[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 $$hundredbillion to throw away on something that might never even work at the critical moment.
[quote] There is no reason to hold onto a treaty with a nation that doesn't exist!<hr></blockquote>
That treaty seemed to work pretty decently in keeping the peace between the USA and its bete noir, the USSR, as well as help reduce both nations' stockpile of nuclear warheads. Instead of trashing the whole deal, how about fixing and modifying it to map onto today's altered circumstances. Or are some special interests banking on making a fortune out of a new arms race? Just follow those $$....
[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.
<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.
[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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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>
[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?
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.
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.
<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.
<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.
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” . 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.
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.
[quote]I still don't buy that argument.<hr></blockquote>
Allow me to translate for the others who may not have read that correctly:
"lalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalalala"
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Hmm...
You know, of course, that suicide bombers aren't scared of death?
That's why they're suicide bombers.
I guess assured death is why people wouldn't crash big airplanes into buildings. . . oh wait.
Critical thinking skills, use 'em.
[quote]Countries don't attack us just for the hell of it. Terrorists- yes, Countries- no.<hr></blockquote>
Sometimes there's little to no difference between Countries and Terrorists (look at the Talqueda(al Qaidaban)).
And who says that in 15 years rich terrorists can't get their hands on ICBMs?
[quote]Any nation would know that we would retaliate without question and with worldwide support.<hr></blockquote>
That obviously didn't stop bin Laden.
You don't learn very fast, do you?
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
The point of the ABM treaty is to prevent things like NMD. We should amend the treaty to allow NMD? It's the goddam ANTI-Ballistic Missile treaty!
Comments
[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>
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.
<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.
[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?
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.
North Korea, perhaps?
<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 ...
It seems to me that this doesn't open up any new issues, it just exposes more jealousy.
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.
[qb]
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<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
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>
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?
Ooooooo, you canadians are all the same. Beady little eyes and flapping heads.
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.
<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.
<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.
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”
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.
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.
Allow me to translate for the others who may not have read that correctly:
"lalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalalala"
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
Hmm...
You know, of course, that suicide bombers aren't scared of death?
That's why they're suicide bombers.
I guess assured death is why people wouldn't crash big airplanes into buildings. . . oh wait.
Critical thinking skills, use 'em.
[quote]Countries don't attack us just for the hell of it. Terrorists- yes, Countries- no.<hr></blockquote>
Sometimes there's little to no difference between Countries and Terrorists (look at the Talqueda(al Qaidaban)).
And who says that in 15 years rich terrorists can't get their hands on ICBMs?
[quote]Any nation would know that we would retaliate without question and with worldwide support.<hr></blockquote>
That obviously didn't stop bin Laden.
You don't learn very fast, do you?
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
The point of the ABM treaty is to prevent things like NMD. We should amend the treaty to allow NMD? It's the goddam ANTI-Ballistic Missile treaty!