I haven't really thought this through but it is conceivable that Putin secretly OK'd Bush's withdrawal. There's the whole "standing up to America" thing, yeah, but he would have won a lot more points (and public vindication for his love-the-U.S. policy since 9/11) if he had gotten the U.S. to accept minor changes in the ABMT.
But Russia has offically acknowledged that their defense relies heavily on nuclear deterrance these days. They put out a policy paper a few years ago that stated they would react to any conventional attack with a nuclear response. I expect in a few weeks/months the other show will drop and Putin will announce that Russia will re-MIRV it's ICBMs, and Bush will say "fine". In reality, re-MIRV'ing their ICBMs will have a far more concrete positive impact on Russian security than allowing the U.S. to build NMD will have a negative impact. They simply can't maintain more than about 1,000 missiles anyway, so topping each with 4-24 warheads gives them a heck of a lot more bang on call.
Which will be another good reason for China (and India and Pakistan) to vastly increase their nuclear forces in number, capability, and diversity. So even if Putin & Bush both think it's a jolly idea, they haven't convinced me yet.
[quote]The point of the ABM treaty is to prevent things like NMD.<hr></blockquote>
Well, not really. The point of the ABMT was to prevent the depolyment of a nationwide defense that might be capable against thousands of warheads. At the time, it was actually the U.S. that was concerned with a growing Soviet ABM system (based on nuclear-tipped interceptors) that might well have become substantially capable. The treaty expressly permits two ABM sites in each country, including one for the capital and one for the ICBM fields, with a max of 100 interceptors at each site. The assumption was that the interceptors would have a limited range, so most cities in each country would fall outside the umbrella. Tell me it would break anyone's back to change the terms to allow, say, 10-20 interceptors at one site with nationwide coverage. That would be entirely consistent with the purpose of the treaty. But Bush didn't want that, and it seems Putin may not have either.
What I didn't get into in my post is how this system works. Most people don't understand that there are several layers to the 'umbrella.' You have PLV, THAAD, ABL, SBL, etc. Each is designed to take out targets in a respective theatre. Think of it as a multi-layered sifter. The top layer takes out the rocks, the next gets the pebbles, the next gets the dirt, the next the sand, etc. Hopefully at the end nothing gets through. Now how in the world do you fit that into a treaty that only allows for a couple of sites. A truly effective NMD system requires a lot of parts that work together. You can't limit yourself to just one or two methods, because then you're not filtering out all that you can. The ABM treaty had to go. Any limit on protecting human life is a bad limit in my book. If just one of those suckers gets through, Sept. 11 will look like a sunny walk through the park.
Also, neither the US or Russia is going to increase the number of warheads. Do some research and you'll see this plainly. The whole ABM debate was a minor issue in the larger talks over major reductions in warheads. Putin wants the reductions, so does Bush, and the rest of the world is obviously for it too. We're not going to blow each other up any more. In other words, we don't need enough missiles to blanket a country the size of the USSR five times over. Heck, I don't think we can do that now. You see, we haven't just de-targeted our missiles. We've vastly reduced the number of vehicles we have to deliver them. Check out SALT II and the START treaties. We used to churn out around 60 sub-launched missiles a year, now we only make 12. And that's only to replace aging stock. The entire MX program is being scrapped, and the Minuteman program is being greatly reduced. From what I recall, the reductions proposed in the recent talks will cut our already diminished stockpile in half.
The France v. U.S. thing is weak because we have essentially been allies since Square One.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok groverat, France vs US is a stupid thing. But let's forgot France and USA and let's dealing generally of defense and peace in general.
First point . The goal of nuclear defense is to stop the ennemy from inviding you even if he has much more nuclear weapons than the other one, because the retialation will be too strong, the loss will be more important than the advantages. However it is work only if the leader of the state decide to make the retialation (what a difficult decision, serbia didn't trow missile against US : just suicide, but the alliance did not invade serbia too).
In a word that means that no country have any interest to attack an another country.
If one country can do a perfect nuclar shield, he can have an interest to invade an another country. Only is morality will prevent it to do that. For the other country you can just expect that the stronger country will do nothing against him.
