I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

Yes. Alexander Litvinenko, in London, in 2006.

John

ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

Graham



What makes you think they care?! Russia has vowed to strike if the Yanks go
ahead with interceptors in Poland.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:09 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


Day's still early. I'm expecting loud bangs and flashes later this
evening.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:09 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


You're looking the wrong direction... they're behind you ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberals suffer from ABYSMAL IGNORANCE... their genetic defect.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?


Everyone but the French?

ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


Chernobyl was not bright, but the fallout was as nasty...

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?


The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.

Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

That's not the scenario. Either you know next to nothing about it or
you're deliberately advancing a straw man argument.

Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.


What makes you think they care?

Who cares ?


! Russia has vowed to strike if the Yanks go
ahead with interceptors in Poland.

British and US SSBNs operate under joint command. Individual command is allowed
under exceptional circumstances. It is most powerful destructive force in the
world.

Russsia's seaworthy fleet is tiddlywinks in comparison.

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

There's this thing called NATO you know ?


The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

You reckon it still works, maintained by a bunch of alcoholics ?


Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.

Which we paid for and operate under all normal circumstances in joint command
with the USN.


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

So 50% are ****ed ?


If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

Who's 'outgunned'?

Do you think the Ukraine wouldn't be interested too ? They want to join the EU
(and possibly NATO too). They are not exactly weak and border Russia.

Russia has just made the stupidest move it could ever have done. It is
finished.

Graham

PeterD wrote:

flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

Everyone but the French?

I dare say they'd lend a hand too.

Graham

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

That's not the scenario. Either you know next to nothing about it or
you're deliberately advancing a straw man argument.

Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.

And what would the Chinese do ? They aren't exactly friendly with Russia.

So it's Russian nukes vs potentially

US
UK
French
Israeli
and Chinese nukes.

Russia would be be a wasteland for decades and probably eventually absorbed into
Ukraine.

Graham

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:20:33 +0100, the renowned Eeyore
wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

the renowned flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

That's not the scenario. Either you know next to nothing about it or
you're deliberately advancing a straw man argument.

Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.

And what would the Chinese do ? They aren't exactly friendly with Russia.

They'd likely be targeted at the same time.

So it's Russian nukes vs potentially

US
UK
French
Israeli
and Chinese nukes.

Russia would be be a wasteland for decades and probably eventually absorbed into
Ukraine.

Graham


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:


On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



ian field wrote:


I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?


The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.


Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.


Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.


If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.


That's not the scenario. Either you know next to nothing about it or
you're deliberately advancing a straw man argument.


Who's 'outgunned'?


Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Well, what we have here is a bunch of kids (nations) playing with
matches (atomic weapons) in a pool of gasoline (their insanity).
What is needed is a way to remove at least one of those components.

Eeyore wrote:


PeterD wrote:


flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

ian field wrote:


I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

Everyone but the French?


I dare say they'd lend a hand too.

Graham


Yes...even withlousy banking, they are always ready to cache a Chek.

Eeyore wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:


the renowned flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

ian field wrote:


I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.


If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

That's not the scenario. Either you know next to nothing about it or
you're deliberately advancing a straw man argument.


Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.


And what would the Chinese do ? They aren't exactly friendly with Russia.

So it's Russian nukes vs potentially

US
UK
French
Israeli
and Chinese nukes.

Russia would be be a wasteland for decades and probably eventually absorbed into
Ukraine.

Graham

All of the other nations would have large pools of glowing dirt...

Robert Baer wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
the renowned flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.


If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

That's not the scenario. Either you know next to nothing about it or
you're deliberately advancing a straw man argument.


Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.


And what would the Chinese do ? They aren't exactly friendly with Russia.

So it's Russian nukes vs potentially

US
UK
French
Israeli
and Chinese nukes.

Russia would be be a wasteland for decades and probably eventually absorbed into
Ukraine.

All of the other nations would have large pools of glowing dirt...

Apparently true story.

During the latter part of the Cold War the Russian defences 'detected' a US nuclear
attack. It was so improbable that the relevant Russian commander refused to press the
'red button'.

In the end it was traced IIRC to some atmospheric disturbance. Would the *conscript*
Russian Army (who hate being there) actually fire on Poland ?

Graham

"ian field" wrote in message ...
| I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!
|
|

Well you might see bright flashes from russian nukes, but you'll marvel at the glow from the US nukes.
Shock and Awe done right.

