Slashdot Mirror

Or 3) He has no intention of going through with denuclearization, and this is just a stunt to get sanctions temporarily lifted.

NK has a long history of making promises to end their missile and nuclear weapons programs in exchange for some type of compensation, then reneging on those promises when it suits them.

https://www.armscontrol.org/fa...

https://www.armscontrol.org/fa... 1992, you fucking ignorant conservative dipshit.

Prompt global strike! Rods from God! Boost phase intercept! Laser weapons!

In a situation where North Korea is brandishing a nuclear tipped ICBM and threatening to launch it at the US a bit like a crazy person with a gun doing a suicide by cop, all of those start to seem like they'd be very nice to have.

The problem with disarmament is when the other side cheats and doesn't disarm. Note the date - 2002. But go ahead and blame Russia.

Presently, The USA has no landmines deployed anywhere in the world.

Except in Vietnam, Korea, all the fuck over Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Just because they left them behind, doesn't mean they're not 'deployed'.

Read your own post, please.

Landmines already causes this, but the military still uses them with the motivation that a US soldiers safety is more important than the lives of foreign civilians.

See where you wrote "still uses them"? That's the part you are wrong about.
If you had said "there are mines leftover from previous wars that have not been removed", I would have nodded and moved on, but your post implies that it's somehow a thing the USA is using at the present time, and that is not true.

The first Gulf War (1990) was the last time the USA employed land mines.
None were used in the second invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan.
https://www.armscontrol.org/ac...
http://www.armscontrol.org/act...

The last USA mine fields were cleared in 1999.
  And I'd really like to know where you think the USA emplaced mines in Iran.

Presently, The USA has no landmines deployed anywhere in the world.

Except in Vietnam, Korea, all the fuck over Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Just because they left them behind, doesn't mean they're not 'deployed'.

Read your own post, please.

Landmines already causes this, but the military still uses them with the motivation that a US soldiers safety is more important than the lives of foreign civilians.

See where you wrote "still uses them"? That's the part you are wrong about.
If you had said "there are mines leftover from previous wars that have not been removed", I would have nodded and moved on, but your post implies that it's somehow a thing the USA is using at the present time, and that is not true.

The first Gulf War (1990) was the last time the USA employed land mines.
None were used in the second invasion of Iraq nor Afghanistan.
https://www.armscontrol.org/ac...
http://www.armscontrol.org/act...

The last USA mine fields were cleared in 1999.
  And I'd really like to know where you think the USA emplaced mines in Iran.

Um, the US still has the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet: http://www.armscontrol.org/fac...

This might have something to do with that time the US and the Soviet Union were once in something called the "Cold War", wherein a concept known as "MAD" was created.

Furthermore, you know that the Manhattan Project (US led) created the nuclear warhead?

Wait, are you one of those idiots that insists the US isn't a superpower?

You almost had it but it slipped right by you. It is all today with fault tolerance. The human mind is extremely fault tolerant when compared to a computer, in point of fact the is absolutely no comparison.

The drone is only really good for slaughtering unarmed person or at least those person unable to defend themselves from it, when deployed by the US a terror weapon, a weapon not really designed to kill the enemy but terrorise people within designated free fire zone. It is simply too fault intolerant a system, achieve one fault, one bit out of place and it fails.

Reality is, the be all and end all is the supersonic stealth cruise missile, long range and nuclear tipped. Don't need not fighters, no drones, anti-aircraft can not touch because they fly to low and fast, do not need ground troops or ships, and you certainly don't need a civilian population, they are just as disposable as everything else. Here it is proof http://www.armscontrol.org/fac..., they all know it but the beast, the military industrial complex must be fed, it must consume people and money, it demands to be fed. So they pretend the long range stealth supersonic missile does not exist and instead defend against imaginary threats whilst also striving to 'CREATE' actual threats.

The real threat for quite a few decades has been the US military industrial complex, a real and present danger for the whole world. Psychopathic criminals in charge of weapons of mass destructions for the any excuse imagined or created to deploy imagined, all with the support of US mass media as well as the US government channel, no different from any other media channel, saying what it has be paid to say.

NK has been working on this since the beginning of the Bush (duh-bya) terms

Your memory might not, but the history goes back decades earlier than that.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

NK has been working on this since the beginning of the Bush (duh-bya)

Your memory might not, but the history goes back further than that. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

Endemic Corruption - How your American tax dollars are spent by Israel.

Fascinating. And you know this how?

You're assuming that those jets were not ones the Israelis purchased? Do you have any grounds for that?

Were these jet engines stolen at an American Air Force base due to "endemic corruption," or the activity of simple thieves?
HAFB THIEVES CANNOT SET THE VALUE OF 3 STOLEN JET ENGINES, SAYS JUDGE

Do you have equal concerns about Venezuela and Iran? Or just the Jewish state?

Do you think Israel is less corrupt, as corrupt, or more corrupt than Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian Authority, all of whom receive large amounts of US aid?

Speaking of endemic:
Rising Anti-Semitism on the Left
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
The Full-Blown Return of Anti-Semitism in Europe

How many countries has NK invaded in the last 100 years?

One (South Korea). There was this minor scuffle called the Korean War back in the fifties. Perhaps you might have heard of it.

How many people have they killed?

Lots.

If anything, they are much more peaceful

You tell that to the people who were kidnapped from Japan to train North Korean spies.

It's a small, poor country, they are not a real threat.

A small, poor country with nuclear weapons, spends over 30% of its GDP on the military, has a history of threats to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire,", not to mention torpedoing South Korean ships and shelling South Korea (only a few miles from Incheon International Airport, mind you) Just the kind of small, poor, safe neighbor you want to have in your backyard.

If need be NK could be crushed in a few days.

If it were that easy, it'd have been done already. Even if all of their missiles fail (leaving them unable to attack Japan), they can still easily decimate Seoul, as it's within artillery range of the North Korean border. NK also happens to have an unholy relationship to China, which is fed up with NK's antics, but is still geopolitically wedded to that nation. China will most likely be forced to intervene against any Western efforts to dislodge the Dear Leader.

Last time I checked launching satellites doesn't goes against any treaty signed by NK

They broke their agreement over nuclear development. That's why no one trusts them.

no nation has the right to tell another sovereign nation it can't research rocketry or launch rockets into the ground.

When that same nation comes begging for food which it can't buy because it spent all of its lunch money on rockets, we sure as hell do have the right to tell them how not to spend their money! And that is true even if the same nation doesn't keep threatening to take military action against the very same people offering aid.

The only thing China really wants from NK is to act as a strong buffer against the capitalistic influence of SK,

And a sock puppet to export nuclear and missile technology to Syria, Iran, Hamas, Burma and probably a few other places.

"To produce PU239 uncontaminated with significant PU240, which is for all practical purposes inseparable from PU239, you need a short fuel cycle. The frequent lengthly shutdowns makes this an infeasible proposition. PU239 contaminated with significant amounts of PU240 is just not much use for weapons - it would fry the bomb makers with significant risk of premature detonation."

You're quite right. Which is why it's interesting that Iran has spent so much effort developing the ability to produce heavy water, which is useless for Bushehir's PWR-style reactor, but which is very useful for small, dedicated reactors that can be used for producing PU239 with a very short fuel cycle. In fact, this is exactly how India and Pakistan made their first atomic bombs -- by illegally repurposing their western-built heavy water research reactors. I say "illegally", because the countries that supplied the reactors (the U.S. and Canada) did so with the specific provision that they not be used for weapons manufacture, a term of contract that both India and Pakistan violated, and which until recently the U.S. and Canada were pissed off about sufficiently that they refused to do any exchange of nuclear technology with those two countries for decades. I disgress, but the point is: a small heavy-water reactor is a well-known alternative path to nuclear bomb production, and it is demonstrably easier than the highly-enriched uranium path. Bushehir might be irrelevant, but other technologies being pursued by Iran are not.

