or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ABM Treaty
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ABM Treaty

post #1 of 86
Thread Starter 
Right move? Dumb move? Suspicious timing? Not worth the news it's been getting?

Here's an interesting tidbit, though. According to the Wash. Post, the Pentagon today canceled the Navy component of the ballistic missile defense program. It was a plan to modify Aegis ships to be able to shoot down theater ballistic missiles, and it was considered to be the most straightforward and furthest-along of the ballistic missile defense programs. (And was featured saving Washington, D.C. in Tom Clancy's last novel)

Anyone want to wager that when Jiang called Bush on Wednesday, this was the price he demanded for not raising hell about the ABM Treaty? China may not be too worried about a decades-off US homeland defense, but you can bet they'd be worried about the possibility of US Navy ships parked in the Strait of Taiwan being able to shoot down the hundreds of missiles China's stockpiled near their coast. In the event of war with Taiwan, China's plans rely heavily on a sustained bombardment forcing Taiwan to surrender, rather than an invasion that would be very vulnerable to US naval and air power.
post #2 of 86
This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then. The treaty is obsolete. Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #3 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>This was a 30 year old treaty with the USSR Russia.. as you know the USSR doesn't exist now as we knew it then. The treaty is obsolete. Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The peace is based upon the principle of mutual neutralization. Each big power has a huge capacity of destruction able to neutralize the other, so no one have an interest to destroy the other; destroying the other will mean destroying him self in return. This system have working for year, because nobody wanted a nuclear war.
If a state will be able to stop all the balistic missiles (if such thing is possible : for the moment the results are very poor) it will destroy the balance of power;
This system does not prevent terrorist attack, because terrorist will not use ballistic Missilles (a balistic missile will show from where he came) but he will place the bomb in a big town to make the maximum number of victims.
the great powers have nothing to do against united states, their only ennemies who will sufficiently foolish to attack them are terrorism. I don't think that the star wars programm is able to prevent that.
For an european like me , even if France is the friend of America since the beggining of his history, the idear that america has the ability to destroy my country without letting me a chance to make even a reply is very unconfartable.
post #4 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
The peace is based upon the principle of mutual neutralization. Each big power has a huge capacity of destruction able to neutralize the other, so no one have an interest to destroy the other; destroying the other will mean destroying him self in return. This system have working for year, because nobody wanted a nuclear war.
If a state will be able to stop all the balistic missiles (if such thing is possible : for the moment the results are very poor) it will destroy the balance of power;
This system does not prevent terrorist attack, because terrorist will not use ballistic Missilles (a balistic missile will show from where he came) but he will place the bomb in a big town to make the maximum number of victims.
the great powers have nothing to do against united states, their only ennemies who will sufficiently foolish to attack them are terrorism. I don't think that the star wars programm is able to prevent that.
For an european like me , even if France is the friend of America since the beggining of his history, the idear that america has the ability to destroy my country without letting me a chance to make even a reply is very unconfartable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah the US is going to bomb France....

Any treaty that stops a country from defending itself is a bad one.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #5 of 86
Thread Starter 
[quote]Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.<hr></blockquote>

But every treaty does this to some extent or another, whether in an economic or military sense. Every arms control treaty has put limits on the U.S.'s ability to defend itself, by outlawing weapons in space, limiting nuclear testing, and putting limits on nuclear weapons themselves (including removing whole classes of weapons like IRBMs) - are they all bad? Free trade treaties limit your ability to defend your inefficient industries against competition - are they inherently bad? The EU treaties place enormous limitations on the freedom of action of its members, in every sphere - is the EU a REALLY bad deal for its members?

I don't think you can make an unequivocal statement like that. The question is whether the freedom of action you lose with a treaty is more important to your security than the restrictions that treaty places on your treaty-mates.
post #6 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

But every treaty does this to some extent or another, whether in an economic or military sense. Every arms control treaty has put limits on the U.S.'s ability to defend itself, by outlawing weapons in space, limiting nuclear testing, and putting limits on nuclear weapons themselves (including removing whole classes of weapons like IRBMs) - are they all bad? Free trade treaties limit your ability to defend your inefficient industries against competition - are they inherently bad? The EU treaties place enormous limitations on the freedom of action of its members, in every sphere - is the EU a REALLY bad deal for its members?

