Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD [Archive]

Blair Maynard

December 21st 03, 06:59 AM

Why? Are you worried those nations you cited will nuke your country?

More likely, South Africa could get into a war against a neighboring country
and that country might obtain nukes (from another countries' secret weapons
program) and flatten Johannesberg. Then again, maybe that wouldn't be such a
bad thing. But the problem there, is that such weapons could be used against
other targets too. More important ones. A much greater danger than those
countries you mentioned.

"David Nicholls" > wrote in message
...
> It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
> China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!
>
> David
> (from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> operational nuclear weapons program)
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
> > programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm
> >
> > Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
> > some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
> > in dealing with terrorist states?
> >
> >
>
>

BUFDRVR

December 21st 03, 01:31 PM

>It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK, Russia,
>China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!
>

The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their Chemical &
Biological weapons.

>(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
>operational nuclear weapons program)

You really don't expect a pat on the back do you? You guys never needed nuclear
weapons anyway, all you needed were a few dozen white police officers with
battons, a ghetto and several hundred of your fellow (darker) countrymen.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

tadaa

December 21st 03, 02:18 PM

> It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
> China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!
>
> David
> (from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> operational nuclear weapons program)

Didn't Sweden do that too?

Nick Pedley

December 21st 03, 03:41 PM

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> > It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
> Russia,
> > China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!
> >
> > David
> > (from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> > operational nuclear weapons program)
>
> Didn't Sweden do that too?
>
>
This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have built
one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems they never
actually built a bomb.
http://www.folkkampanjen.se/nwchap2.html#HD_NM_30
There was also a plan for the SAAB A36 nuclear bomber too.
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/saabcanc/

Nick

Chad Irby

December 21st 03, 04:23 PM

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
> > > An alternative interpretation is that it shows that a regime
> > > of sanctions, negotiation, and inspection can work. After
> > > all it worked for Iraq, so why shouldn't it work for Lybia?
> >
> > Because it never did, until March of this year (when the negotiations
> > with Libya started - what a coincidence that happened right as we were
> > dismantling Iraq's military).
>
> Actually, Libyans began reconcilation with West after 1993, when UN
> sanctions ruined shaky Libyan economy. That culminated to turning over
> Lockerbie suspects in 1999. USA has kept the sanctions in effect.

....and *nothing* else has happened. Years and years of sanctions, and
they gave up a couple of guys (one of whom is in a "prison" better than
the place most people call home).

On the other hand, one little invasion of a country a thousand miles
away, and Libya gives up their WMD programs. And not to "the
international community," but to Britain and the US.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Blair Maynard

December 21st 03, 04:46 PM

"Nick Pedley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> > > It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
> > Russia,
> > > China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
> example!!!
> > >
> > > David
> > > (from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> > > operational nuclear weapons program)
> >
> > Didn't Sweden do that too?
> >
> >
> This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have built
> one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems they
never
> actually built a bomb.

Are you forgetting the Volvo 244?

Yama

December 21st 03, 06:23 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > Actually, Libyans began reconcilation with West after 1993, when UN
> > sanctions ruined shaky Libyan economy. That culminated to turning over
> > Lockerbie suspects in 1999. USA has kept the sanctions in effect.
>
> ...and *nothing* else has happened. Years and years of sanctions, and
> they gave up a couple of guys (one of whom is in a "prison" better than
> the place most people call home).
>
> On the other hand, one little invasion of a country a thousand miles
> away, and Libya gives up their WMD programs. And not to "the
> international community," but to Britain and the US.

Perhaps in some weird parallel universe. In reality, Libyans have been
trying to re-estabilish with West since 1986, when US oil companies pulled
out (resulting to considerable loss of oil revenue, made worse by UN embargo
1992). Turning over Lockerbie suspects (of course, only REAL suspect is
Gaddafi himself, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone NOW, funny how that
goes, huh?) was only part of that process. UN sanctions were not ended in
1999, only suspended on the condition that Libyans continue the
"anti-terrorization" process. USA of course had kept it's own embargo, which
continues to hurt Libyan economic prospects. Negotiations have been going on
for *years*. Funny part is that process actually began during Clinton era...

See for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3338713.stm

It seems that difference between Saddam and Gaddafi is that Gaddafi actually
seems to learn from the past that illusions of grandeur have a poor pay-off
rate. Or perhaps he is just a better and more cunning diplomat, who knows.

If anything, this whole episode shows how ridiculous and overdone entire
"WMD hysteria" is. Libya has had signifant WMD program for years, without
anyone caring much. Ditto Syria. Yet it was Iraq, with it's supposedly
dangerous WMD capability (in reality, zero or near it) was the country which
had to be invaded...

David Nicholls

December 21st 03, 07:17 PM

David

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
> >China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!
> >
>
> The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
> Biological weapons.
>

In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
US was above suspicison! It is of note that the only state on earth
publically funding advanced "war fighting" nuclear weapons (with the passage
of the recent bill through congress) is the US, with the specific aim of
using them against states that have not used nuclear weapons against the US.

