U.S missiles based in Poland
Raymond O'Hara
not so much for the missiles themselves but for the U.S troops that will man
then
the russian bear will think twice before attacking a country with American
troops there.
http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-14-voa14.cfm
Poland, US Reach Preliminary Deal on Missile Shield
By VOA News
14 August 2008
U.S. and Polish negotiators have reached a preliminary agreement on
deploying a proposed U.S. missile defense system in eastern Europe.
Poland's Under-Secretary of State Andrzej Kremer and U.S. chief
negotiator, John Rood, initialed the deal in Warsaw Thursday.
Earlier, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stressed that a number of
details remain to be resolved before the two countries sign a final
agreement
Tiger
> I can see more countries wanting missiles.
> not so much for the missiles themselves but for the U.S troops that will man
> then
> the russian bear will think twice before attacking a country with American
> troops there.
No better incentive then picture of tanks in Georgia to get a deal done.
Expect other chess moves to come.
Kerryn Offord
> I can see more countries wanting missiles.
> not so much for the missiles themselves but for the U.S troops that will man
> then
> the russian bear will think twice before attacking a country with American
> troops there.
>
>
You mean, like the US trainers etc working with the Georgian military
stopped the Russians?
Raymond O'Hara
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:48a5...@clear.net.nz...
a few advisors are a bit different from a full unit.
a missile battery has quite a few people and just being a formed unit would
make it a more politically troubling target
PaPaPeng
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> a few advisors are a bit different from a full unit.
>> a missile battery has quite a few people and just being a formed unit
>> would make it a more politically troubling target
>
>Like "The US would nuke a country that dared to attack the very
>missiles that would prevent the US from being hit by the retaliation
>nuke strike"?
>
>Sorry, but if Russia decides to attack Poland they simply will do it,
>US troops or not. There sure as hell were "advisors" in Serbia when the
>US attacked Kosovo, weren't there?
>
>Juergen Nieveler
The missile agreement with Poland is already signed. The fallout will
be the sale of the Russia's most advanced anti aircraft missile system
to Iran and very likely other advanced arms too. A civilian nuclear
power plant(s) for Iran looks likely. Look to Russia uparming the
other Arab states (Syria, Lebanon). That's where the real oil and gas
prizes are. Russia is unlikely to occupy Georgia, too costly in
manpower and materiel. But either Georgia gets a government friendly
or it will never be allowed any stability. The BTC pipeline route will
be frequently interrupted.
Fred J. McCall
:Raymond O'Hara wrote:
:> I can see more countries wanting missiles.
:> not so much for the missiles themselves but for the U.S troops that will man
:> then
:> the russian bear will think twice before attacking a country with American
:> troops there.
:>
:
:You mean, like the US trainers etc working with the Georgian military
:stopped the Russians?
:
A handful of trainers aren't going to stop thousands of Russians.
Actual American installations would be a slightly different thing.
Remember the basic tenant of the Cold War. The Russians don't want to
force American troops into a position where they have to shoot
Russians any more than we want to force them into a situation where
they have to shoot Americans.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Raymond O'Hara
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9AFB5F83A162...@nieveler.org...
>> a missile battery has quite a few people and just being a formed unit
>> would make it a more politically troubling target
>
> missiles that would prevent the US from being hit by the retaliation
> nuke strike"?
>
> Sorry, but if Russia decides to attack Poland they simply will do it,
> US troops or not. There sure as hell were "advisors" in Serbia when the
> US attacked Kosovo, weren't there?
>
> Juergen Nieveler
these won't be advisors. do you understand that.
it will be an american military unit.
Raymond O'Hara
> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> these won't be advisors. do you understand that.
>> it will be an american military unit.
>
>
> The russian government has already stated the glaringly obvious to the
> press: IF they want to launch a huge wave of ICBMs and don't want any
> interference from those pesky SAM sites, there'll be a couple of
> missiles with much lower trajectory and flight time launched first...
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Ignore previous cookie
actually if they launced a huge wave of ICBMs they'd get a huger one back.
so the fate of poland would be irrelevent.
but by stationing troops in a country we make it a trip wire.
William Black
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ba2dnW5-VM-reTjV...@rcn.net...
Why, exactly, does the USA need Poland for a trip wire?
And have you told the Poles, who obviously think the thing will never work
and are doing it only to upset the Russians.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Fred J. McCall
:"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:> these won't be advisors. do you understand that.
