Its official – U.S. missile defense forces nuclear arms race.

Can’t get any clearer then that, Bushes administration is actively forcing Russia into another full blow nuclear arms race;

WASHINGTON - A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded that the Bush administration used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe. ADVERTISEMENT


They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent.

That view supports Russia's criticism of the system. Russia adamantly opposes the plan, and the dispute has helped escalate U.S.-Russian tensions to the highest point since the Cold War.

news.yahoo.com...

In order to skip the usual “these guys are just some scientists and they don’t know what they are talking about”, I’ll do what I don’t actually like, and it’s copy&paste again;

Three other physicists also reviewed Postol's findings and said they found them accurate:

_Richard Garwin, a National Science Award winner who is credited with the design of the first hydrogen bomb. Garwin served on the Rumsfeld Commission, an independent panel appointed by Congress in the 1990s to assess the threat to the United States from ballistic missiles.

_Philip Coyle, a former associate director of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Coyle was assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration in charge of testing weapons systems.

_David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear nonproliferation and environmental advocacy group.

Same source.

Any thoughts on why exactly America is actively engaged in undermining its own MAD scenario, and antagonizing a major nuclear power into yet another cycle of deadly nuclear games?

Originally posted by iskander

Any thoughts on why exactly America is actively engaged in undermining its own MAD scenario, and antagonizing a major nuclear power into yet another cycle of deadly nuclear games?

Aren't these the same people who said that America's missile defense sucks so badly? Not to mention is Russia's ballistic missile capability really that bad that it could not overwhelm about a dozen interceptors based on Europe?

The Russian ICBM`s are far more better then those dozen or so incapable interceptor missiles.

The Russian response was nothing more then a political stunt and an excuse to test new missiles who would have been tested anyways...

Its all sabre ratteling.

Weak anti missile system gives the western world some safety feelings and Russian new missiles give Russian`s some safety feelings.

Objective is reached by both parties. They pleased the public and congratulate each other in the backstages...

It should also be noted that the findings assume that Russia would be launching her missiles in an east-west trajectory over Europe and then the Atlantic. However this is a highly unlikely tactic, launching a ballistic missile in an east-west trajectory against the earth's rotation would mean reduced payload and reduced range.

Knowing this it is quite obvious that any Russian nuclear attack on the US would involve missiles being launched on trajectories taking them over the north pole or from eastern Russia in a west to east trajectory(i.e with the earth's rotation). In either such event missile defense sites in Poland and/or the Czech Republic would pretty much be useless however, defense sites based in Alaska would be another matter.

In any event the US intendeds too deploy only a limited number of interceptors which would not be sufficient to repulse an all out nuclear attack involving thousands of warheads.

In short its time for the rest of the world to wake up and realize it isn't the 1980's anymore. Nuclear and rocket technology has spread to at least a dozen nations around the world in the past two decades. Nations such as Iran, Sudan and of course North Korea.

OK then, I’m glad that we're all on the same page.

Who cares about what the guy that made the first hydrogen bomb has to say.

He must be one of those crazy leftist, even though it was actually his job to access ballistic missile threat, as appointed by the Congress.

So if all this is fair and a totally normal state of affairs, then I'm sure nobody here will disagree if Russians decide to build new radar installations and then put their new S-400 and upcoming S-500 sites in Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, and so on.

It'll be just politics, right?

Its a precedent.

Next thing you know, after its induction plans are complete they will "upgrade" these missiles for "maintenance" purposes because of the "success" the current ones are so they put more and better missiles in place because their was no rejections to these current plans

Originally posted by iskander
OK then, I’m glad that we're all on the same page.

Who cares about what the guy that made the first hydrogen bomb has to say.

He must be one of those crazy leftist, even though it was actually his job to access ballistic missile threat, as appointed by the Congress.