Perhaps this philosophy of defense who have worked for years is updated now. That's an interesting point to discuss.
Second point :
Other country decide too to make a nuclear shield or to be associated to the nuclear shield of the predominant country, and he will spent billions of moneys.,This money can be use elsewhere (why not for police : for the security of our citizens). Only the richest states can invest so much money, for the other it will turn in jealousy. Jealousy is something that you can not always prevent, but something that you should better not make growth, because jealousy is the bed of terrorism : it's the way for weak (and stupid)people to hate and it's something that you can let.
Security is an interesting point, but security has to do with defense but also with diplomatia. Diplomatia is the root of many wars or peace. I can had that diplomatia is dependant of your defense, the more good cards you have , the more your diplomates can do a good game.
Groverat you idiot, no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB. And if this "War on Terrorism" is as successful as it's billed to be, than no terrorist would get ICBMS now, or even '15 years from now'. They'd all be on the run or dead.
Did you even read my post? No COUNTRY is made up entirely of suicide bombers. No, not even Afghanistan was made up entirely of suicide bombers, no matter what Fox News is telling you.
So let's talk about the 'dangerous' countries out there. The main two are: North Korea and Iraq. The North Koreans are starving, have no economy at all, and their infrastructure is collapsing. They are no longer getting support from the Chinese, and the only major weapons they have are from the Korean War (and most of those are in disrepair). Plus, how dangerous do we really think they are when their best weapon is a 1960s MIG?
Next is Iraq. Now maybe it's just me, but it seems that Daddy Bush did a real lousy job mopping up that war. Now we have to deal with Saddam <again>. It looks as if Britain is going to do a lot of the peacekeeping over in Afghanistan instead of our troops. The reason for this is because 'the war on terrorism' isn't over yet. Looks like the next stop is Iraq. "No weapons inspectors allowed? You're History." Literally float the troops over and take out Iraq. (Not saying it's the best idea, but you must obviously be for it, right groverat?)
So if Iraq and North Korea aren't an issue, let's talk about the terrorists.
Terrorists do not have ICBMs, and as far as we know, they don't even have nukes. The only plans they have are for 'dirty bombs' and scientists who looked over those plans said that the bomb would not have worked any way.
My point remains that the withdrawl from the ABM treaty has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, no matter what Dubya says, and that a Missle defense shield will do NOTHING against any a terrorist that might get a nuke into this country. If a terrorist organization can get a nuke into the US, then there is no way for us to stop them at all.
This missle defense shield idea is foolish because NO COUNTRY is going to launch a nuclear weapon at us. It's foolish to even think that a country would.
Even if we did need a Missle Defense program, there was NO reason we could not have ammended the ABM treaty. You're argument that says that the ABM treaty was to also prevent missle defense is weak. Putin even encouraged us to ammend the treaty if we decided that we HAD to build a missle defense system, and to NOT pull out of the treaty.
But if there was ever a President who could somehow get us involved with nuclear war, I have no doubt it would be Dubya, either.
Oh and the one who really comes off as whining is you by saying "WAHHHHHHHH!" everytime someone disagrees with Dubya. "WAHHHHHHH! What do you mean you don't blindy follow Dubya like I do? WAHHHHHHH! I always have to be right! WAHHHHHHHH"
Groverat you idiot, no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB.
Now now. No need for names guys.
On september 10 I'm sure you could have said, "No suicide bomber is going to have access to an 767. That's absurd." And I would have liked to beleive you. But the people who fund the terrorists have deep pockets. The biggest mistake would be to underestimate them. And in 2-3 years we can't become complacent and think athe problems are gone, because then BAM we get hit again only worse and more devastating. I expect the country I live in to do the best to protect me and my family.
[quote]"No suicide bomber is going to have access to an 767. That's absurd."<hr></blockquote>
Okay, first of all, you're right, there's no need for name calling, and I apologize for a cheap shot.
Next, if on September 10, you told me that a suicide bomber could've got on a plane and crashed into a major city when leaving from Logan Airport, I'd have thought it was a little out there, but it was a DEFINITE POSSIBILITY.