I don't think you can make an unequivocal statement like that. The question is whether the freedom of action you lose with a treaty is more important to your security than the restrictions that treaty places on your treaty-mates.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When that treaty was wrote up (30 years ago) We didn't have a threat of 3rd world countries with nukes. These same countries do not follow such treaties. They only follow their rules. We now have a new problem. Therefore we need to take that into consideration. Times are a changing. Turning a blind eye to it will just lead to more problems.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #7 of 86
3rd world countries with nukes will see this as an excuse to back out of any treaty that they are involved in, "If the U.S can back out of treaties, so can we"
If both the U.S and Russia dissolved the treaty at the same time then this news would be much better.

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Ifok5 ]</p>
post #8 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Ifok5:
<strong>3rd world countries with nukes will see this as an excuse to back out of any treaty that they are involved in, "If the U.S can back out of treaties, so can we"
If both the U.S and Russia dissolved the treaty at the same time then this news would be much better.

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Ifok5 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. If the world's largest military and economic power can withdraw from any treaty it feels is no longer convenient then any other country will now have precident to do so.

What this whole thing will cause now is another nuclear arms race. Its not even a question of if.

I even think the Bush admin knows this.
"All good things must come to an end."
Reply
"All good things must come to an end."
Reply
post #9 of 86
This ABM fiasco makes me feel there are some people in positions of power who want, need and require the world to become a more dangerous place, but not within our shores of course.

Military professionals are running our show, and the lifeblood of military professionals is human conflict. To institute global policies designed to maintain global unrest (whilst maintaining rigorous security here at home) is what keeps the status quo and the machine oiled and running.

Why we can't just come clean and tell the world openly and truthfully that this is the way, and the only we can maintain the upper hand in the world, as the world's sole superpower? Why do we pretend to be the world's peacemaker when the wealth of this nation is so dependent on its stakes in military might and all its spin-offs? Why the need to pretend otherwise? Is machismo militarism "wrong" or something?

We-the-people can handle the truth! Don't nanny us!
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #10 of 86
The thing that scares me about this is that Bush can apparently just say "We're out of this treaty" and it's done.

Plus, considering that getting out of the treaty was on his agenda before the 9/11 tragedy, I think it's unbelievable that he can turn around and say that we have to get out of the treaty because of September 11 and to prevent terrorists and rogue nations from launching nukes at us.

The current missle defense tests have failed- what makes us think that it will get any better? This could be another Osprey type situation where everyone tries to add another component to it and it ends up not working.

Plus, the only way a bomb or missle is going to hit the US mainland is if it is brought into the country in the first place, and there is NO way to prevent a bomb or missle launched or set off in the US from dealing its damage.

This move by Dubya allows other nations to say that they need to get out of the treaty for 'defensive purposes' as well, and allows countries like India and Pakistan to build up their nuclear asenals in Asia. With the Chinese right on their borders, they aren't going to like it at all either.

This is definitely a stupid decision. The treaty could have been ammended (and this is what Putin reccommended to Bush) to include missle defense, but Dubya wanted to do it 'his way' and soon enough, we will see the consequences.
post #11 of 86
I have not yet seen a good defense to the argument that we should not be bound by a treaty with a state that does not exist.

No doubt our obligations to the Ottoman Turks, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and to the Knights of Malta are also still binding.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #12 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Plus, considering that getting out of the treaty was on his agenda before the 9/11 tragedy, I think it's unbelievable that he can turn around and say that we have to get out of the treaty because of September 11 and to prevent terrorists and rogue nations from launching nukes at us.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The reason why he said that is that it is now patently obvious what kind of devastation we would be in for if North Korea builds a Taepo Dong powerful enough to reach the continental United States, or if another rogue nation like Iraq does something likewise.

Of course it wouldn't stop much if the Russians launched a thousand warheads at us. That is why it has little to do with MAD. But it would stop the two or three missiles which is within the capabilities of a crazed regime like North Korea.

And of course it wouldn't stop someone bringing an atomic bomb in a boat. But we *can* and *should* stop the above scenario: Kim Jong Il finally losing it and launching a missile at us.

How likely is this? Do you want to find out?