So if all this is fair and a totally normal state of affairs, then I'm sure nobody here will disagree if Russians decide to build new radar installations and then put their new S-400 and upcoming S-500 sites in Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, and so on.

It'll be just politics, right?

If the Russians wanted to put radars in all the places you mentioned, I don't think the U.S. would have a real problem with it. Likewise missile sites, if each site was limited to 10-12 weapons, and said weapons were more or less useless against anything *but* a ballistic missile. It's not as though the U.S. is planning to fence in the entire Russian border with huge arrays of missile launchers, each capable of firing several hundred anti-aircraft or anti-missile rounds.

Dr. Postol's position with regard to this anti-missile system is very interesting. He's one of the loudest voices proclaiming the utter failure of the Patriot in an anti-missile role, and has, in the past, been an outspoken proponent of the idea that defense against ballistic missiles is a technical and / or practical impossibility. Suddenly, it's not only a possibility, it's so bloody effective that a couple of dozen interceptors have sufficient leverage to trigger a new arms race.

To say it one more time: There is NO new arms race going on...

Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.

USA is modernising its army because off the new nature off fighting wars.

China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.

So no new arms race in here...

Originally posted by iskander
Who cares about what the guy that made the first hydrogen bomb has to say.

are you serious? Edward Teller has returned from the grave, god be praised.

Originally posted by iskander
He must be one of those crazy leftist, even though it was actually his job to access ballistic missile threat, as appointed by the Congress.

Quite the contrary he was one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived(and a staunch backer of SDI and its decedents)

Originally posted by iskander
So if all this is fair and a totally normal state of affairs, then I'm sure nobody here will disagree if Russians decide to build new radar installations and then put their new S-400 and upcoming S-500 sites in Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, and so on.

Hmmm and what would these missile sites be defending against?

Originally posted by chinawhite
Its a precedent.

Next thing you know, after its induction plans are complete they will "upgrade" these missiles for "maintenance" purposes because of the "success" the current ones are so they put more and better missiles in place because their was no rejections to these current plans

That is a good point. But its not like such obstacles haven't been overcome in the past. The Soviet Union and the US inspected each others arsenals to insure that each other were decommissioning nuclear and strategic assets as part of nuclear disarmament. The free skies agreement could easily be used to determine accurately the number of interceptors stays at the agreed levels.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
To say it one more time: There is NO new arms race going on...

Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.

USA is modernising its army because off the new nature off fighting wars.

China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.

So no new arms race in here...

People like you are always saying, this tierd argument, scince there is no country capable of launching missiles towards U.S.A. ( Iran Syria) and these nations would not cause heavy damage to U.S.A. it's safe to say these instalations are to threaten Russia, you claim Rus lost it's hardware, what hardware did it losse to engange in a nuke war, when fact Russia still has hundreds of ICBM's on subs and in silo's that it can launch, where's the proof the lost this hardware

reply to post by danwild6


Danwild6

You are right as to the course that would be taken by Russian missiles in an attack of the US.
Also we should all be aware that interceptor missile programs since the old Hercules days of the late 60’s were known to be useless for its intended purpose. NO matter how many were made they simply will not perform the needed function.

So I would ask if our leaders wanted to protect anyone why did they revoke funding of THEL? A proven laser interceptor.
MAD is an ignorant concept that only insures the end of this age of civilization. You will just have to take my word for what I know we (US) have for “spoiled sport” (it is spelled COBALT). More to the point a non-tritium enriched nuclear arsenal such as N. Korea or Iran could create would contaminate the northern hemisphere without touching US soil with a single such weapon.

With five orbital reactors armed with particle beam cannons and the same cannons on commercial US nuclear plants about 86% of the densest populated area of the US could be protected. These figures are dated from the early 80 so some demographics have changed. This is off the shelf technology first tested by Russia in 1972. It leaves single digit mili-rem residual radiation and is undefeatable by any counter means (unlike a laser). However this High Frontier program that was called “Galactic”, I believe, was scraped under Jimmy (your on your own) Carter.