We're talking about Logan Airport here. The Boston Media (THE MEDIA!) was able to get GUNS, KNIVES (but that wasn't illegal), and GAS through Airport security. It was pitiful. No wonder the terrorists chose Logan as the starting point.
In Boston, there were actually MEDIA DISCUSSIONS and PRESS CONFERENCES discussing how easy it would be for a hijacker to take over a plane leaving Logan. All that came out of it was a planned date to increase security. That date was August 31, but it was pushed back to October 31, because the security companies 'weren't ready'.
It was pathetic.
An ICBM is completely different. To get at an ICBM, you either have to build one, or steal one from a military installation.
Military installations with ICBMs are locked down. No terrorists are getting those.
And building one? The terrorists do not have the technological know how, or the resources to build such a large rocket unnoticed. It's just not going to happpen.
I believe the plan is to use NMD to protect our allies as well as our little continent. So when our missile shield is active it will most likely be protecting you guys as well.
Which is a good thing, in my opinion, the point of this thing is security, and not just for the U.S.
[quote]Perhaps this philosophy of defense who have worked for years is updated now. That's an interesting point to discuss.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Other country decide too to make a nuclear shield or to be associated to the nuclear shield of the predominant country, and he will spent billions of moneys.<hr></blockquote>
Well of course.
Only rich countries can afford neat mag-lev trains and sub-channel train systems. I don't know what to say to that, because it doesn't matter.
[quote]This money can be use elsewhere (why not for police : for the security of our citizens).<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but that's our concern, not the concern of the international community.
[quote]Only the richest states can invest so much money, for the other it will turn in jealousy.<hr></blockquote>
Unless, of course, you're covered by the shield.
[quote]it's the way for weak (and stupid)people to hate and it's something that you can let.<hr></blockquote>
I agree. I don't see how NMD will create terrorists in any situations where there aren't already terrorists.
I don't think there will be any Frenchmen flying planes into towers because they don't like the big missile shield. There will be more Arabs, maybe, but they were trying to kill us anyway.
Fran:
[quote]no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB.<hr></blockquote>
You don't have to be a suicide bomber to use an ICBM. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. You fire it from your continent and it goes to another continent.
It's not someting you strap to your chest and run into a discotecque with.
So no, John Q. Jihad isn't going to have an ICBM, but there's no reason some upper-crust rich boys (like ObL) can't get one at some point in the future. The technology is out there.
[quote]No COUNTRY is made up entirely of suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>
Wow, I didn't know that terrorists worked under a democratic system.
I guess that theory would have kept ObL from attacking the U.S.
I mean, he sure cares about the welfare of the poor downtrodden Afghans.
[quote]the only major weapons they have are from the Korean War (and most of those are in disrepair). Plus, how dangerous do we really think they are when their best weapon is a 1960s MIG?<hr></blockquote>
Their best weapon is a 1960s MIG. . . hmmm. That's a complete load of horse shit.
Did we not just get through discussing their capability to build an ICBM?
It doesn't matter how hi-tech your jets are when you have nukes, that's the entire point.
You're not keeping up to speed.
[quote]Terrorists do not have ICBMs, and as far as we know, they don't even have nukes. The only plans they have are for 'dirty bombs' and scientists who looked over those plans said that the bomb would not have worked any way.<hr></blockquote>
And there's no way they could get them in the future, eh?
Pull your head out of the sand. Wake up.
[quote]My point remains that the withdrawl from the ABM treaty has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, no matter what Dubya says,<hr></blockquote>
The NMD plan has been there since his campaign and he has had it out for the ABM since square one. You haven't been paying attention.
[quote]and that a Missle defense shield will do NOTHING against any a terrorist that might get a nuke into this country.<hr></blockquote>
Really?
Nice call, sherlock, that's not what it's designed for.
My computer can't make my lunch for me or clean my toilets, either, but you don't hear me complaining because that's not its job.
[quote]Putin even encouraged us to ammend the treaty if we decided that we HAD to build a missle defense system, and to NOT pull out of the treaty.<hr></blockquote>
Amending the ABM would have allowed development, not implementation. Do you know what the ABM or is it just some acronym to you?
