How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Brothers in arms   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Brothers in arms

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


25 posted 11-06-2008 12:14 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

That's an observant statement, Grinch. I too, wonder where we will get the funds to make more war.

Where? More funny money from the fed reserve?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 11-06-2008 08:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

In the last sixty years, how much have we spent on weapons to blow up the world?

I tried to figure up once how much I have spent in the past 45 years on insurance - health, home, car, flood, etc etc etc - and the amount was staggering. I never even made a claim. I could have done a lot with that money, if I didn't care about the security it offered by having it.

Some people call it a deterrent? You mean there are some who don't? With the possible exception of Noah (only kidding, Noah) , does anyone really think that, if we stick a flower in our hair and lay down our weapons, the world will leave us in peace? Our arsenal, and our continual update of it, is the only reason we are still here. The defense of our country has to be the number one obligation of our government because, without it, the rest is meaningless. We exist, and democracy exists in other parts of the world, because we carry a big stick. Other countries depend on us coming to their aid because we carry a big stick. Our technology and our weaponry is far advanced of other countries and, for that reason, we are still here. Surely you don't mean to say you don't think the threat is real, Ron. You are much more intelligent than that. Clinton did his best to decimate our military. It sounds like Obama's group may try to do the same. I sincerely hope not.

Why would ANYONE want to bomb Michigan? Don't you like have to be an important target or something?

Btw, the WTC isn't in Michigan, either, but I'll wager that the Michiganders felt the consequences of it.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


27 posted 11-06-2008 09:27 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Are you saying we're not lethal enough, as is, with what we've got, Mike?

Our big sticks have turned to noodles? And our military isn't anything daunting compared to the rest of the world's military? No. You mentioned our technology and our advancements.

but I feel you're suggesting we need to be more lethal. Not sure.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


28 posted 11-06-2008 09:38 AM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Reg, I think what 'Deer is saying is that we need to have muscle, just in case anyone wants to fool around and even try to intimidate us. And the muscle we use to have is getting pretty dang flabby.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 11-06-2008 11:13 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And the muscle we use to have is getting pretty dang flabby.

Really, Karilea? Just how many times do you want to blow up the whole planet?

Nuclear devices don't have expiration dates.

Threatening to kill someone might be a deterrent to violence. Threatening to kill someone deader doesn't deter them more. It just costs a whole lot of money unnecessarily.

quote:
Btw, the WTC isn't in Michigan, either, but I'll wager that the Michiganders felt the consequences of it.

We did, indeed, Mike. And how many nuclear missiles do you believe it would have taken to prevent 911?

Again, there are a lot of threats to this world. Let's put our resources on some of the more imminent ones.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


30 posted 11-06-2008 11:35 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Some people call it a deterrent? You mean there are some who don't?


Yes Mike, as unbelievable as it may seem there are some idiots out there who believe that having the ability to eviscerate every country a hundred times over with ICBMís isnít a deterrent against a nuclear  attack. Those people are so cock sure that the deterrent doesnít work that they want to build a missile defence shield  to knock out all the missiles that are fired by countries that arenít deterred.

Of course thereís another bunch of idiots that counter the claim that nuclear weapons arenít a deterrent, they donít currently have nuclear weapons but are intent on obtaining them to deter other countries from attacking them. Iran falls into this category. Theyíve bought into the deterrent argument big time, theyíre so convinced they just have to have them and theyíre undeterred by any arguments against it.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


31 posted 11-06-2008 11:45 AM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Now Ron, I didn't say anything about blowing up anyone. I said we need to show muscle. I certainly don't want to see Michigan being blown up by someone who has more power than we do. When the chess game has equal players with equal smarts, there's generally a stand-off and no one punches the buttons, right?

I find it very difficult to believe, Ron, that for someone who has served our country to now, in essence, say, "well, anything goes." I'm not able to wrap my brain around that.

I would like to see a peaceful peace. And I'll use my piece to protect that peace if necessary. But not without fair warning. Invade my "home" and be prepared to not see someone unprepared. Do some of us like having to live this way?

Do we really have an alternative?

I would like to see us all united as one nation again under a President who won't throw away what our forefathers gave up for us, and as has been stated several times, he isn't even in the chair just yet - he's simply the President-elect. For other governments to start drawing a line in the sand is somewhat ludicrous, but in today's world, not really surprising.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


32 posted 11-06-2008 12:58 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

I believe the 'number' of missiles gets a bad rap.  Unfortunately, the United States or Europe doesn't have missiles with unlimited range.  When people say we have enough missiles to blow the world up over X amount of times, that doesn't take into consideration a simple equation:  distance.

  So far, Iran has very limited distance rockets.  There is a vast difference in technology between ICBM - InterCONTINENTAL missiles and normal missile defense.  Again, the big 5 or 6 are the only nations that essentially can afford to launch the equivalent of underground space rockets to reach another shore.  

