»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Brothers in arms
| The Alley |
|
Brothers in arms |
|
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered the deployment of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders the EU states of Poland and Lithuania, in retaliation to the announced missile defence shield the US plans to build in central Europe. On the face of it this looks like a clear attempt to take advantage of, and put pressure on, the new President elect. What do think Obama’s response should be? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Grinch - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I think he should consult with his family regarding funeral arrangements for his grandmother. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Karen, I think that’s a given, but presumably, in light of his position, he’s going be expected to deal with several issues simultaneously. Let me rephrase the question: In addition to arranging the funeral of his grandmother, dealing with the re-structuring of the banking system, the collapse of the economy, the housing price crash, the budget deficit, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the regeneration of American manufacturing industry, the expansion of health care, the oil crisis, global warming and the fight against terrorism and all the other issues facing him, what do you think his response to Russia should be?  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well lovie, he's got to set up an administration, and then there's a little formality of Oath of Office and his inauguration. I'm guessing he's already given his administration a lot of thought. The better question--the real question, actually, is what should our acting President, George W. Bush do about that? (He's been so quiet lately though...maybe we should just leave him out of it.) And yes, I knew the pounce would commence, but lawsy Grinch... *chuckle* I'd shake my head but I was also out maneuvered by White Russians last night.  h-heh? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Karen, So you believe he should let Bush respond? I think that’s a definite option but I also think it would be a mistake. In my view Medvedev was speaking directly to Obama, the timing of the announcement isn’t coincidental, he’s offering the President elect his first chance to make a difference and establish himself as a world leader. Then again, maybe I’m wrong. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
You're never wrong.  I had a hard day's night though. So I'll make good on my promise to not tinker on politics today. At least until I'm over my own personal Russian invasion. ow |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Perhaps the Obama administration will or should reconsider the whole notion of tit-for-tat diplomacy, the concept of preemptive defense, the notion that the Cold War is still alive, the notion that any one nation "needs" global supremacy. stuff like that. Or, he could just invade Russia, preferably in the dead of winter, to see whose male reproductive organs freeze and fall off first. Putin has his own problems. Obama isn't one of them. The US and the EU have their own problems, and they are inextricably intertwined, but Putin isn't one of them. My suggestion would be to leave Putin alone, let him rattle his sabres and murder as many of his own people as he feels a need to, then sink into oblivion, somewhat like Stalin after WWII. But then, no one has yet asked me to become an advisor to the President. Or even the person who cleans up after the new puppy he promised his daughter. My memory is that Putin, former head of the KGB, was not exactly "elected" to run the Russian Federation. There is a chance that he will be just as summarily "dis-elected," as his predecessors were, retired to a dacha on the outskirts of Novo-Sibersk, or buried with state honors long before Obama's butt is truly comfortable in his new chair. On the other hand, there will always be an England. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
According to my gorgeous Russian lady friends, Medvedev is no Moscow. Translation: He is not the heart of the people. He is also pushing for a presidential term of six years instead of four, so his precious Putin will be around for 12 more years. Job stability, no doubt. What should Obama do about the missiles? I wouldn't be able to say. I can only hope the best for all involved, the same as my friends hope...and have hoped and prayed for so long now in much worse conditions than I've ever, ever experienced. So I reckon I can remain positive, too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So you believe he should let Bush respond? I don't really understand that statement any more than I understand your original question. He does not have the position to "let" Bush do anything. Bush is the president. Obama is not. Serenity said it all by reminding you that there is a little matter of inauguration to be handled first. Until he assumes control of the country, he is just a man waiting in the wings. I'm sure Bush will discuss it with him but, as far as Obama himself doing something about it at this time, he is in no position to do so. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. What now Second thoughts? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry if I confused you Mike, maybe I can clarify. The president of Russia announced in an address to the Russian people that he had ordered the installation of nuclear capable missiles on the border of Poland and Lithuania in retaliation to the planned US missile defence shield which is planned to be installed in Poland in 2010. Mendvedev also said: “We hope that our partners – the new US administration– will make a choice in favour of fully-fledged relations with Russia.” It seems clear to me, and apparently most of the worlds media, that this is a gauntlet being thrown squarely at the feet of Obama. Mendvedev already knows what Bush’s response is he’s asking if Obama’s response is any different. Hence my question - what do you think Obama’s response will be? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