> >(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> >operational nuclear weapons program)
>
> You really don't expect a pat on the back do you? You guys never needed
nuclear
> weapons anyway, all you needed were a few dozen white police officers with
> battons, a ghetto and several hundred of your fellow (darker) countrymen.
>

South Africa was facing in Angola some 50,000 Cuban troops (plus Russian
advisors) by 1989. While there was never a military "defeat" of South
African troops the problem was a threat of a major power getting involved.
(For those who believe otherwise the South African combat deaths in the last
year of the Angolan war was ~35, of whom 22 died when a Cuban bomb missed
its target (a dam) and hit an undetected military position). Under those
conditions the presence of a nuclear capability would have probably
"detered" such an intevention by a major power. If Saddam Hussein had
detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
(delivered by container ship?).

> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Andrew Chaplin

December 21st 03, 07:39 PM

David Nicholls wrote:
>
> <snip> If Saddam Hussein had
> detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
> Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
> would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
> (delivered by container ship?).

I think Israel would have had no compunction and would have wasted no
time in pre-empting any Iraqi action by any means they thought
necessary, just as they had when they hit the reactor construction at
Osiraq in 1981. There would have been no coalition that included other
Arab states, but Iraq would likely have withdrawn from Kuwait.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

BUFDRVR

December 21st 03, 08:02 PM

>It is of note that the only state on earth
>publically funding advanced "war fighting" nuclear weapons (with the passage
>of the recent bill through congress) is the US, with the specific aim of
>using them against states that have not used nuclear weapons against the US.

Interesting in that you, from South Africa, know for a fact what the United
States Department of Defense is planning for future use of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile I, a member of US DoD, having spent my whole career with exposure to
nuclear war plans, could only speculate on the future plans. Boy are you
gifted.

Face it, you're clueless.

The recent bill passed through Congress funds the resumption of sub-critical
testing. This testing is useful in the design and testing of new warhead
designs. Why would we want new warheads? Because some of the older ones are
approaching 30 years old. Nothing more, nothing less.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Greg Hennessy

December 21st 03, 08:04 PM

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls" >
wrote:

>If Saddam Hussein had
>detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
>Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
>would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
>(delivered by container ship?).

Oh really ? Leaving out the fact that the israelis had jets loaded with
special weapons on QRA as a response to incoming scuds being tipped with
CBW.

One can pretty much guarantee that approximately 30 mins after the
denotation of this 'test nuclear device' Jerichos would have turned iraq
into a radioactive car park.

You ignore the *very* public warning given to the iraqi regime w.r.t the
consequences of using CBW on coalition forces.

greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Bill Negraeff

December 21st 03, 08:27 PM

"David Nicholls" > wrote in message >...
> It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK, Russia,
> China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!
>
> David
> (from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> operational nuclear weapons program)

I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

>

> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
> > programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm
> >
> > Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
> > some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
> > in dealing with terrorist states?
> >
> >

Chad Irby

December 21st 03, 09:27 PM

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Yama" > wrote:
> > > Actually, Libyans began reconcilation with West after 1993, when UN
> > > sanctions ruined shaky Libyan economy. That culminated to turning over
> > > Lockerbie suspects in 1999. USA has kept the sanctions in effect.
> >
> > ...and *nothing* else has happened. Years and years of sanctions, and
> > they gave up a couple of guys (one of whom is in a "prison" better than
> > the place most people call home).
> >
> > On the other hand, one little invasion of a country a thousand miles
> > away, and Libya gives up their WMD programs. And not to "the
> > international community," but to Britain and the US.
>
> Perhaps in some weird parallel universe.

No, in this one. In the parallele universe, Libya paid attention to the
international community, and stopped back in 1990 or so. In this one,
they kep up their programs, with zero interference (and, apparently,
zero knowledge) on the part of the rest of the world, until March of
this year. Guess what else was happening in March 2003...

There's a sudden rush by the rest of the world to take credit for
fifteen years of diplomatic failures, and a similar rush to *not* notice
a direct correspondence with the US kicking the crap out of another
dictator.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott Ferrin

December 21st 03, 11:56 PM

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
> wrote:

>
>
>David
>
>
>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>> >It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
>Russia,
>> >China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
>example!!!
>> >
>>
>> The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
>Chemical &
>> Biological weapons.
>>
>
>In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
>the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
>wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
>change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
>US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Bottom of this page

http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=CB20011219104

It also mentions production facilities

Also this one

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1996/msg00296.html

This is interesting:

"Table 1. LOCATIONS WITH KNOWN OR POSSIBLE BURIED CHEMICAL WARFARE
MATERIEL1"

Possible???? The document is from the US Army.

David Nicholls

December 22nd 03, 06:39 AM

> >the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
> >wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced
the
> >change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that
the
> >US was above suspicison!
>
> Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
> a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
> binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
> destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
> years it was ALWAYS in the local news.
>
I don't believe that the US has an active offensive chemical weapons
program. The issue was that the facilities to create pesticides and
chemical weapons are VERY similar (or even the same). The US view was that
it was totally presumptious for the rest of the world to SUSPECT that the US
might have such a plan, and that the inspection of US commercial chemical
production facilities was going to only be "industrial espionage".