There are lots of ways for Iran to pursue a nuclear power program, or even a research program, without alarming people about parallel weapons programs. Building Bushehir isn't any cause for particular alarm. Building thousands of centrifuges and a heavy water "research" reactor are.

moron at 1600 Penn Ave announced that we wouldn't use them in response to one.

Wow. Someone else a "moron" because they've figured out (a) that, as Robert Gates says, "there's no credible scenario where a chemical weapon could have the kind of consequences that would warrant a nuclear response" AND we have a conventional arsenal that's enough of a threat by itself and (b) there's potential in offering even rogue states carrots as well as sticks and (c) if for some reason we're wrong about (a), it's not as if we couldn't reconsider?

Go on. Tell us who you consider "smart."

Also, maybe let us know what you think about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_n_531455.html?ref=fb&src=sp
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Kimball-Thielmann

Politically Correct? That's a communist ideal. Surely if he intended to be politically correct he would not be aiming to emulate the same people he purportedly loathes. As for bombing, surely you're referring to nuclear acts that are TRULY aimed at a peaceful use, more so than PNET. I'm assuming (making an *** out of u and me) that you are obviously looking forward to the potential benefits derived from radiation tolerant flora for the potential betterment of mankind as a whole. That assumed, maybe you're a radiation tolerant plant zealot, and you think said plants will be even BETTER than the GM plants we're so enthusiastic about now. So what you're saying in your poorly worded manifest, is that you really hope that we can help out foreign nations by effectively disarming our US stockpiles and putting the nuclear material to good use making super plants that feed everyone and have more practical applications than the peanut? Yes?

And when the US is no longer safe, all of Asia becomes nervous because of potential fallout of a US/NK war.
The US does not seem to care what lasting effects it leaves behind, as long as its goals are met and the US itself is safe.

Even now, the US ignores the international ban on landmines in on especific case (that we know of):

The United States views the security situation on the Korean Peninsula as a unique case and in the negotiation of this agreement will protect our right to use APL* there until alternatives become available or the risk of aggression has been removed.

*) Anti-Personnel Landmine

I see only one bright spot:

Notably, the United States has reportedly not used anti-personnel mines in the past three major conflicts in which it has been involved: Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2002), and Iraq (2003).

The United States has 5,914 strategic nuclear warheads, followed closely by Russia with 4,237 deployable warheads. (Source: Arms Control ). The rest of the members of the nuclear club -- UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel -- have less than 1,000 combined nuclear weapons. Clearly, if Obama wants the world to take him seriously, he needs to restart the START-II treaty and disassemble his own stockpile before he can expect others to do the same.

Once North Korea has ICBMs they will sell them to Iran and the like.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_01-02/IranNK

The vast majority of his chemical weapons were destroyed under the watch of the UN after the first Gulf War. This is well documented for anyone who cares to look. The whole argument was over the few weapons that couldn't be accounted for because of bookkeeping errors and the regular amount of chaos that happens after your country is bombed to hell. Bush did lie about the status of those weapons for political reasons, just like Clinton did in 1998, but at least Clinton had the sense not to try and take over the whole country.

Clinton signed the Iran Non Proliferation Act penalizing any country doing weapons-related business with Iran. Russia has been selling missiles and nuclear fuel which meant we couldn't do business with them. Hence the exception.

The exception was a tough sell the first time and NASA concerned it's dead in the water when time comes to renew it.

Just like we can't talk to N. Korea. Except we did and they stopped their nuclear program.

Until they started it again. And then they stopped it again. And then they blew up a bomb underground. And then they stopped it again. AND THEN....

What many people miss about N Korea restarting their nuclear program after the 1992 agreement is that they were promised oil but did not have it all delivered. They were also promised light water reactor (LWR) power plants, however bids for them weren't held until 1998, 6 years later.

North Korea only broke their part of the 1992 agreement after the west failed to live up to it's parts.

Falcon

You underestimate musicians. Sure, there are the drug and booze soaked ones that only sing about sex and booze, but even the worst are sometimes incredibly well informed and insightful.

