101. thomasd - May 29, 1998 - 8:08 PM PDT
Notes:
102. Wombat - May 29, 1998 - 8:13 PM PDT
I think Jerry Lewis was popular in France during the 1950s. Leave it.
What concerns me most about the nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan, is that you have two countries that have fought three major wars since their creation, are exchanging fire along the border in Kashmir now, and almost went to war a few years ago because one country misinterpreted the other's military exercises (there is no effective diplomatic dialog and no hotline between the two countries).
India has an unfortunate tradition of regional military adventurism (do not forget that India provoked the Sino-Indian clash in 1962). Now that an explicitly Hindu nationalist party is in power, is India likely to respond responsibly to perceived provocations? (Note Marjoribanks: India has faced communal unrest from Sikhs and Gurkhas in the not so distant past, and I am not assured that the current government will deal well with any future unrest.)
So, two countries that are more overtly hostile than the U.S. and Soviets ever were; none of the safeguards that were developed to try and avert accidental clashes; and a nationalist government in India that has issued statements, justifications, and "doctrine" that appear both contradictory and delusionary. It's a good thing the weapons will be low-yield.
103. Wombat - May 29, 1998 - 8:31 PM PDT
TD:
You still don't understand how an Aegis-based system would work. The system, if it works at all, would be most effective against missiles that are on the downward trajectory toward the assets that the Aegis-based system is attacking. To have a hope of reaching missiles in the immediate post-launch phase, the US warships would have to be so close to the littoral of the country launching them that they would be vulnerable to attack from all quarters.
As to the rest of your "plan," the only rejoinder I have is that of your Republican pals to the proposals set out in the climate change summit in Osaka: You are proposing to spend vast sums of money to counter a threat that may not exist, using means that may not work (based on recent test results "may" is perhaps too optimistic).
If a country or terrorist group is so immune to the threat of US retaliation that they want to set off a nuke in the United States, or against an overseas US target, there are simpler ways of doing it than using missiles.
104. Wombat - May 29, 1998 - 9:19 PM PDT
I'm sorry, "Aegis system is 'protecting'..not 'attacking.'"
And TD, if your surviving missile has MIRVed, then you had better figure out a way to protect every potential target on the East Coast.
105. thomasd - May 29, 1998 - 9:24 PM PDT
Re. 103 -
Wombat -
I did say 'Aegis-derived', but more to imply an association than to cause anyone to believe that the Aegis technology can be used without major modifications. Besides, the idea of cruiser based defensive (or offensive) systems have never been caught in a stasis wrt to potentialities, which is a starting point for my idea. For example, the Navy is proposing *less* modified versions of the Aegis system for Taiwanese and even single stage national ABM defense.
Having said that, you have a point that, as a first line of defense, it would be somewhat less effective against countries which extend far from coastal areas.
Obviously, a non-missile based nuclear threat requires its *own* *independent* solutions, but that really doesn't affect the idea I described in 98-100. Better to be as well defended as possible than to be obligated to threaten the world with nuclear obliteration. To put it another way, I think Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM treaty, was right.
106. Raskolnikov - May 29, 1998 - 9:32 PM PDT
thomasd: I don't stay awake at night wondering if India or Pakistan is going to lob a nuclear missile our way. I stay awake at night wondering when a terrorist group is going to sneak one in. Lets do a threat assessment and target our financial resources accordingly.
107. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:35 PM PDT
I stay awake at night watching Patrick Swayze movies.
108. CalGal - May 29, 1998 - 9:37 PM PDT
I stay awake at night thinking about having sex with Patrick Swayze.
Not really.
Sam Waterston.
Hiya, Niner!
109. 109109 - May 29, 1998 - 9:49 PM PDT
Hola Cal. Keep your hands off Swayze. He's gonna' be my gay test thread.
110. CalGal - May 29, 1998 - 11:15 PM PDT
Niner,
Swayze is all yours, and an excellent test case he'd make. One of the few white men who can move his hips.
I'll keep Waterston, who probably can't move his hips, but I'll teach him.