[quote]<strong>
The current missle defense tests have failed- what makes us think that it will get any better?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The most recent test was a success.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/missile.test/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/missile.test/index.html</a>

What makes one think they'll get any better? It's called "engineering" - technology tends to improve as they keep working on it.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #13 of 86
Missiles! Why would they bother spending all that money to develop an ICBM when they could far more effectively and cheaply put one on a boat, truck, private jet or whatever, or even assemble all the parts here in the US and just take it to the exact target?

The whole Star Wars project is a gross misappropriation of funds, yet another boondoggle for defense contractors. The previous effort under Reagan was a sad joke; the science was bad, fraudulent test results were submitted wholesale to secure more funding, and droves of disillusioned engineers walked off the project in disgust.

[quote]The most recent test was a success<hr></blockquote>.

More like a "highly qualified" success. The launch was postponed from Vandenberg AFB the previous day because of "bad weather". (!!!!!) Makes you hope that, in the horrible event of a rogue nation attacking us, they are going to choose to do it on a calm and sunny day.



[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #14 of 86
Let's see, SamJo, it's preliminary so we're testing. Testing. Do you test new aircraft designs by firing flak up at them on their first run?

Don't act stupid, it's disrespectful to yourself and those you attempt to discuss things with.

I'd like to just parrot the above point that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists. We are supposed to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist and a world that is vastly different than the one we were in when we signed the treaty.

North Korea has the capability to create ICBMs and they aren't under treaty. And they hate us.

Sorry, everyone, if you don't like our shield develop your own. We don't like dying.

There is no reason to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #15 of 86
Much of what the administration is thinking seems off-target, except that this treaty is indeed obsolete.

The proposed missile defense system is currently useless against terrorist systems and tactics (Bush speaks as though we could have shot down the hijacked planes with this or something) at least for the next decade or so, but then again, things may change. I honestly think the administration sees a growing cold war with China coming. What other explanation is there? Besides, from the results so far, this system is going nowhere fast (and let's hope so for the sake of my pocketbook at least ).

But the treaty itself means little to nothing these days since it limited itself to what were then the only nuclear powers. Hopefully, we can get some kind of UN-led treaty like this that applies to all the present and future nuclear powers to stave off legit nuclear nations like India and Pakistan from having their own arms race.

In the end, all of this stuff about missile defense seems pretty silly, eh?
post #16 of 86
About this idea that since the USSR doesn't exist, the treaty died. Guess who said this in 1992: [quote]"the United States remains committed to the ABM treaty. The fact of the matter is, we've made the point that we expect the states of the Commonwealth to abide by all the international treaties and obligations that were entered into by the former Soviet Union, including the ABM treaty."<hr></blockquote>The USSR essentially became Russia. All other treaties apply to Russia. Russia hold the USSR's seat on the UN security council. Russia itself sees itself as a party to the treaty. Of course the treaty applies to Russia.

Why not renegotiate, as Colin Powell wanted, so that it allowed the kind of testing that they want to do? And even that testing can't possibly happen until after Hillary becomes president anyway. We are nowhere near, even under Bush's accelerated NMD plans, to breaking the treaty. So why bother to get out of it? It just seems ideological rather than rational.

And another thing about that successful test: The incoming missile had a homing beacon on it so the interceptor could track it. Make up your own jokes.

We've spent what - 150 billion? - on missile defense research. And even those Patriot missiles didn't work. It just doesn't seem to be possible. And even if they do get them to work in 10 years after a trillion dollars, it's cheap and easy for enemies to develop countermeasures. It's just not a good, rational, scientifically-supported idea. So lets put the money elsewhere.
post #17 of 86
By pulling out of the ABM Treaty, we give (rogue) nations an excuse not to make be part of any treaty that 'limits' it's defenses (nuke missile development,etc.), allowing them to make missiles that are faster and harder to stop. It also gives them an excuse to pull out of any treaty or organization, old or new.
post #18 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Ifok5:
<strong>By pulling out of the ABM Treaty, we give (rogue) nations an excuse not to make be part of any treaty that 'limits' it's defenses (nuke missile development,etc.), allowing them to make missiles that are faster and harder to stop. It also gives them an excuse to pull out of any treaty or organization, old or new.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I like this idea that "rogue nations" need excuses to avoid treaty obligations. Why do you suppose they're called "rogue nations"?


