🚀 go-pugleaf

Yet another liberal defense "expert" heard from. Shows how little they
really know about providing for national defense.

The most successful weapon systems are the ones that never need to be
used!!!!!!!!!!!

WDA

end

"Comments4u�" <comments4u@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9lnbbv$fj8_001@news.trollfeed-utb.org...
> The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
> defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
> overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
> attack by any country at any time.
>
> Yet people in business know the law of diminishing returns,
> expressed casually as *the last 10% of goodness is 90% of the
> cost.*  But it seems Republicans such as Bush, supposedly the
> business elite of the country, don't realize this.  It must
> be different when they're spending other people's money.
>
> Nothing is ever certain, yet US government tries to get there
> and forgets to be reasonable.  As an example, while the USN
> continually asks for more money, it has had for many years
> more combat strength than all the other world's navies combined.
> It seems impossible that the US could be inept enough to turn
> the whole world against it, which is the only scenario in which
> such a large navy is useful.  Still, there should be no naval
> cutbacks at present;  there are certainly signs President
> Bush might be inept enough to make the US friendless in the
> world.
>
> Yet Bush is unwilling to plan for less than 100%, meaning he
> won't agree to a system that might allow an enemy to destroy
> a handful of US cities.  He doesn't see that retaliation in
> the form of the US nuclear arsenal, which is powerful enough
> to destroy entire countries, is sufficient deterrant to enemies.
>
> Even some Bush supporters recognize the inefficiency of 100%
> defense.  Representatives of the Christian Coalition have
> said they don't want any of their tax dollars spent to protect
> the modern Sodom and Ghomorra, San Francisco.
>
> Still, the super-high-technology of the Bush missle defense
> plan is in contrast to Bush's low tech solution to the energy
> problem. And, in fact, Bush's unsophisticated solution for the
> energy problem, which in summary is *dig another hole in the
> ground*, might be the most cost effective defense solution too.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------
> There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at
> without result. --- Winston Churchill

"W. D. Allen Sr." <ballensr@home.com> wrote in message
news:OFSf7.74070$A47.34421425@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
>
> The most successful weapon systems are the ones that never need to be
> used!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Like the Maginot Line?


--
 Dan Listermann

Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com

Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum.  It is my new hobby!

> WDA
>
> end
>
> "Comments4u�" <comments4u@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9lnbbv$fj8_001@news.trollfeed-utb.org...
> > The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
> > defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
> > overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
> > attack by any country at any time.
> >
> > Yet people in business know the law of diminishing returns,
> > expressed casually as *the last 10% of goodness is 90% of the
> > cost.*  But it seems Republicans such as Bush, supposedly the
> > business elite of the country, don't realize this.  It must
> > be different when they're spending other people's money.
> >
> > Nothing is ever certain, yet US government tries to get there
> > and forgets to be reasonable.  As an example, while the USN
> > continually asks for more money, it has had for many years
> > more combat strength than all the other world's navies combined.
> > It seems impossible that the US could be inept enough to turn
> > the whole world against it, which is the only scenario in which
> > such a large navy is useful.  Still, there should be no naval
> > cutbacks at present;  there are certainly signs President
> > Bush might be inept enough to make the US friendless in the
> > world.
> >
> > Yet Bush is unwilling to plan for less than 100%, meaning he
> > won't agree to a system that might allow an enemy to destroy
> > a handful of US cities.  He doesn't see that retaliation in
> > the form of the US nuclear arsenal, which is powerful enough
> > to destroy entire countries, is sufficient deterrant to enemies.
> >
> > Even some Bush supporters recognize the inefficiency of 100%
> > defense.  Representatives of the Christian Coalition have
> > said they don't want any of their tax dollars spent to protect
> > the modern Sodom and Ghomorra, San Francisco.
> >
> > Still, the super-high-technology of the Bush missle defense
> > plan is in contrast to Bush's low tech solution to the energy
> > problem. And, in fact, Bush's unsophisticated solution for the
> > energy problem, which in summary is *dig another hole in the
> > ground*, might be the most cost effective defense solution too.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------
> > There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at
> > without result. --- Winston Churchill
>
>

On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:27:10 GMT, "W. D. Allen Sr."
<ballensr@home.com> wrote:

>Yet another liberal defense "expert" heard from. Shows how little they
>really know about providing for national defense.
>
>The most successful weapon systems are the ones that never need to be
>used!!!!!!!!!!!
>
  So, if a system has no use, and is thus successful, do you think
there is need to build a bigger system?