This thread has a detailed explanation of why it is obsolete and why it is in direct opposition to the idea of a National Missile Defense (I'm going to stop using acronyms because I think you're having a hard time deciphering them).
By amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to a point that would allow us to deploy National Missile Defense the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would become completely useless. It will have failed in its objectives.
[quote]But if there was ever a President who could somehow get us involved with nuclear war, I have no doubt it would be Dubya, either.<hr></blockquote>
You are weak, Fran, you are very weak.
Why are you so hung up on this jealousy thing with W? Is it because he's done more to reduce nuclear stockpiles in his first year than Clinton did in 8?
Seriously, grow up.
[quote]And building one? The terrorists do not have the technological know how, or the resources to build such a large rocket unnoticed. It's just not going to happpen.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Amending the ABM would have allowed development, not implementation. Do you know what the ABM or is it just some acronym to you?
This thread has a detailed explanation of why it is obsolete and why it is in direct opposition to the idea of a National Missile Defense (I'm going to stop using acronyms because I think you're having a hard time deciphering them).
By amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to a point that would allow us to deploy National Missile Defense the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would become completely useless. It will have failed in its objectives.
<hr></blockquote>
Hello? Do you speak English or just not read my posts.
Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, so I'll explain it again.
One of the first points I made is that we don't know if a missle defense shield would even work because initial tests have failed.
Next, I said that we should make an ammedment to the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do. That way, we could at least build the stupid thing and see if it works.
Then, and only then, could we make a determination on whether to completely pull out of the treaty.
We are putting the Cart WAY before the horse.
The US is now out of the treaty, and we are planning to DEVELOP a missle defense shield. It's not like we have one and can deploy it now, knowing it will work.
Plus, I still do not believe that there is any danger from these 'rogue nations' where ICBMs are concerned. If one of these 'rogue nations' had the bomb and were planning to use it, you would have seen it on September 11 instead of suicide bombers.
Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did.
[quote]One of the first points I made is that we don't know if a missle defense shield would even work because initial tests have failed.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Next, I said that we should make an ammedment to the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do. That way, we could at least build the stupid thing and see if it works.<hr></blockquote>
Let's see.
What would an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that allowed ballistic missiles be useful for?
[quote]Then, and only then, could we make a determination on whether to completely pull out of the treaty.<hr></blockquote>
Violate the treaty before we decide whether or not we want to withdraw from it?
[quote]If one of these 'rogue nations' had the bomb and were planning to use it, you would have seen it on September 11 instead of suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't even make sense.
[quote]Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>What would an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that allowed ballistic missiles be useful for?</strong><hr></blockquote>You probably don't even realize how your utter ignorance of even the basic terms is showing through with this statement.
You were the one who said we need Missle Defense to protect ourselves from terrorists and rogue nations and that sometimes rogue nations are run by the terrorists. Then when I try and argue the point, you try and seperate them? Please.
Did you not post this:
[quote]Sometimes there's little to no difference between Countries and Terrorists (look at the Talqueda(al Qaidaban)).<hr></blockquote>
Please use my quotes in context, that was posted after you said, "Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did."
You attempt to draw every possible rogue nation/terrorist scenario into one day, one action.
------------
Kind of funny that this is all you're left with after all the idiocy you've spewed thus far in the thread.
Semantic nit-picking, bravo.
You really shouldn't rely on your anti-Bush thinking to carry you through real discussions.)
LOL! I make one joke about Dubya and you start talking about all of the 'lies' I've been spreading throughout this thread?
Listen, it's my belief that we were very premature in getting out of the ABM treaty. I didn't like the way that it happened, and I didn't like Bush's using the September 11th tragedy as an excuse to the American people on why we were getting out of the treaty. It was very poor, IMO, and I think that getting out of treaties we've been a part of for over 20 years deserves more than a little explanation than "It will benefit our fight in the war on terrorism".
Edit: Plus, no one proves that there is an immediate threat from any source involving ICBMs. The US government hasn't proven it, and no one has proven it in this thread either.