Take for instance the early industrial band Skinny Puppy (I remember one member OD'd on heroin) on this track about Saddam's use of VX gas (in this particular attack on rebels outside Karbala, it was later found that Sarin was used - Saddam used VX on Halabja later, however, killing many, many more). Note that the exact chemical agents weren't known - as the lyrics go: "we are still analyzing water, soil, and human tissue samples..." Look here for more recent analysis. The references to Israel were political, from the belief that Iraq would use the weapons on Israel if attacked in retaliation.

On that song, this always bothered me - "In a shop in a working class district one day last week one man demonstrated the idea of a chemical warfare protector by putting a plastic shopping bag over his head."

The only info I can find on Truman's post war nuclear plan is the one to eliminate nuclear weapons and form an international coalition to ensure that no nation developed them. See http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_06/LookingbackBaruch.asp While it might make sense that Russia would not want any nearby nation to acquire nukes, Russia is apparently helping Iran do just that by selling them components and loaning scientists while at the same time standing in the way of our attempts to stop them (at least according to CNN). The idea that a surviving missile shield could be effective after an attempted first strike has merit. But the corollary that the United States would suddenly, unprovoked, and with total lack of rationale or sanity, attack Russia is nonsensical. On the other hand, that some Muslim state or group might decide to do this would be totally consistent with their radical doctrine. While it would be nice to somehow talk the missile threat away, one observer noted that defensive weapons are better than paper at stopping enemy missiles. If a defensive shield is so easy to penetrate, why would an enemy be concerned about it? An enemy should be happy we are wasting our money on it.

Reference

The whole WMD thing never really made much sense. If Iraq actually had the capability to use WMD against the USA (e.g. destroy Manhattan) then it would have been colossally stupid to invade.

If the Bush administration actually believed the whole "ideological war against radical Islam" thing - that corrupt dictatorships are the root of radical Islam that radical Islam is the root of terrorism against the USA, then the USA should have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship closely tied to an extreme form of radical Islam. Saudi Arabia is where the 9/11 hijackers were from. Saudi Arabia is where Bin Laden was from.

If the goal was to get Bin Laden or to "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" then why didn't the Bush administration focus on the existing war in Afghanistan? For that matter, if the goal was only to choose a battle ground that resulted in few civilian casualties then why not choose Antarctica?

At some level, I think that it would be good for Iraq to have democracy but didn't the Bush administration realize that a democratic Iraq would be dominated by the Shia who are close allies of Iran? Did the Bush administration really think it was a good idea set up a regime in Iraq that was friendly to Iran at a time when Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons?

It is pretty clear that at some point the world will run out of oil. If the Bush administration really cared about oil depletion it would seem to be much more effective to spend money on alternative energy research. The hundreds of billions spent on the Iraq war would have bought a lot of energy research. Even if the USA did manage to be the country that consumed the last of the oil, the oil is going to run out even for the USA and then there will be a need for alternative energy sources.

Not many Presidents can boast of being asleep at the wheel while another nuclear power was born

And you would have done what, exactly to prevent it? Short of invading there is little you can actually do. Are you suggesting we should have "unilaterally invaded" NK last year to prevent them from developing "the bomb"? It's easy to say someone else was asleep when you aren't in that position and have no idea what it'd take to actually stop them. Tlaks have been going on now for what, a year or two on this very subject?

They aren't a big threat to the US but what do we do if they invade the south?

Pre-nuke?
Step one: wait until they unleash their massive barrage of artillery and chemical weaponry. Otherwise you get your ass handed back to you in a bowl. A small one. Mixed with the asses of everyone within a 50 mile radius of you.

Get the point? Realistically the nuclear weapons of NK don't change the invasion/defense of SK. At all.

The ones at risk right now are the Japanese and they may have to build a bomb out of self preservation.

No they don't. We can and have pledge to bomb NK in return. Not in so many words mind you. Most of the world would rapidly come to Japan's defense if NK nuked them. Do try to go beyond the knee-jerk reaction of blame the POTUS for what other countries do, and apply a at least modicum of thought to the situation. The saying goes that one can not "win" a nuclear war. However, nuclear between US or Russia, or even the UK and NK would be extremely one-sided and probably as close as is possible. At least two of those countries would be able to eliminate NK's nuclear retaliation capability in the first strike unless the materials and equipment were already outside the country.