Pertti Jarla

Hi "W. D. Allen Sr." <ballensr@home.com>, 

 On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:27:10 GMT, in alt.folklore.military 
 you put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing...


? Yet another liberal defense "expert" heard from. Shows how little they
? really know about providing for national defense.
? 
? The most successful weapon systems are the ones that never need to be
? used!!!!!!!!!!!


A politician was once seen placing bales of straw around London.

A journalist saw this extraordinary behaviour and questioned, "Why are
you placing those bales of straw around London?"

The politician replied, "The straw keeps the tigers out of the city."

The journalist looked astonished and stated, "There are no tigers in
London!"

The politician smiled innocently, "Yes, it works well, doesn't it?"


? 
? WDA
? 
? end
? 
? "Comments4u�" <comments4u@my-deja.com> wrote in message
? news:9lnbbv$fj8_001@news.trollfeed-utb.org...
? > The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
? > defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
? > overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
? > attack by any country at any time.
? >
? > Yet people in business know the law of diminishing returns,
? > expressed casually as *the last 10% of goodness is 90% of the
? > cost.*  But it seems Republicans such as Bush, supposedly the
? > business elite of the country, don't realize this.  It must
? > be different when they're spending other people's money.
? >
? > Nothing is ever certain, yet US government tries to get there
? > and forgets to be reasonable.  As an example, while the USN
? > continually asks for more money, it has had for many years
? > more combat strength than all the other world's navies combined.
? > It seems impossible that the US could be inept enough to turn
? > the whole world against it, which is the only scenario in which
? > such a large navy is useful.  Still, there should be no naval
? > cutbacks at present;  there are certainly signs President
? > Bush might be inept enough to make the US friendless in the
? > world.
? >
? > Yet Bush is unwilling to plan for less than 100%, meaning he
? > won't agree to a system that might allow an enemy to destroy
? > a handful of US cities.  He doesn't see that retaliation in
? > the form of the US nuclear arsenal, which is powerful enough
? > to destroy entire countries, is sufficient deterrant to enemies.
? >
? > Even some Bush supporters recognize the inefficiency of 100%
? > defense.  Representatives of the Christian Coalition have
? > said they don't want any of their tax dollars spent to protect
? > the modern Sodom and Ghomorra, San Francisco.
? >
? > Still, the super-high-technology of the Bush missle defense
? > plan is in contrast to Bush's low tech solution to the energy
? > problem. And, in fact, Bush's unsophisticated solution for the
? > energy problem, which in summary is *dig another hole in the
? > ground*, might be the most cost effective defense solution too.
? >
? >
? >
? >
? > ---------------
? > There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at
? > without result. --- Winston Churchill
? 



Best wishes, Ace

====================

Winner of July's us.* thread of the month award.
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=bb666680100d7e1,1

On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:47:24 -0400, John Lansford
<jlnsford@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>comments4u@my-deja.com (Comments4u�) wrote:
>
>>The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
>>defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
>>overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
>>attack by any country at any time.
>
>No it isn't. It won't stop a ship-delivered nuclear device into a
>port, for example, or an air-dropped one. It won't stop a "spasm"
>attack by the Russians or even the Chinese, for that matter.


Notify the Navy.  Patrol at 1000 miles.  24 hour coverage.  Stop every
ship.  Darn, need six more CV's to do that.  Oh, and 60 special
destroyers with accomodations for USMC boarding parties.