This is similar to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, where there are no IAEA
inspections of any US nuclear facilities (comercial or military), and
ceratinly no snap inspections without warning. It is interesting to see the
US say that the Iranian's have no credible need of a commercial nuclear
power industry because they have natural gas and oil reserves, and
particularly no need of uranium enrichment facilities. If this logic is
applied to UK, Russia and USA (but not France and Japan) then the same
applies because of large fossil fuel reserves in those countries (oil,
natuaral gas, and coal). This is also an interesting position in light of
the US proposals to use commercial nuclear power to limit CO2 emmissions.

It is of note that the US has just embarked on a new large commercial
uranium centrifuge enrichment program (using EU technology) to repace its
old gaseous diffusion plants that date from the 1950s & 1960s. Under
current international agreements there will be no need for IAEA safeguards
on the new facilities.

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now) it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David

Bernardz

December 22nd 03, 01:40 PM

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >If Saddam Hussein had
> >detonated a test nuclear device in the Iraqi desert 2 weeks after invading
> >Kuwait in 1990 there would have been a diplomatic solution - no US president
> >would risk the threat of a nuclear strike on US troops or the US mainland
> >(delivered by container ship?).
>
> Oh really ? Leaving out the fact that the israelis had jets loaded with
> special weapons on QRA as a response to incoming scuds being tipped with
> CBW.
>
> One can pretty much guarantee that approximately 30 mins after the
> denotation of this 'test nuclear device' Jerichos would have turned iraq
> into a radioactive car park.
>
> You ignore the *very* public warning given to the iraqi regime w.r.t the
> consequences of using CBW on coalition forces.
>
>
>
> greg
>
>
>

That was actually one of my fears in the latest conflict. If Saddam
decided to commit suicide in a blaze of nuclear smoke. He fires a few
scuds loaded with anthrax into a few Israeli city and waits for an
Allied response.

--
The rich and the poor want the same thing, money.

21st saying of Bernard

Yama

December 22nd 03, 03:12 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > Perhaps in some weird parallel universe.
>
> No, in this one. In the parallele universe, Libya paid attention to the
> international community, and stopped back in 1990 or so. In this one,
> they kep up their programs, with zero interference (and, apparently,
> zero knowledge) on the part of the rest of the world, until March of
> this year. Guess what else was happening in March 2003...

Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.
Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West have
been going on for 15 years, and WMD is just small part of that, to appease
their potentially most important oil buyer - USA. So, you claim that nothing
happened until March 2003 is blatantly false.

I guess I have to excuse you that you haven't paid attention to that
process: after all, there wasn't anything going "boom", so you probably
didn't notice. It's no fun if it doesn't involve people dying!

But of course, the Bush-ists are rushing to claim credit from something
which was started by previous governments...

Scott Ferrin

December 22nd 03, 03:28 PM

>The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
>programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
>countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that the
>US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
>friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
>presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
>such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds new
>development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now) it
>should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
>weapons for a deterent program.
>
>David
>

Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
that view?

Denyav

December 22nd 03, 04:06 PM

>Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.
>Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West have
>been going on for 15 years, and WMD is just small part of that, to appease
>their potentially most important oil

True,western embargo was also hurting the maintenance of oil production
equipment badly,I guess.

Keith Willshaw

December 22nd 03, 04:26 PM

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.
> >Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West
have
> >been going on for 15 years, and WMD is just small part of that, to
appease
> >their potentially most important oil
>
> True,western embargo was also hurting the maintenance of oil production
> equipment badly,I guess.

Not that much. The UN sanctions mainly affected travel to and
from Libya and arms sales. That meant most visitors had to fly to Malta and
catch the ferry.

While the US wouldnt sell Libya oil production equipment
or allow its citizens to work there no such ban was imposed
in Europe. European companies had no problems selling
oil field/refinery equipment to Libya or buying its oil.

Keith

Chad Irby

December 22nd 03, 05:54 PM

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.

"Real and imaginary."

Like the "real and imaginary programs that Libya just decided to give
up, right as we invaded Iraq, after years and years of failed UN
diplomatic moves.

> Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West have
> been going on for 15 years,

....and failing, with minor exceptions like giving up two terrorists who
blew up a plane and paying some reparations for that *one* attack.

> and WMD is just small part of that, to appease their potentially most
> important oil buyer - USA. So, you claim that nothing happened until
> March 2003 is blatantly false.

Really? Fifteen years of *failures* and suddenly they give up their
programs, not to the UN, but to Britain and the US. One of the biggest
coincidences, *ever*.

> I guess I have to excuse you that you haven't paid attention to that
> process: after all, there wasn't anything going "boom", so you probably
> didn't notice. It's no fun if it doesn't involve people dying!

I'm sorry, but you're hallucinating.

Since you fervently believe in and can document that "process," you can
tell us exactly what international political moves by everyone else
suddenly made Libya decide to give in, right?

> But of course, the Bush-ists are rushing to claim credit from something
> which was started by previous governments...

Except that the "process" started in March, when Libya came to Britain
and the US to *start* negotiations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

David Nicholls

December 22nd 03, 06:13 PM

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
> >programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
> >countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that
the
> >US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
> >friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
> >presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
> >such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds
new
> >development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now)
it
> >should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
> >weapons for a deterent program.
> >
> >David
> >
>
>
> Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
> or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
> countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
> Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
> ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
> a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
> stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
> their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
> them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
> the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
> you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
> that view?