And do educate yourself abit on the history before posting tripe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604 437.stm
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.as p

should be a decent starting point for you.

A few highlights:
January 1994: The director of the CIA estimates that North Korea may have produced one or two nuclear weapons.
June 13, 1994: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the IAEA. This is distinct from pulling out of the NPT--North Korea is still required to undergo IAEA inspections as part of its NPT obligations.
August 6, 1997: The United States imposes new sanctions on two additional North Korean entities for unspecified missile-proliferation activities.
April 17, 1998: The United States imposes sanctions on North Korea and Pakistan in response to Pyongyang's transfer of missile technology and components to Pakistan's Khan Research Laboratory.
June 16, 1998: The official Korean Central News Agency reports that Pyongyang will only end its missile technology exports if it is suitably compensated for financial losses.
July 15, 1998: The bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission concludes that the United States may have "little or no warning" before facing a long-range ballistic missile threat from "rogue states," such as North Korea and Iran.
December 28, 2000: President Clinton announces that he will not travel to North Korea before the end of his term, citing "insufficient time to complete the work at hand." According to a March 6 New York Times article, Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger was hesitant to have the president leave the country during the presidential election dispute, which he deemed "a potential 'constitutional crisis.'"

January 2, 2001: The United States imposes sanctions on North Korea's Changgwang Sinyong Corporation for violation of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.*
March 6, 2001: At a joint press briefing with the Swedish foreign minister, Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration "plan[s] to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton le

Bipartisan legislation funded securing weapons in the ex-Soviet Union.

That was smart national security thinking and did more to keep us safe from terrorists with WMD than, well, pick your favorite example.

Various people keep getting in the way: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Lugar.asp .

Oh we have them don't you doubt that for a minute. We claim to be getting rid of them though.
"The US stockpile consists of over 30,000 tonnes of unitary CW gent and approximately 700 tonnes of binary components. It includes the nerve agents sarin and VX and the vesicant mustard. They are stored at the nine locations: Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean; Edgewood, Maryland; Anniston, Alabama; Blue Grass, Kentucky; Newport, Indiana; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pueblo, Colorado; Tooele, Utah; and Umatilla, Oregon. The cost of destroying the US stockpile is currently estimated at approximately $12.4 billion. Large-scale destruction operations began at the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) in 1990. The second destruction facility at Tooele, Utah, began operation in August 1996. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwind ex.html#rogues"
  However our commitment to really disarming biologically seems to be shaky at best. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/biopatent_j une03.asp

Plus, mines are already outlawed by several treaties, which we are, as citizens of a signing country, obligated to follow.

If by "we" you mean the US, no, we are not citizens of a country that has signed treaties banning the use of mines.

To my knowledge there has never been a problem with the UAE making such sales.

Furthermore, we have trouble the Israeli spying on the US. Jonathon Pollard was caught and imprisoned for selling information to Israel.

Have there been similar cases with Dubai?

There are other legitimate concerns about Dubai, but given that the sale of Snort involves technology, it can't really be compared to the port operations. I nearly always favor Israel in its dealings with the world, but that doesn't mean I would trust it with all our technology. I would trust it to run a port though.

When "Star Wars" was heavily funded in the '80s, the Russians did a little bit of investigation into what it would take to thwart both kinetic vehicles and energy weapons. The actually deployed the Topol-M, which has a lower arc and "jinks" in-flight, makeing it almost impossible to hit with another missile. It takes so long for your interceptor to get to the intercept point that a really tiny course deflection on the part of the target means you'll miss by a hundred miles.

On the energy side they came up with ablatives (which could be refitted to existing missiles) with, literally, a twist.