So, yes, there are more rockets than it would take to blow up the world X times over.  But there aren't enough to cover certain dead zones where only ICBM rockets can only reach, or a deployment must be thousands of miles closer.  That is why the Soviets are moving their missiles closer to the border of Poland, and the entire reason the United States needs a land base to defend Europe and Israel from possible agression by both.  Bush obviously knows of the necessity of defending both, and used the Iran situation to fix both situations at once.   The Soviets are understandably disturbed by the proximity, much as we were by the Cuban Soviet bases.  Missiles are huge chess pieces that seldom ever get used, and get outdated long before they are ever fired.  As a matter of fact, the United States has NEVER fired any of their European-based missiles except in test-mode, minus detonation.  

The United States is tremendously geographically lucky.  The only nation that really strike at us quickly are the Soviet ones, and will probably strike the west coast.  No other nation is close enough for ICBM strikes without them being in the air for quite a long time.  It is generally acknowledged that ANY European agression by any nation will start another World War.  The EU will not stand for any part of their corporation to be absorbed by another entity.  As a matter of fact, the EU is screaming pretty loudly at the Soviet plans and is trying to force peaceful negotiations with the Sov-Satellite nations.  

   Most of the Soviet nations are experiencing vast economic problems.  One way in the past that Soviet control has employed people in mass is through their defense.  They lack key growth commodities such as simple food at a good price.  A war, even a small one, would start to boost their economy.  When the Soviet nations were combined, their strength was combined.  Now the struggle for power is within the Satellite nations as the old Soviet Union may be starting to rejoin and reform as one stronger satellite takes over a smaller one and its asset base.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


33 posted 11-06-2008 01:59 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I find it very difficult to believe, Ron, that for someone who has served our country to now, in essence, say, "well, anything goes." I'm not able to wrap my brain around that.

Anything goes? I didn't say that, Kari, and I'm not even sure what it means. What I said was that I disagreed that "the muscle we use to have is getting pretty dang flabby." Nuclear bombs don't get flabby from lack of use.

quote:
So, yes, there are more rockets than it would take to blow up the world X times over.  But there aren't enough to cover certain dead zones where only ICBM rockets can only reach ...

I'm not aware of ANY dead zones, threadbear (interesting choice of nouns, btw). While we might not always be able to get a warhead to ground zero as quickly as we'd like, I don't think there's a single square inch of Earth we can't target.

Either deterrence works or it doesn't work. If one contends it works, then one has to accept that it worked for over fifty years against Big Bad Wolf. We don't have significantly less deterrence than we had in the past -- but we also don't have Big Bad Wolf any more either. And I'd just as soon not see us follow Big Bad Wolf into bankruptcy by pursuing a strategy that no longer has any meaning. The people who can be deterred by a threat of inevitable and catastrophic retaliation are already deterred. We won that battle. We need to reserve our resources for the battles we're still fighting today.


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


34 posted 11-06-2008 02:10 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Ahhh...you're talking nuclear and I'm talking military force. Read: anything other and above bombs.

Ron, I believe we have to put money back into the military. I believe we have to have the President's backing in order to have his back safely covered. That's it in a [my] nutshell.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 11-06-2008 04:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes Mike, as unbelievable as it may seem there are some idiots out there who believe that having the ability to eviscerate every country a hundred times over with ICBMís isnít a deterrent against a nuclear  attack.

Grinch, I don't see where I said anywhere to keep building more and more nuclear weapons. The conversation was about the missile defense system. A missile defense system IS a deterrent against nuclear attack.

Of course thereís another bunch of idiots that counter the claim that nuclear weapons arenít a deterrent, they donít currently have nuclear weapons but are intent on obtaining them to deter other countries from attacking them. Iran falls into this category.

Ok, if you believe that, you still put teeth under your pillow, waiting for the tooth fairy to leave you money. Or perhaps you DO believe that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons are simply a defensive measure, this country that claims that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. In that case, there are only three more acres of swampland I have to sell. Ron bought most of them last month

We did, indeed, Mike. And how many nuclear missiles do you believe it would have taken to prevent 911?

An excellent point, Ron. Again. let me point out that I have stated nowhere that we need more nuclear weapons. The misslie defense system is another matter. To attack a country on a small scale to make a statement and throw the economy in turmoil can be done with box cutters. To obliterate a country, nuclear weapons is the most effective and most destructive way. Gone are the days when a Hitler can march from country through country, annexing them. What would have prevented 9-11? More effective intelligence. More monitoring of Middle Easterners, their calls overseas, their e-mail.....oh, wait. Bush implemented that afterwards and has been condemned for doing so ever since, even though, since that practice has been in place, there have been no further attacks....coincidence, I'm sure. Btw, srill waiting for your answer on whether or not you agree with the Obama/Biden/Frank comments.

Are you saying we're not lethal enough, as is, with what we've got, Mike?

Yes, we are, regina. Once again, the point is not in building more nuclear missiles, it's the defense system.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


36 posted 11-06-2008 06:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
A missile defense system IS a deterrent against nuclear attack.


Mike, exactly how is a system that doesnít work going to deter anyone?

Even if the US could get it to work itíd be so easy to get around even the Swiss could do it with a sheet of Aluminium and an army knife.