May I bring something up here? When John Kennedy was elected, the Soviets immediately tested his liberal Democratic platform with the Cuban missle crisis. JFK bungled it badly. Some may say that the stake of the whole world hinged upon the luck of the 'Irish.' Well, exactly what the Right-wing talk-show pundits warned against has ALREADY happened, and Obama isn't even in office yet. The Soviets are back in power again. I believe that the best we can ever do, with peace initiatives, is to stall for 20 years. Then the peace inevitablly breaks down. Even Biden himself said Obama will be tested early (and probably often.) I will tell you this: the Soviets listened to every anti-war statement Obama made BEFORE he ran for Presidency, and licked their chops eagerly for a chance to show up the United States. Why? Because it will instantly elevate themselves from 4th string to 2nd string if the United States backs down. Not suprisingly, I already hear the far left say with a total straight face: leave them alone, and they'll leave us alone. (like they were bees or something.) Well, y'all wanted a JFK clone, and you got one, along with all his far-left baggage. In the world of military strength tests, nothing is more weak than a far-left leader, no matter what country is from. And that's a problem for us/US. 6 months ago I predicted this scenario: that the Soviets were just waiting to test a Democratic liberal leader, and they would do it early in the administration. Welcome to reality, folks. These Soviets feared Bush, but they DON'T fear Obama. He's given them no reason to fear him. Sometimes, although liberals will never admit it, the politics of fear IS enough to keep from pulling the trigger on an enemy....and that's a good thing. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’ve no idea what that means, can you explain? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Do you think Obama will cancel the planned missile defence shield Threadbear? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Grinch. Maybe I'm a little thick-headed this evening but I still don't get it. According to your story, Russia is deploying the missles NOW. The President of Russis knows full well that Obama will not take power until the inauguration. If he knows what Bush's response will be, why would he not wait until Obama assumes command to go ahead with the deployment? It doesn't make sense to do it while Bush is still president and will make the decisions concerning it. Whether or not Obama would approve of any actions by Bush, the actions would still stand as long as Bush is in the Ovel Office. Russia knows that. Soemthing is not right here. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, It’s fairly simple really, Putin, through the temporary Russian President Mendvedev is trying to get a handle on where Obama stands as far as the missile defence shield goes. He’s not asking Bush because Bush has already given him his answer - Bush insists that the planned deployment will go ahead. Putin deferred the announcement until after the US election because until then there was no president elect to ask - McCain and Obama were only candidates and could defer to Bush more easily. Putin couldn’t wait until January because the issue is being debated today in the Czech and Polish parliaments and the threat is aimed at them as much as the US. Of course Obama can wait until January to reply, for all the reasons you, and Karen gave, but I think it’s more likely that he’ll grasp the opportunity to set his stall out early and gain a quick win. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16689558/ Chinese anti-satellite test sparks concern Obama's response? Last winter, Obama taped ads outlining his intent to slash defense spending. He said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. … I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” Recently Joe Biden outlined specific programs for the cuts: “I’ll tell you what we cannot afford … a trillion-dollar commitment to ‘Star Wars,’” new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor,” Biden said. 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. “We don’t need all these fancy new weapons,” Frank said. STILL feel as safe with Obama at the future defensive controls with fellow doves cooing at his every word? I'm still mad at Obama for pushing for cutting funding to the troops and an early withdrawal which would have ENSURED an Iraqi War loss. Now, (or soon) he will be Commander In Chief of the same army. I got to thinking today: if I was in the armed forces, what would I be thinking of Obama as my boss? Would he back me? Or would he stick to his rhetoric about wars and defense? Things that make ya go: hmmmmmmmmm The old political adage has always been (even among Dem's and Independents themselves): NEVER elect a Democrat during war times. Gosh, I wonder why.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A quick win?...or a quick loss? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Grinch, in answer to your question: What Obama should do: nothing and keep his mouth shut. The Soviets are looking at everything he says now as indicators/ foreshadowing of many things. What Bush Should Do: The missle shields were defenses against Iran using nukes not only against Israel, but against the Europeans. The chance to install the defense may not come again once the Dem's are in full power. His only chess move at this time is to finish his plan to strengthen the defenses of Eastern Europe, who laughably do not have any! They've gutted their own high tech missile defenses long ago in most of the smaller to medium countries. The next major conflict won't be on the ground: it will be in the air, long distance, using drones and Radio Controlled planes, and use ground forces later on to occupy a devasted country. Europeans are loathe to admit this, but they are as vulnerable as Canada, and just as dependant, upon the United States to provide a catastrophic defense. The US is one of only a handful of countries that can afford to develop this satellite based defense system. China, France, Germany, Britain, and the various Soviets are the others. Iran claims to have this ability, and this is why the Bush plan to install the defense is needed. There is mega-proof that the Soviets are not only arming Iran, but are also sharing advanced technology. In a future war, they will be strong allies. The Soviets believe that if they get Iran on their side, that the rest of the Arab countries who seem to always follow the most powerful Arab country-of-the-moment, will allie themselves against a common United States enemy and Israel. There are many Soviet hardliners that believe the United States is directly responsible for their financial hardships and they want revenge. Revenge can take many forms, and the Soviets will take a first 100 Day embarrasement of Obama gladly as the first installment of payback. I strongly recommend this website to gain some political insight. http://hallindsey.org/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. Would that be the same mega-proof, threadbear, that we were given for WMD in Iraq? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Threadbear, Bush can’t do a darn thing beyond what he’s already done which is commit to deploying missiles 10 months after he steps down as President. Missiles that incidentally haven’t yet been built which will be deployed in at country that hasn’t yet said it’ll allow them. On top of all that the missiles that do exist don’t actually work. quote: That’s not correct. The missile defence shield is a cut down version of Reagan’s original Star Wars program, it’s original intention is to protect America from an ICBM strike by interception over Europe. An additional consequence is that it may serve to intercept missiles aimed at some parts (but not all parts) of Europe if America chooses to use them in such circumstances. Israel would not, and could not be protected by interceptor missiles sited in Poland unless the missile launch site was within Russia. Russia has stated quite clearly that if the missiles are placed in Poland it will consider all previous non-proliferation treaties to be null and void and instead of reducing it’s capability will increase it to maintain a strategically viable deterrent. China has also pledged to do the same which opens the door to an even colder cold war. Russia has also announced that it will jam both the Czech radar installation and the airspace above the launch sites in Poland to counter any possibility that the missiles can be used offensively against Russia. Rendering an already ineffective system totally useless. I’d kill it quicker than you can say White Elephant and spend the money where it’ll do more good. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Is it then your insinuation, Ron, that reasons for the missile defense system in Europe is all made-up and addresses a non-issue? It's easy to answer a question with a question. That way you don't have to make a statement and can safely play both sides without being wrong. Do you agree with the statements of Obama/Biden/Frank in response #16? [This message has been edited by Balladeer (11-05-2008 11:56 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t know a nice way to say this - you can’t afford it, nor can we, our economies are in the pan, the only way you can finance it is if you borrow the money from an oil rich middle-eastern country (Iran?), China or Russia - which is a little ironic don’t you think? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Oh, Ron....are you doubting that the loooong list of Soviet created weapons used in Iran currently even exists? There's a couple of websites that I use that has been keeping a running tab of these. This is the kind of news that doesn't make US news, yet is easily attainable. Iran's Hezbollah has also been using year 2005+ weapons made in China as well. How do we know they are 'supplied'? Because Hezbollah doesn't have the money to purchase them, for one, and they have been caught smuggling them into Iran for another, in cargo ships. I keep a running cache of news stories such as this for stories that are developing, but not news yet. Do you really want me to bore you with all the details of arms builds up from the Soviets and China to Arab nations, as well as their own border buildups? It's all been in the news, but since Americas are xenophobic, allegededly, we only read national news. These are all page 1 or 2 stories Internationally, but only page 25 stories here. Americans don't care about missiles in Europe. But they will.... On a personal note,Ron, I'm not ignorning