My arguement is that I do not believe that in the current world (post
Mutually Assured Destruction) no WMD's have any warfighting credibility. In
terms of the international inspections the act of telling the IAEA to stop
inspections is the trigger for more severe international pressure (whatever
that may involve).

The stability of the current nuclear powers is an interesting note. The
Isreali gov't appears to have a policy of first use based on "percieved"
threat, while the US gov't is actively doing R&D on more "usable"
battlefield nuclear weapons. This is interesting when it is combined with
the new US policy of starting wars on the belief that the "other guy" might
be a threat to the USA in the near future!

I am more concerned of the approach taken by a super power who is reasonably
convinced (by things like the ABM system) that it can pre-emptively use
WMD's against minor pwers with little or no danger of a counter strike, than
I am by minor powers who fully understand that their first use of their
WMD's would lead to their inevitable distruction.

I believe that leaders of many states (e.g. North Korea) are very very evil,
and should not be supported in any way at all - I just do not believe that
they are stupid. Stupid evil dictators get killed off very quickly.

David

Chad Irby

December 22nd 03, 06:54 PM

In article >,
"David Nicholls" > wrote:

> I am more concerned of the approach taken by a super power who is
> reasonably convinced (by things like the ABM system) that it can
> pre-emptively use WMD's against minor pwers with little or no danger
> of a counter strike, than I am by minor powers who fully understand
> that their first use of their WMD's would lead to their inevitable
> distruction.

Yeah, we really do need to worry about Russia again. They have the only
fielded ABM system on the planet right now, a nationalistic government
and a lot of nukes.

If I were in one of the former Soviet states, I'd make fun of the more
powerful countries, like, oh, the US. Funny how that's actually
happening, isn't it?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Marc Reeve

December 23rd 03, 04:31 PM

Blair Maynard > wrote:
> "Nick Pedley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> > > > It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
> > > > Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's
> > > > moral example!!!
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > > (from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
> > > > operational nuclear weapons program)
> > >
> > > Didn't Sweden do that too?
> > >
> > >
> > This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have
> > built one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems
> > they never actually built a bomb.
>
> Are you forgetting the Volvo 244?

Hey, watch it. the 244's a great car. Takes a lickin' and keeps on
tickin'. Mine has 234,000 miles on it and is still going strong.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Tank Fixer

December 24th 03, 04:15 AM

In article >,
says...
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
> > some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
> > in dealing with terrorist states?
>
> An alternative interpretation is that it shows that a regime
> of sanctions, negotiation, and inspection can work. After
> all it worked for Iraq, so why shouldn't it work for Lybia?
>

What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Chad Irby

December 24th 03, 07:24 AM

Tank Fixer > wrote:

> What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

I'd have to go with "not getting the **** kicked out of them."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

nemo

December 24th 03, 08:05 AM

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
>>>some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
>>>in dealing with terrorist states?
>>
>>An alternative interpretation is that it shows that a regime
>>of sanctions, negotiation, and inspection can work. After
>>all it worked for Iraq, so why shouldn't it work for Lybia?
>>
>
>
>
> What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?
>
>
Khaddafi needs money. So, a new lie is not expensive. He is uded to.

Emmanuel.Gustin

December 24th 03, 11:52 AM

Tank Fixer > wrote:

: What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
Blair accepted the Lybian proposals: Probably mainly
because they needed a success very much, although of
course better terms may have been negotiated now.

As for Khaddafi's motives, the economy of the country
is in ruins after years of sanctions; the oil industry
doesn't function any more. This situation is a threat
to the existence of the regime -- there has already
been an islamist rebellion -- and ultimately to the
survival of the "great guide" himself. This is a very
good time for Khadaffi to trade in an expensive and
probably useless WMD programme for an economic boost
and (horresco referens) the opportunity to be praised
as a "great statesman" by western leaders.

That Lybia feared an US invasion now is unlikely.
"Colonel" Khaddafi probably understands as well as
anyone that the US army is already overstretched with
its tasks in Afghanistan and Iraq, that another
operation of this kind would not be welcomed by the
US public, and that the presidential elections are
getting near.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

abdul rahim

December 24th 03, 03:19 PM

Can't anybody spell Libya right?!

>
> This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
> accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
> Blair accepted the Lybian proposals:

Alan Minyard

December 24th 03, 03:43 PM

On 24 Dec 2003 11:52:09 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
>: What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?
>
>This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
>accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
>Blair accepted the Lybian proposals: Probably mainly
>because they needed a success very much, although of
>course better terms may have been negotiated now.
>
>As for Khaddafi's motives, the economy of the country
>is in ruins after years of sanctions; the oil industry
>doesn't function any more. This situation is a threat
>to the existence of the regime -- there has already
>been an islamist rebellion -- and ultimately to the
>survival of the "great guide" himself. This is a very
>good time for Khadaffi to trade in an expensive and
>probably useless WMD programme for an economic boost
>and (horresco referens) the opportunity to be praised
>as a "great statesman" by western leaders.
>
>That Lybia feared an US invasion now is unlikely.
>"Colonel" Khaddafi probably understands as well as
>anyone that the US army is already overstretched with
>its tasks in Afghanistan and Iraq, that another
>operation of this kind would not be welcomed by the
>US public, and that the presidential elections are
>getting near.

