but the ABM Treaty has not been revoked, ergo, it's still in force. By assisting Israel in the testing and eventual deployment of such a system, the United States is violating said Treaty. The Anti-Proliferation Treaty is still in force, the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, SALT, Space Weapons Treaty etcetera etcetera and so forth are still in force afaik, these are also all Cold War holdovers, are they not? For treaties and international law to be respected by everyone, countries can't just pick and choose which of their treaties they're going to go along with and which they're going to discard just because it's expedient to do so, even though I'm not so naive as to think that they're not going to conveniently ignore such treaties for the sake of expediency. However I find it rather hypocritical to ignore long-standing international treaties yet claim to be defending law and order between nations in doing so. That's what Hitler used to do, after all. Or are you stating that "might is right" is the order of the day? Is it just me that think's there's something wrong with this picture? If expediency is all that matters, then why not tear up the entire Geneva Conventions while you're at it and start gassing each other? Please tell me where the line is drawn, because I'm finding it really hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys now.

I was actually thinking of ablative coating rather than just silver paint, by the way. But as I don't think that the silly laser weapons serve anything other than a political purpose, as distinct from a military or practical one, it's rather a redundant argument.

If I remember on review of the US Constitution and Historical dealings with other countries correctly, any treaty entered into is only effective if both of the governments/countries are still in exsistance... the USSR does not exsist, and unless those treaties were re-newed with Russia, they no longer have any hold over the United States in reguards to missle defense systems.

I'd say laser weapons are going to take a far more prominent role in the armed forces soon. Once the remaining practical difficulties such as pinpoint targetting are ironed out there would seem to be no reason to stick with conventional combustion-based rockets for missile defence. A laser requires a supply of power and opposed to the supply lines required to rearm missile launchers, isn't going to be shot down, is mostly unaffected by weather and with the aid of computer targetting can be unbelievably accurate. Scientists today can write your name on a penny-sized patch of the moon with a laser.

I don't personally know, but I wouldn't think the treaty is still in effect today. Even in the unlikely event that Russia renewed the treaty in place of the former USSR I'd expect it's been through a number of amendments or even scrapped completely by now. After all, the US and Russia are no longer a real threat to each other, and the greatest ballistic danger ostensibly now comes from countries that may not always honour the Geneva convention, let alone this anti-ballistic defence treaty. Since the treaty would only apply to the US and Russia it would put both countries at the mercy of other far more potentially hostile countries, Iran and North Korea to name but two. These countries may have a thousandth of the nuclear arsenal of either power, but it's not the guy with a thousand nukes I'd be worried about, it's the guy with one who's prepared to use it.

a good point, colleague, that should one or either signatory of a bi-partisan treaty cease to exist as an effective government, said treaty is null and void. but I sort of covered that by saying that there are plenty of other treaties to which the late Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ("soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh....." - there's the old music for Loc, unreformed old tovarisch that he still is!) was signatory, albeit not necessarily the only one, which are still in force and generally still adhered to, more or less, usually less now though.

if however we take your point as valid, that the eventual absence of a former signatory government invalidates the terms of a given treaty, then by that argument, the Nationalist Government of China ie Taiwan has no legitimate claim for any kind of support in it's protracted attempt to represent itself as the rightful government of China. The Vatican City could legitimately be reintegrated into the State of Italy as the Fascist Govt of Mussolini that sanctioned it no longer exists. Japan could retake the Kurile Islands because the Soviet Union no longer exists. Germany could recover it's lost eastern provinces of Pomerania, Silesia, and East Prussia. Greece could recover it's Anatolian territories as the Turkish Govt of Kemal Ataturk no longer exists and was invalidated by the Turkish military coup of 1973 anyway. I could go on ad infinitum, but you see what I'm getting at, of course. International treaties remain in force until revoked or replaced by other treaties in their stead, or declared moribund by relevant authorities in loco of the original signatories. It is an an accepted principle of international relations that successor governments to former states inherit the diplomatic and financial obligations of their predecessors, to whit, the current "government" of Iraq inherits the previous regimes' obligation not to forcibly integrate Kuwait into Iraq. Successive British governments adhere to the treaty obligations of their predecessors despite the principle of the "sovereignty of Parliament" which states that no British government is perpetually bound by the acts or agreements of any previous governement. The idea that ALL states remain bound in principle to the diplomatic agreements of previous governments is a basic one that provides the bedrock for international relations, for without it, there would be chaos, a "wild west" scenario where the strong prevail nd the weak, well the weak don't; and it was of course the principle upon which World War 2 began, the violation of Poland's sovereignty by Nazi Germany, a sovereignty guaranteed by Britain and France. If international law was right then, then it's right now. it cannot be ignored simply because it's convenient to do so. More on this in a moment.