The only countries brought up are Iraq and North Korea, and no one can even prove that they have ICBMs to begin with, never mind nuclear warheads.
[quote]Fran, you should realize that to make a joke about President Bush is not politically correct.<hr></blockquote>
To an extent, you're absolutely right. I didn't like it when people were making jokes about Clinton either. Then I realized that people were still joking about Clinton and that joking about Dubya is fun.
Comments
But Russia has offically acknowledged that their defense relies heavily on nuclear deterrance these days. They put out a policy paper a few years ago that stated they would react to any conventional attack with a nuclear response. I expect in a few weeks/months the other show will drop and Putin will announce that Russia will re-MIRV it's ICBMs, and Bush will say "fine". In reality, re-MIRV'ing their ICBMs will have a far more concrete positive impact on Russian security than allowing the U.S. to build NMD will have a negative impact. They simply can't maintain more than about 1,000 missiles anyway, so topping each with 4-24 warheads gives them a heck of a lot more bang on call.
Which will be another good reason for China (and India and Pakistan) to vastly increase their nuclear forces in number, capability, and diversity. So even if Putin & Bush both think it's a jolly idea, they haven't convinced me yet.
[quote]The point of the ABM treaty is to prevent things like NMD.<hr></blockquote>
Well, not really. The point of the ABMT was to prevent the depolyment of a nationwide defense that might be capable against thousands of warheads. At the time, it was actually the U.S. that was concerned with a growing Soviet ABM system (based on nuclear-tipped interceptors) that might well have become substantially capable. The treaty expressly permits two ABM sites in each country, including one for the capital and one for the ICBM fields, with a max of 100 interceptors at each site. The assumption was that the interceptors would have a limited range, so most cities in each country would fall outside the umbrella. Tell me it would break anyone's back to change the terms to allow, say, 10-20 interceptors at one site with nationwide coverage. That would be entirely consistent with the purpose of the treaty. But Bush didn't want that, and it seems Putin may not have either.
Also, neither the US or Russia is going to increase the number of warheads. Do some research and you'll see this plainly. The whole ABM debate was a minor issue in the larger talks over major reductions in warheads. Putin wants the reductions, so does Bush, and the rest of the world is obviously for it too. We're not going to blow each other up any more. In other words, we don't need enough missiles to blanket a country the size of the USSR five times over. Heck, I don't think we can do that now. You see, we haven't just de-targeted our missiles. We've vastly reduced the number of vehicles we have to deliver them. Check out SALT II and the START treaties. We used to churn out around 60 sub-launched missiles a year, now we only make 12. And that's only to replace aging stock. The entire MX program is being scrapped, and the Minuteman program is being greatly reduced. From what I recall, the reductions proposed in the recent talks will cut our already diminished stockpile in half.
<strong>
Powerdoc:
The France v. U.S. thing is weak because we have essentially been allies since Square One.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok groverat, France vs US is a stupid thing. But let's forgot France and USA and let's dealing generally of defense and peace in general.
First point . The goal of nuclear defense is to stop the ennemy from inviding you even if he has much more nuclear weapons than the other one, because the retialation will be too strong, the loss will be more important than the advantages. However it is work only if the leader of the state decide to make the retialation (what a difficult decision, serbia didn't trow missile against US : just suicide, but the alliance did not invade serbia too).
In a word that means that no country have any interest to attack an another country.
If one country can do a perfect nuclar shield, he can have an interest to invade an another country. Only is morality will prevent it to do that. For the other country you can just expect that the stronger country will do nothing against him.
Perhaps this philosophy of defense who have worked for years is updated now. That's an interesting point to discuss.
Second point :
Other country decide too to make a nuclear shield or to be associated to the nuclear shield of the predominant country, and he will spent billions of moneys.,This money can be use elsewhere (why not for police : for the security of our citizens). Only the richest states can invest so much money, for the other it will turn in jealousy. Jealousy is something that you can not always prevent, but something that you should better not make growth, because jealousy is the bed of terrorism : it's the way for weak (and stupid)people to hate and it's something that you can let.
