Congress stalls the Pentagon's "War on Terror" ICBM

Originally posted by donwhite
The US has no enemies that need or deserve a “rapid, effective preemptive” strike. This is the same problem creator as the criticism offered to the so-called Star Wars scenario tried to resolve; it is a first strike capability.

Huh? Have you looked at the world lately? There are plenty of current threats, scenarios, and enemies that require such a capability. If you support attacking a target via the means we have now then I don't see why you would object to this capably, it does nothing but increase our options.

Originally posted by donwhite
It brings us more and more disrespect. It underlies the rogue nation concept. We need to get out brains into a peace mode. Spend our money on health care and education. Something both useful and practicable.

I think it gives us more leverage in the geopolitical playing field. And being for peace is fine but when the time for action is necessary do you really want to be caught unprepared? Also Don, I’m only going to defend the idea of this concept and the capabilities of it, if you want to discuss how we should spend our money I’m not the guy for it.

posted by XphilesPhan

posted by Souljah
Russian strategic nuclear forces - Strategic Defense. The army is responsible for "continuous observation of missile launches as well as for space surveillance and defense of Moscow from ballistic missiles and their warheads. I am pretty sure the Ruskies will know an ICBM the second it is launched. As I said - do not Underestimate "Your Enemy". It always proves to be a Fatal Error.
[Edited by Don W]

Yes, they do lack military technology and maintenance of their existing weapons systems - but they are far from obsolete, as you are trying to make them look.

Well, I think I’m replying to XP, but here goes. Russia is trying to stay 2nd rate, and fast slipping into 3rd rate. They are not able to subdue the revolt in Chechnya. See Beslan school massacre in 2004. We found out first hand how terrible the Russian Navy was in 2000 when the Krusk sank. Enough.

Russia still uses analog in their electronics and vacuum tubes. Id honestly be surprised if they could get half of their birds to fly. They claim this makes their electronics less vulnerable to emp, but I think that is an excuse for inferior technology. Air Force One has EMP shielding, I wouldn’t be surprised if other military systems are shielding as well.

Well, although I discount the EMP scare, I’d still vote to have the essential networks made EMP resistant, if not proof. Like our power grid and other telecommunications systems. But I remind everyone we had more than 2000 tests of a-bombs and never experienced any of the EMP effects we hear so much about. So what gives here? How close to an a-bomb do you have to be to feel the EMP effect? Maybe close enough the heat will melt you? Hmm?

Originally posted by donwhite
But I remind everyone we had more than 2000 tests of a-bombs and never experienced any of the EMP effects we hear so much about.

Don, most of the US high altitude nuclear tests were done in the Pacific over uninhabited atolls and such, even then EMP effects from these testes were felt as far away as Hawaii for example. Tests in the CONUS were either close surface tests or underground tests, this greatly reduced the EMP effect of those nuclear blasts, generally the higher the altitude and yield the better. So to answer you question we haven’t suffered any great EMP damage because these tests were specifically designed so that the EMP effects would be minimized if the tests were being conducted near sensitive areas. And Don, there are special nuclear warheads “customized” to have large EMP emissions.

Note: Not quite sure of how other countries tested their nuclear weapons but I’m assuming it was done in a similar fashion.

posted by WestPoint23

posted by donwhite
The US has no enemies that need or deserve a “rapid, effective preemptive” strike. [Edited by Don W]

Huh? Have you looked at the world lately? There are plenty of current threats, scenarios, and enemies that require such a capability. If you support attacking a target via the means we have now then I don't see why you would object to this capably, it does nothing but increase our options.

I’m sorry, WP23. I do not support attacking anyone today. I was not asked bout Afghan nor Iraq, but I would have said maybe on Afghan and why on Iraq. I know people from Iran and I had a Persian boy living in my home when he attended high school to avoid the draft during the Iran/Iraq war. I feel I have some insight into the thinking of those people. They have national pride like we have. In fact, as a 4,000 year old country compared to a 220 year old country, they may be entitled to more pride than we are entitled to.

Options? Because of our singleminded concentration on ICBMs and intercontinental bombers armed with 4 to 8 H Bombs (or more) we have neglected to develop every other “option” open to a super power. That is why we are swatting a fly - OBL - with a sledge hammer!

I think it gives us more leverage in the geopolitical playing field. And being for peace is fine but when the time for action is necessary do you really want to be caught unprepared?