ergo, I'm afraid, the law is quite clear both in principle and in precedent; the ABM Treaty of 1972 still stands, regardless of the current circumstances, until revoked by mutual consent between the United States and the current (or future) government of Russia, or by the mandate of the United Nations. And in conseqeunce, the United States government is in violation of said Treaty. (However it is a long standing maxim of US foreign policy, going back to the Spanish-American War iirc, that international treaties do not count if the circumstances deem that is it is in the interests of the United States to ignore said treaties. There is a term used by US diplomats for this but I can't remember what it is, i think it's part of the Monroe doctrine, but i'm not sure; anyway, basically it means that the sole responsibility of the United States is to it's own citizens and thus the dealings between the US and other countries should be just that. It was not a priciple that Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy, or Henry Kissinger - the very same who negotiated the ABM Treaty that we are discussing, ever endorsed.)

I trust that makes the matter clear? In fairness i should point out that the ABM Treaty has in effect been moribund since former President Ronald "the Gypper" Reagan stuck two fingers up at it in the '80s and announced his "Star Wars" programme, which was Edward Teller's really. Although technically said programme was for "research" purposes only, "peace shield" adverts on primetime network TV during the election campaign notwithstanding. By the way, that's "research" in a similar meaning to the way that Japanese whaling fleets "research" ie completely ignore international law and do whatever the hell they want. And i really must add that the Star Wars programmes only tangible result was the bankrupting of the Soviet Union and thus undermining it to the point of collapse, which for all the rejoicing at the time has resulted in the dangerously unstable multi-polar world of increasing chaos and anarchy that we live in today. So well done there, great result.

and (for about the tenth time now) Iran's nuclear programme is not about making nuclear weapons, regardless of what keeps being belted out by Western news media. Iran is a net importer of energy because despite its production of crude for export, it has virtually no refining capacity of its own. This makes it, ironically, dependent on US-owned companies for its imported petroleum. Bear in mind also that it's oil fields are getting old now, having been exploited for the best part of a century by Russia, Britain, and US/UK multinationals as well as obviously by the Iranians née Persians themselves, it's hardly surprising that they want to break this dependency. Unfortunately for the Iranian govt, the people are used to having very cheap energy and won't accept price hikes (sound familiar?) so the Iranian government basically bribes it's population with cheap oil by subsidisng it, spending the money they make from export of crude on subsidised
imports of refined petroleum products. I'm not making this up, any balance-of-trade report will show you the figures. Forget the propaganda, look at the facts. Besides, the US and Iran have had a very shady relationship for many years now nehind the scenes, remember Ollie North and the Iran-Contra affair? Tings ain't quite what they appear to be there, folks. And as for North Korea, well really; i think some people have been watching too may James Bond films (or maybe Team America) The so-called "Axis of Evil" is made up; it's a fantasy, it's not real. No country is going to launch nuclear missiles onto the United States, however many films and computer games and whacked-out religious survivalist nutcases and prophets of doom and manipulative politicians say they are. The only real danger from nukes are suitcase bombs and tactical nukes bought from greedy ex-Soviet military or scientists, and even that's grossly exaggerated. And no-one get me started so-called on "dirty" bombs because that one really is a joke; the truth behind the dirty bomb scares is so comic-opera funny, maybe it's worth relating after all. nah, too long and I'm tired. maybe some other time.

I shouldn't worry about it if I were you; even without silly laser weapons, no-one is going to be nuking the United States tonight, tomorrow, next week, next year, or at any time in the foreseeable future, despite the pulp novels such ideas sell at airports and computer games of varying quality on the same them. Makes good fiction but that's all it is, my friends; misplaced paranoia and a guilty attempt to justify morally questionable actions committed in haste.