My point is the approach of Bush is useless except to antagonize nearly the entire world. And it achieves a very false sense of security. As to nuclear disarmament, our present program of using MOX fuel to use up the old Soviet nuclear plutonium has slowed to a crawl. We can only speculate that it is due to spending cuts. MOX uses just a little weapons material mixed in our commercial fuel to make it unusable for weapons.
You should also know that members of the Pentagon continue to worry that our nuclear warheads may no longer be functional, I agree with this very real concern.

OK, are you guys on the payroll or did social programming reach a new level?

What are your positions on colonial expansion and slavery?

Who is the person whose words will bare any credibility for you? The president of the Unitd States? Jesus Christ? Name a GUY whose words you’ll believe!

If the Russians wanted to put radars in all the places you mentioned, I don't think the U.S. would have a real problem with it.

Really, who said that? (Please insert the name of government official that stated such policy here ----- )

Likewise missile sites, if each site was limited to 10-12 weapons, and said weapons were more or less useless against anything *but* a ballistic missile.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Rings a bell? What were the conditions of the agreement?

Here’s a hint,

In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.

Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offence from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...


Condition 1 – removal of American Juiter missiles from Turkey (which were actually only replaced for more advanced models)

Condition 2 – A guarantee that America will not INVADE Cuba and stop assassination attempts on Castro. (Assassination attempts on Castro continue to this day)

So what’s the reasoning here, how dare those war mongering Russkies wanting us to take our gun from their temple, and asking us to stop invading and killing whom ever we want?

How about this, why don’t YOU compile a chronological action-reaction graph to show us all who actually drove the cold war arms race?

Something like year period 1950 to 1960, US deploys these weapon systems while USSR deploys these weapon systems.

I’m really looking forward to seeing the FACTUALL picture of how by 1960 USSR was literally SURROUNDED by American nuclear missiles, while USSR had ZERO missiles outside of their own territory.

It's not as though the U.S. is planning to fence in the entire Russian border with huge arrays of missile launchers, each capable of firing several hundred anti-aircraft or anti-missile rounds.

Oh and is this the official policy written down somewhere? Can I have a read?

Because I sure remember how our great leaders were persuaded by our HUGE military industrial compel to completely surround USSR with nuclear missiles which brought the entire world to the brink of nuclear holocaust during Cuban Missile crisis.

So we already learned on the mistakes of our past, and there is a law somewhere that guarantees that American people will not be threatened by retaliatory actions from another nation?

Dr. Postol's position with regard to this anti-missile system is very interesting. He's one of the loudest voices proclaiming the utter failure of the Patriot in an anti-missile role, and has, in the past, been an outspoken proponent of the idea that defense against ballistic missiles is a technical and / or practical impossibility.

Absolutely true, and that’s because technical capability is not equal to political fall out.

Here’s a simple example, if somebody points a .22 caliber pistol at a police officer in a bullet proof vest and gets shot in return, him saying that the cop should not have shot him because he knew that a .22 bullet would not have penetrated the vest, would not be a very good defense at a trial, don’t you think?

Anti ballistic missiles will NOT provide reliable defense, it’s a fact, because it only takes ONE to bring devastating damage, but at the same time they do ANTAGONISE and THRETEN, while bringing a nice fat PROFIT to the folks that make them.

Suddenly, it's not only a possibility, it's so bloody effective that a couple of dozen interceptors have sufficient leverage to trigger a new arms race.

The only effectiveness such installation provides if the fueling of the ARMS RACE IT SELF!

MORE MONEY, PROFIT, Military Industrial Complex, all it is.

To say it one more time: There is NO new arms race going on...

Are you our assigned propaganda agent for today?

OK then, if you say so, it must be how you say then.

What should I do next sir?

Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.

I’m not following you here, Russia is modernizing and “packing heat” by getting all bent out of shape because of our anti-missile defense installation plans?