And they still might get through.  Notify the Army.  Need about 20
more divisions, dug in shoulder to shoulder.  The US will build the
Maginot Line along the coasts.  Money, money, money!

(As if the Chinese or Russians would benefit from destroying a US
city. Ha ha ha)

On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 19:24:50 GMT, pertti.jarla@nic.fi (Pertti Jarla)
wrote:


>  So, if a system has no use, and is thus successful, do you think
>there is need to build a bigger system?
>
>Pertti Jarla


Wouldn't a bigger one be more successful?  <g>

On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:47:24 -0400, John Lansford
<jlnsford@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>comments4u@my-deja.com (Comments4u�) wrote:
>
>>The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
>>defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
>>overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
>>attack by any country at any time.
>
>No it isn't. It won't stop a ship-delivered nuclear device into a
>port, for example, or an air-dropped one. It won't stop a "spasm"
>attack by the Russians or even the Chinese, for that matter.

Actually, it is quite conceivable that it could stop an all out PRC attack on 
US. They only have about two dozen missiles with the range, and none of them 
have MIRV capability at present (although MIRV technology is one of the things 
they are alleged to have recently stolen).

PRC does have buckets of SRBMs, and it has been suggested that one possible 
tactic against Taiwan may be a missile siege. Firing two or three missiles a 
day, so that your cities have constant air raid alerts and big bangs in random 
locations, every day for months, to achieve psychological and political 
effects. That PRC may have already considered such tactics was shown in the 
most recent Taiwanese elections.

However, if you can stop two or three missiles at a time with high 
reliability, the psychological effect is so completely reversed that the 
missile siege becomes counter-productive and would not even be attempted. So 
an BMD system has a role in Taiwan, too, even if it is never used.

Incidentally, although a BMD system would have no effect on covert insertion 
of a nuclear weapon, techniques for dealing with that route have been under 
development, and in fact practised, for at least a decade if not longer. You 
can think of them as complementary techniques, in a way; ballistic missiles 
are fairly easy to detect but very difficult to stop, covert insertion is hard 
to detect, but easy to stop when you've found it. You need to cover both bases 
for effectiveness.

[Note: alt.politics.democrats and alt.politics.democrat trimmed from 
newsgroups because my server doesn't carry them and won't let me post with 
them included.]

Cheers,
Roger
(to avoid spam, an obvious part of my email address is reversed)

roger@liamsat.com (Roger Fleming) wrote in message news:<3b805c96@nexus.comcen.com.au>...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:47:24 -0400, John Lansford
> <jlnsford@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> Actually, it is quite conceivable that it could stop an all out PRC attack on 
> US. They only have about two dozen missiles with the range, and none of them 
> have MIRV capability at present (although MIRV technology is one of the things 
> they are alleged to have recently stolen).
> 
> PRC does have buckets of SRBMs, and it has been suggested that one possible 
> tactic against Taiwan may be a missile siege. Firing two or three missiles a 
> day, so that your cities have constant air raid alerts and big bangs in random 
> locations, every day for months, to achieve psychological and political 
> effects. That PRC may have already considered such tactics was shown in the 
> most recent Taiwanese elections.
> 
> However, if you can stop two or three missiles at a time with high 
> reliability, the psychological effect is so completely reversed that the 
> missile siege becomes counter-productive and would not even be attempted. So 
> an BMD system has a role in Taiwan, too, even if it is never used.
> 
> Incidentally, although a BMD system would have no effect on covert insertion 
> of a nuclear weapon, techniques for dealing with that route have been under 
> development, and in fact practised, for at least a decade if not longer. You 
> can think of them as complementary techniques, in a way; ballistic missiles 
> are fairly easy to detect but very difficult to stop, covert insertion is hard 
> to detect, but easy to stop when you've found it. You need to cover both bases 
> for effectiveness.
> 

Pardon my seeming disingenuousness, but...