your excellent post to my thread on Democracy - just mulling over some things. That was a rough-draft for an article and your post inspired me to look at some other considerations. Grinch, the shield itself is an hi-tech early-warning system, and can be deployed almost immediately. The ACBM part won't be moved into Europe until after Bush leaves, that's correct. There are already missiles all across Europe installed by the US. They lack the guidance and interceptance software that an SDI system would provide. The interfacing of the old system and the new system is truly the issue here. Will the US get the funding now that Obama will lead? Grinch, I think you're wrong about the 'only way' we can finance it. That's too simplistic of an answer: How to finance it? Taxes are one, defense contracts with bids are another, selling technologies to allies is another way, government bonds are still another way, tax breaks for private business to develop part of the technology; and that's just for starters. Also, can we really afford for China and Soviets to get a leg up on us on anti-satellite technology? I guess you can always make the case that we need the money for more air conditioners in classrooms..... [This message has been edited by threadbear (11-06-2008 12:17 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Not necessarily made-up, Mike. But certainly, exaggerated. quote: Not a non-issue, but certainly a relatively unimportant one. In the last sixty years, how much have we spent on weapons to blow up the world? We called it deterrence, and some might even argue it worked. At what point can we stop building bombs? Reagan already won the Cold War by essentially driving the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. We would be foolish, I think, to let the same tactic work against us. There are a lot of threats to this world. This one is way down the list, in my opinion. But then, I have to admit I never was terribly worried about Sadam dropping a bomb on Michigan, either. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
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 Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 ICBM’s isn’t a deterrent against a nuclear attack. Those people are so cock sure that the deterrent doesn’t work that they want to build a missile defence shield to knock out all the missiles that are fired by countries that aren’t deterred. Of course there’s another bunch of idiots that counter the claim that nuclear weapons aren’t a deterrent, they don’t currently have nuclear weapons but are intent on obtaining them to deter other countries from attacking them. Iran falls into this category. They’ve bought into the deterrent argument big time, they’re so convinced they just have to have them and they’re undeterred by any arguments against it. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
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 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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 Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 ICBM’s isn’t 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 there’s another bunch of idiots that counter the claim that nuclear weapons aren’t a deterrent, they don’t 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Mike, exactly how is a system that doesn’t work going to deter anyone? Even if the US could get it to work it’d be so easy to get around even the Swiss could do it with a sheet of Aluminium and an army knife. It won’t deter anyone Mike, it’ll just encourage people to find ways around it. quote: Actually I do, is there any evidence to the contrary? quote: Would that be the same Israel that already has a missile defence system? You didn’t know! That’s 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/sede/hearings/20070627_antimissile/webb_en.pdf |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: Are these the ones you mean, Mike? He (Obama) said, “I 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: “I’ll tell you what we cannot afford … a trillion-dollar commitment to ‘Star Wars'" I agree. "new nuclear weapons," Again, absolutely. a thousand-ship Navy," I don't know how many we need. the F-22 Raptor,” 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. “We don’t need all these fancy new weapons,” 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Karilea and fellow PiPs, I like muscle, but I still have questions and I ask them because I like answers. I’m all for supporting our military: The proven the proud and the true. But I do not like to be muscled into supporting our government’s unproven designs for security. Since you’re not talking nuclear, missiles and aerial bombs, let’s 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 I’m confident you will find that we not only have it, we’ve 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: “the 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.” ??? Time For a Change. (I found that acronym to be ironic, too.) I seriously don’t understand Congress on the M-16’s. I mean even I KNOW the whole “heavy lube” 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 isn’t the Army and the gov paying attention? If they are taking our best “defense” 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 I’m 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? I’ve come to the conclusion that governments are terribly good at one thing: Designing fear. And I’m not near as afraid of the enemy anymore as I am a government that looks past its heroes for the stars. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