Well, I disagree. What you see as “leverage” I see as a handicap. Today, Geo W claimed to have made a concession to Iran by offering to 1) join the EU and Russia in multi-lateral talks, PROVIDED the Iranians would give up the subject of the debate, i.e., work on a nuclear program we say can make a bombs. That was not a genuine offer. It was a gambit. The Iranians did not bite. Even to me, an ordinary citizen, it was pure hokum and more likely made with the November 7 election in mind, at the urging of GOP congressman who are worried about their seats.

No person is his or her right mind can possibly believe the US ought to wage war on Iran for any reason, short of the Iranians a-bombing us or maybe Israel. Then it will be time to act. Let’s shut down the preemptive thinking before it causes real trouble. We do not have the manpower to attack Granada again.



[edit on 5/31/2006 by donwhite]

The reasons nuclear tests were conducted away from populated ares had more to do with radiation and security than with EMP - EMP was discovered pretty much by accident.

The EMP threat is exagerrated, usually by people who are trying to instill fear for political reasons, or to sell books. The "EMP bomb wiping out most of the the electronics in the US" scenario is possible - if one's opponent has a very high yield (multimegaton) radiation enhanced fusion warhead, the means to deliver it to a high altitude over the continental US, and an understanding of the high altitude atmospheric conditions over the US at the time of the attack.

In other words, even if Iran or North Korea has a few fission bombs, it doesn't mean that they could pull off a worst-case scenario EMP attack against the US. For one thing it takes a lot of time and testing to develop fusion warheads, especially fusion warheads that are missile deliverable - IE smaller than say, a bus. The first US fusion "device" (Ivy Mike I think) was actually a fairly large building, not a droppable bomb.

The Russians could launch a massive EMP attack, the US could do it, the Chinese, British and French probably.
Iran or North Korea? Not anytime soon...

posted by WestPoint23

posted by donwhite

But I remind everyone we had more than 2000 tests of a-bombs and never experienced any of the EMP effects we hear so much about.

Don, most of the US high altitude nuclear tests were done in the Pacific over uninhabited atolls and such, even then EMP effects from these testes were felt as far away as Hawaii for example . . the EMP effect of those nuclear blasts, generally the higher the altitude and yield the better . . we haven’t suffered any great EMP damage because these tests were specifically designed so that the EMP effects would be minimized . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I understand that. But to me, the operative word is “felt.” I mean, “felt” much, or “felt” little? The 2,000 tests included USSR, etc. It did not break down air versus underground tests. It did say “27" in the US and “156" in the USSR but it did not label the “27.” The numbers I cited came from Wikipedia, see link below.

I’m not arguing because I don’t have enough technical expertise to really back up what I say or believe. I do believe this, that the radiation from the Sun, especially solar wind, is so much more than a dozen a bombs, that I have to count the man generated EMP as globally “insignificant.” So far, we have had several serve solar wind storms in my lifetime and frankly, none of them bothered me.

And Don, there are special nuclear warheads “customized” to have large EMP emissions.

Now that really puzzles me. From what I’ve read, I assume the strength of a nuclear bomb is directly proportional to the amount of fissionable or fusionable materials involved. The strength of all resulting radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the source and the recipient. I can’t add more. I don’t know enough to know whether I can agree or should agree. I don’t want to argue from a layman’s POV if, OTOH, everyone up on this knows already that what you say is correct in this context. I do not mean to imply you would mislead me, but only that I have no external basis on which to reply.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 5/31/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Options? Because of our singleminded concentration on ICBMs and intercontinental bombers armed with 4 to 8 H Bombs (or more) we have neglected to develop every other “option” open to a super power. That is why we are swatting a fly - OBL - with a sledge hammer!

On the contrary we pioneered PGM’s, new battlefield tactics and weapons as the world changed. We moved away from having carpet bombings, sending in the masses, and launching nuclear weapons as our main war strategy. I see this as another step forward, instead of using ICBM’s to launch nuclear weapons at civilian or military sites we’re using them to deliver conventional weapons, just like a Tomahawk or JDAM. True the world has changed much and our policies, tactics, and programs reflect that but lets be real here, the need for a conventional military and for conventional (legacy) weapons still exists, and it will for the foreseeable future. As such it would be foolish and premature to destroy them and the capabilities they offer.