WHY would the PRC want to do this??  If they want to assimilate Taiwan
back into China proper (ahem), why do something that's going to make
them a global anathema while simultaneously launching a war that
wrecks BOTH economies?  These aren't rhetorical questions to me; I'm
really pondering what net benefit justifies these drawbacks.

> Wouldn't a bigger one be more successful?  <g>

Therefore creating a NEGATIVE number of incidences where it is used.
Gentlemen, I think we are on the werge of what the government is really
trying to do... It�s a machine of such awsome power as to be... Hehe!
*giggle* - mad scientist/paranoid -

LOL

/Daniel

On 20 Aug 2001 08:49:34 -0700, alumshubby@my-deja.com (Bill
McClain) wrote:

>roger@liamsat.com (Roger Fleming) wrote in message news:<3b805c96@nexus.comcen.com.au>...
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:47:24 -0400, John Lansford
>> <jlnsford@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, it is quite conceivable that it could stop an all out PRC attack on 
>> US. They only have about two dozen missiles with the range, and none of them 
>> have MIRV capability at present (although MIRV technology is one of the things 
>> they are alleged to have recently stolen).
>> 
>> PRC does have buckets of SRBMs, and it has been suggested that one possible 
>> tactic against Taiwan may be a missile siege. Firing two or three missiles a 
>> day, so that your cities have constant air raid alerts and big bangs in random 
>> locations, every day for months, to achieve psychological and political 
>> effects. That PRC may have already considered such tactics was shown in the 
>> most recent Taiwanese elections.
>> 
>> However, if you can stop two or three missiles at a time with high 
>> reliability, the psychological effect is so completely reversed that the 
>> missile siege becomes counter-productive and would not even be attempted. So 
>> an BMD system has a role in Taiwan, too, even if it is never used.
>> 
>> Incidentally, although a BMD system would have no effect on covert insertion 
>> of a nuclear weapon, techniques for dealing with that route have been under 
>> development, and in fact practised, for at least a decade if not longer. You 
>> can think of them as complementary techniques, in a way; ballistic missiles 
>> are fairly easy to detect but very difficult to stop, covert insertion is hard 
>> to detect, but easy to stop when you've found it. You need to cover both bases 
>> for effectiveness.
>> 
>
>Pardon my seeming disingenuousness, but...
>
>WHY would the PRC want to do this??  If they want to assimilate Taiwan
>back into China proper (ahem), why do something that's going to make
>them a global anathema while simultaneously launching a war that
>wrecks BOTH economies?  These aren't rhetorical questions to me; I'm
>really pondering what net benefit justifies these drawbacks.

The Chinese might be somewhat concerned about the US turning to
nukes in support of Taiwan if they do not have a counter-threat. 

When people talk about the Fed-ex bomb, I wonder whether there
are already such devices sitting in self-storage places or
warehouses. 
____

Peter Skelton

Eisenhower had some thoughts regarding these sorts of things.  There you go.
What would Eisenhower think of Star Wars?

--
 Dan Listermann

Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com

Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum.  It is my new hobby!

"Daniel Kek�l�inen" <keckelainen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B817220.367F4333@hotmail.com...
>
> > Wouldn't a bigger one be more successful?  <g>
>
> Therefore creating a NEGATIVE number of incidences where it is used.
> Gentlemen, I think we are on the werge of what the government is really
> trying to do... It�s a machine of such awsome power as to be... Hehe!
> *giggle* - mad scientist/paranoid -
>
> LOL
>
> /Daniel

Bill McClain <alumshubby@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80605608.0108200749.5950e26c@posting.google.com...
> Pardon my seeming disingenuousness, but...
>
> WHY would the PRC want to do this??  If they want to assimilate Taiwan
> back into China proper (ahem), why do something that's going to make
> them a global anathema while simultaneously launching a war that
> wrecks BOTH economies?  These aren't rhetorical questions to me; I'm
> really pondering what net benefit justifies these drawbacks.

May not set out to. But like a large number of "bad things" in the
past some times miscalculation and misreading of others' intent
gets nations in to the position of trying to pick the lesser of many
evils. Some times people in power slowly work their way off the
deap end too, often due to the pressures coming from the
miscalculations and misreadings.