USA is modernising its army because off the new nature off fighting wars.

That one I do agree with, because our own stated “new nature” of fighting wars is by PREEMPTIVE STRIKES!

We, as the peace loving, law abiding beacon of freedom and democracy, are simply modernizing our forces in order to meet the requirement of our new WAR policy, and that policy is our own given right to ATTACK ANYONE we feel is an enemy to us, at ANY time we feel like it, based on ZERO factual information, and with out having to listen to anybody else in the world.

China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.

Yep, same people are making MORE money by running the same WARS, so who cares about MILLIONS of innocent people killed by us as casualties of GREED, it’s not like they’re Americans or anything…

So no new arms race in here...

Well I’m glad that everything is figured out here, because it’s only us who can “modernize” our forces, since we’re the democratic freedom loving nation after all, and arms races happen only when other nations arm them selves.

are you serious? Edward Teller has returned from the grave, god be praised.

Edward Teller is back? Somebody has to tell Richard Garwin, I’m sure he’ll be ecstatic…

What else is happening in the world then?

Quite the contrary he was one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived(and a staunch backer of SDI and its decedents)

So should we accept his professional position is on this issue, or just keep repeating what we’re told?

Hmmm and what would these missile sites be defending against?

Hmmm, could it be Halliburton and other government sponsored war profiteers bent on pillaging as many countries as they can get away with?

So I would ask if our leaders wanted to protect anyone why did they revoke funding of THEL? A proven laser interceptor.
MAD is an ignorant concept that only insures the end of this age of civilization.

EXACTLY!!! It’s not about what protects us best, it’s about who’s going to pocket the profits from the deal, and who cares if it antagonizes the Russians into another arms race, then it’ll be just another excuse to scare more gullible Americans into giving up more of our taxes to build more weapons instead of schools.

My point is the approach of Bush is useless except to antagonize nearly the entire world. And it achieves a very false sense of security. As to nuclear disarmament, our present program of using MOX fuel to use up the old Soviet nuclear plutonium has slowed to a crawl. We can only speculate that it is due to spending cuts

Welcome to the discussion Comforter, common sense and logic are always welcome on ATS!

Particle beam weapons still aren't in any practical buildable form. The only currently known existing program, Medusa, still hasn't been tested, and it will likely be a while before it is at all deployable.


For right now, no, the US still isn't crushing it's MAD concept. MAD still applies; Russia has not enough s-400's to get our missiles, and our Patriots can't hit Topol-M's for ****.

Originally posted by iskander
OK, are you guys on the payroll or did social programming reach a new level?

What are your positions on colonial expansion and slavery?

LOL and this has to do with what, another of your rants ?

Likewise missile sites, if each site was limited to 10-12 weapons, and said weapons were more or less useless against anything *but* a ballistic missile.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Rings a bell? What were the conditions of the agreement?

They were nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, quite a difference if you had any understanding of what you were tlalking about.

In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.

Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offence from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[9]

Condition 1 – removal of American Juiter missiles from Turkey (which were actually only replaced for more advanced models)

Actually they were removed 6 months after the Cuban Missile crisis and were never replaced with any other type of ballistic missile. Get your facts

How about this, why don’t YOU compile a chronological action-reaction graph to show us all who actually drove the cold war arms race?

Something like year period 1950 to 1960, US deploys these weapon systems while USSR deploys these weapon systems.

LOL so the USSR was magically able to prduce these weapons systems out of thin air ? They were being developed at the same time th US was developing theirs, the US just got many of theirs deployed first.

I’m really looking forward to seeing the FACTUALL picture of how by 1960 USSR was literally SURROUNDED by American nuclear missiles, while USSR had ZERO missiles outside of their own territory.

They didn't need to, they could hold most of the world at risk without having to deploy outside their own borders. They dis of course keep tactical weapons in Eastern Euope, so that is outside their borders. So you are saying that the USSR can deploy weapons in Europe and the US can't. At least the US had permission from the European governemtns, the USSR didn't. They just did what they wanted.