Security is an interesting point, but security has to do with defense but also with diplomatia. Diplomatia is the root of many wars or peace. I can had that diplomatia is dependant of your defense, the more good cards you have , the more your diplomates can do a good game.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
That's why they're suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>
Groverat you idiot, no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB. And if this "War on Terrorism" is as successful as it's billed to be, than no terrorist would get ICBMS now, or even '15 years from now'. They'd all be on the run or dead.
Did you even read my post? No COUNTRY is made up entirely of suicide bombers. No, not even Afghanistan was made up entirely of suicide bombers, no matter what Fox News is telling you.
So let's talk about the 'dangerous' countries out there. The main two are: North Korea and Iraq. The North Koreans are starving, have no economy at all, and their infrastructure is collapsing. They are no longer getting support from the Chinese, and the only major weapons they have are from the Korean War (and most of those are in disrepair). Plus, how dangerous do we really think they are when their best weapon is a 1960s MIG?
Next is Iraq. Now maybe it's just me, but it seems that Daddy Bush did a real lousy job mopping up that war. Now we have to deal with Saddam <again>. It looks as if Britain is going to do a lot of the peacekeeping over in Afghanistan instead of our troops. The reason for this is because 'the war on terrorism' isn't over yet. Looks like the next stop is Iraq. "No weapons inspectors allowed? You're History." Literally float the troops over and take out Iraq. (Not saying it's the best idea, but you must obviously be for it, right groverat?)
So if Iraq and North Korea aren't an issue, let's talk about the terrorists.
Terrorists do not have ICBMs, and as far as we know, they don't even have nukes. The only plans they have are for 'dirty bombs' and scientists who looked over those plans said that the bomb would not have worked any way.
My point remains that the withdrawl from the ABM treaty has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, no matter what Dubya says, and that a Missle defense shield will do NOTHING against any a terrorist that might get a nuke into this country. If a terrorist organization can get a nuke into the US, then there is no way for us to stop them at all.
This missle defense shield idea is foolish because NO COUNTRY is going to launch a nuclear weapon at us. It's foolish to even think that a country would.
Even if we did need a Missle Defense program, there was NO reason we could not have ammended the ABM treaty. You're argument that says that the ABM treaty was to also prevent missle defense is weak. Putin even encouraged us to ammend the treaty if we decided that we HAD to build a missle defense system, and to NOT pull out of the treaty.
But if there was ever a President who could somehow get us involved with nuclear war, I have no doubt it would be Dubya, either.
Oh and the one who really comes off as whining is you by saying "WAHHHHHHHH!" everytime someone disagrees with Dubya. "WAHHHHHHH! What do you mean you don't blindy follow Dubya like I do? WAHHHHHHH! I always have to be right! WAHHHHHHHH"
Now now. No need for names guys.
On september 10 I'm sure you could have said, "No suicide bomber is going to have access to an 767. That's absurd." And I would have liked to beleive you. But the people who fund the terrorists have deep pockets. The biggest mistake would be to underestimate them. And in 2-3 years we can't become complacent and think athe problems are gone, because then BAM we get hit again only worse and more devastating. I expect the country I live in to do the best to protect me and my family.
Okay, first of all, you're right, there's no need for name calling, and I apologize for a cheap shot.
Next, if on September 10, you told me that a suicide bomber could've got on a plane and crashed into a major city when leaving from Logan Airport, I'd have thought it was a little out there, but it was a DEFINITE POSSIBILITY.
We're talking about Logan Airport here. The Boston Media (THE MEDIA!) was able to get GUNS, KNIVES (but that wasn't illegal), and GAS through Airport security. It was pitiful. No wonder the terrorists chose Logan as the starting point.
In Boston, there were actually MEDIA DISCUSSIONS and PRESS CONFERENCES discussing how easy it would be for a hijacker to take over a plane leaving Logan. All that came out of it was a planned date to increase security. That date was August 31, but it was pushed back to October 31, because the security companies 'weren't ready'.
It was pathetic.
An ICBM is completely different. To get at an ICBM, you either have to build one, or steal one from a military installation.
Military installations with ICBMs are locked down. No terrorists are getting those.