:> it will be an american military unit.
:
:And?
:
:The russian government has already stated the glaringly obvious to the
:press: IF they want to launch a huge wave of ICBMs and don't want any
:interference from those pesky SAM sites, there'll be a couple of
:missiles with much lower trajectory and flight time launched first...
:
Which is about the stupidest thing they can do, since when they do
that we empty the holes over here before they launch their "huge wave
of ICBMs".
David E. Powell
There weren't any US troops in country. And I would guess that the
Georgians were a lot more effective than they would have been
otherwise against those odds thanks to that training. We have few
reports of Russian losses.
David E. Powell
Maybe the Afghan and Iraqi militaries will look for new gear and ammo
suppliers.
tankfixer
PaPa...@yahoo.com says...
Russians are morons to sell any advanced weponry to Iran.
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
Raymond O'Hara
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g84qvo$9vl$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ba2dnW5-VM-reTjV...@rcn.net...
>>
>> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AFBCDE8A373...@nieveler.org...
>>> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> these won't be advisors. do you understand that.
>>>> it will be an american military unit.
>>>
>>> And?
>>>
>>> The russian government has already stated the glaringly obvious to the
>>> press: IF they want to launch a huge wave of ICBMs and don't want any
>>> interference from those pesky SAM sites, there'll be a couple of
>>> missiles with much lower trajectory and flight time launched first...
>>>
>>> Juergen Nieveler
>>> --
>>> Ignore previous cookie
>>
>>
>> actually if they launced a huge wave of ICBMs they'd get a huger one
>> back.
>> so the fate of poland would be irrelevent.
>> but by stationing troops in a country we make it a trip wire.
>>
>
> Why, exactly, does the USA need Poland for a trip wire?
>
> And have you told the Poles, who obviously think the thing will never
> work and are doing it only to upset the Russians.
>
because russia is acting like germany in the late 30s.
since actually fighting is out this works and its a good excuse.
we are there just to defend against "muslim" ICBMs. so we can deny its an
anti-russia move.
do you think its just a coincidence tht the deal was signed now?
poland just got nervous. everybody next to russia just got nervous,
Kerryn Offord
Hey, the Americans did it.. (Even after 1979)
Fred J. McCall
:
Not so much, no. Iran-Contra wasn't about selling "advanced weponry
[sic]" to Iran.
We also don't live next door to Iran. Russia does. This is stupidity
on the order of the Chinese selling or giving nuclear technology to
Pakistan.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
William Black
> because russia is acting like germany in the late 30s.
In what way exactly?
tankfixer
Before they went nutter yes.
After we gave em obsolete versions that were good enough to stop the
obsolete Soviet tanks Iraq was using.
Raymond O'Hara
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zJidnRFhkfzcoTvV...@rcn.net...
>
>> because russia is acting like germany in the late 30s.
>
> In what way exactly?
>
by creating incidents to save an ethnic minority in a region in another
country and then coming to the aid of them.
soon they've swallowed the whole.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:g86icv$bc9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:zJidnRFhkfzcoTvV...@rcn.net...
>
> >> because russia is acting like germany in the late 30s.
>
> > In what way exactly?
>
> by creating incidents to save an ethnic minority in a region in another
> country and then coming to the aid of them.
> soon they've swallowed the whole.
They are acting more like Russia in the 19th Century, creating ethnic
areas and acting as if they have independence until you realize the
"leader" is named Koslov.
William Black
Goodness no.
Russia didn't start anything this time.
There's absolutely no doubt at all that the Georgians attacked the Russian
peacekeepers, and killed twelve of them.
Raymond O'Hara
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fqdnYWnOeTVrDrV...@rcn.net...
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:g86icv$bc9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zJidnRFhkfzcoTvV...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>>> because russia is acting like germany in the late 30s.
>>>
>>> In what way exactly?
>>>
>>
>> by creating incidents to save an ethnic minority in a region in another
>> country and then coming to the aid of them.
>> soon they've swallowed the whole.
>
> Goodness no.
>
> Russia didn't start anything this time.
>
> There's absolutely no doubt at all that the Georgians attacked the Russian
> peacekeepers, and killed twelve of them.
>
> --
> William Black
>
William Black
Is that what they call a non sequitor?
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9fqdnYWnOeTVrDrV...@rcn.net...