111. cigarlaw - May 29, 1998 - 11:44 PM PDT
Dream, dream dream dream,
dream, dream dream dream,
when I want you, in the night,
when I want you to hold me tight,
whenever ever I want you,
all I have to do is dream, dream dream dream.
112. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 11:49 PM PDT
TD wrote, "Okay, the first stage Aegis-derived system takes out about 80% of the 12 missiles right away, leaving 2 to 3. We'll say 3 (75%). The SDI tech-based second stage is still being refined, thus it only gets 67% of the remaining missiles, leaving one (1) for the conventional ABM-type system to handle. "
The argument above assumes that the Aegis-derived system is currently well developed thus getting an 75% kill rate vs. the "still being refined" SDI. The Aegis system is designed for fleet defense in which the fleet is itself the target rather than someplace else in another hemisphere being the target. It would have to be ^severely^ derived to act as the hemispheric defense system you propose. For instance, the PRC would launch from sites well away from the coast where your Aegis-derived system is deployed.
Secondly, the targets of MIRVed warheads cannot be derived from the ballistic of the launch vehicle, so the ability to somehow concentrate final ring ABM assests to protect specific targets will not work.
Finally, the ICBM threat to the US has not been increased in the least by recent events. As has been pointed out the threat that is increasing is the threat of nuclear car bombings. If we spend money on SDI we would be, IMO, throwning money at a marginal problem and not at central problems.
vK
113. cigarlaw - May 29, 1998 - 11:53 PM PDT
And we will all go together when we go
all sufused in an incandesant glow.
no one will have the endurance
to collect on their insurance
Lloyds of London will be loaded when they go.
114. vonKreedon - May 29, 1998 - 11:55 PM PDT
So long mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me!
115. cigarlaw - May 30, 1998 - 12:00 AM PDT
First you get down on your knees,
fiddle with you roseries
bow your head in great respect,
then genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
Make a cross on your abdoman,
when in Rome, do like a Roman,
Ave Maria, gee its good to see ya,
doin' the Vatican rag.
(I have been expelled from Religion, so I am trying to get kicked out of here as well.)
116. vonKreedon - May 30, 1998 - 12:06 AM PDT
Cigar - More wisdom from Lehrer:
Plagerize!
Let no one elses work evade your eyes!
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
and plagerize, plagerize, plagerize
And who deserves the credit?
And who deserves the blame?
Nicholai Ivanovov Yevelenski is his name!
Hai!
117. cigarlaw - May 30, 1998 - 12:09 AM PDT
Remember. Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it.
118. cigarlaw - May 30, 1998 - 12:16 AM PDT
From India to Pakistan.
The Jets are gonna have their day tonight!
The Jets are gonna have thier way tonight!
That Pakistani punk'll go down
and when he hollars uncle, we'll tear up the town.
We're gonna rock it tonight
we're gonna jazz it up and have us a ball.
They're gonna get it tonight
the more they turn it on the harder they fall.
119. CalGal - May 30, 1998 - 12:23 AM PDT
What's the rest of the Pete Seeger song:
"All men are cremated equal"?
120. JustSayYo - May 30, 1998 - 5:37 AM PDT
Cigarlaw,
the song you chose made me think of Clashs': Rock the Casbah.
Mostly you people are cracking me up, snort hahahahahahahahahah snort hahahahahahahah....
better stop now. i'm not in FC.
Peace.
121. JustSayYo - May 30, 1998 - 5:51 AM PDT
PE, you said it best in International.
Scott, YOUR RIGHT! I'm sorry I contributed to it.
Carp01, your commentary has the human twist to it that I understand. I relate to your questioning and undertone of fear.
All, It seems to me that there IS an undertone of FEAR in many of the posts. Jokes and all give the appearance of making fun of our fear, that's good, you need to do that. OR guess what; it'll get to you.