And building one? The terrorists do not have the technological know how, or the resources to build such a large rocket unnoticed. It's just not going to happpen.
I believe the plan is to use NMD to protect our allies as well as our little continent. So when our missile shield is active it will most likely be protecting you guys as well.
Which is a good thing, in my opinion, the point of this thing is security, and not just for the U.S.
[quote]Perhaps this philosophy of defense who have worked for years is updated now. That's an interesting point to discuss.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Other country decide too to make a nuclear shield or to be associated to the nuclear shield of the predominant country, and he will spent billions of moneys.<hr></blockquote>
Well of course.
Only rich countries can afford neat mag-lev trains and sub-channel train systems. I don't know what to say to that, because it doesn't matter.
[quote]This money can be use elsewhere (why not for police : for the security of our citizens).<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but that's our concern, not the concern of the international community.
[quote]Only the richest states can invest so much money, for the other it will turn in jealousy.<hr></blockquote>
Unless, of course, you're covered by the shield.
[quote]it's the way for weak (and stupid)people to hate and it's something that you can let.<hr></blockquote>
I agree. I don't see how NMD will create terrorists in any situations where there aren't already terrorists.
I don't think there will be any Frenchmen flying planes into towers because they don't like the big missile shield. There will be more Arabs, maybe, but they were trying to kill us anyway.
Fran:
[quote]no suicide bomber is going to have access to an ICMB.<hr></blockquote>
You don't have to be a suicide bomber to use an ICBM. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. You fire it from your continent and it goes to another continent.
It's not someting you strap to your chest and run into a discotecque with.
So no, John Q. Jihad isn't going to have an ICBM, but there's no reason some upper-crust rich boys (like ObL) can't get one at some point in the future. The technology is out there.
[quote]No COUNTRY is made up entirely of suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>
Wow, I didn't know that terrorists worked under a democratic system.
I guess that theory would have kept ObL from attacking the U.S.
I mean, he sure cares about the welfare of the poor downtrodden Afghans.
[quote]the only major weapons they have are from the Korean War (and most of those are in disrepair). Plus, how dangerous do we really think they are when their best weapon is a 1960s MIG?<hr></blockquote>
Their best weapon is a 1960s MIG. . . hmmm. That's a complete load of horse shit.
Did we not just get through discussing their capability to build an ICBM?
It doesn't matter how hi-tech your jets are when you have nukes, that's the entire point.
You're not keeping up to speed.
[quote]Terrorists do not have ICBMs, and as far as we know, they don't even have nukes. The only plans they have are for 'dirty bombs' and scientists who looked over those plans said that the bomb would not have worked any way.<hr></blockquote>
And there's no way they could get them in the future, eh?
Pull your head out of the sand. Wake up.
[quote]My point remains that the withdrawl from the ABM treaty has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, no matter what Dubya says,<hr></blockquote>
The NMD plan has been there since his campaign and he has had it out for the ABM since square one. You haven't been paying attention.
[quote]and that a Missle defense shield will do NOTHING against any a terrorist that might get a nuke into this country.<hr></blockquote>
Really?
Nice call, sherlock, that's not what it's designed for.
My computer can't make my lunch for me or clean my toilets, either, but you don't hear me complaining because that's not its job.
[quote]Putin even encouraged us to ammend the treaty if we decided that we HAD to build a missle defense system, and to NOT pull out of the treaty.<hr></blockquote>
Amending the ABM would have allowed development, not implementation. Do you know what the ABM or is it just some acronym to you?
This thread has a detailed explanation of why it is obsolete and why it is in direct opposition to the idea of a National Missile Defense (I'm going to stop using acronyms because I think you're having a hard time deciphering them).
By amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to a point that would allow us to deploy National Missile Defense the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would become completely useless. It will have failed in its objectives.
[quote]But if there was ever a President who could somehow get us involved with nuclear war, I have no doubt it would be Dubya, either.<hr></blockquote>
You are weak, Fran, you are very weak.
Why are you so hung up on this jealousy thing with W? Is it because he's done more to reduce nuclear stockpiles in his first year than Clinton did in 8?
Seriously, grow up.