> >
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:g86icv$bc9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>
> >> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:zJidnRFhkfzcoTvV...@rcn.net...
> >>
> >>> because russia is acting like germany in the late 30s.
> >>
> >> In what way exactly?
> >>
> >
> > by creating incidents to save an ethnic minority in a region in another
> > country and then coming to the aid of them.
> > soon they've swallowed the whole.
>
> Goodness no.
>
> Russia didn't start anything this time.
>
> There's absolutely no doubt at all that the Georgians attacked the Russian
> peacekeepers, and killed twelve of them.
I will wait for a bit before making a decsion on who started what.
William Black
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> No better incentive then picture of tanks in Georgia to get a deal
>>> done. Expect other chess moves to come.
>>
>> Maybe the Afghan and Iraqi militaries will look for new gear and ammo
>> suppliers.
>
>
And then not buy them.
The pair of well singed tanks everyone's seen on the news were Georgian.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:The russian government has already stated the glaringly obvious to the
:>:press: IF they want to launch a huge wave of ICBMs and don't want any
:>:interference from those pesky SAM sites, there'll be a couple of
:>:missiles with much lower trajectory and flight time launched first...
:>:
:> Which is about the stupidest thing they can do, since when they do
:> that we empty the holes over here before they launch their "huge wave
:> of ICBMs".
:
:Hint:
:- Flight time of a nuclear SRBM from Russian territory to the SAM base?
:- Flight time of the russian ICBMs before they can be engaged by the
:SAMs? - Flight time of the US ICBMs before they can strike the russian
:silos?
:
:You do the maths... the US ICBMs would get launched at most 5 minutes
:earlier than they'd be after getting the launch alert from all those
:russian silos/trucks - you'd be striking empty holes.
:
Hint: It wouldn't be a counterforce strike.
Hint: Since we don't operate under 'launch on warning', the actual
missile impacts on anti-missile installations in Poland is launch
release for US forces, where otherwise we'd have to wait for a missile
strike on US territory. US ICBMs would get launched 30 minutes
earlier, eliminating any possibility of a Soviet counterforce strike
succeeding.
:
:No, the only way to counter a strike against the SAM bases would be an
:all-out attack against civilian targets - welcome back to the world of
:MAD.
:
Welcome back? Where'd you get the idea we ever left?
Hint: The handful of missiles installed in Poland is not intended to
be able to do anything about a large Russian strike.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Not so much, no. Iran-Contra wasn't about selling "advanced weponry
:> [sic]" to Iran.
:>
:> We also don't live next door to Iran. Russia does. This is stupidity
:> on the order of the Chinese selling or giving nuclear technology to
:> Pakistan.
:
:I rather doubt that Iran is going to invade Russia anytime soon,
:neither is Pakistan going to attack China. Their governemnts consist of
:madmen, but they aren't THAT dumb ;-)
:
But you can't take it all back when they DO get big enough to do that.
That's why it's stupid. Moronic short sightedness.
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > After we gave em obsolete versions that were good enough to stop the
> > obsolete Soviet tanks Iraq was using.
>
> Saddam was an ungrateful bastard ;-)
He had plenty of tanks already.
Nice shiny Soviets ones.
Reverse gear is worn out though....
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:I rather doubt that Iran is going to invade Russia anytime soon,
:>:neither is Pakistan going to attack China. Their governemnts consist of
:>:madmen, but they aren't THAT dumb ;-)
:>:
:>
:> But you can't take it all back when they DO get big enough to do that.
:> That's why it's stupid. Moronic short sightedness.
:
:Big enough to take on CHINA?
:
To paraphrase, God made some nations big and God made some nations
small. Then Robert Oppenheimer made the equalizer...
:
:That will be the day... the only country in the region that could hope
:to match China is India, who're not really that much on good terms with
:each other (they did have that little border dispute a while back, and
:India lost).
:
Yes, and this is why China stupidly (in my opinion) decided to help
Pakistan develop nuclear weapons.
Building up a country which has its own interests and shares a
(sometimes disputed) border with you may make sense short term, but it
is almost always stupidity in the long run.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:Big enough to take on CHINA?
:>:
:>
:> To paraphrase, God made some nations big and God made some nations
:> small. Then Robert Oppenheimer made the equalizer...
:
:But unfortunately China has more equalizers. And you'd need a LOT of
:them to hit enough of China to make them accept they've lost... by
:which time a country the size of Pakistan would be glassed over already.