PE and Marj have proven insite into these two countries and it will be an honor to sit by quietly and read their respective posts concerning the perceived crisis in the making. Then join in with questions and comments and yes a little joking or what have you. I picture Colonel Potter from the series MASH: jokularity, jokularity (hehehehe). Our fear is perceived and you and I will have to watch out for media spin and political propaganda which may turn us one way or another. Be aware and read up in International.
Peace, fraysters.
Yo.
122. Wombat - May 30, 1998 - 8:18 AM PDT
"First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'cause we love peace and...motherhood,
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's OK,
'cause the balance of power's maintained that way,
Who's next?
France got the bomb, but don't you agree?
'cause they're on our side, I believe,
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
they can'twipe us out for at least five years,
Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one too, just use on you-know-who,
So Israel's getting tense, wants one in self-defense,
The lord's our shepherd, says the psalm,
But just in case...we'd better get a bomb
Who's next?....
123. ScottLoar - May 30, 1998 - 9:42 AM PDT
Anybody else want to play Pete Seeger and join in with the Smothers Brothers?
124. Wombat - May 30, 1998 - 11:08 AM PDT
"Then Indonesia claimed that they
were gonna get one any day,
South Africa wants two, that's right
one for the blacks and one for the whites,
Who's next
Luxembourg is next to go
and who knows, maybe Monaco,
We'll try to stay serene and calm
when Alabama gets the bomb
Who's next, who's next, who's next...who's next!"
I know way more Tom Lehrer lyrics than is good for me.
125. FreeToChoose - May 30, 1998 - 2:19 PM PDT
In Message #64 ptboya says:
"The collapse of communism, the collapse of S. African apartheid, the impoverishment of Cuba, the heeling of Milosovich, are at least, reasons enough to question the grand assertion that sanctions never work."
I used to support the sanctions against Cuba, but I am gradually becoming convinced (partly due to input from PE and others in this forum) that sanctions are generating the desired impact. I still favor private sanctions, such as my personal decision to avoid goods made in China, but this is more symbolic than substantive. Did you see the article in Slate on sanctions in Cuba here?
"Despite this caveat, I too am skeptical about the efficacy of these particular sanctions."
I agree with you that the sanctions against India and Pakistan are likely to be ineffectual. Separately, I don't think the sanctions have any moral or ethical basis, and I am suspicious that they even have a legal basis.
126. ScottLoar - May 30, 1998 - 4:18 PM PDT
Odd, you don't think sanctions against India and Pakistan have any moral or ethical basis - and a dubious legal basis - yet you favour your private sanctions, particularly avoiding goods made in China. Why is that? The Chinese are particularly nefarious?
127. FreeToChoose - May 30, 1998 - 4:31 PM PDT
ScottLoar
"yet you favour your private sanctions, particularly
avoiding goods made in China. Why is that?"
Yes. Based upon what I have read, the Chinese government is not making a good faith effort to respect intellectual property rights. While there is some progress recently, I don't believe they are where they should be. I suspect you have a better handle on international issues than I do, so I would be more than happy to hear your take on it.
128. FreeToChoose - May 30, 1998 - 4:34 PM PDT
ScottLoar
I should have added, that I favor *private* actions, because a government sanction is, by definition, an official sanction taken on behalf of all citizens of a country. There may be people in this country who don't consider China's winking at intellectual property laws to be particularly egregious. There may be others who deplore it, but still value a cheap pair of gloves higher than their ethics. I don't want to impose *my* ethical conclusion on those people.
129. AzureNW - May 30, 1998 - 5:02 PM PDT
Wombat -
Re: Message #102
"...there is no hotline between the two countries..."
That's sickening. I sincerely hope someone will tell me it isn't true.
130. ScottLoar - May 30, 1998 - 8:09 PM PDT
FreeToChoose: You have a higher motive and more accurate cause for private sanctions than I had first supposed but, no, I will not engage in China talk for that would violate Loar's Ban on China Discussion which has been in popular effect here for a long while.