Cheers

Martin Riddle wrote:

"ian field" wrote in message
| I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

Well you might see bright flashes from russian nukes, but you'll marvel at the glow from the US nukes.
Shock and Awe done right.

Who would like to see Putin on the end of a piece of rope ?

Graham

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200
nukes get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident
missiles they're sitting atop.

Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

That's a relief.


Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.


The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.

Britain, France, and the rest of Europe isn't worried about a US strike on
them, but none of those countries has ever been invaded.
Dosomereadingwheredoyougetyourinformation indeed.

And their only real allies, the Serbs, never turned on them. That's because
they're also piggish scum.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote
the renowned flipper wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200
nukes get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident
missiles they're sitting atop.

Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

That's a relief.

Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.

The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.

Britain, France, and the rest of Europe isn't worried about a US strike on
them, but none of those countries has ever been invaded.
Dosomereadingwheredoyougetyourinformation indeed.

And their only real allies, the Serbs, never turned on them. That's because
they're also piggish scum.

Just a shame the RN hasn't got the Astute class in service and lots of them.
They could take out the Russian boomers before they knew what was happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarines

Even as it is, a Trafalagar class SSN IIRC with its pump jets, stalked a USN
carrier group without detection.

Graham

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:07:18 -0400, the renowned "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200
nukes get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident
missiles they're sitting atop.

Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

That's a relief.


Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.

Of course it would be. Or at least enough to form a reliable
deterrent. Wasn't it Mr. Rumsfeld who said that he found weakness
rather provocative?


The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.

Britain, France, and the rest of Europe isn't worried about a US strike on
them, but none of those countries has ever been invaded.
Dosomereadingwheredoyougetyourinformation indeed.

And their only real allies, the Serbs, never turned on them. That's because
they're also piggish scum.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:07:18 -0400, the renowned "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.

Of course it would be. Or at least enough to form a reliable
deterrent. Wasn't it Mr. Rumsfeld who said that he found weakness
rather provocative?

That's as far out of context as the way you count weapons.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!

I do hope they realise they are 'outgunned' by a very large number.

'Outgunned' by *who*?

There's this thing called NATO you know ?

I wish you more luck getting them to actually fire a weapon than we've
had in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's hardly a NATO member. Is Poland yet ? If not, accelerate the process
!


Don't get me wrong, it's a dern sight better than the U.N., that
simply watches whatever atrocity is committed before their eyes, but
half of them will only 'train' (the Afghans) in 'safe' areas.

Useful, to be sure, but I'd feel a lot better with a few more of our
'pals' up there on the front line.

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

You reckon it still works, maintained by a bunch of alcoholics ?

I sure reckon I'm not going to risk a few hundred million lives on
your guess of it.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200 nukes
get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident missiles
they're sitting atop.

Which we paid for and operate under all normal circumstances in joint command
with the USN.

Britain 'technically' owns 58 of them but they're all 'share and share
alike', and any particular missile might be on a British sub one month
but a US sub the next.

I think not. Our warheads are different to yours (the USA never would give us that
technology, so we did our own). Other than that our Trident subs are very similar
to your own SSBNs.


But that's moot as the point is we're 'pals' and share both technology
and equipment so neither of us 'goes alone'.

Anything else is quite rare.


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

So 50% are ****ed ?

No, they're stockpiled.

If we presume a 100% kill ratio, lower that 'estimate' to 7,190
remaining, assuming you believe the 'estimate' accurate to within 10.

Who's 'outgunned'?

Do you think the Ukraine wouldn't be interested too ?

I'm dead sure they're 'interested' in a lot of things, not the least
being how much they're like to be nuked, and various other scenarios.

Not sure, but they may have nukes too.


They want to join the EU
(and possibly NATO too). They are not exactly weak and border Russia.

I'd be willing to bet the Russians have noticed that.

Russia has just made the stupidest move it could ever have done. It is
finished.

You mean the way it was 'finished' when they occupied half of Europe?

It doesn't now does it ?

Graham

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:13:20 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:30:51 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

snip

and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence.

It's patently absurd scenarios like that which leads to 'war'.

Ever hear of early warning radar? How about "on alert' status? Got any
idea where Russia's nukes are? Like fixed silo, mobile land based (for
which we have no equivalent), cruise missile, submarine based,
airborne, and tactical... just to get started.

Yes, that's where I thought you were coming from. Suggest you read the
scholarly article on "Nuclear Primacy" in the influential journal
_Foreign Affairs_, I think this particular article is open to the
public:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-primacy.html

All your points, and more, are covered in well-researched detail.
Although all of the authors' claims are not universally accepted, it's
most certainly not an absurd position, and the *actions* of NATO and
the US are consistent with this being their *goal*, in contrast to the
grand-sounding words which mean little.