:
So you are of the opinion that nuclear wars can be fought and won?
:>:That will be the day... the only country in the region that could hope
:>:to match China is India, who're not really that much on good terms
:>:with each other (they did have that little border dispute a while
:>:back, and India lost).
:>:
:> Yes, and this is why China stupidly (in my opinion) decided to help
:> Pakistan develop nuclear weapons.
:
:Their only common border is an area neither side would like to do much
:fighting in, and China has shown against India that if they have to
:fight in the mountains, they'll still win...
:
And yet both China and Pakistan *DO* fight there.
:> Building up a country which has its own interests and shares a
:> (sometimes disputed) border with you may make sense short term, but it
:> is almost always stupidity in the long run.
:
:I disagree, at least as long as Pakistan stays a western-friendly
:military dictatorship.
:
:IF they turn islamistic, all bets are off, especially seeing how the
:Chinese treat the Uigures (who are muslims...).
:
And this is why it's stupid. Nothing ever stays the same. Giving
potential enemies things that can hurt you because it's convenient at
the moment is stupid.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius
tankfixer
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >> > After we gave em obsolete versions that were good enough to stop the
> >> > obsolete Soviet tanks Iraq was using.
> >>
> >> Because Iraq was inconsiderate enough not to buy obsolete US tanks -
> >> Saddam was an ungrateful bastard ;-)
> >
> > He had plenty of tanks already.
> > Nice shiny Soviets ones.
> > Reverse gear is worn out though....
>
> been different, would it? ;-)
Nope, he'd still be toast.
Even if he'd bought German tanks..; ;')
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:But unfortunately China has more equalizers. And you'd need a LOT of
:>:them to hit enough of China to make them accept they've lost... by
:>:which time a country the size of Pakistan would be glassed over already.
:>:
:>
:> So you are of the opinion that nuclear wars can be fought and won?
:
:Between superpowers? Nope.
:
:But between a small regional power with maybe 1-2 dozen nukes
:
Nobody sane believes that Pakistan has that few weapons.
:
:and a
:superpower, the outcome will be pretty clear - especially when the
:superpower is a huge nation state.
:
I thought we were talking about Pakistan and China. China isn't a
'superpower'.
:Pakistan vs. UK, that would be MAD. Pakistan vs. China would be glassed-
:over parking lot vs. pissed-off superpower...
You're kidding yourself. How many million people is China willing to
lose? Yes, they've got plenty, but do they really want to catch a
bunch of nukes in their high-tech areas?
Jim Watt
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>Pakistan vs. UK, that would be MAD
Leaving aside delivery by suitcase or corner shop
how exactly would the Paki's deliver?
Methinks they are more interested in India.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
William Black
> Jim Watt <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote:
>
>>>Pakistan vs. UK, that would be MAD
>>
>> Leaving aside delivery by suitcase or corner shop
>> how exactly would the Paki's deliver?
>
>
> FAS.org mentions a missile named Tipu that has a range of 4000 km:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/missile/tipu.htm
Not operational as far as anyone knows.
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> Jim Watt <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote:
>
> >>Pakistan vs. UK, that would be MAD
> >
> > Leaving aside delivery by suitcase or corner shop
> > how exactly would the Paki's deliver?
>
>
> FAS.org mentions a missile named Tipu that has a range of 4000 km:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/missile/tipu.htm
>
> off...
>
> > Methinks they are more interested in India.
>
Might be useful in leveing it out for Walmarts ?
David McMillan
>> :press: IF they want to launch a huge wave of ICBMs and don't want any
>> :interference from those pesky SAM sites, there'll be a couple of
>> :missiles with much lower trajectory and flight time launched first...
>> :
>> Which is about the stupidest thing they can do, since when they do
>> that we empty the holes over here before they launch their "huge wave
>> of ICBMs".
>
> Hint:
> - Flight time of a nuclear SRBM from Russian territory to the SAM base?
> - Flight time of the russian ICBMs before they can be engaged by the
> SAMs? - Flight time of the US ICBMs before they can strike the russian
> silos?
Hint: irrelevant.
Why do people keep getting stuck on this non-issue? The ABMs based in
Poland aren't oriented against ICBMs being fired from Russia against
North America, and depending on deployment might be useless against
IRBMs launched against Europe from Russia. Not that it would matter
anyway, since 15 ABMs vs the hundreds, if not thousands, of IRBMs Russia
currently has available.