You have no clue as to the feelings of the US
population, so stop pontificating about US politics.

Sanctions were an obvious and complete
failure in the case of Iraq, and a very strong
argument can be made that they were equally
useless in the case of Libya. The US air raids
(which the disgusting euroweinies denied
over fly permission to) are what changed Lybya's
behavior, and the imminent threat (at least as
perceived by Libya) of a coalition invasion
are what brought about the current negotiations.

Al Minyard

Chad Irby

December 24th 03, 04:01 PM

In article >,
"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

> That Lybia feared an US invasion now is unlikely.

So you're claiming it was just a huge coincidence, even though *all* of
the negotiations were betwen Libya, Britain, and the US, while excluding
everyone else...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Steve Hix

December 24th 03, 05:48 PM

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
> > What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?
>
> I'd have to go with "not getting the **** kicked out of them."

....again.

Rob van Riel

December 24th 03, 06:12 PM

(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message >...
> I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
> their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
> these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

Merlin Dorfman

December 24th 03, 08:01 PM

John Keeney ) wrote:
: It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
: programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

: Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
: some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
: in dealing with terrorist states?

Don't know about anybody else, but (1) I don't trust Khaddafi, and
(2) what would be the motivation for cleaning up his act--economics?
Is he afraid of being next on the "Axis of Evil"/invasion list?

Jim Yanik

December 24th 03, 10:36 PM

Glenfiddich > wrote in
:

> On 24 Dec 2003 10:12:05 -0800, (Rob van Riel) wrote:
>
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
>...
>>> I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
>>> their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
>>> these things for purely defensive purposes.
>>
>>That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
>>not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
>>that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
>>The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
>>them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
>>into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
>>convenience dictate.
>
> Those 'bunker buster' nukes have been proposed for destroying and
> sterilising buried stocks of germ warfare material.
> For THAT purpose, their use is eminently sensible and logically
> defensible.
>
> The alternatives - allowing an enemy to deploy such weapons, or
> acccidentally dispersing them with a conventional attack - are NOT
> attractive.
>
>

If one conventionally bombs a target where such munitions are stored
without our knowledge,they still could be released.
That -could- have happened in Iraq.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

phil hunt

December 25th 03, 08:59 PM

On 24 Dec 2003 11:52:09 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin > wrote:
>Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
>: What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?
>
>This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
>accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
>Blair accepted the Lybian proposals: Probably mainly
>because they needed a success very much, although of
>course better terms may have been negotiated now.
>
>As for Khaddafi's motives, the economy of the country
>is in ruins after years of sanctions; the oil industry
>doesn't function any more.

Is that true? My understanding is that UK/European sanctions were
removed years ago. European couintries, particularly the UK, have a
lot of experience in oil extraction.

> This situation is a threat
>to the existence of the regime -- there has already
>been an islamist rebellion -- and ultimately to the
>survival of the "great guide" himself. This is a very
>good time for Khadaffi to trade in an expensive and
>probably useless WMD programme for an economic boost
>and (horresco referens) the opportunity to be praised
>as a "great statesman" by western leaders.

Sounds plausible.

Note that this is not a new development; Gaddafi has been trying to
get in the West's good books for a number of years, c.f. his payment
of reparations for Lockerbie and that other airplane incident
(whose details I forget right now).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

December 25th 03, 09:00 PM

On 24 Dec 2003 07:19:07 -0800, abdul rahim > wrote:
>Can't anybody spell Libya right?!

Aparently not, at least I'm never seen anyone spell it "right"
before :-)

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

December 25th 03, 09:04 PM

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:01:41 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>John Keeney ) wrote:
>: It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
>: programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
>: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm
>
>: Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
>: some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
>: in dealing with terrorist states?
>
> Don't know about anybody else, but (1) I don't trust Khaddafi,

He's as trustworthy as any other politician -- you can trust him to
keep doing something as long as it's in his own interests to do so.

>and
>(2) what would be the motivation for cleaning up his act--economics?
>Is he afraid of being next on the "Axis of Evil"/invasion list?

Probably, but there's more to it than that; Gaddafi's been trying to
repair relations with the west since before Bush was in power.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Chad Irby

December 25th 03, 11:04 PM

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

> >(2) what would be the motivation for cleaning up his act--economics?
> >Is he afraid of being next on the "Axis of Evil"/invasion list?
>
> Probably, but there's more to it than that; Gaddafi's been trying to
> repair relations with the west since before Bush was in power.

No, Libya just didn't want to get the **** kicked out of them. Plain
and simple.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xm
l>

"A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been
telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do
whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I
was afraid."

Which goes to show that, even though Gaddafi is an asshole, he's not
completely stupid.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

phil hunt

December 26th 03, 12:44 AM

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:04:23 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
>> >(2) what would be the motivation for cleaning up his act--economics?
>> >Is he afraid of being next on the "Axis of Evil"/invasion list?
>>
>> Probably, but there's more to it than that; Gaddafi's been trying to
>> repair relations with the west since before Bush was in power.
>
>No, Libya just didn't want to get the **** kicked out of them. Plain
>and simple.
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xm
>l>
>
>"A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been
>telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do
>whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I
>was afraid."
>
>Which goes to show that, even though Gaddafi is an asshole, he's not
>completely stupid.