131. FreeToChoose - May 30, 1998 - 8:18 PM PDT
ScottLoar
I don't know all the history so I won't push it, but thanks for the compliment. (At least that's how I intend to interpret it. No need to correct me if I misread your comment (g))
132. Stumbo - May 30, 1998 - 8:23 PM PDT
Trivia question:
Which two nations mentioned in the last 20 posts -- in fact, in the same post -- have identical flags?
133. cigarlaw - May 30, 1998 - 10:48 PM PDT
Stumbo: The United States?
134. labarjare - May 31, 1998 - 6:06 AM PDT
Cheering in the streets in Pakistan over the latest examples of their prowess. Rose petals tossed at the feet of the nuclear scientists. All of this starting because of a campaign pledge in India that if victorious they would conduct nuclear tests.
Madness.
135. Stumbo - May 31, 1998 - 11:16 AM PDT
Cigar:
You have to name *two* countries. (It wasn't a trick question.)
136. FreetoChoose - May 31, 1998 - 12:26 PM PDT
Indonesia and Monaco
137. FreetoChoose - May 31, 1998 - 12:31 PM PDT
Labarjare
According to Tim Russert, it all started with the campaign contributions to Clinton form the Chinese.
(But I don't wish to clutter this thread with partisan rantings. If you want to discuss this, let's go to Clinton and the Media.)
138. Stumbo - May 31, 1998 - 12:36 PM PDT
Correct, FTC.
139. JustSayYo - May 31, 1998 - 2:51 PM PDT
Today on the front portion of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's International section were Indian nuclear protesters. There were about five articles and one mentioning backlash from legislators who disapprove of BJP nuclear testing. A legistlators comment that stuck, was his question of where will the economy go now that India is commited to an arms race? Interesting question, when his context included the ironic point that there is money for nuclear tests but not for improving the water supply.
140. JustSayYo - May 31, 1998 - 2:55 PM PDT
Other comments I found important were by average citizens within a few miles proximity of the test site complaining of new unexplained ailments. Interesting, uh? An official doctor stated there was absolutely no possible contamination of local residents. He attributed the new illnesses of over 150 people to the 113F heat. A man interviewed, in his sixties said "he didn't buy that".
141. cigarlaw - June 2, 1998 - 12:11 AM PDT
Stumbo: It was a trick answer -- 51 sovereignties and all that.
142. marjoribanks - June 3, 1998 - 6:50 AM PDT
For the record, India happens to be a vibrant democracy. A sizeable portion of legislators are likely to oppose ANY governmental action, on political grounds at the very least.
While there will likely be much back and forth over the nuclear issue in India this much is clear:
1) The nuclear tests have been the single most popular action by the Indian government in some decades. The vast majority of Indians support them.
2) At the geo-political level, the tests were a successful move by India. It will emerge in a better position than it occupied before the blasts.
3) The US has no high ground on this issue, and its position is rapidly being marginalized as its purported allies refuse to play along.
4) The sanctions will be lifted in another ignominious retreat by the USA, unless the US government wants to shoot its own banks and its own closer ally in the foot by maintaining them.
143. marjoribanks - June 3, 1998 - 6:55 AM PDT
There is little likelihood of a nuclear war in the subcontinent, especially between India and Pakistan. Here is a fairly typical and thoughtful article on the Nukes and South Asian relations with the USA. The commentator, I think, speaks for most Indians in the establishment and the electorate and reflects the likely coming trend in Indian foreign policy.
144. marjoribanks - June 3, 1998 - 6:57 AM PDT
BTW, in advance, I refuse to defend the commentators citation of a 500 million strong Indian middle class.
145. MrSocko - June 3, 1998 - 7:59 AM PDT
Hahahahaha! I thought the Indian middleclass number was ... 820m?
On all other issues but the middleclass numbers game, I've enjoyed your commentary, masterbanks. It helps that I agree with you about the tests, of course....
146. MrSocko - June 3, 1998 - 8:02 AM PDT
Mind you, the nuclear tests could throw the other kind of tests -- cricket tests -- into disarray. It doesn't really matter if, as it's promising to do, New Zealand boycotts them, but Australia ducking out could well deserve a nuke or two lobbed down the international pitch in the direction of Canberra.