The ABM system being deployed in Poland has no affect on the Russian
strategic or theater nuclear issue. The Russians just seize on it as a
handy excuse for acting hysterical and bellicose because bystanders keep
falling for the hype that this is somehow an aggressive move against Russia.
Peter Skelton
OFCS the Russians are about as happy about a major American
military presence in Poland as the US would be about a Russian
one in Mexico. Buffers are a good idea.
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:
:> OFCS the Russians are about as happy about a major American
:> military presence in Poland as the US would be about a Russian
:> one in Mexico. Buffers are a good idea.
:
:s/Mexico/Cuba - maybe somebody remembers? ;-)
:
Ah, but nobody objected to the Russians having significant military
forces in Cuba, and they did so.
The objection was to basing strategic nuclear weapons targeted upon
the United States there. We're not talking about putting a nuclear
strike capability in Poland.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> The objection was to basing strategic nuclear weapons targeted upon
:> the United States there. We're not talking about putting a nuclear
:> strike capability in Poland.
:
:No, but about putting missiles there that might lessen the
:effectiveness of the russian nuclear strike forces. Sure, at the moment
:itz's only a handfull of SAMs - but they are a precedent - just like
:the missiles on Cuba.
:
:In a couple of years there might be scores more, enough to make sure
:that those ICBMs targeted at important areas don't get through...
:
I'll suggest the same thing I always suggest. Get a mapping program
that understand Great Circle routing. Draw a line from the Russian
missile fields to anywhere in the United States. What you will see is
that with a detection radar where we're putting it and missiles in
Poland you will never be able to successfully intercept Russian
missiles targeted on the US from there. The angle is all wrong,
because you will be trying to engage from the side (at best) and the
back and interceptors really want to be IN FRONT OF the inbounds.
The Russians have spewed so much bullshit about this that everyone has
apparently lost whatever knowledge they might have had of long range
ballistic behaviour.
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>:Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>:
>:> OFCS the Russians are about as happy about a major American
>:> military presence in Poland as the US would be about a Russian
>:> one in Mexico. Buffers are a good idea.
>:
>:s/Mexico/Cuba - maybe somebody remembers? ;-)
>:
>
>Ah, but nobody objected to the Russians having significant military
>forces in Cuba, and they did so.
>
>The objection was to basing strategic nuclear weapons targeted upon
>the United States there. We're not talking about putting a nuclear
>strike capability in Poland.
Cuba has no land border with the US. The missiles envisaged for
Poland will reach Russia and will have the throw weight to handle
nuclear warheads.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>> Cuba has no land border with the US. The missiles envisaged for
>> Poland will reach Russia and will have the throw weight to handle
>> nuclear warheads.
>
>"Land borders" are pretty meaningless for missiles, aren't they?
>
OK sir net grammar nazi, I should have used two paragraphs.
There are two reasons the Cuba comparison is not appropriate.
Peter Skelton
ohar...@mindspring.com
> On 21 Aug 2008 12:06:30 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
>
> >Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Cuba has no land border with the US. The missiles envisaged for
> >> Poland will reach Russia and will have the throw weight to handle
> >> nuclear warheads.
>
> >"Land borders" are pretty meaningless for missiles, aren't they?
>
> OK sir net grammar nazi, I should have used two paragraphs.
>
> There are two reasons the Cuba comparison is not appropriate.
>
> Peter Skelton
McCall:
You dont need a mapping program for that, a simple globe will do very
well and show the Russians to be full of BS.
Fred J. McCall
:
True. I could have just told them to get a globe and a piece of
string...
Richard Casady
I have a globe and use string with it. It goes well with the TV news.
Casady
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> > the United States there. We're not talking about putting a nuclear
> > strike capability in Poland.
>
> effectiveness of the russian nuclear strike forces. Sure, at the moment
> itz's only a handfull of SAMs - but they are a precedent - just like
> the missiles on Cuba.
I didn't know the Russian missile silo's would be launching on a
trajectory over Europe
>
> In a couple of years there might be scores more, enough to make sure
> that those ICBMs targeted at important areas don't get through...
tankfixer
skel...@cogeco.ca says...
That's about the most absurd thing I've seen today.