Oh and is this the official policy written down somewhere? Can I have a read?

LOL we could go around in circles like this all day and this is one of your tactics to browbeat people. Find a policy which says they do ? COme on. The onus is on you to prove it.

Here’s a simple example, if somebody points a .22 caliber pistol at a police officer in a bullet proof vest and gets shot in return, him saying that the cop should not have shot him because he knew that a .22 bullet would not have penetrated the vest, would not be a very good defense at a trial, don’t you think?

And this has waht to do with the argument. I just don't think you are able to use that much logic in arguments.

Anti ballistic missiles will NOT provide reliable defense, it’s a fact, because it only takes ONE to bring devastating damage, but at the same time they do ANTAGONISE and THRETEN, while bringing a nice fat PROFIT to the folks that make them.

So how is this driving a new arms race ? You contradict yourself. What you are really saying is that the Russian strategic deterrence is uselss against 12 ABM's.
Besides don't Russia already have ABM's in contravention of the 1972 ABM rtreaty.

The only effectiveness such installation provides if the fueling of the ARMS RACE IT SELF!

HOW ? How about s logical argument and not a typical rant of yours.

Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.

I’m not following you here, Russia is modernizing and “packing heat” by getting all bent out of shape because of our anti-missile defense installation plans?

Completely wrong. Russia is rearming because now they can afford it and they wish to take a leading role in the world. They see as a build up of military power as staking a claim to being one of the more powerful countries in the world. Espcially after all their embarrassment of falling apart on teh 1990's.

China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.

Yep, same people are making MORE money by running the same WARS, so who cares about MILLIONS of innocent people killed by us as casualties of GREED, it’s not like they’re Americans or anything…

Well I’m glad that everything is figured out here, because it’s only us who can “modernize” our forces, since we’re the democratic freedom loving nation after all, and arms races happen only when other nations arm them selves.

So what's your point now ? That there is no Cold War because all countries are allowed to modernise their forces ? FLIP FLOP.

I've answered all the points of his which made any sense, much of his rant made no sense. but always good for a laugh.

This thread is a bit tl;dr, so I hope I'm not repeating something someone already said. But the Bushies want an arms race because it will greatly increase the profits of the military-industrial complex!!! Isn't it obvious???

Originally posted by uberarcanist
This thread is a bit tl;dr, so I hope I'm not repeating something someone already said. But the Bushies want an arms race because it will greatly increase the profits of the military-industrial complex!!! Isn't it obvious???

Well same oculd be said for any country, so I guess everyone wants an arms race. You don't think Putin is making money, haha.

reply to post by mad scientist


I suppose, but America shouldn't be encouraging arms races. We are, by far, the biggest defense spender in the world, our influence on global spending patterns cannot be understated.

Originally posted by iskander
OK, are you guys on the payroll or did social programming reach a new level?

Ahh...now I understand. Your position is so morally correct and so intellectually impregnable that anyone who dares disagree with your position is either a brainwashed robot, or a paid 'disinfo' agent? The picture becomes much clearer now.

What are your positions on colonial expansion and slavery?

My position? Sitting in my comfortable chair with a glass of tea on a coaster beside my mouse. That's my usual position when discussing anything on the internet. If you want my opinion on colonial expansion and / or slavery, start a thread on the subject. I was under the impression that this particular thread was about the impact of the U.S. deploying an anti-missile defense system in western Europe. Did I miss something, or are you just building straw men in honor of the upcoming Hallow'een holiday?

Who is the person whose words will bare any credibility for you? The president of the Unitd States? Jesus Christ? Name a GUY whose words you’ll believe!