As to the "it won't stop truck bombs" argument: yes, and an automobile airbag won't stop you falling off a ladder and breaking your leg. What's your point? That only an omnipotent defense would be worthwhile?


As to the "but it doesn't work perfectly yet" argument: makes you wonder why they didn't cancel the Macintosh in 1985 - 128KB of RAM is nowhere near enough to get anything done.


I agree completely with Groverat on this one.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #19 of 86
Thread Starter 
[quote]I like this idea that "rogue nations" need excuses to avoid treaty obligations<hr></blockquote>

Careful with this one...our record is arguably worse than North Korea's. They stuck to most of the provisions of the 1994 nuclear agreement, while we've dragged our feet holding up our side (building "safe" nuclear reactors and delivering enough fuel oil in the meantime). Add in ABM, Kyoto, CTBT, ICJ... Particularly considering that in the case of Kyoto the other parties caved to the US positions, and in the other cases the need to abrogate/not ratify the treaties at this time is less than clear, particularly to the rest of the world. We're obviously not a rougue nation, but be careful making your criteria "breaking treaties with no good reason".
post #20 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Ifok5:
<strong>3rd world countries with nukes will see this as an excuse to back out of any treaty that they are involved in, "If the U.S can back out of treaties, so can we"
If both the U.S and Russia dissolved the treaty at the same time then this news would be much better.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by MacsKickAss:
<strong>

Exactly. If the world's largest military and economic power can withdraw from any treaty it feels is no longer convenient then any other country will now have precident to do so.

What this whole thing will cause now is another nuclear arms race. Its not even a question of if.

I even think the Bush admin knows this.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Exactly wrong. We are not breaking the treaty we are exercising a clause of it. It was written so that we could pull out. We are doing just what is written in the treaty. Didn't know that huh?
post #21 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>

Careful with this one...our record is arguably worse than North Korea's. They stuck to most of the provisions of the 1994 nuclear agreement, while we've dragged our feet holding up our side (building "safe" nuclear reactors and delivering enough fuel oil in the meantime).</strong><hr></blockquote>


I would point out that you apparently consider partial performance only blameworthy on our side.

[quote]<strong>Add in ABM, Kyoto, CTBT, ICJ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is not joining the Kyoto and ICJ treaties the same thing as breaking them?
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #22 of 86
Groverat:

[quote]Let's see, SamJo, it's preliminary so we're testing. Testing. Do you test new aircraft designs by firing flak up at them on their first run?<hr></blockquote>

The weather on the intended day of launch had a cloud base at 1000 feet, light intermittent rain and a moderate breeze out of the southeast, which is nothing out of the unexpected on the exposed central California coast in winter. That was hardly a hurricane, or the meteorological equivalent of "firing flak at it". Jeez!

[quote]Don't act stupid, it's disrespectful to yourself and those you attempt to discuss things with.<hr></blockquote>

Yawn. Oh dear. Why go and ruin an otherwise half-sensible post?

[quote]I'd like to just parrot the above point that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists. We are supposed to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist and a world that is vastly different than the one we were in when we signed the treaty.<hr></blockquote>

Aside from the obvious 'rogue nations we keep harping on about, are you assuming that Russia is now more of an enemy than the Soviet Union ever was?

[quote]North Korea has the capability to create ICBMs and they aren't under treaty. And they hate us.<hr></blockquote>

Well, what are we waiting for? We have by far the world's most powerful and well-trained military. We-the-people pay $300 billion annually for the privilege, so let's make use of this asset; I don't think we are exactly reserved in this respect. If North Korea, a small, irrational, economically broke nation with a paranoid leader is truly hell-bent on having a shy at the USA, then lets go in there and fix the problem before the problem arrives in one or more of our cities. We've done it before many times (even to non threatening nations), we are doing it now in Afghanistan so lets get this N. Korea problem out of our hair once and for all if we are so gung-ho about fixing rogue nations. Or are we bothered we may offend our Communist big buddies and mega-trading partner and human-rights dwarves, Red China?