147. marjoribanks - June 3, 1998 - 8:15 AM PDT
Socko,
The truth is that Australia dreads Sachin Tendulkar more than any other weapon in the Indian defense arsenal. He kicked their asses so comprehensively in recent tests and ODI that Warne is considering retirement and the captain for the test team will be sacked.
148. MrSocko - June 3, 1998 - 8:38 AM PDT
Perhaps Mr. Warne is in need of a ... a spin doctor.
149. marjoribanks - June 3, 1998 - 8:44 AM PDT
Socko,
You know, for whatever its worth, India and Israel will inevitably move towards closer relations, proving evidence for my claim a year ago in the Fray that they are natural allies. Vajpayee and Netanyahu are guaranteed to hit it off.
150. MrSocko - June 3, 1998 - 9:26 AM PDT
Yes, Vajpayee and Netanyahu are allies of sorts; although I prefer Netanyahu on economic matters, and Vajpayee on crime and punishment. But *natural* allies? I'm unconvinced. India has always been pretty anti-Israel. Perhaps that's more a factor to do with the nonsensical non-aligned movement. Still, it's not like they have a natural empathy.
I think (Hindu) Indians are generally well disposed towards Jews because the religion has no hang-ups about Judaism. Plus, being the racialist that I am -- not racist, please note -- I think that subcontinentals and Jews have a natural intellectual empathy. Could tbey ever be on kissing terms? I dunno. Maybe I should have married an Indian to find out for myself.
151. ScottLoar - June 3, 1998 - 9:45 AM PDT
Erh, uh, I've seen pictures of Mrs. Cohen and enjoyed her correspondence and if Socko is taken to remarrying perhaps Mrs. Cohen, erh, uh, could find a way to, uh, perhaps see in me more than in her sad relic of a husband. No offense or disrespect intended, surely.
152. marjoribanks - June 3, 1998 - 6:58 PM PDT
India-Israel tidbit.
153. labarjare - June 3, 1998 - 7:09 PM PDT
concerns about an Israeli aircraft in fact carrying armoured Cadillacs being ferried to Uzbekstan for a four hour (!!)visit by Netanyahu triggered the Pakistani tests, eh.
Say - I heard on NPR tonight that the best estimate is that Israel has about 200 nuclear warheads.
Socko, et others. Does that sound right?
154. MrSocko - June 3, 1998 - 7:29 PM PDT
ScottLoar:
He is happily married, have no fear.
labarjare:
Two hundred is the figure most commonly bandied about with regard to Israel's nukes. The figure first saw the light of day in an article published some years ago in the British Sunday Times. As you know, Israel's policy is to neither confirm nor deny their existence. Over recent years, government officials have taken to smirking when the issue is raised, suggesting perhaps that they possess more than what is commonly thought..
155. fortistan - June 3, 1998 - 8:09 PM PDT
The nuclear arms race is simply a grownup version of penis envy.
While posturing sanctimoniously that "might doesn't make right", we know in our hearts that it really does.
Homo Sapiens??
No, Homo Stupidus!
156. AzureNW - June 4, 1998 - 2:14 AM PDT
you said it, guy
157. ycnan3 - June 10, 1998 - 12:50 PM PDT
With this administration giving missle guidance system data to China, it is obvious why India told the world of their nuclear capabilities. Pakistan had to follow with their tests of nuclear devices. It looks like India/Pakistan playing "one upmanship", but it really is a message to China and the U.S. The present administration has totally ignored, with dark reasons, the India/Pakistan area problems. Their real problems are not with each other, but with the Chinese potential agression against them. Our obvious support of the Chinese military frightened India and Pakistan, and caused them to flex their muscles. Also tells us they know they can not expect any assistance from this laughablely lead country. Our claim of not knowing India had "the bomb" is just another lie. It's also very obvious we should be frightened of China also. Our military cannot now protect us against the type of agression we might expect from China. In fact, the present administration would probably surrender before a shot might be fired.