FWD (FT) Re: SDI debate [was - eeyore and tigger]

From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@frontiernet.net)
Date: Tue Jun 13 2000 - 23:11:50 MDT

 I think it's a screwy idea. It would never work against a massive attack
 because defense will always be more expensive than offence, if it takes 10
 dollars to shoot down 10 cents of hardware the other side will just overwhelm
 you. As for a small attack, well if I were an insane dictator of some little
 jerkwater country I wouldn't use ICBM's to deliver my bombs, they're harder to
 make than nukes and much more expensive; I'd use FedEx or UPS to deliver my
 H Bomb, the transportation would only cost a few dollars not a few billion.
 It has other advantages too, a rocket can be tracked so everyone would know
 who was responsible for having Manhattan vaporized, America might be
 irritated at me. Better if things just go boom and nobody knows why.
 I could even send a letter of condolence afterwards.
All of the above is good sense. The present plan is to stop a small attack or
protect a given area. The sea based system is the one being pushed forward at
the moment. There is no attempt underway to do a full blown SDI multiple
layered defense. ( Be nice guys, my ships will be the launch platforms for



>I thought the conspiracy was to get the military to pay for a
>permanent manned presence in space.

No, it was to pay for the development of a SSTO (single stage to orbit)
for the USAF, successfully completed in the late 80s according to Aviation Leak.

- as well as to bankrupt the USSR.


what, me theorise?


 But is it worth abrogating an arms-control treaty, pissing of the
 Russians and Chinese and re-starting the COld War for?
That treaty allows defense of two cities as the Russians have done. That
treaty was with the USSR and while the Russians may like to think so, They
Ain't the CCCP. The Chinese are very much a part of the problem and a limited
defense would spike their wheels for decades.
A Cold War with whom? The Russians? The Chinese? Who has the money and isn't
spending it already? Cold War indeed!

See this is the proper debate; not is it possible.



>That treaty allows defense of two cities as the Russians have done. That
>treaty was with the USSR and while the Russians may like to think so, They
>Ain't the CCCP.

Erm, for the purposes of international law they are: after the
break-up of the USSR, Russia accepted responsibility for the USSR's
treaty obligations, and was recognised by the UN as the USSR's
successor in matters such as the Security Council permanent seat.



>>Yep. The only people who have used this successfully against the late
>>unlamented Sovs are the Finns, who renounced the Treaty on Friendship
>>and Mutual Cooperation <spit> when the Communists fell from power. Even
>>they would probably have had to back down if Yeltsin had made an issue
>>of it, but the Russians presumably decided that they would just as soon
>>*not* have Finns with guns called up to defend Russia's western border
>>in a time of crisis, heh.
>I hadn't realised they'd denounced that treaty. Good for them!

Yes, in 1991 IIRC. Esko Aho, in his best Finnish deadpan, announced
that the YYA-sopimus had been signed with the USSR, which no longer
existed, so the treaty was void. It was very low key, and I'm sure they
advised Yeltsin ahead of time that the announcement was coming. The
reasoning was illegitimate, as you noted earlier, but I think all
parties concerned had already decided that the treaty was offensive and
should be quietly nullified with all deliberate speed (the Russians
hardly uttered a peep). Soon afterward, a replacement treaty was signed
that was peer-to-peer, similar to agreements Russia has with Germany.

>Now, next they need to get Karelia back...

To tell the truth, nobody wants it back except a few revanchists. Of
course, if Russia would take back all the people Stalin "resettled"
there it might be a different matter; but very few Finns would take
eastern Karelia back even if it was offered to them free and clear, if
absorbing the Russians who live there was part of the deal. Petsamo
might be a different matter, but presumably that's not in the cards.

>Roy, a fennophile from an early age

I have sometimes wondered about kalevala.org. :-)

john k

Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA)
< fortean1@frontiernet.net >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage *
   TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA,
                  and Vietnam veterans welcome]
Southeast Asia (SEA) service:
Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade
   (Jan 71 - Aug 72)
 - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand
   (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73)
 - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand
   (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site
   (Aug 73 - Jan 74)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:15 MDT