[quote]Sorry, everyone, if you don't like our shield develop your own. We don't like dying.<hr></blockquote>

I imagine that other nations don't have a few $$hundredbillion to throw away on something that might never even work at the critical moment.

[quote] There is no reason to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist!<hr></blockquote>

That treaty seemed to work pretty decently in keeping the peace between the USA and its bete noir, the USSR, as well as help reduce both nations' stockpile of nuclear warheads. Instead of trashing the whole deal, how about fixing and modifying it to map onto today's altered circumstances. Or are some special interests banking on making a fortune out of a new arms race? Just follow those $$....

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #23 of 86
Thread Starter 
[quote]I would point out that you apparently consider partial performance only blameworthy on our side.<hr></blockquote>

Not at all. The U.S. has verified that NK ceased plutonium production at the one facility they had. I say "mostly held up their end" instead of "absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt" simply because I have an aversion to absolute proofs of negatives. In contrast, the U.S. has demonstrably failed its end. Those non-plutonium producing reactors were supposed to be finished by 2000. Construction hasn't started yet. Meanwhile, certain members of key committees in Congress have made an annual sport of blocking the funds allocated to shipping the fuel oil.

As for Kyoto and ICJ, the point is that we negotiated and signed them. But we refuse to ratify them, and can't make any coherent arguments why we shouldn't. (We had such coherent arguments against Kyoto, but after the EU's kowtow to Japan met those demands, we were left with "just because".) The point is that all this uses up our moral capital in the world and, in the very long run, may help ensure that our impact on the globe lasts only as long as our power does. We should be taking advantage of these fleeting moments of superpowerdom to lock in, in writing, our vision of what the world should look like.
post #24 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>As for Kyoto and ICJ, the point is that we negotiated and signed them. But we refuse to ratify them, and can't make any coherent arguments why we shouldn't. (We had such coherent arguments against Kyoto, but after the EU's kowtow to Japan met those demands, we were left with "just because".) </strong><hr></blockquote>


Huh?

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>The point is that all this uses up our moral capital in the world and, in the very long run, may help ensure that our impact on the globe lasts only as long as our power does.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh? Yea right. "uses up our moral capital" I'm sure of it. :confused:

[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>We should be taking advantage of these fleeting moments of superpowerdom to lock in, in writing, our vision of what the world should look like.</strong><hr></blockquote>


"fleeting"? On what time scale? When will the US stop being a super power?
post #25 of 86
I still haven't heard a valid point of why we had to pull out of this treaty.

Missle Defense? The treaty could have been ammended to allow the United States' missle defense program, but Bush decided to skip the legislative process and just get us completely out of the treaty, much to the dismay of many countries including Russia.

It would have taken the US less time to get the ammendment then it will to fully get out of the treaty (6 months left of observation).

I don't buy Dubya's reason for why we pulled out of the treaty; it just doesn't make sense.
post #26 of 86
[quote]I still haven't heard a valid point of why we had to pull out of this treaty.<hr></blockquote>

North Korea, perhaps?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #27 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

Yeah the US is going to bomb France....

.</strong><hr></blockquote>
perhaps it's my poor english that prevent you to be more subtile. I did'nt say if fear that us will Bomb France. I Say it's unconfartable to have a friend one hundred time more powerfull. I use to know a friend that was much more strong than my self, the idea that if he want he can make me K.O in one second was unpleasant. I think , he is my friend but you should not worry him too much ...
post #28 of 86
But powerdoc, we already are 100 times more powerful than France. Not to be too brash, but we could take France in fairly short order if that was our goal and intention, no nuclear weapons needed.

It seems to me that this doesn't open up any new issues, it just exposes more jealousy.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #29 of 86
The treaty is obsolete. Any treaty that puts stipulations on a country's ability to protect themselves is a bad one.
Bullshit. This is simply so that Bush can feel the power of being able to bomb whatever the fcuk he wants. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with protecting the US. The point of this is so that they can by pass the normal operating procedures of a world power and build their stupid missile defence sheild.
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #30 of 86
[QUOTE]Originally posted by groverat:
[qb]