Originally posted by donwhite
No person is his or her right mind can possible believe the US ought to wage war on Iran for any reason, short of the Iranians a-bombing us or maybe Israel. Then it will be time to act. Let’s shut down the preemptive thinking before it causes real trouble.

I disagree, I wouldn’t wait unlit someone shoots me before I act, perhaps you would, I don't know? When we’re dealing with nuclear weapons that’s more important than ever. Allowing the US to get attacked, or be held hostage with the fear of attack is not an option for me.


And xmotex I agree, only the premiere nuclear powers have the capability to launch an all out successful EMP attack via nuclear means. However I still think taking measures to protect against it is a good idea.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

WP i understand where you are coming from...There are many individuals all over the world who would seek to harm the United States. However it is not them that we need to really worry about. If, IMHO, the US had had different foriegn policies than that of the last TWO sitting presidents I think that those individuals would not have the power they do. The problem is that these few individuals are able to galvanize ordinary citizens, I.E the silent majority. Those that do not particpate except by not protesting. It is this policy of coming up with weapons to strike at our enemies that I believe has inpowered these individuals who are able to strike at the US almost unfettered.

But thats just POV.

I am glad that they are atleast moving away from Carpet bombing and nuclear strikes but at the Same time we still MOAB and numerous weapons systems capable of striking at targets many hundred if not thousands of miles away.

While i dont advocate total disarmament it just illogical to claim to be a peacful nation yet spend more money than anyother single country on weapons.

From what I’ve read, I assume the strength of a nuclear bomb is directly proportional to the amount of fissionable or fusionable materials involved.

Yes and no. Nuclear weapons can be designed so as to enhance their output in different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. For the most efficient EMP bomb, you need a weapon that emits a lot of X-Ray's, which are what triggers the effects in the upper atmosphere that produce EMP.

However I still think taking measures to protect against it is a good idea.

Well I can't argue with that. Hardening military facilities and equipment against EMP, and even vital civilian infrastructure, is just good common sense.

I still think slapping five tons of HE on top of a standard Trident is a goofy idea though. A CEP of 90m is fine and dandy when you're delivering a 720kt nuke. It's not too great when you're delivering a few tons of conventional explosives. Especially considering we're talking about a $30 million+ per shot missile. Put a precision guided MARV on it and a few of them might be worthwhile. If you want quick global strike, the "Rods from God" idea makes more sense to me.

posted by Elsenorpompom

While I don’t advocate total disarmament [but] it just illogical to claim to be a peaceful nation yet spend more money than any other single country on weapons. If the US had different foreign policies I think those individuals [like al Qaeda] would not have the power they do. [Edited by Don W]

The Berlin Wall fell on Nov. 17, 1989, peacefully. The USSR stood by and did nothing. Instead of the US taking advantage of a long sought opportunity (we always claimed to be the good guys) to improve the state of affairs between the USSR and USA, the US launched the illegal invasion of Panama - a sovereign state - based on our own specious claims of extra-territorial jurisdiction. on Dec. 17, 1989, showing our disdain for both international law and the United Nations Charter. One more cynical act by the US.

posted by WestPoint23

On the contrary we pioneered PGM’s . .

PGM. Precision Guided Munitions. During WW2, the US claimed to use “precision” bombing including the much touted and highly secret Norden bombsight. Indeed, bombardiers were encouraged to die with the plane to make sure of the destruction of the bomb sight lest in fall into enemy hands. After the war, it was a stretch to say 10% of our bombs hit the intended targets. So much for “precision.”

During the Vietnam War, we boasted we had dropped more bombs than in all of the bombing of WW2, which speaks loads to the heroism of the Vietnamese, it seems we were still at the 10% on-target rate of so-called “iron” bombs.

Now comes the First Punitive Expedition to Iraq, in 1991, and there are 26 pictures shown on American tv. Over and over. And over and over. Down the smokestack. Through the front door. Hit the bridge. I’ve seen those same pics so often I’ve dam near memorized them without trying. I ask you this, WP23, of the 10s of 1000s of pictures that must have been taken, how come we only have 26 to see in public? Now, I’ve heard the rate of accuracy was A) less than 75%, and B) the Pentagon refuses to give us the criteria for “accuracy.”