Since you have to hold the laser on a specific spot for some length of time (governed by the power of the laser, atmospherics, etc), you could significantly enhance the survivability of the missile by having it slowly rotate during the launch phase. We're talkin' about a reasonably simple software change that makes it 10x harder to shoot down with a laser.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine on space already promotes its militarization and has now for a while. It's not surprising that U.S. Space Command would agree with the U.S. Secretary of Defense.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon.asp? print

Here Bush goes will go breaking international laws again...

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, prohibits military activities on celestial bodies, and details legally binding rules governing the peaceful exploration and use of space.

The treaty's key arms control provisions are in Article IV. States-parties commit not to:

* Place in orbit around the Earth or other celestial bodies any nuclear weapons or objects carrying WMD.
* Install WMD on celestial bodies or station WMD in outer space in any other manner.
* Establish military bases or installations, test "any type of weapons," or conduct military exercises on the moon and other celestial bodies.

The USA fully signed and ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

http://www.peaceinspace.com/sp_faq.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace.a sp
(among others)

you know how GeeDubyah reacts to rejection

It hasn't gone too badly so far. What is truly scary is that the Conservative party in Canada regularly criticizes the Liberals for pissing off the US government. They have a very good chance of forming the next government here. I shudder to think of what a few years of the Conservative/Republican combo is capable of doing to this continent. People are making way too much of this sponsorship scandal. A couple hundred million dollars is peanuts compared to what goes on in the regular course of the governments business. Punish those who were involved, and get on with life.

For years my local governments funnelled hundreds of millions of public tax dollars into a privately owned hockey team under the threat that they would leave if they didn't. Then they left anyway. That scandal should have been investigated, but never was. Nobody even cared.

OK, first of all, the white house doesn't make budget choices. They gin up a budget request, but all the decisions get made by congress. That's in the document. In fact, congress can completely ignore the president in budgetary matters, provided they're willing to override a veto. I real life that doesn't happen, but the truth is GWB can't do squat on his own.

the "other places" are the comparatively pointless mars and dangerous militarization of orbital space missions, which are both bush pet projects.

This displays a stunning lack of understanding of how things really work. NASA's budget has nothing to do with the military budget or even what NASA does. The whole reason NASA isn't a fraction of its current size is it creates jobs in key congressional districts, and since the manned space program generates the most publicity that's what gets fully funded. Politics and NASA are absolutely inseperable. I'm sure we could all find a more efficient way to spend that money, but the reality is the taxpayers are less interested in the kind of basic science you get from hubble and more in tune with Buck Rogers and Captain Kirk. It was once said of Carl Sagan (I wish I could find the attribution) "every time he convinces someone we don't need manned spaceflight where robots will suffice we lose an advocate for the space program." NASA has taken that to heart.

The mars missions were campaign fluff that will never get funded at all, never mind fully. Anytime a politician promises a program that'll be funded after he leaves office you can pretty much assume it's not serious.

no war would equal billions more a month for other purposes, like scientifically useful space missions.

Not really. They're borrowing money for the war, so the real impact of not having a war is taxes would be a little lower in ten years or so. The idea that the overall budget is a fixed size and funding one program means cutting another is naive to say the least. The only way to get "scientifically useful space missions" funded is to get the public interested in them.

i'm tired of wasting my time on you, so futher responses from you will be ignored. and as Mr. Malda apparently doesn't really care about mismoderation, i probably won't be bothering to respond to comments on mismoderated posts at all, since nobody will see them. fark off. and that goes double for the biased mismoderators, wtf you are.

In other words, "I can't make a cogent argument or back up anything I say, so I'm going to ignore you when you pick apart my incoherent ramblings." That about right? And are you really so foolish as to think Rob Malda reads every post and weighs it carefully to decide if the moderation is correct?

Also, you still never provided a link for all that "militarization of space" poppycock. The reality is space has been militarized from day one in the form of spy satellites. As far as I know, there aren't any plans to put actual weapons in space, and I'd appreciate a link from anyone who has other information. My search for space weapons came up with this link, which describes programs which are either white-paper pipe dreams or technology demonstrators. The ground-based ASAT programs have been around for decades.