It's 'bear', as in carry...not 'bare' as in naked. If you're going to rant at me, make an attempt to do it right. In the spirit of your 'colonialism and slavery' snipe above, I feel obligated to ask if you are a sexist pig, since you seem to think only the words of a "GUY" would have any credibility. I happen to be at least enlightened enough to think that women can speak to technical or political subjects.

Now, to answer your question...the President might have some credibility. Jesus would most certainly have some. Stuart Slade would. In fact, anybody who could support their contention with evidence would.

Care to point out a time when the U.S. protested the deployment of Soviet anti-aircraft missiles (as opposed to IRBMs) in Cuba? I'm wondering if you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. It wasn't touched off by SAM sites.

***snip of quoted Soviet / American agreement that was the subject of a long term paper I wrote for a history class and see no need to repeat***

So what’s the reasoning here, how dare those war mongering Russkies wanting us to take our gun from their temple, and asking us to stop invading and killing whom ever we want?

You might ask the people of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary about those 'war mongering Ruskies'. Oh, I forgot, only the U.S. invades countries and kills people.

How about this, why don’t YOU compile a chronological action-reaction graph to show us all who actually drove the cold war arms race?

Something like year period 1950 to 1960, US deploys these weapon systems while USSR deploys these weapon systems.

I’m really looking forward to seeing the FACTUALL picture of how by 1960 USSR was literally SURROUNDED by American nuclear missiles, while USSR had ZERO missiles outside of their own territory.

Primarily because the graph you're demanding would be a waste of free time that I really don't have. For one thing, the 'action-reaction' cycle that you so badly want to see isn't clear cut thanks to little items like the need for research and development.

Your rather simplistic action-reaction motivation for the arms race during the Cold War also leaves out one of the primary drivers behind the West's push for tactical and theater range weaponry...the immense Soviet conventional force in Europe.

It's not as though the U.S. is planning to fence in the entire Russian border with huge arrays of missile launchers, each capable of firing several hundred anti-aircraft or anti-missile rounds.

Oh and is this the official policy written down somewhere? Can I have a read?

You've already read it. The U.S. plans to install one (1) radar, and 10-12 interceptors. It's right there in the description of the system. Plain English is hard, sometimes. Now, take a look at the budget authorizations, and you'll see that there's funding for exactly one (1) radar, and 10-12 interceptor missiles. That's not 'surrounding the USSR', and it's not 'hundreds of rounds'.

So we already learned on the mistakes of our past, and there is a law somewhere that guarantees that American people will not be threatened by retaliatory actions from another nation?

Not sure where this came from, but 'probably not', and 'no, but I really wish there was', to answer your questions in order.

Dr. Postol's position with regard to this anti-missile system is very interesting. He's one of the loudest voices proclaiming the utter failure of the Patriot in an anti-missile role, and has, in the past, been an outspoken proponent of the idea that defense against ballistic missiles is a technical and / or practical impossibility.

Absolutely true, and that’s because technical capability is not equal to political fall out.

Here’s a simple example, if somebody points a .22 caliber pistol at a police officer in a bullet proof vest and gets shot in return, him saying that the cop should not have shot him because he knew that a .22 bullet would not have penetrated the vest, would not be a very good defense at a trial, don’t you think?

Technical capability for missile defense has existed in demonstrable form since June 3, 1960, when a Hercules scored a contact kill vs a Corporal rocket over White Sands.

Your 'example' has little, if anything, to do with missile defense (which makes it fit in with a depressing amount of your post). A better analogy would be "We can't give our Police officers bulletproof vests! That will just provoke an arms race on the streets! Criminals will just get bigger guns, and feel threatened by those armored officers!"

As for the rest of your post, I snipped it. I'll let the authors of the other parts speak for themselves.

That was a good reply, I only wish I had the time and patience with Iskander to articulate myself that well. Unfortunately the more you read his stuff, the more you realise it always follows the same agenda. Once he's proven wrong he takes his own thread completely off track to deflect his deficiencies in knowledge. You should read his thread about Russia's FOAB bomb, lol.