“ . . instead of using ICBM’s to launch nuclear weapons at civilian or military sites we’re using them to deliver conventional weapons, just like a Tomahawk or JDAM. I see this as another step forward . . “

Sweet Jesus, who in the @#! *%#$@’s idea is it to use a $100 million missile system shot from a $50 million silo manned by a $5 million a year crew, to deliver $500 worth of C4? Have we gone berserk?

I disagree [on not attacking Iran], I wouldn’t wait unlit someone shoots me before I act, perhaps you would, I don't know? When we’re dealing with nuclear weapons that’s more important than ever. Allowing the US to get attacked, or be held hostage with the fear of attack is not an option for me.

I predict if the US president was ignorant enough to a-bomb any country before it had a-bombed us, the world community would isolate and withdraw from the US and right it should. Our 22 mb/d oil habit would suddenly become our 7 mb/d domestic production supply. Prices through the sky and rationing a must. There is no possible excuse for us to a-bomb first. And we Americans sure as heck could not believe anything said by Geo W or VP Cheney. There were no WMDs nor connections to al Qaeda. They have no credibility left. Even the GOP Congress would impeach him.

I agree only the premiere nuclear powers have the capability to launch an all out successful EMP attack via nuclear means. However I still think taking measures to protect against it is a good idea. [Edited by Don W]

I expect if the truth be known, it is only the US that has even the thoughts about doing that. We are the only country on earth that talks about bombing other countries.

No other world power is wasting time or money on such Sci-Fi Stuff as Star Wars or SDI or whatever it is labeled as today. America has had no international “enemy” since 1991, and we still have 12 supercarrier battle groups. And more abuilding 30+ nuclear subs. And more abuilding. 2,000 main battle tanks. 1000s of warplanes. And many more abuilding.

God, how we do need an enemy!


[edit on 5/31/2006 by donwhite]

I expect if the truth be known, it is only the US that has even the thoughts about doing that.

Well actually it's a matter of public record that prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, the USSR was well ahead in this area, and was the only power to have deployed systems specifically designed for large scale EMP attacks. Logical enough, as the US, uniquely dependent on integrated circuits, was at the time by far the most vulnerable to this kind of attack. The analog electronics the Russians were using at the time were far less likely to be permanently disabled by EMP effects.

The Russians, despite current public grumblings about the militarization of space, were also way ahead in terms of ASAT combat spacecraft, not to mention they were the only power that ever developed and deployed FOBS systems (though these were apparently unilaterally withdrawn). Most of the US's planned combat space systems (Blue Gemini, DynaSoar) never reached production. The Russian's manned combat space station, Polyus, armed with a 23mm cannon and nuclear mines, was actually launched, but the booster failed and it ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]

posted by xmotex

donwhite
I expect if the truth be known, it is only the US that has even the thoughts about doing that.

Well actually it's a matter of public record that prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, the USSR was well ahead in this area, and was the only power to have deployed systems specifically designed for large scale EMP attacks. [Edited by Don W]

OK, that was 1991, but what about 2006? It is also a matter of public record the Soviets were never as mighty as the CIA and DoD put them. So how much trust shall I put in this “public record” stuff?

The Russians, despite public grumblings about the militarization of space, were also ahead in terms of ASAT combat spacecraft, not to mention they were the only power that ever developed and deployed FOBS systems (though these were apparently unilaterally withdrawn).

Now wait a minute. First I don’t know what an ASAT is nor do I know what a FOBS is. What I do know is the Russian Manned Space Station is so old and worn out it is being abandoned. It is considered too dangerous for an American NASA type to go there. So where’s the consistency or is it the inconsistency here? I mean on secret projects the Ruskies are so far ahead but on publicly visible projects they are so far behind. I’m smelling a rat here.

Most of the US's planned combat space systems (Blue Gemini, DynaSoar) never reached production. The Russian's manned combat space station, Polyus, armed with a 23mm cannon and nuclear mines, was actually launched, but the booster failed and it ended up at the bottom of the ocean.
[Edited by Don W]

So what’s so great about the Ruskies in 2006? Why chase smoke?

Chronology of the Pentagon's New Offensive Strike Plan

Space and Global Strike...

Glabal Strike Command Becomes Operational

SOURCE: The Nuclear Information Project

The Global Strike report is available in PDF on the above site as well. Big Download though...

maybe a simplistic question, but can't the warhead be equipped with a beacon that will transmit a predetermined signal to indicate it's Non-nuclear status?