The hardening of the proposed Polish military base with Patriot
missiles operated by 100+ US military troops (wearing Polish uniforms
as a rather small fig leaf) is a strong indication that Poland and the
US think that Russia might feel a overwhelming urge to Osirak the
thing for some strange reason.

And then there's the little 'problem' that an 'interceptor' defense is
of little 'security' if it does not actually 'defend' the country
supposedly launching your, so called, 'first strike' and, while this
may come as a surprise, Poland if not mainland US territory so the
folks in Boise aren't going to be very comforted that Poland 'is
safe'.

I'm quite certain they'd rather have the lethal particulate matter
from blown-up Pu pits wafting down over Warsaw rather than Boise, if
it has to be one or the other.

I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington.

Nothing is ever 'permanent' but so much for the theory of finally
being 'friends' again.

According to your notion of 'friendly', all of Europe should be
frantically building thousands of nukes and missiles. After all, we
actually did 'invade' them.

Yes. They already have hundreds- delivery systems aside, enough to act
as a deterrent to Russia, China or even the US, although the latter is
a very unlikely scenario, at least in the near term. Though,
considering the unexpected breakup of the Soviet Union, perhaps not
unthinkable, should something unexpected happen to the US-- triggered
by economic collapse or a major terror incident (eg. taking out a
city).


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:26:00 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:35:51 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
m
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:07:18 -0400, the renowned "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.

Of course it would be. Or at least enough to form a reliable
deterrent. Wasn't it Mr. Rumsfeld who said that he found weakness
rather provocative?

That's as far out of context as the way you count weapons.

Of course it is and it's my experience that's how those sort of people
operate: mangling what's said, done, and history.

Rumsfeld's commentary included

"Today, it should be clear that not only is weakness provocative but
the perception of weakness on our part can be provocative as well."

"A conclusion by our enemies that the United States lacks the will or
the resolve to carry out missions that demand sacrifice and demand
patience is every bit as dangerous as an imbalance of conventional
military power,"

Ah, so it was completely in context.. referring to one country
attacking (or threatening or blackmailing) another because of real or
perceived weakness relative to the potential aggressor. Thanks for
dredging up the complete quote, it's perfect.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200
nukes get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident
missiles they're sitting atop.

Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

That's a relief.


Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.


The scenario that causes instability is that of a US first strike (as
the overwhelming US conventional first strike on Iraq) and then the
missile 'defense' will be left to 'mop up' the few remaining vestiges
of Russian deterrence. I don't think the Russians will stand for a
situation where their security permanently depends on the sanity and
morals of Washington. They've been attacked and invaded too many
times, and have had 'allies' turn on them too many times to trust
anyone, let alone the US.

Britain, France, and the rest of Europe isn't worried about a US strike on
them, but none of those countries has ever been invaded.

What?!

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:07:18 -0400, the renowned "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
m
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:55:36 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:34:28 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The British fleet alone could reduce Russia to rubble.

And they could reduce Britain to rubble with just their nuclear spare
parts store.

Much as I admire the British Navy, before you start bragging about
'the fleet alone' you should take note that not one of those 200
nukes get's airborne without the shared store of U.S. made Trident
missiles they're sitting atop.

Graham


To Putin's ridiculous assertion that 10 interceptors in Poland
constitutes some kind of 'threat', as of Jan 2007 Russia had the
world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with an estimated total
of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

Not that many have operational delivery systems. Do some reading.

That's a relief.


Who's 'outgunned'?

Russia, of course. Where do you get your information? It's a very
dangerous situation.

Oh, it's not a relief. It'd be safer if Russia had more weapons.

Of course it would be. Or at least enough to form a reliable
deterrent. Wasn't it Mr. Rumsfeld who said that he found weakness
rather provocative?

The more nukes the better the chances of being vaporised instantly instead
of being reduced to a quivering crispy critter!

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Though, considering the unexpected breakup of the Soviet Union, perhaps not
unthinkable

Already happened.

Graham

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:27:22 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:49:11 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:52 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:


"ian field" wrote in message ...
| I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!
|
|

Well you might see bright flashes from russian nukes, but you'll marvel at the glow from the US nukes.
Shock and Awe done right.