Iraq never 'kicked out' the weapons inspectors in 1998, Clinton pulled them out. They were never asked to leave, they were never threatened, they were never forced out of the country.

False. Iraq kicked out the American and British inspectors (accused by Iraq of being 'CIA spies'), the rest were pulled out by Clinton. It is not much of an inspection if you can select who inspects you, and remove anyone whom you don't like.

Hans Blix is also quoted as saying Iraq did not possess the weapons or materials that the US and the UK said they did.

Blix is also quoted as wondering where are 8500 liters of anthrax, which Iraq had not accounted for. Interview from June 03'.

John, I *must* be more careful with my articles and subjects. When I said "we", I was referring to "we, the United States". I'm very sorry for any misunderstanding.

Anywho, check out these google hits:

MIRACL laser. It appears to be 2m across to answer your earlier question.

story. Notice the "partial success" quote since the data flow stopped.

From this, this picture.

Finally, from this:

United Press International
April 03, 2000
By PAMELA HESS

WASHINGTON, April 3 (UPI) -- A panel of defense industry experts will recommend the Pentagon develop new anti-satellite weapons and techniques that would block enemies' use of spy satellites, GPS and commercial communication systems, according to an as-yet-unreleased report by the Defense Science Board.

The panel envisions a laser weapon that could, at different power levels, temporarily "blind" or physically destroy an adversary's satellite in times of war or when "detrimental to U.S. or coalition interests," according to the report, which was obtained by "Inside the Pentagon," an independent news weekly.

The Defense Department has been developing missiles and lasers that can do just that, but has yet to deploy one. Congress has kept alive an Army effort to develop an anti-satellite missile with infusions of cash every year since 1993, the last year the Pentagon budgeted money for the program on its own. Manufacturer Boeing is expected to have three prototypes completed this June, ready for flight testing in 2001.

The Army also has the MIRACL laser, a massive and powerful laser designed to destroy or blind enemy satellites in space. It was first tested against an Air Force satellite in 1997 despite the expressed concerns of then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to President Clinton.

Indeed, even the White House has taken a stand against anti-satellite weapons. In a 1997 letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, President Clinton said he did not see a need for deployment of such a weapon. "I do not believe any threat yet justifies the near-term deployment of an operational ASAT capability," he wrote.

Clinton used his line-item veto power to delete almost $40 million for the program Congress inserted into the Pentagon's 1998 budget. The Defense Science Board report was completed in February but has not yet been publicly

(yes it does cut off there). Again, so sorry for any confusion. It was just an interesting story to me all those years ago, and it found its way into this thread. I in no way meant to indicate I took part in that test. I just thought it had high "coolness factor".

US: 400 billion USD.
EU: 193 billion USD (160 billion EUR).

Source: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/EU.asp

But people seriously... Do you think that the US government ( especially the current go-it-alone administration ) puts much stock in treaties? I mean I am honestly asking here.

Remember Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Also http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/newnuclearwe aponsissuebrief.asp

Why is this even news?

Currently, there are long lines of vessels waiting to be dismantled at the three facilities that have been receiving Western (especially U.S.) technical assistance: Nerpa (Murmansk), Zvezdochka (Severodvinsk), and the Zvezda Far Eastern Shipyard (Bolshoy Kamen). Until the technical and social problems at these facilities are resolved, the rates of dismantlement and use of Western equipment will remain well below peak efficiency. Current funds also do not provide for the long-term maintenance of the U.S. equipment, putting into question the issue of whether these yards will be able to continue working even at existing rates in the future, much less fulfill plans for accelerated submarine dismantlement. In addition, many of the submarines that need to be dismantled are located at shipyards without adequate facilities to do this work.

"Technical assistance" is provided by experienced engineers from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the same guys who are actively preventing this same situation from building up on the US's side.

The problem is, in the heyday of the Cold War, it was us vs. them, and we were each trying to pump out as many as possible. Money was spent like no object designing and building these things. We won, they lost, and now we have to help them foot the other HALF of the bill: paying for the dismantlement.

--A concerned reader.

Such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?

