sayin'.

Governing Assembled Intelligence WTH-0067-9812-....
Sector 17
--
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
--Napoleon

[peter skelton]

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:w6Cpr.294$oK2...@newsfe13.iad...

On 12-05-06 06:08 PM, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 21:21, Dean wrote:
>> On May 6, 12:59 pm, Bill<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article<XnsA04B804482B19jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>,
>>> You'll be telling us all next that if the US flag has a fringe around it
>>> then it denotes the subjugation of that place to aliens from the planet
>>> Tharg...
>
>> Oh dear lord, the Thargians are involved?
>
> No we aren't - I mean, no, the Thargians have not infiltrated every
> layer of your so-called society in order to massacre your menfolk,
> enslave your women and leer salaciously at your daughters. That would be
> just silly.
>
> Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along!
>
Speaking purely hypothetically, those poor pondscum the Thargians have
no idea that three commanded gamma-ray bursters are about to remove
their central Dyson systems.

I thought Dysons were protected under the Conventions of High Vacuum
Warfare.

[Bill]

In article <676d5b38-32ec-4f2c-bbe4-93e7f9530af1
@j16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com says...

>
> On May 6, 12:59 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <XnsA04B804482B19jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>,
> > jya...@abuse.gov says...
> >
> > > the US is not a "democracy". It's a Constitutional REPUBLIC.
> >
> > Utter and absolute rubbish.
> >
> > The USA is, and remains, one of the great liberal democracies.
> >
> > You'll be telling us all next that if the US flag has a fringe around it
> > then it denotes the subjugation of that place to aliens from the planet
> > Tharg...

>

> Oh dear lord, the Thargians are involved?

Oh, sorry, that was a misprint...

Just forget it, no problems at all, nothing to see, honest...

<Scrang, quickly, fetch the Vorbis machine, we must impregnate all
their women tonight...>

[Dean]

On May 6, 5:43 pm, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "Arved Sandstrom"  wrote in messagenews:w6Cpr.294$oK2...@newsfe13.iad...

Wow, the Thargians are going to be pissed if they can't vacuum their
saucers after a hard day subjugating humans.

[peter skelton]

"Dean" wrote in message
news:6b48e713-d26c-4431...@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>Sucks, doesn't it?

[tutall]

On May 4, 7:30 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <XnsA049DA21D2996jyaniklocalnet...@216.168.3.44>,
> jya...@abuse.gov says...
>
> > under someone like Comrade Obama,I'm not so sure America would come to
> > Poland's aid,treaty or not.And without the US,the rest of NATO will not
> > either.
>
> You really are full of shit.
>
> Are you so afraid of Obama winning that you're prepared to say he'd
> abrogate the single most important treaty the US is a party to?
>

Wingnutters like him divorced themselves from reality a few years ago.
They exist in a circle jerk of lies now.

[Grantland]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 4:53:12 AM UTC+2, Jim Yanik wrote:

>
> Russia knows the US has a pussy for a "leader".
>
> Thus they feel safe in making such threats.
>
>
>
> Russia dislikes ballistic missile defense because then they cannot dominate
>
> Europe.
>
> Plus,it would defeat Iran's threat against the West.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jim Yanik
>
Fool.