Cheers

Actually, if any of you dippy dopes were witness to any such "flash" or
"glow" your fate would be sealed (as well as your eyes) the moment you
looked at it. Even at 100 miles away, the flash is enough to completely
blind you within a few milliseconds.

Last time I checked Georgia, as well as Russia, were considerably
farther away from GB than 100 miles.

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

The aforementioned JERK ^^^^ is certainly not a scientist OR engineer.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama, Questioned about the Presidency, it's "above my pay grade"

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:27:22 -0500, the renowned flipper
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:49:11 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:40:52 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:


"ian field" wrote in message ...
| I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!
|
|

Well you might see bright flashes from russian nukes, but you'll marvel at the glow from the US nukes.
Shock and Awe done right.

Cheers

Actually, if any of you dippy dopes were witness to any such "flash" or
"glow" your fate would be sealed (as well as your eyes) the moment you
looked at it. Even at 100 miles away, the flash is enough to completely
blind you within a few milliseconds.

Last time I checked Georgia, as well as Russia, were considerably
farther away from GB than 100 miles.

You might even be able to see the flashes off the Earth's moon,
particularly if it was a New Moon.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"flipper" wrote in message

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:20:33 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


So it's Russian nukes vs potentially

US
UK
French
Israeli
and Chinese nukes.

You're in deep doo-doo if you're counting on Chinese nukes to swing
the balance because their launch vehicles are liquid fueled and, so,
left un fueled with the warheads separate. Russia would make craters
of those before they got the fuse lit.

But it's interesting that they do see Russia as the odd man out, and at
other times pretend it isn't an outlaw nation.


Russia would be be a wasteland for decades and probably eventually
absorbed into Ukraine.

Then the Ukrainians would inevitably kill 20 million Russians to enforce
compliance with their agricultural policies, thus demonstrating that the
Russians are no different.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:33:50 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
SNIP
Or Putin thinking the west will do nothing about him invading a
sovereign democracy.

One of those special rice quiffs is heading his way.
It's the only bush foreign policy maneuver that's worked so far...

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:20:33 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

So it's Russian nukes vs potentially

US
UK
French
Israeli
and Chinese nukes.

You're in deep doo-doo if you're counting on Chinese nukes to swing
the balance because their launch vehicles are liquid fueled and, so,
left un fueled with the warheads separate. Russia would make craters
of those before they got the fuse lit.

But it's interesting that they do see Russia as the odd man out, and at
other times pretend it isn't an outlaw nation.

Russia would be be a wasteland for decades and probably eventually
absorbed into Ukraine.

Then the Ukrainians would inevitably kill 20 million Russians to enforce
compliance with their agricultural policies,

Uh ?

thus demonstrating that the
Russians are no different.

You're asssuming there would be any Russians left !

Graham

FanJet wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Or Putin thinking the west will do nothing about him invading a
sovereign democracy.

One of those special rice quiffs is heading his way.
It's the only bush foreign policy maneuver that's worked so far...

Why don't we just spike him with one of those special umbrellas they
used on Georgi Markov ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

Graham

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:09 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


MOre to the point, who really cares. A few less people would certainly
help reduce global warming.

I wonder what would happen to the southern hemisphere if the northern
hemisphere wnet missing?

The Real Andy wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:09 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


MOre to the point, who really cares. A few less people would certainly
help reduce global warming.

I wonder what would happen to the southern hemisphere if the northern
hemisphere wnet missing?


it would crumble, as the remaining mass tried to reshape itself into
a smaller sphere. With less mass it's orbit would change, and it would
be in an asteroid belt created with the debris fro the destroyed
hemisphere? The heat created in removing half the planet would likely
kill everything left on the other half. That scenario is too stupid to
consider, even in a really bad space opera.

Do you have any more stupid questions, or are you done for the day?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:02:11 +1000, the renowned The Real Andy
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:09 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


MOre to the point, who really cares. A few less people would certainly
help reduce global warming.

I wonder what would happen to the southern hemisphere if the northern
hemisphere wnet missing?

If there was nobody much alive there? Maps would look more like this:

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/hobodyer-large.jpg



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:02:11 +1000, The Real Andy
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:09 +0100, "ian field"
wrote:

I'm sitting on the roof with binoculars watching out for bright flashes!


MOre to the point, who really cares. A few less people would certainly
help reduce global warming.

What percentage of total atmospheric energy is due to humans? Get a
life, act like an engineer.


I wonder what would happen to the southern hemisphere if the northern
hemisphere wnet missing?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberals are so cute. Â*Dumb as a box of rocks, but cute.