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
post #31 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
you exagerate a little groverat, imagine we are in a parallelal word where USA is ruled by a fool and France too (like a parody of the serie " sliders") if USA attack France of course he will win but it wont be as easy as attacking serbia or afghanistan or irak, in a conventional way. France is the second or the third resailor of weapons in the world, (dont have to ask who is the first) , . I dont think you have 50 000 fighting air plane, 30 000 000 soldier, 60 000 tank ...so the one hundred time is fearly exagerated even for a texas men .
After you win this battle, imagine that (in the parallelal world of course) the french leader is crazy he will send his nuclear weapon from his nuclear submarine to nuke america, then america will nuke france and will turn it to a deep glass of one hundred meter thick . But there will be several millions of death in USA . So you can imagine that situation only in a parady of parallelal world and not in our world.
In the natural world USA is not our ennemy but your friend , France is member of the NATO (OTAN in french) even if he doesnt belong to the unified commandment, our ennemies was in the past essentially the soviet union, the arguing was the same, in case of attack french will lose the fight but will make too much damage to the ennemie. If there is a nuclear shield that will mean that our defense will becoming bullshit, and thus will be oblige to improve our balistic weapons, and will spend many money in pure loss.</strong><hr></blockquote>
post #32 of 86
a last question groverat what do you prefer, to pay tax to have a nuclear shield or to save your money to buy the latest Apple's product(s) ?
post #33 of 86
So you all think the US and Russia will strike a "war head" deal?
post #34 of 86
[quote]Bullshit. This is simply so that Bush can feel the power of being able to bomb whatever the fcuk he wants. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with protecting the US. The point of this is so that they can by pass the normal operating procedures of a world power and build their stupid missile defence sheild.<hr></blockquote>

Did anyone else read this and just hear "*WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH WAAAAAAAAAAH* *sniff* *sniff* *WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAH*" in their head?

Seriously, Toolboi, do your brain a favor and let it work the situation through a little.

Powerdoc:

The France v. U.S. thing is weak because we have essentially been allies since Square One.

The point is this:
The United States can beat the crap out of France if necessary, yes, and the missile defense shield won't change that. Your argument is that France won't be able to kill millions of our people in retaliation, and I ask why that's a bad thing. We dont begrudge your ability to defend yourself against our initial attack, what right do other nations have to castrate our defenses?

You can spend money if you like to beat our shield or you can just not try because it's hopeless anyway. Canada obviously doesn't feel the need to keep up with the weapons race, why should France?

If you're not hostile to the United States, why is nuclear attack something that you are concerned with?

Did we not learn from the Cold War that the U.S. isn't going to start lobbing nukes for no reason?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #35 of 86
Bullshit. This is simply so that Bush can feel the power of being able to bomb whatever the fcuk he wants. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nor does it have anything to do with protecting the US. The point of this is so that they can by pass the normal operating procedures of a world power and build their stupid missile defence sheild.

Ooooooo, you canadians are all the same. Beady little eyes and flapping heads.
post #36 of 86
This is why IE for windows is shit. I press delete and it takes me back, erasing my content.

Well Ill try to sum this up in a better manner (admitedly last time I was a little flustered and responded harshley).

Ok, topic: what is the point of dropping out of the missile treaty?
To build the missile sheild without intervention by other countries. Other than that no one cares about the ammount of missiles we (yes, I am an American citizen, I simply live in Canada) have. Why do they care? Or more importantly why should we care?
An increase in our missile loads will take US tax dollars which could be spent otherwize is one reason. It would also make many countrys very nervous, for why would one increase missile yeilds if not to do some large scale bombing, and the US already has enough missiles to wipe out all of Afghanistan. Of course theres the missile sheild. Since we dont see any wars with larger countries coming around the bend, the most obvious reason for increasing the US stockpiles of missiles is the missile sheild.
However why do we really need this? No country would directly confront the US because doing so would mean utter destruction (look at Afghanistan, and only Taliban targets, or so they say, are being bombed there. Note: Bush did directly admit that they were going to do secret attacks of which they would not tell any one, even after the attacks were made. 'Course this is off topic). So what good then would a missile sheild do if no one were to directly confront the US? How would it protect the "citizens of the USA"?

Well, the original starwars claimed that they could make it so that if the US launched a missile no one could shoot it down, theres some great conspiracy material. However as we like to steer away from conspiracies lets look at what good it would do?
a) It would make Bush feel good.
b) ... if Russia were to go to war with us again it would create a missile defence sheild gap?