The Navy is too large.  By virtue of carriers 'consolidating'
vessels and cruises around a battle group protection mission that
makes the platform more 'valuable' than the slowest-radius
landattack role while shifting vessel fires unnecessarily towards
the Blue Water AAW/ASW threat as a force mix 'balance'.

The difference between effective strategic missile defense and
'counter TBM' warfare is the ability to kill threats over /their/
country.

TWD/Upper Tier don't do that.  THAAD sure as hell doesn't.  YAL-1
might.  Raptor Talon will, soonest, if we can yank our heads out on
the notion of 'fighter UCAV' missioning.

If we get into a war with China over some farflung piece of dirt
like Taiwan who qualifies as a 'Strategic Interest' but not a
Eurowhitey /Ally/, it may very well come down to the Cuban Gambit,
Reversed.

Will we provide the ROC the weapons to defend against all comers,
nuclearly?  Who get's the key?

Will we try and sneak in B-2 to disable silos or hunt down
mobile-TEL 'all at once', perfectly?

Will we accept the Mexican Standoff of being 6 /thousand/ miles away
from a /conventional/ TBM threat with 10,000 troops hostaged to
assymetric victory while stuck like shooting gallery popups boats or
ashore?  All while we ourselves are only 30 minutes from
intercontinental destruction simply because we won't let the Chinese
invade a 'rebel province' as we ourselves often considered and even
attempted with a sovereign foreign power 30 miles off /our/ shores
(and 3,500 from Russia) 40 years back??

Ultimately, containing the Dragon without killing it in it's cage is
a fruitless endeavor.

But Ike was living on a technology plateau about equivalent to
Pizarro in Peru.

Yes, there are a LOT of 'them' but you have the guns and the REAL
NEED to intimidate through threat of use of same.

Today we live in a 'politer' world of nuclear selfhorrored
agrandizement but also one where the 'Indians' are much more level
with the 'Civilized World' for ability to kill from a distance and
doctrinal and strategic understanding of how best-to.

IF it comes down to a balls to walls scenario of my-city-your-city
bouted 'escalatory determinism', having some ability to deny the
option of sudden Pk rise through single aimpoint multitargeting is
'nice' even for babylon.  This is also one point where USN TWD
starts to look good for giving a deep midcourse option beyond 'their
soil' kills.

Similarly, if we must fire into a warren of thieves who are
basically launch-on-impact equipped it is again 'nice' to know that
we can deal with some-X amount of trouble.  This includes
decapitating elements of a fragmented FSU with 'rogue dictator'
control of limited percentage strategic capabilities.  With or
without permission.  GBU-37 'conventionally' or otherwise (though
again, misses or caught-early mission aborts with penetrator
ordnance become an option when you have /some/ inflight termination
alternatives).

IF it comes down to a tactical concern of an enemy putting 3-10m
RADAC impacts on 'conventional' forces with conventional or at least
non-glowie TBM warheads, then too it is 'nice to know' that we are
not back at the Polish Solution of dispersal to an unsustainable
force mass of what is rapidly becoming the /least/ capable element
of rapid onset fires that is 'airpower'.

The key being an understanding that 'faster IS better' (over
4km/sec) for both target sets so that limitations of the TBM
conventions put U.S. uncomfortably back at the Ugly American sabre
point of decision where all us-on-nuke solutions involve sunshine of
our own.  And when pressed so hard as to risk our society in-entire,
we can become Very Ugly Indeed which means fallout and multiple
overtargeting and just general viciousness all round.

I give not a rat's ass about Christians or 'Gomorans'.  Americans
are Americans as long as they share our governmental/societal 'face'
as much continent.  If you wish to exclude through religious or
ethnical bias, please start offshore where I give even less than a
rats ass how you 'classify' your bigotry.