Or would this not be considered a viable option by the US? If they are trying to move away from nuclear payloads...why wouldn't they promote the idea?

If other countries can detect a launch, why not detect this beacon? Further more why not detect directional data? Is it scrambled? Non existant technology?

Sorry I don't know much about it and I'm really just curious.

So how much trust shall I put in this “public record” stuff?

Dunno, how much trust should I put in this "the moon isn't made of green cheese" stuff?

I said that the Russians were ahead in military space technology at the end of the Cold War, not necessarily in 2006. However if you'll notice, if the US wants to get humans to the ISS in 2006, we have to buy a ride from the same allegedly washed up Russians. So it appears they've been doing something right. BTW Mir is already gone, but it lasted about three times as long as it was originally designed to - not too shabby IMHO.

ASAT - Anti Sattelite weapons. FOBS - Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems - basically an orbiting unmanned nuclear bomber that can drop nukes from an orbiting platform, as opposed to an ICBM that goes up and down without ever entering orbit.

posted by justgeneric

The Nuclear Information Project . . (A) can't the warhead be equipped with a beacon that will transmit a predetermined signal to indicate it's Non-nuclear . . If they are trying to move away from nuclear payloads . . why wouldn't they promote the idea? If other countries can detect a launch, why not detect this beacon? Further more why not detect (B) directional data? Sorry I don't know much about it and I'm really just curious. [Edited by Don W]

(A) Certainly, but why give up that vital piece of information? If Tehran thought a 500 lb bomb was aimed at it, they would most likely ignore it, as it would be like London and the German V2s in WW2. Those weapons killed 20,000 Brits out of 5 million population. Tolerable losses in a time of war. All the more so if the Rich and Famous and add the Powerful are ensconced in deep concrete bunkers.

(B) I’m sure any data could be transmitted, but again, it is the same question, why give away this information to your supposed enemy? Part of a war is to make your opponent look incompetent to his people, sort of like Zaqawi makes the Oberfuhrer and Geo W look incompetent in Iraq of the Taliban makes them look incompetent in Afghan. Psy-ops.



[edit on 6/1/2006 by donwhite]

posted by xmotex
I said the Russians were ahead in military space technology at the end of the Cold War . . if you'll notice, if the US wants to get humans to the ISS in 2006, we have to buy a ride from the same allegedly washed up Russians. [Edited by Don W]

Based on what we have learned about the Soviet Union since 1991, I would not accept any claims the Ruskies were “ahead” of the US in any field we chose to compete in. I strongly suspect people who urge that point of view have an agenda that mis-info serves. Regardless, even if true which I say it is not, so what? We need to look forward, not backward.

ASAT - Anti Satellite weapons. FOBS - Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems - basically an orbiting unmanned nuclear bomber that can drop nukes from an orbiting platform, as opposed to an ICBM that goes up and down without ever entering orbit.

Sweet Jesus! Look, Xmotex, we have real problems facing the United States and the world. We can’t fix New Orleans. The whole Gulf coast. But our Military Industrial Complex wants to keep spending untold billions every year for nothing.

We need to be able to offer more and quicker help for victims of natural disasters around the world, like tsunamis, and like the newest earthquakes in Indonesia. We need to help people improve their lives every day, like on the garbage dumps of Lima and Sao Paulo. There is a war if we engage in, we will have only friends in this world. No one we need to kill, no one we need to nuke. WOW! Peace, after 1945!

We need to deal with the real problem that 2 billion people on this planet do not have a reliable clean water source. We need to deal with the 27,000 real live children who die very day of hunger because Archer Daniels Midland makes more money on ethanol than on bread. We need to make AIDS medicines available for a dime a day to tens of millions of Africans.

Holy Jesus, why don’t these super-patriots put their very obviously high intelligence into something useful and needed?

You tell me, Mr X


[edit on 6/1/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
I ask you this, WP23, of the 10s of 1000s of pictures that must have been taken, how come we only have 26 to see in public? Now, I’ve heard the rate of accuracy was A) less than 75%, and B) the Pentagon refuses to give us the criteria for “accuracy.”

Umm… you're now refusing to accept the capability of PGM’s? PGM’s were only a small percentage of the munitions dropped in 91 but they allowed our forces to conduct missions that would have been much more dangerous, costly, and difficult via the traditional means. PGM’s were still a relatively new thing in 91 and they weren’t use in large numbers like they are today.