[quote]And building one? The terrorists do not have the technological know how, or the resources to build such a large rocket unnoticed. It's just not going to happpen.<hr></blockquote>
International affairs expert, eh?
This thread has a detailed explanation of why it is obsolete and why it is in direct opposition to the idea of a National Missile Defense (I'm going to stop using acronyms because I think you're having a hard time deciphering them).
By amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to a point that would allow us to deploy National Missile Defense the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty would become completely useless. It will have failed in its objectives.
<hr></blockquote>
Hello? Do you speak English or just not read my posts.
Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, so I'll explain it again.
One of the first points I made is that we don't know if a missle defense shield would even work because initial tests have failed.
Next, I said that we should make an ammedment to the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do. That way, we could at least build the stupid thing and see if it works.
Then, and only then, could we make a determination on whether to completely pull out of the treaty.
We are putting the Cart WAY before the horse.
The US is now out of the treaty, and we are planning to DEVELOP a missle defense shield. It's not like we have one and can deploy it now, knowing it will work.
Plus, I still do not believe that there is any danger from these 'rogue nations' where ICBMs are concerned. If one of these 'rogue nations' had the bomb and were planning to use it, you would have seen it on September 11 instead of suicide bombers.
Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did.
"We are getting rid of half our stock piles. In fact we're sending them to Iraq... "
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/missile.test/index.html"; target="_blank">Not true at all</a>.
[quote]Next, I said that we should make an ammedment to the treaty like the Russians wanted us to do. That way, we could at least build the stupid thing and see if it works.<hr></blockquote>
Let's see.
What would an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that allowed ballistic missiles be useful for?
[quote]Then, and only then, could we make a determination on whether to completely pull out of the treaty.<hr></blockquote>
Violate the treaty before we decide whether or not we want to withdraw from it?
[quote]If one of these 'rogue nations' had the bomb and were planning to use it, you would have seen it on September 11 instead of suicide bombers.<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't even make sense.
[quote]Instead, they used our own planes as a weapon because they don't have anything of thier own that can compare to the damage that they did.<hr></blockquote>
ObL is a rogue nation?
Are you even trying?
<strong>What would an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that allowed ballistic missiles be useful for?</strong><hr></blockquote>You probably don't even realize how your utter ignorance of even the basic terms is showing through with this statement.
Are you even trying? <hr></blockquote>
Groverat, you are hopeless.
You were the one who said we need Missle Defense to protect ourselves from terrorists and rogue nations and that sometimes rogue nations are run by the terrorists. Then when I try and argue the point, you try and seperate them? Please.
Did you not post this:
[quote]Sometimes there's little to no difference between Countries and Terrorists (look at the Talqueda(al Qaidaban)).<hr></blockquote>
Try and keep some consistency when you post.
You attempt to draw every possible rogue nation/terrorist scenario into one day, one action.
------------
Kind of funny that this is all you're left with after all the idiocy you've spewed thus far in the thread.
Semantic nit-picking, bravo.
You really shouldn't rely on your anti-Bush thinking to carry you through real discussions.)
Listen, it's my belief that we were very premature in getting out of the ABM treaty. I didn't like the way that it happened, and I didn't like Bush's using the September 11th tragedy as an excuse to the American people on why we were getting out of the treaty. It was very poor, IMO, and I think that getting out of treaties we've been a part of for over 20 years deserves more than a little explanation than "It will benefit our fight in the war on terrorism".
Edit: Plus, no one proves that there is an immediate threat from any source involving ICBMs. The US government hasn't proven it, and no one has proven it in this thread either.
The only countries brought up are Iraq and North Korea, and no one can even prove that they have ICBMs to begin with, never mind nuclear warheads.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Fran, you should realize that to make a joke about President Bush is not politically correct.
To an extent, you're absolutely right. I didn't like it when people were making jokes about Clinton either. Then I realized that people were still joking about Clinton and that joking about Dubya is fun.
BTW, who are you again? New to AI? New Name?
Edit: My smiley had issues.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
But then when I make a Dubya joke, they tell me I'm being unpatriotic and disrespectful to the country. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">