Kurt Plummer


"Comments4u�" wrote:

> The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
> defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
> overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
> attack by any country at any time.
>
> Yet people in business know the law of diminishing returns,
> expressed casually as *the last 10% of goodness is 90% of the
> cost.*  But it seems Republicans such as Bush, supposedly the
> business elite of the country, don't realize this.  It must
> be different when they're spending other people's money.
>
> Nothing is ever certain, yet US government tries to get there
> and forgets to be reasonable.  As an example, while the USN
> continually asks for more money, it has had for many years
> more combat strength than all the other world's navies combined.
> It seems impossible that the US could be inept enough to turn
> the whole world against it, which is the only scenario in which
> such a large navy is useful.  Still, there should be no naval
> cutbacks at present;  there are certainly signs President
> Bush might be inept enough to make the US friendless in the
> world.
>
> Yet Bush is unwilling to plan for less than 100%, meaning he
> won't agree to a system that might allow an enemy to destroy
> a handful of US cities.  He doesn't see that retaliation in
> the form of the US nuclear arsenal, which is powerful enough
> to destroy entire countries, is sufficient deterrant to enemies.
>
> Even some Bush supporters recognize the inefficiency of 100%
> defense.  Representatives of the Christian Coalition have
> said they don't want any of their tax dollars spent to protect
> the modern Sodom and Ghomorra, San Francisco.
>
> Still, the super-high-technology of the Bush missle defense
> plan is in contrast to Bush's low tech solution to the energy
> problem. And, in fact, Bush's unsophisticated solution for the
> energy problem, which in summary is *dig another hole in the
> ground*, might be the most cost effective defense solution too.
>
> ---------------
> There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at
> without result. --- Winston Churchill

Comments4u� wrote in message <9lnbbv$fj8_001@news.trollfeed-utb.org>...
>The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
>defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
>overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
>attack by any country at any time.


Any country? So I guess it will defend us from spear-chuckas from Africa?

In article <3b817d35.21230100@news>, Peter Skelton says...
>
>The Chinese might be somewhat concerned about the US turning to
>nukes in support of Taiwan if they do not have a counter-threat. 
>
>When people talk about the Fed-ex bomb, I wonder whether there
>are already such devices sitting in self-storage places or
>warehouses. 
>____
>
>Peter Skelton

Wouldn't surprise me. The 'Fed-Ex' is bad though, from what I know about the
private shippers, no way would they ship something that heavy..:) union rules

The question isn't "if", it is "when" the next hostile use of nukes is carried
out. There is way too much fissionable materiel loose, the only limiting factor,
a head of state or terrorist group crazy enough to use the weapon, and clever or
lucky enough to obtain the fissionables.

I guess, just don't live in a probable target area (or downwind)..
rgds Jer

L'acrobat wrote:

> As I recall, it is meant to defend against limited attacks from rogue
> states.

Iraq or No. Korea. The PRC must figure in there somewhere,
I should think. By god! There will be no chinks in our armor.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BF32BE7.5AE3DEAA@mediaone.net...

> I should think. By god! There will be no chinks in our armor.

But what if you fall from your horse?

Emmanuel

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:03:51 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
<Emmanuel.Gustin@skynet.be> wrote:

>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:3BF32BE7.5AE3DEAA@mediaone.net...
>
>> I should think. By god! There will be no chinks in our armor.
>
>But what if you fall from your horse?
>

Every suit of armour ever made has a chink
Chain mail pants with a missing link

(THe Knight in Rusty Armour, can't remember who sang it.)
____

Peter Skelton

"L'acrobat" <husky65@iDelete_me.iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bf32a48_2@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Comments4u�" <comments4u@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9lnbbv$fj8_001@news.trollfeed-utb.org...
> > The concept of 100% defense is one again bloating the US
> > defense system.  Bush's missile defense system is clearly
> > overkill, intended to completely defend the US against any
> > attack by any country at any time.
>
> As I recall, it is meant to defend against limited attacks from rogue
> states.

Like Washington State?  They became the first state to break from Bush and
honor the Kyoto treaty.