Originally posted by donwhite
Sweet Jesus, who in the @#! *%#$@’s idea is it to use a $100 million missile system shot from a $50 million silo manned by a $5 million a year crew, to deliver $500 worth of C4? Have we gone berserk?

Well, I suppose the capability to launch 6000LB worth of HE anywhere in the world in 30 min with a very effective system means nothing to you? Everything has a price right? I assume you think putting US bomber crews and pilots along with ground force at risk, and using more weapon system to achieve the same capability offered by this system is more sensible right?

So it actually becomes a matter of truth or consequence...

I understand not giving away directional target information...but a mutally agreed upn glabal identifier beacon indicating a non-nuclear payload isn't really giving away anything that could be construed as weakness. It could unfortunately be construed as responsible.

If the UN can assist in regulating nuclear technologies why not a beacon? Sure it doesn't stop some whacked out leader from any country(not mentioning any countries *coughKoreacough*) from sending/replying with a nuke payload but at least it would be an attempt to set some ground rules in the event a premptive strike is occurs (with Bush who knows!)

posted by justgeneric

So it becomes a matter of truth or consequence . . I understand not giving away directional target information . . but a mutually agreed upon global identifier beacon indicating a non-nuclear payload isn't really giving away anything that could be construed as weakness. It could unfortunately be construed as responsible. If the UN can assist in regulating nuclear technologies why not a beacon? [Edited by Don W]

Look JG, the Cold War is over. The Nobel Prize committee awarded the Peace Medal to the one person most responsible for ending the Cold War peacefully, Mikhail Gorbachev. Every nation on earth has reduced it military expenditures since 1991, except one. Do you need help in guessing which one has not? Is it not appropriate to call people who urge war, warmongers? Where are the warmongers of the world in 2006? In Moscow. In Beijing. In Tokyo. In New Delhi. Do you need help?

So what country could trust US commitments? Our current leader speaks disdainfully of treaty obligations. He unilaterally abrogates treaties. He writes internal memos excusing violatiors of known treaty obligations. The Attorney General is more useful figuring how to skirt the law than in following the law. We have deep trouble. And it is in America.

Sure it doesn't stop some whacked out leader from any country - not mentioning any countries - *cough Korea cough* - from replying with a nuke payload but at least it would be an attempt to set some ground rules in the event a preemptive strike occurs with Bush!

Look, JG, North Korea does not have the infrastructure to design, make and operate intercontinental ballistic missiles. It seems making atom bombs is a lot easier. So lay off Kim Jong Il.

Everyone knows - or should know - that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad is a titular head of state, not the head of government, which post is held by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is appointed by the Assembly of Experts. Mahmoud is a spokesman, much like Tony Snow. Subject to revision by #1.
See en.wikipedia.org...

I understand fully why any knowledgeable Iranian would want his country to have nukes. It is the only thing the current US leaders understand or respect. Nukes.

Yesterday's phoney Iran War stunt hatched by VP Cheney, Geo W and Condo Rice, was pronounced a failure before midnight last night. It was dumb. It was played out dumb. Ms Rice started her speech with an insult, saying “. . we know Iran is a sponsor of terrorists around the world . . ” and etc. Then she loads the deck by saying “all Iran must do is stop its enrichment program and the US will com to the table.” Gee. I thought that was the subject matter of the proposed discussions. If Iran stops before discussions start, there is nothing left to say or do. US wins, Iran loses.

This dumb maneuver is pure Texas style GOP hoopla aimed at November 7, and done at the urging of GOP congresspersons who are running scared. If it is so obvious to a country bumpkin like me, then you know all the world’s diplomats see through it too. Even more quickly.

Where, JG, did you say the warmongers are?


[edit on 6/1/2006 by donwhite]

no need to be condecending now Donwhite...I did state I don't know much about it. Teaching someone whilst lookin' down yer nose isn't really all that effective.

At no point did I ever state that the US was NOT war mongering...The ever honourable Kim was merely a very good case in point as far as nut jobs go.

Bush and his croneys are as well.

My question perhaps was simply too simplistic for a polite reply?

I'm all for stating a point, but not at the expense of one who has already admitted to not being experienced or particularly knowledgable in the matter.

How you managed to get all that from my question about applying a glabally agreed upon beacon to a missile...

Clearly you're the expert and there's no room for novices

Enjoy