The fact remains that, as I said, Libya made efforts to resolve the
Lockerbie situation in the 1990s, before Bush was in power. This is
a known and well-attested fact. That you chose to ignore it, because
it doesn't fit in with your world-view, shows you to be foolish.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Chad Irby

December 26th 03, 03:57 AM

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> The fact remains that, as I said, Libya made efforts to resolve the
> Lockerbie situation in the 1990s, before Bush was in power.

....because it was costing them much more, in dollar terms, than it was
worth. They gave up a couple of minor players and some cash. Note,
however, that they never even *mentioned* their WMD programs until
Gaddafi got scared for his own ass.

> This is a known and well-attested fact. That you chose to ignore it,
> because it doesn't fit in with your world-view, shows you to be
> foolish.

No, I chose to ignore it because it had nothing to do with Libya giving
up their WMD program, despite your wishes and dreams.

Libya, once again, gave up their WMDs so Gaddafi wouldn't end up
climbing up out of a hole, looking into the barrels of US rifles.

I know it hurts your worldview that dictators can act in their own
interests without the blessing of the UN, but that's what happened here.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Bill Negraeff

December 28th 03, 08:26 PM

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> Glenfiddich > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 24 Dec 2003 10:12:05 -0800, (Rob van Riel) wrote:
> >
> (Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
> >...
> >>> I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
> >>> their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
> >>> these things for purely defensive purposes.
> >>
> >>That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
> >>not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
> >>that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
> >>The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
> >>them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
> >>into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
> >>convenience dictate.
> >
> > Those 'bunker buster' nukes have been proposed for destroying and
> > sterilising buried stocks of germ warfare material.
> > For THAT purpose, their use is eminently sensible and logically
> > defensible.

Your use of the term "sterilising" should remind us of just how
deceitful all of the players in this matter have been.

> >
> > The alternatives - allowing an enemy to deploy such weapons, or
> > acccidentally dispersing them with a conventional attack - are NOT
> > attractive.
> >
> >
>
> If one conventionally bombs a target where such munitions are stored
> without our knowledge,they still could be released.
> That -could- have happened in Iraq.

Blair Maynard

December 29th 03, 01:55 AM

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are US soldiers
dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration," surely
it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost so many of its
soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> (Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
>...
> > I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
> > their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
> > these things for purely defensive purposes.
>
> That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
> not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
> that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
> The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
> them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
> into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
> convenience dictate.
>
> Rob

Jim Yanik

December 29th 03, 03:56 AM

"Blair Maynard" > wrote in
:

> If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
> using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
> US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
> used?
>
> If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
> surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
> so many of its soldier's lives.
>
> Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.
>
>
> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> om...
>> (Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
> >...
>> > I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
>> > their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
>> > these things for purely defensive purposes.
>>
>> That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
>> not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
>> that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
>> The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
>> them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
>> into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
>> convenience dictate.
>>
>> Rob
>
>
>

Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Peter Stickney

December 30th 03, 04:48 AM

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > writes:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>>> >It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
>>Russia,
>>> >China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
>>example!!!
>>> >
>>>
>>> The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
>>Chemical &
>>> Biological weapons.
>>>
>>
>>In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
>>the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
>>wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
>>change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
>>US was above suspicison!
>
> Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
> a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
> binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
> destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
> years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad. It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Rob van Riel

December 30th 03, 10:02 AM

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> "Blair Maynard" > wrote in
> :
>
> > If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
> > using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
> > US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
> > used?
> >
> > If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
> > surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
> > so many of its soldier's lives.
> >
> > Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.

> Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
> programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
> effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
> to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
> (we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless. As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

> Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
> some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

> The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob

Rob van Riel

December 30th 03, 10:07 AM

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> Glenfiddich > wrote in
> :
> > Those 'bunker buster' nukes have been proposed for destroying and
> > sterilising buried stocks of germ warfare material.
> > For THAT purpose, their use is eminently sensible and logically
> > defensible.
> >
> > The alternatives - allowing an enemy to deploy such weapons, or
> > acccidentally dispersing them with a conventional attack - are NOT
> > attractive.

Not to mention the fact that it would very conveniently free the US of
the burden of proving that such weapons existed in the first place.
Instead of merely claiming the weapons are there, but kind of hard to
find, it could now claim huge stockpiles existed, and were wiped out
with 100% success by the nukes. Very neat.

Rob

Jim Yanik

December 30th 03, 03:30 PM

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Blair Maynard" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
>> > using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why
>> > are US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have
>> > been used?
>> >
>> > If you are correct in your judgment on the "current
>> > administration," surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first
>> > place and not lost so many of its soldier's lives.
>> >
>> > Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.
>
> Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.

If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

> Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
> even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
> without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
> outcast, which would be very bad for business.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.
>
>
>> Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their
>> WMD programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and
>> our triad of effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear
>> inventory was NOT used to "bully" anyone into compliance with the
>> Non-Proliferation treaty. (we certainly have not nuked anyone since
>> Japan in WW2)
>
> And for just how many of those long years has the current
> administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
> of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
> memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
> factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
> of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
> in anger is meaningless.

Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

> As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
> that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
> large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
> not to mention other living beings.

Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

>
>> Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force
>> have some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.
>
> Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
> been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
> the agenda has changed.
>
>> The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.
>
> Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
> contradicted so far.
>
> Rob

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Tex Houston

December 30th 03, 05:01 PM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
> Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
> course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
> if things go bad. It's also not someplace that's going to be too
> adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
> Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
> shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
> blew up on the pad.
>
> The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
> high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
> molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
> residual contamination.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney

They certainly plan to destroy the chemical weapons stored at Pueblo Army
Depot, Pueblo Colorado, as an in-place project as they do other places. I
believe the destruction facility at Dugway is already in place.

Tex Houston

Kevin Brooks

December 30th 03, 08:34 PM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott Ferrin > writes:
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >>
> >>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> >It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
> >>Russia,
> >>> >China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
> >>example!!!
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
> >>Chemical &
> >>> Biological weapons.
> >>>
> >>
> >>In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have
stopped
> >>the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
> >>wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced
the
> >>change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that
the
> >>US was above suspicison!
> >
> > Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
> > a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
> > binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
> > destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
> > years it was ALWAYS in the local news.
>
> Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
> Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
> course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
> if things go bad.

Not completely true. Another destruction facility is also nearing readiness
for use at Dugway, IIRC, and the Army signed Bechtel up to do a design/build
job at Richmond, Kentucky this year.

It's also not someplace that's going to be too
> adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
> Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
> shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
> blew up on the pad.

IIRC that was Starfish Prime?

Brooks

>
> The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
> high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
> molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
> residual contamination.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

John Keeney

December 31st 03, 04:36 AM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott Ferrin > writes:
> >
> > Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
> > a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
> > binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
> > destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
> > years it was ALWAYS in the local news.
>
> Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
> Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
> course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
> if things go bad.

Different depots, different disposal sites; I believe in most cases it
will be on the depot grounds. Johnston Atoll was the pilot facility and
is in the process of being shut down if it isn't already done.

Chad Irby

December 31st 03, 04:42 AM

"John Keeney" > wrote:

> Different depots, different disposal sites; I believe in most cases it
> will be on the depot grounds. Johnston Atoll was the pilot facility and
> is in the process of being shut down if it isn't already done.

There's a big noise going on at Anniston, Alabama. The government spent
$1 billion building an incinerator, and some residents of the area are
suing to try and stop the process.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Blair Maynard

December 31st 03, 08:21 AM

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
>...
> > "Blair Maynard" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
> > > using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
> > > US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
> > > used?
> > >
> > > If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
> > > surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
> > > so many of its soldier's lives.
> > >
> > > Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.
>
> Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
> Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
> even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
> without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
> outcast, which would be very bad for business.
>

So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

Rob van Riel

December 31st 03, 03:41 PM

"Blair Maynard" > wrote in message >...
> So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
> it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?
>
> Kinda difficult to believe.

Not really. It is my opinion that using nukes would produce a terrible
backlash against the US. Not everyone shares that view, and the US
might consider it worth the price even if it were commonly accepted.
That's one hell of a risk to take. It's going to be a bit difficult to
enjoy the backlash effects while permanetly fused to a molten country
(I know, that's exagerating the effects of nuclear attack, but you get
the idea)

> In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
> which is "intimidating" other nations?

It's part of the total package. What the US seems to be saying, is
that it will use conventional force only, unless the opponent of the
day does something it really doesn't like, in which case it will go
nuclear. Being sufficiently successful against the US itself (not US
troops) definately seems to be a criterion these days. Of course, it
is rather unlikely that any single nation could be that effective in
the current situation.

Rob

Rob van Riel

December 31st 03, 04:05 PM

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
> aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
> threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
> possessing nukes.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds. In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

> Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
> time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
> suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
> work very well or for very long.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.
As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.

> Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
> of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
> Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea. Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.

> Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
> direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

Rob

Kevin Brooks

December 31st 03, 04:43 PM

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
>...
> > If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then
they
> > aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
> > threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power
of
> > possessing nukes.
>
> Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
> mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
> have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
> homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
> credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
> Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
> doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
> during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds. In
> other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
> couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
> nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
> for tactical weapons.

Which begs the question of what you define as a "tactical weapon". FYI, the
US retired all of its ADM's, and all of its nuclear artillery rounds, about
a decade plus back. Tactical does not equate to "small, low yield"--there
may indeed be a reason for using a small, low yield weapon in a "strategic"
role--which is why some of the current enventory of weaponms retain
selectable yields down in the low kT range. In fact, any use of nuclear
weapons by the US in the current or immediate future would by definition be
of a strategic nature--there are no plans afoot to go back to the bad ol'
days of the Cold War where we envisioned the use of nuclear warheads against
enemy military formations, logistics points, transport hubs and the like up
near the FLOT.

>
> > Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
> > time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even
today,I
> > suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem
to
> > work very well or for very long.
>
> Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
> Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
> suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
> nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
> just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
> years.