Can any one perhaps give me reasoning to the contrary?

Oh, and this time without degenerating into "Oh thats so Canadian" or "Is any one else hearing WAAAAAAAAAAAA"
Seriously folks, my post was bad but this is pathetic.

"I dont know what World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones" - Albert Einstein.
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #37 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>Ok, topic: what is the point of dropping out of the missile treaty?
To build the missile sheild without intervention by other countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's even less logical than that. We could probably go on for years and years testing missile defense without breaking the ABM.

What is it that's really pulling us out of the treaty? Republican theology.
post #38 of 86
[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>An increase in our missile loads will take US tax dollars which could be spent otherwize is one reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That reason is specific to Americans, and even then to Americans who are against spending money on the military, et al.

Those outside the U.S. cannot use this as a logical excuse, especially those is socialistic democracies.

[quote]It would also make many countrys very nervous, for why would one increase missile yeilds if not to do some large scale bombing, and the US already has enough missiles to wipe out all of Afghanistan.<hr></blockquote>

Increasing missile yields? What are you talking about?

We're talking about National Missile Defense.

Since you apparently haven't been keeping up with the news, we're cutting our nuclear weapon stock 2/3rds as per a treaty with Russia.

[quote]However why do we really need this? No country would directly confront the US because doing so would mean utter destruction<hr></blockquote>

North Korea can make nuclear ICBMs. They don't like us. Terrorists can theoretically get them. It's a remote possibility, but it's also a possibility that would take millions of American lives.

This isn't to protect us against Great Britain.

[quote]So what good then would a missile sheild do if no one were to directly confront the US? How would it protect the "citizens of the USA"?<hr></blockquote>

By blowing up ICBMs that are coming in to kill us, fired by whomever.

[quote]a) It would make Bush feel good.<hr></blockquote>

Honestly, you're not even trying to feign objectivity are you?

That statement is a ****ing joke.

[quote]b) ... if Russia were to go to war with us again it would create a missile defence sheild gap?<hr></blockquote>

Again?

[quote]Can any one perhaps give me reasoning to the contrary?<hr></blockquote>

See above. Read the transcripts and/or listen to the president or others speak about it.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #39 of 86
Ugh. I've been posting in a <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001393" target="_blank">thread in the MacNN lounge about this same topic</a>. Hopefully I can answer enough of these points in a concise enough manner to present you with another view.

1)Why we need NMD (National Missile Defense).

At first glance, Bush’s statement connecting NMD to Sept. 11 looks ridiculous (quite a few things he says are). Any reasonable person realizes that NMD will not protect against that type of attack. It’s not meant to do that. But, Bush’s comment is actually right on the mark. Why? Because for the first time Americans realize that we have enemies out there who are willing to go to great lengths to hurt our country. The US isn’t a safe little place anymore. We haven’t had a foreign attacker kill thousands on our soil in almost 60 years (Pearl Harbor), and that was only for a couple of hours.

So a few questions arise. How are we vulnerable? How do we reduce our vulnerability? Well right now we’re very vulnerable from the inside. The planes used in the WTC attack were obtained from US airports. So we tighten airport security as a result (how is for another debate). This is easily attainable, since it’s really just a matter of manpower. Technically we could start hand-searching every single piece of baggage tomorrow. The protection measures we can take against suitcase nukes are similarly easy to implement. Bush could order the Army, National Guard, and/or Border Patrol (with a serious manpower increase) to stand hand in had across our borders, search all those who legitimately cross, and reject/detain those who don’t have a right to be here or are carrying harmful substance. This could be implemented in a matter of a couple days.

So now our borders and our airports are secure. So what avenue of attack is left for our enemies? Ah, the infamous ICBM. Why? Cause we can’t shoot them down right now with a great degree of success, nor will we be able to for maybe 10 years. Now some of you say, “Oh but ICBMs are so much more expensive than suitcase nukes and they’re so much harder to deliver.” Nope. The last few generations of ICBMs carry multiple warheads. So a country could launch one missile and take out a few cities. A suitcase will only take out part of one city since it’s only one bomb and it has a smaller yield than a tactile nuke. So what about cost? A foreign country can choose to either develop their own missile system or buy/steal the plans for an existing system. Depending on the option the cost of this program would run anywhere from $250-500M. We’re talking multiple missiles with multiple warheads. A suitcase nuke costs, say, 25-50M. ICBMs aren’t so expensive now are they. You get a lot more bang for your buck.