Anyway, that's positively my last word on the subject, other than to say that laser weapons are a complete waste of time and money which could be better spent elsewhere, like all these hair-brained hi-tech sci-fi inspired projects that never amount to anything remotely useful, like silly Mars missions or Moonbases or any of the other rubbish that gets announced to make credulous people forget what's really going on in the world. Complete and utter bilge.



Edited by - Tawakalna Qubt-ut Allah on 7/31/2006 4:43:47 PM

More current data on laser weaponry Could be that the 2004 article I linked earlier is merely disinformation.

The Treaties are valid. Just because there was a change in one of the signatory governments doesn't change the binding nature of that treaty upon the signatories to it.

For the Treaties not to have effect, the USSR would have to have been broken apart and the "national polity" that was the USSR would have had to cease to exist. This isn't what happened. The USSR changed or devolved but it did not "disintegrate" and disappear from the face of the earth. The Government in Moscow is stil bound by the treaties signed by the USSR Government in Moscow.

@Topher:

---

Article VI, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

---

Treaties are binding and are as powerful a force of law as the US Constitution. Diplomatic Immunity, for example, is a more mundane case in point.

<Edited for spelling and more complete quotation>

Edited by - Indy11 on 7/31/2006 6:55:55 PM

Taw that may be how treaties work in froo-froo fantasy book land, but in reality a treaty is only agreed to because it's mutually beneficial, and as soon as it's not the states break it (ex. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea )

back on topic:
lasers are pitiful compared to the devastating threat a moon-based rock-catapult would pose - the kinetic energy could be greater than atomic weapons, with the right size and density rock. i was convinced by this ultimate 'high ground' when i read weber's "mutineers moon" where the penal colony population overthrows the overseer government and demands better payment for its grain(particularly fertilizers) - they used the grain elevators(coil-mass-accelerators)usually used for shipping grain to bombard earth in remote areas as a show of force -

earth's strike force however was easily shot down with lasers(slightly unrealistic, ha) that blinded their sensors, and most of their h-bomb armed missiles were likewise destroyed


Edited by - Cold_Void on 7/31/2006 9:42:33 PM

---

i was convinced by this ultimate 'high ground' when i read weber's "mutineers moon" where the penal colony population overthrows the overseer government and demands better payment for its grain(particularly fertilizers) - they used the grain elevators(coil-mass-accelerators)usually used for shipping grain to bombard earth in remote areas as a show of force -

earth's strike force however was easily shot down with lasers(slightly unrealistic, ha) that blinded their sensors, and most of their h-bomb armed missiles were likewise destroyed

---

I haven't read Mutineers' Moon, but from your description, are you sure it's not Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?" they sound awfully similar.
(former) Penal colony? check. Authoritarian earth government? check. Grain paid with fertilizers? check. Grain elevators used as WMD against earth? check

Does Weber's book also involve a sentient colony computer named Mike (Mycroft)?

doh! yes, my mistake it was The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress - and here i was thinking it was heinlein but i saw mutineer's moon on a shelf and thought that was the title >_<

yup, the leader of the revolt is the penal colony's main computer, and theres lots of really brilliant stuff about use of agitprop and PR manipulation

Edited by - Cold_Void on 8/1/2006 8:55:37 AM

Ah yes, i recall that book. Although slightly unrealistic in terms of physics.

Sure you can bombard the earth from the moon with a decent-sized railgun and some trajectory software (High level power source and heat-resistant ammunition excluded). the question is, Will it do anything?

The Earth is 70% water. Even if you manage to hit the Earth , the chance of you hitting (And thus doing damage) to any human settlement on the planet is remote, you have a barely 30% chance of hitting Land , let alone a city (Assuming of course that water is spread evenly across the earth's surface, which it isnt. It would be easier to hit the surface if asia was pointed towards you, but lets ignore that for a moment...), which places the weapons effectivness somewhere under 30% for random potshots at a planet.

Not that i'm putting the book down, its marvellous. I just think that orbital railguns are a bit better...

anyway... what were we talking about again?