So you equate any use of nuclear weapons in the modern era with the utter
annihilation, or attempt thereof, of the opposing side? That would be an
unrealistic assumption IMO.

> As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
> hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
> US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
> taking the part of the USSR.

The US is still the dominant economic power in the world--any nations
choosing to join in such a boycott do so at the extreme risk of completely
decimating their own economic wellbeing. I find it odd that someone can even
consider the likelihood of any anti-US boycott, given the example of
European defference to the likes of the economic power of the PRC; all it
took to render the past sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan by various
Euro-nations a distant memory was the mere threat that those nations would
not be welcome in the growing PRC marketplace. The US economy still dwarfs
that of the PRC, and you find that nations may be willing to boycott the US?

>
>
> > Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya
instead
> > of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
> > Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.
>
> The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
> have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
> might be a good idea. Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
> of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
> large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
> possible unpleasant directions.

I hate to tell you this, but those nations already regarded the use of nukes
as being an accepted form of general warfare. Read the since-declassified
warplans of the WARPAC, and peruse the past statements from senior Cold War
era Soviet military leaders--nuclear weapons were considered to be just
another tool for use on the battlefield, just as chemical weapons were. If
anything the US demonstrated much more reticence in regards to unleashing
the nuclear genie in the event of a major attack against NATO, at least from
the late sixties onward--it was regarded as a likely contingency
requirement, but it was not planned for use in the initial defense. The bad
guys, on the other hand, planned to use them from the onset of hostilities.

>
>
> > Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
> > direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.
>
> Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
> inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
> of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
> more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
> detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
> doesn't break the link between them.

How many of those vets also lived in brick homes which dosed them with
higher levels of radon? What was the effect of increased solar radiation?
Etc. etc., ad nauseum. You will have to do better than that to demonstrate a
distinct link, and if you want to make it relevant to the possibility of
continued testing, you will have to show that underground testing maintains
the same threat level--and you are not going to be able to do that.

Brooks
>
> Rob

Jim Yanik

December 31st 03, 04:55 PM

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> >...
>> If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their
>> nukes,then they aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If
>> that "global oucast" threat you believe in is so effective,than that
>> would negate any power of possessing nukes.
>
> Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
> mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
> have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
> homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
> credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
> Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
> doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
> during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds.

Except MAD *only* holds true when dealing with rational people.
We are not dealing with rational people these days,but fanatics.

In
> other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
> couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
> nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
> for tactical weapons.
>
>> Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at
>> that time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast".
>> Even today,I suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those
>> boycotts don't seem to work very well or for very long.
>
> Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
> Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
> suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
> nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
> just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
> years.
> As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
> hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
> US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
> taking the part of the USSR.

Countries being so variable in their politics these days,I doubt they would
want to do without the income and benefits of trading with the US,the
largest consumer on the planet."Money talks,BS walks." And there were (and
still are)plenty of Western countries willing to trade with the USSR and
Red China(or other enemies of Western civilization),even though they called
for the advance of the "Communist" way of life.

>
>
>> Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya
>> instead of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
>> Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.
>
> The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
> have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
> might be a good idea.

which would trigger a retaliation that they would not want to endure.
Not over Libya or any 'ally' of theirs.

Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
> of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
> large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
> possible unpleasant directions.
>
>
>> Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
>> direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.
>
> Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
> inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
> of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
> more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
> detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
> doesn't break the link between them.
>
> Rob
>

"direct weapons effects";blast,thermal,debris impact.

Smoking probably killed more of those people than any nuclear-related
things.There's a lot of other things that cause cancer and birth
defects,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Blair Maynard

January 1st 04, 09:58 AM

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Blair Maynard" > wrote in message
>...
> > So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad
because
> > it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't
use?
> >
> > Kinda difficult to believe.
>
> Not really. It is my opinion that using nukes would produce a terrible
> backlash against the US. Not everyone shares that view, and the US
> might consider it worth the price even if it were commonly accepted.

Well, of course there is always a threat of a "stupid" use of nuclear
weapons. It sounds like you are saying that countries will act in fear of
nuclear destruction because they might believe the US would be "stupid"
enough to use them (and suffer the obvious negative worldwide backlash).

Of course that is a possibility any country would have to consider, they
might become a martyr to turn world opinion against the US.

But the "stupidity card" goes both ways. As illustrated by events over the
last fifty years. Plenty of nations have volunteered to be the martyrs, and
the US has not played it's "stupidity card" and made them such.

I see more "stupidity" all over the world than in US foreign policy. Would
you rather trust all nations in the world not to be "stupid" or just the US
and other countries in the current "nuclear club"?

> That's one hell of a risk to take. It's going to be a bit difficult to
> enjoy the backlash effects while permanetly fused to a molten country
> (I know, that's exagerating the effects of nuclear attack, but you get
> the idea)
>
> > In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
> > which is "intimidating" other nations?
>
> It's part of the total package. What the US seems to be saying, is
> that it will use conventional force only, unless the opponent of the
> day does something it really doesn't like, in which case it will go
> nuclear. Being sufficiently successful against the US itself (not US
> troops) definately seems to be a criterion these days. Of course, it
> is rather unlikely that any single nation could be that effective in
> the current situation.
>
> Rob