It wonít deter anyone Mike, itíll just encourage people to find ways around it.

quote:
Or perhaps you DO believe that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons are simply a defensive measure


Actually I do, is there any evidence to the contrary?

quote:
this country that claims that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map


Would that be the same Israel that already has a missile defence system? You didnít know! Thatís odd because you paid for it, or rather your government did, it gave the Israelis $205 million dollars to build and install a system based on the Israeli built Arrow SAM missile.

The system is supposed to deter the Iranians from chucking a nuke at Israel - Will it work? Not a feline in Hades chance. Anyone remember the Patriot missile shield?

That swampland you've somehow acquired and are intent on trying to sell off is more useful than the missile defence shield.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


37 posted 11-06-2008 06:22 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/sede/hearings/20070627_antimissile/webb_en.pdf

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


38 posted 11-06-2008 06:57 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Again. let me point out that I have stated nowhere that we need more nuclear weapons. The misslie defense system is another matter.

Personally, Mike, I think missile defense is an oxymoron. If our government wants to prove the concept, they should start with arming our police officers with bullet defense systems. You know, bullets that shoot other bullets out of the air? Let's start with that and see how it goes.

quote:
Btw, srill waiting for your answer on whether or not you agree with the Obama/Biden/Frank comments.

Are these the ones you mean, Mike?

He (Obama) said, ďI will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."  I agree.

"I will not weaponize space." I agree, with the added recognition that we ALREADY weaponize space.

"I will slow our development of future combat systems. Depends on which future combat systems.

"I will not develop new nuclear weapons." I absolutely agree.

Recently Joe Biden outlined specific programs for the cuts:  ďIíll tell you what we cannot afford Ö a trillion-dollar commitment to ĎStar Wars'" I agree.

"new nuclear weapons," Again, absolutely.

a thousand-ship Navy," I don't know how many we need.

the F-22 Raptor,Ē Biden said. I tentatively agree, but could possibly be convinced otherwise.

Rep. Barney Frank, Dem. Chair of the Finance Committee, has called for a 25 percent cut in military spending which he said will get the U.S. out of Iraq sooner and will force the Pentagon to reprioritize its weapons requirements.  ďWe donít need all these fancy new weapons,Ē Frank said. I disagree with his bass-ackwards logic, but agree that if we could find a way to stop blowing things up unnecessarily we could probably save some money on military spending. I think we definitely need those fancy weapons if we want to continue going to war with anyone we don't like. We need to remember it's called the defense budget.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


39 posted 11-06-2008 07:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Grinch, i thank you for the link. It was very informative and made me aware of things I wasn't familiar with.

I think we definitely need those fancy weapons if we want to continue going to war with anyone we don't like.

Yep, that's what we do, Ron. Evil incarnate we are. We don't like a country, we go to war with them. That's us.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


40 posted 11-06-2008 10:05 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Karilea and fellow PiPs,

I like muscle, but I still have questions and I ask them because I like answers. Iím all for supporting our military: The proven the proud and the true. But I do not like to be muscled into supporting our governmentís unproven designs for security.

Since youíre not talking nuclear, missiles and aerial bombs, letís talk ground forces and defense--weaponry, rifles to be exact.

Your home state is home to one of the best ground forces there is upon the face of the earth.

The Big Red One. Hoowah!

One of my clients tests weapons for a living: The weapons we make and sell to other countries as well as those that our military uses. We have the firepower. Find anyone who specializes in weapons and ask them if we have it and Iím confident you will find that we not only have it, weíve had it for a very long time. But what is our infantry using?

The Army standard issue is the M-16 and M4 Carbine: Throw them in the sand and see how jammed they get. Why are our soldiers equipped with these weapons in Iraq when: ďthe M16/M4 reliability and lethality issues can be rectified without acquiring an entirely new family of small arms. All that is necessary is what the military calls a "product improvement program," or "PIP" that upgrades the current weapons.Ē ??? Time For a Change. (I found that acronym to be ironic, too.)

I seriously donít understand Congress on the M-16ís. I mean even I KNOW the whole ďheavy lubeĒ thing is insanity in the sand. And the M-16 fires rounds that were made to penetrate armor, but the current enemy is wearing cloth.

I question this because the troops have my love and support, as well as my attention and they are the ones bringing this issue to my attention. Why isnít the Army and the gov paying attention? If they are taking our best ďdefenseĒ interests to heart, then why spend billions on something unproven or something that we may never use while we are using our infantry at this very moment?

We imagine our infantry soldiers never get so close to sprays of bullets or dirty bombs, because of air, marine, and missile defense technologies, and Iím not knocking the worth of what is presently at work for us. But there are Gold Star infantrymen/women already home and coming home that represent close range combat and heroism.

Our military and Special Forces units also maintains many of the highest skilled defense individuals alive. I do not question their muscle. But I do question the highest ranks in office as to WHY our money has not properly armed those that have been improvising and overcoming for way too long to overlook. Why is this secondary to technology and intelligence when the average backcountry hunter can equip himself better than an active duty infantryman?

Iíve come to the conclusion that governments are terribly good at one thing: Designing fear. And Iím not near as afraid of the enemy anymore as I am a government that looks past its heroes for the stars.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Brothers in arms   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors