Post by JGB Post by Michael Petukhov Post by JGB Post by Michael Petukhov
Some how. Why not with oil?<
How well did they pay from Iraq, Syria and EGypt? Were they good payers?
It is not that they were bad payers. It was the problem of Soviet goverment
who was having mainly ideological goals in mind and did not really ask
for payment. imagine they seriousely thought about socialism in arab contries!
It is over fortunately. And now we get cash for all equipment we sell to arabs and
It was nonsense to think about Socialism ANYWHERE, including Russia,
Disagree. Modern capitalism is trap as was burocratic socialism of
Stalin style. However I think if human civilization has any long future
it is one or yet another form of communism. Although much more
likely there will be no future at all. There are too many monkeys
among humans everythere.
Post by JGB
Well, Israel has military technology to sell too. What if Israel sold
to Latvia, for example? Or to Cuba? Israel won't do such things, but
the technology and power to do so if it were so inclined. Don't
gave the atomic bomb to both the US and Russia. Don't forget that.
Who cares about Latvia, also I hope Israel has much more important
things to do than blackmailing russians. Moreover it tries to sell it stuff
whenever it is possible and its mater (US) allows it.
Post by JGB Post by Michael Petukhov
Well. I did not mean evacation to Russia. Certainly many would
decide to go europe or US.<
They must ask permission to go to Europe or the US. And why should
Jews have their own national soil in Israel. Why do they have to ask
from others to live in their countries?
Why? I though we were talking about what if Irael lost a single
minor battle. Right? That's why.
Post by JGB Post by Michael Petukhov Post by JGB
Even if you meant it, most of the Jews would be dead long before any
flotilla of aircraft or ships came to evacuate us would be organized.
It is all silly talk. But the Arabs are very serious in their desire to
eliminate the JEwish state, and Jews are equally serious in their determination
to defend it and to bring the world down with us if we fail to defend it
Are you serious? It is a sort of novelty for me. Do many israelis
share that kind of barbaric views?<
All! Why should the world exist if we can't? THey have more right to
God-created earth than we do? Why should they live while we die? We
ability to destroy the planet if we go down. Why shouldn't we?
Why should you extend your problems to others? Arabs are your problem
and nobody's else. If you care only about jews which is ultranationalism by
itself why should israel jews destroy jews living elsethere? In russia for
instance. Although frankly I do not believe that ALL israel people share
your views on that matters. ALL never share anything particularly views.
More over if you think you would change your mind.
Post by JGB Post by Michael Petukhov Post by JGB
So the best thing is, don't come to save us, and don't be eager
to see our defeat. <
I told you no war not peace is the best solution for us. But would be
possible in along run? I do not know. Perhaps not.<
We don't care what's the best solution FOR YOU. WE care what's the
For US? that's true. not for you. The best for you would be to return
to your real home, which as I understand is russia.
Post by JGB Post by Michael Petukhov
The problem not only the
different culture, religion or history. Your tiny size is the main problem.<
No, their big size is their problem, and your Russian big size is your
too. We are a small target.
Post by JGB
Israel has the best antiballistic missile
system in the world. Every missile that comes in our direction must
into a very small cone. Our air and space defenses are already the
and best in the world. The US helped fund our Arrow II ABM system in
to CIRCUMVENT THE US-RUSSIAN ABM TREATY of 1972! By it being an
the US and Israel were able to combine their technologies and
will soon be able to defend against HUNDREDS of incoming warheads. And
latest Jericho missiles are rapidly UPGRADABLE to capabilities to hit
far as Moscow and St. Petersburg, if necessary. So if you send a
warheads in our direction, first make sure your own air defense system
St. Petersburg and around Moscow will be able to intercept a dozen
heading in their direction as well. As you said, many Jews were your
Be sure that you know who you're dealing with before you do anything
Sounds similar to US claims about its patriots success in 1991
who according to recent official reports was not capable to intercept
a single outdated SCUD. See paper below. I hope you understand
what Science is, don't you?:
Science (1999) v284, p417-418:
Patriots Missed, But Criticisms Hit Home
by James Glanz
... "Patriot is proof positive that missile defense works," said
President George Bush during the 1991 Gulf War. At the time,
Army assessments painted the antimissile system as all but perfect
at intercepting Iraqi Scud missiles. But the Patriot received quite
different reviews from two Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
researchers who analyzed commercial video footage of intercept attempts.
They said there was no evidence of a single successful intercept during
the Gulf War (Science, 8 November 1991, p. 791).