Because the gassing happened in 1988? Iran and Iraq were attacking each other with chemical weapons at the time.

Particularly when a roadside booby trap using a chemical munition went off in Iraq a couple of months ago?

From link: "Hans Blix, former executive chairman of UNMOVIC, said the shell could be "debris from the past" and was not necessarily a sign that there are weapons stocks. Blix has previously said Iraq likely destroyed the bulk of its prohibited weapons in 1991."

If you really want to dig for justification, I'd try Saddam's rotten attitude towards weapons inspectors post-Gulf-War-I. The only reason Blix could operate in Iraq was because of the threat of war hanging over Saddam's head. Nevertheless since the UN took the trouble to send that team, it implied war wouldn't be made if Iraq had made a good-faith effort to comply.

For your information, the U.S. has allready admitted to having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, ready for use. The U.S. and Russia also keep reference samples of biological agents for use in counteracting biological weapons.

You may be interested to know that there are actually inspection/monitoring systems set up to monitor test ban treaties and such. So yes, the U.S. might be inspected, but I'm not sure it would be by the U.N. but rather by other states.
The U.N. Headquarters is situated in the larges city in the U.S. The open nature of the U.S. society, and the seismiological and radiological monitoring stations around the world help to reveal any test of a nuclear weapon on the planet. If I recall correctly, there is allready in place an agreement not to use nuclear weapons in space. New nuclear powers and any alien governments haven't signed that treaty.

Not specifically related to WMD, is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows other countries to do reconnaissance flights over the U.S.

(The moderators said this was Interesting, so you get a matter-of-fact reply.)

But, unlike Iraq, they were not in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter 7 of the charter that spanned 12 years. There is still a lot of diplomacy that is being tried before we reach that point.

Yeah I remember all those times that Saddam brutually captured an American vessel in international waters while kidnapping civilians from neighboring countries, building missiles that can reach the US and telling the World that he was enriching uranium. Gosh Iraq is clearly the threat here. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside every time we pull troops out of Korea and send them to Iraq because Iraq is clearly the greater threat.

IDid it ever occur to you that North Korea is ten times the threat to the United States that Saddam ever was and oh-by-the-way perhaps if we had sent the 100,000+ troops in Iraq into Afghanistan instead perhaps we would have caught the guy who slaughtered 3,000 American civilians on 9/11? But why would we want to focus on resource-poor Afghanistan when we can invade an oil-rich country that was a negligible threat to our interests (let alone our people at home)?

My sources say: No.

For those interested in what is going on in government behind the scenes, don't always think people who post the kinds of things I post are all conspiratorial stories aimed at bringing down government through chaos. Hell look at sites like FAS, Cryptome, Arms Control, and the multitude of others. Many people point things out but too many are concerned with menial things such as Janet's boobs, Sex and the Shitty, etc., to notice the rug being pulled from under them. Hell most Americans think CNN and Fox are the holy grail of news. Get out there and read, know what's happening in your country. Check out BBC, Observer, Greg Palast, AntiWar, Chomsky. These people aren't being controlled via advertisers, not political pressure. I write sometimes too kooky assed documents, that some might say aren't worth a pot to piss in. Maybe so, but there is a reason for me rambling on like a madman sometimes. I care about my privacy and liberty. I don't want my friends or family growing up in something out of "Escape from Alcatraz"

Science fiction is often a glimpse of the things to come. If so, I'd hate to live in the world of The Middle-Kingdom.

= 9J =

And not for developing shitload of nukes to destroy Pakistan with. It sure sounds like the kind of thing perfect for nuclear simluations. Not that I'm fond of Pakistan's idea of leveling India with Nukes.

Braving the sanctions, C-DAC has built four versions of its Param series of machines, putting India in an elite club of supercomputing nations like the United States, Japan, Israel and China.

Oh wow, it's a who's who of nuclear powers. Considering that the US hasn't ruled out bombing the shit out of Afghanistan we're certianly in good company. The U.S. sanctions thing is bogus. They are close enough to Japan, France, Israel, &c to get all the shit they need.