2)We need to start now.

If you know about the development and production cycles for any large-scale missile project, you’d understand that these systems take an incredibly long time to design and produce. There’s a reason for the phrase “It ain’t rocket science.” To get a rocket design to launch successfully on a consistent basis is an extraordinarily difficult task. Most missile programs (design, development, production, support) last well over 20 years. How long did we use Mercury rockets? Saturn 5? The Space Shuttle? Minuteman? MX? Trident II? Building missiles isn’t like building computers. It’s vastly more difficult, because there is so much more that can go wrong.

Additionally, accuracy is slow in coming. The first missiles couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn. Now we can land multiple warheads onto multiple independent targets. But it’s taken 40 years to get to that point. So now we’re asking an explosion to hit a bullet (think of the old game “Missile Command&#8221 . It’s not impossible, but it’s going to take a few years to work the kinks out.

In the mean time, smaller countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iraq have been working on not just nuclear weapons, but also a means of delivery. Some of these countries are not about to sign an ABM-like treaty with the US. Also, missile technology has started to trickle down to the masses. It starts with things like SCUDs, and then that technology is advanced to larger platforms. So it’s entirely reasonable to assume that these countries and many others are going to start developing their own ICBMs.

As I mentioned before, NMD is going to take longer to develop than a standard ICBM. Those countries don’t care if an ICBM can hit the WTC; anywhere in or around NY is perfectly fine. After all we’re talking about nukes. NMD doesn’t work on the “horseshoes and hand grenades” principle. It’s more like darts. So we’re already behind the curve.

3) What political significance does the ABM Treaty have?

The ABM Treaty is really just symbolic right now, but maybe not how you think it is. Putin had to look like he wanted to keep ABM. Russia has become increasingly reliant on the US economically, much to the disdain of those who still hold pride in Mother Russia. So if Putin had rolled over on ABM, he would have committed political suicide. He had to come out in opposition to it to save face. But if he really cared about ABM, we’d be close to war right now. Instead, Putin has let ABM go and instead is concentrating on the reduction of current stockpiles. Both Bush and Putin have had extensive talks on this matter and have already agreed in principle to significantly reduce the number of nukes on both sides. Basically they’re just ironing out the details. From what I recall they’re talking about a reduction of 2,000-2,500 nukes each. That’s a very significant portion of both countries’ inventories. Also ABM really isn’t that big of a deal compared to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, SALT II, START, and START II. Those treaties are all designed to significantly reduce the design, production, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons (testing existing weapons is different). The US cannot and will not back out of these treaties for numerous reasons.

Others here have mentioned that we could test NMD without violating the treaty or that we could have amended the ABM treaty to allow for this. The fundamental principle of the ABM treaty is that no signee can field an ABM system. Well, if we’re not going to field a system then why bother testing one in the first place. Bush did the right thing. Basically he’s being honest with the world. He’s telling them that we feel we need this system, and that we aren’t going to be wishy-washy about it. The US has also offered to implement this system abroad to help protect our allies.

Based on all of this, I just don’t see how a person could reasonably be against NMD. Of course, you’re more than welcome to rebut my argument; as I am quite open minded on this issue. I hate nuclear weapons (and thus the need for NMD) as much as anyone, but the sad fact is that they’re here to stay.
post #40 of 86
I still don't buy that argument.

The truth is that nukes are deterrent themselves. If anyone was dumb enough to launch a nuke at us, their country would be gone- obliterated before they could blink.

Countries don't attack us just for the hell of it. Terrorists- yes, Countries- no. The last time we were attacked by a nation (Pearl Harbor), the Japanese underestimated what our response would be, and truthfully, our military wasn't at 100%. That isn't true now. Any nation would know that we would retaliate without question and with worldwide support.

I don't have a problem with protecting ourselves and our interests; but I do have a problem with the way that Dubya has pulled us out of the treaty (almost out of nowhere) instead of looking at other alternatives, such as ammending the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ABM Treaty