Now a team of physicists and engineers has concluded that the video
analysis was probably correct. The team was assembled by the American
Physical Society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) and was led by
Jeremiah Sullivan, a physicist and former director of the Program in
Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Accepted for publication at the journal
Science & Global Security, the team's report analyzes all of the
technical criticisms raised against the video evidence. It concludes
that those criticisms are "without merit" and goes on to identify
"an absolute contradiction" between the Army's scoring of Patriot
performance and that video record.
Raytheon Co., the prime contractor for the Patriots used in the Gulf War,
has already prepared a rebuttal, which is tentatively scheduled for
a subsequent issue of the Princeton-based journal, according to its
editor, Hal Feiveson. And the POPA study says nothing directly about
the future prospects of the Patriot system, which has been redesigned
entirely. But Theodore Postol, one of the MIT researchers, says that
the Patriot affair may bode ill for plans to develop more expansive
missile defenses to protect soldiers and the country as a whole (see
main text). It reflects what he sees as a culture of exaggeration
and cover-up that "has a corrupting effect on every aspect of
To one degree or another, everyone describes the Patriot as overmatched
in its bid to destroy the Scuds. The Gulf War Patriot "was built to
intercept airplanes, not missiles," says Brigadier General Daniel L.
Montgomery, the U.S. Army's Program Executive Officer, Air and Missile
Defense. Traveling at speeds of up to 1.5 kilometers per second, the
single-stage Patriot missile homed in on enemy aircraft using ground-based
radar, then exploded near the aircraft. By the late 1980s, the system had
been adapted to missile defense largely through software changes, and
such refinements continued during the Gulf War. But the souped-up Scuds,
called Al-Husseins, reentered the atmosphere at about 2.3 kilometers
per second, and they often broke up, creating showers of confusing debris
from which the warhead would emerge, corkscrewing to the ground.
"The Patriot had no chance, no chance against such a target," says
George Lewis, associate director of MIT's Security Studies Program. But
U.S. officials initially claimed astonishing results. "The Patriot's
success, of course, is known to everyone," said General H. Norman Schwarzkopf
on 30 January 1991. "It's 100%--so far, of 33 engaged, there have been 33
That certainty soon began to crumble, even by official accounts. Under
criticism by the U.S. General Accounting Office and other agencies that
examined the Army data, the Army revised its success estimates from 96% in
March 1991; to 69% in May 1991; to 59% in April 1992, when Representative
John Conyers (D-MI) led a congressional inquiry into the Patriot's
performance. Those final numbers, which include estimates of better than
70% success in Saudi Arabia and 40% in Israel, have not budged officially.
According to an analysis published in 1993 by Postol and Lewis and
discussed at the Conyers inquiry, however, those numbers were not even
close to reality. While the Army based its assessment mostly on
inspecting ground damage after the war, Postol and Lewis found
commercial videos (often from news organizations) of more than half
of the approximately 44 Scuds engaged by Patriots. After taking into
account unknowns such as viewing angle and distance and using fixed
reference points such as the bright Patriot fireball to compensate
for camera movement, the team found no evidence of even one successful
The video analysis, in turn, was repeatedly attacked as flawed by Robert
Stein, now a Raytheon vice president, Peter Zimmerman, a physicist
who was recently named science adviser to the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, and others. Criticisms centered on the slow
video-framing rates--which left 0.033-second gaps in the data--the
difficulties of reconstructing three-dimensional events from the videos,
and the possibility that Postol and Lewis had consistently misidentified
the Scud warheads.
Now the six-member POPA panel has determined that Postol and Lewis
correctly accounted for the limitations of the videos. Addressing a
long list of criticisms, the panel found that Postol and Lewis had
made proper assumptions about the physics and were not likely to have
made major blunders like misidentifying warheads. "We don't claim that
in every single case they have to be right," says Sullivan. "But being
wrong here or there doesn't change the overall physical consistency.
It's not a matter of onesies and twosies."
Stein and Zimmerman, who wrote the forthcoming "comment" on the POPA
study, both declined to respond for this article. But Brigadier
General Montgomery says, "Video footage showing less than full
destruction of the Scud does not mean [it] was not deflected off its
intended target." Postol responds that there is no way to know just
where the highly inaccurate Scuds were going in the first place,
let alone whether anything deflected them.
The POPA panel has recommended that a third party undertake a joint
study using the still-classified Army data and the videos. But with
Raytheon turning up as the prime contractor for the "kill vehicle" of
the proposed national missile defense, Postol warns that the Patriot
episode raises more than technical questions. "Denial of failure
leads to institutionalized failure," he says. "And the message, loud
and clear, was 'We don't care about the truth.' " ...