Lasers eh? I know a laser on Earth would be slower than travelling in a vaccum since light does have some mass, otherwise it couldn't be bent by gravity (hah, I picked that up when I researching Reltivity. That confused me for the longest time). And of course light is also dispersed when going through clouds and whatever other things (although I'm not sure if a highly focused beam wouldn't be affected by interferance). I do know back in like the 80's, the military did run some tests with lasers. The laser used a thermal seeking device to target the target dummy plane. But a problem did happen when the laser that was being used accidentally hit a radio tower, heating it up, locking on to it, and melting the top of it off.

However I think the near future for military weapons would be the electrically fired projectiles. This way you can have different bullets for different purposes fired of individually all in one gun. The electrical firing system would also allow the gun to fire very rapidly. I think this method is called Metal Storm or something, and guns could reach up to 1million rounds a minute or something.

Althought if we really wanted cool destruction weapons, we would get anti-matter weaponry. Basically anti-matter is like normal matter, but protons and electrons have opposite charges. Anti-,atter combines with normal matter and they annhilate eachother and create a near 100% mass to energy conversion = big epxlosion. I do know we have about one trillionth of an ounce of it floating around at a place called Feremy Lab (it's in a tube with magnets pushing agains't it all around so it doens't come into contact with normal matter ). And of course with anti-matter you can create anti-hydrogen anti-gold, ecetera.

As for the moon based catapault, good idea, but not good fi you want to minimize casualties. Too much excess damage if you ask me.

One advantage with projectile weapons in a vacuum is that they would have no trajectory, and no loss of muzzle velocity and or destructive potential.. until they hit something ..releasing kinetic energy as potential..If say for instance we matched velocities (and in space speed is immaterial) and locked on with a current hi-tech weapon like a CIWS.. you could literally chew them up. Many systems like power collection etc.. perhaps fuel lines and auxilliary systems are external on spaceships - Given that current military technology manages to track and target objects travelling at high speed from long distances away.. - (okay there is the recoil to consider.. but sufficient mass and or computers could offset this) .. We have the capability to produce via computers almost infinite fire rates.. and how much of a problem is keeping it cool.. its very cold as well.. in fact the problem may well be the cold freezing systems.. but warm it up inside the ship. pop it out fire off half a ton of ammo in a couple of seconds..

I dont think mankind is gunna give old fashioned 'guns; the flick entirely.

Harrier

---

Althought if we really wanted cool destruction weapons, we would get anti-matter weaponry. Basically anti-matter is like normal matter, but protons and electrons have opposite charges. Anti-,atter combines with normal matter and they annhilate eachother and create a near 100% mass to energy conversion = big epxlosion. I do know we have about one trillionth of an ounce of it floating around at a place called Feremy Lab (it's in a tube with magnets pushing agains't it all around so it doens't come into contact with normal matter ). And of course with anti-matter you can create anti-hydrogen anti-gold, ecetera.

---

Well, it's called FermiLab and they use a storage ring similar to a particle accelerator...not a "tube"

The main problem with antimatter as a fuel is the massively inefficient production process. We currently have to expend about a billion times more power to produce the antimatter than would be released if it was used as a fuel. Won't be replacing petrol any time soon...

Arania - remember that the grain-pods had rockets to adjust their direction; the computer Mike and the grain elevator computer used them to adjust the pods orbit and descent to strike with an accuracy of +-100 meters

the power of simple rocks falling from orbit is not in doubt - although how much mass and velocity would be involved in the moon cannon is - namely, it would take a big set of rings to lift the hundreds of tons of rock necessary to make it an WMD and the strain on the accelerator would undoubtedly be greater than pods packed with freeze dried grain. of course, i'm not an engineer so all my opinions are just semi educated guesses

the problem i see with orbital railguns is that economically they don't stack up against conventional weapons that do the same things cheaper - the moon gun makes as much economic sense as colonizing the moon at least(heh), and is far enough away an ICBM couldn't reach it or deliver a fatal EMP (no EMP on the moon since it's outside the earths magnetic field, i think)

Edited by - Cold_Void on 8/2/2006 2:12:40 PM