Fred J. McCall
:tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
:
:>> Cuba has no land border with the US. The missiles envisaged for
:>> Poland will reach Russia and will have the throw weight to handle
:>> nuclear warheads.
:>
:> That's about the most absurd thing I've seen today.
:
:Actually, it's not that absurd (though unlikely).
:
Well, yeah, actually it is.
:
:Nike Hercules, for example, DID have nuclear warheads,
:
And of course because there was a SINGLE SAM with a nuclear warhead,
why all of them might have them.
Yeah, right.
:
:... and an emergency surface-to-surface
:mode.
:
No. That was Improved Hercules, which came later.
However, to the point. What's being put into Poland is not Nike
Hercules, does not have nuclear warheads, and has no
surface-to-surface mode.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
David McMillan
>> Ah, but nobody objected to the Russians having significant military
>> forces in Cuba, and they did so.
>>
>> The objection was to basing strategic nuclear weapons targeted upon
>> the United States there. We're not talking about putting a nuclear
>> strike capability in Poland.
>
> Cuba has no land border with the US. The missiles envisaged for
> Poland will reach Russia and will have the throw weight to handle
> nuclear warheads.
...what? That's completely untrue. The missiles you're referring to
don't have *any* "throw weight" -- they don't have warheads, period,
just a set of high-end telescopic optics and some maneuvering thrusters
(hit-to-kill KKV). I suspect most of the assembly would burn up during
re-entry anyway. Not to mention it has no guidance for any kind of RV.
Even if you could shoehorn a tiny Crockett-range nuke, *and* a
midcourse guidance system, *and* a reentry-capable shell, into one of
those missiles (which I seriously doubt), why bother? It's completely
impractical. Even in the most paranoid fringes of the CSB, someone
seriously proposing that these ABMs are some kind of covert
nuke-carrying TBM would be laughed out of the room.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> No. That was Improved Hercules, which came later.
:>
:> However, to the point. What's being put into Poland is not Nike
:> Hercules, does not have nuclear warheads, and has no
:> surface-to-surface mode.
:
:And the Russians are allowed to go and verify this?
:
Of course not. The Poles finally got rid of them and aren't
interested in inviting them back in.
:
:This is about Russian paranoia, after all... the Russians see US
:troops, and trucks with missiles arriving, and they only have the word
:of the Pentagon that those REALLY are only conventional SAMs.
:
So because you are insane we need to show the Russians our underwear
whenever they want?
Hint: NOBODY but you has come up with such a loony scenario and the
Russians haven't even suggested it.
:
:If the Russians started basing conventional ABMs on Cuba, would the US
:allow this without any comment?
:
Sure. If they're stupid enough to want to put them there, why would
we care?
Note that prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviet Union moved
several SAM regiments to Cuba without comment by us.
Fred J. McCall
:David McMillan <spam...@skyefire.org> wrote:
:
:> Even if you could shoehorn a tiny Crockett-range nuke, *and* a
:> midcourse guidance system, *and* a reentry-capable shell, into one of
:> those missiles (which I seriously doubt), why bother? It's completely
:> impractical. Even in the most paranoid fringes of the CSB, someone
:> seriously proposing that these ABMs are some kind of covert
:> nuke-carrying TBM would be laughed out of the room.
:
:Look at it from the Russian side (and yes, they ARE paranoid)... you
:see your arch-enemy opening a military base right next to your border,
:and basing missiles there. Oh, they SAY that they're SAMs, but all you
:really can tell from the outside is green trucks going in, carrying
:some sort of launch canisters, or long containers, or however the
:missiles are transported.
:
Note that the Russians haven't said any such thing, which would seem
to indicate that you are both more paranoid and loonier than they are.
:
:Maybe you can even catch a glimpse from a satelite or airplane into an
:open silo - but even that would only show you the business end of a
:missile... no way to check what's inside.
:
:Yes, IRBMs have been banned back in the 80s, but ABMs have been banned
:as well, and the US government basically said "Hey, that was between us
:and the Soviets. They're gone, so the treaty is gone"...
:
Oh, hogwash! The US did no such bloody thing, you lying idiot. The
ABM Treaty had a provision for withdrawal upon six months notice to
the other party. We gave such notice and withdrew.
:
:... so for the
:Russians this HAS to look like an attempt to sneak in some secret
:successor to the Pershing II.
:
And yet THEY are complaining about no such thing, which just goes to
show that you are loonier than even their Disinformation Bureau.