Author Topic: Missile Test Success (Read 3323 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** July 17, 2001, 12:10:00 PM »

"Tearing up missile treaties with poverty-stricken nations ..."

See above. IF it comes to that, it's exercising a mutually pre-approved option to withdraw. Let's not try to emotionally "spin" it please.

Be pretty funny if Russia agreed to join in and lend its expertise to the project after the mutual discussions wouldn't it? Stranger things have happened.

Take a deep breath. It isn't being deployed. It's being researched and validated. I doubt all the world's angst will stop that portion.

Deployment passing the Congress is another matter entirely. So save your strength until it gets that far.

leonid · « **Reply #46 on:** July 17, 2001, 12:25:00 PM »

Knowing the legalese of the treaty are all well and good, but by focusing on that is like not seeing the forest for the trees. This treaty is about nuclear weapons, the most destructive weapons mankind can pat itself on the back, and it was signed by the two nations with the most of this form of weaponry. Just because the Soviet Union has gone, and Russia stands in its place is no reason to suddenly consider this treaty nonbinding. The fact remains that Russia and the USA are still the holders of the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Sticking to details and legalese wording will only bring danger on an international scale. Bush has one concern: get this ABM system out ASAP. He doesn't care what Europe thinks, nor the Russians, and he will do whatever it takes to see it through. He is that narrow-minded as his actions have shown to date. I have no idea why he is so obsessed with an ABM system now. 'Rogue States' my ass, if a terrorist group truly wants to wreak havoc on the USA, all they need to do is smuggle in some of the 'glowing' stuff, and make a bomb in country, then just leave it in a van in some parking lot. No ABM system in the world could stop that. However, Bush has shown almost a transparent loyalty for big business, and the defense industry. Hence, my only conclusion is the sudden ABM obsession is like iEN trying some marketing hocus-pocus to generate badly needed cash flow. And the truly disturbing thing is Bush seems to think the USA and the world are two different things.

And regarding Boroda. If you think he is coming off as too doom & gloom, I can tell you he's actually one of the nicest guys, and actually doesn't hold half the anger many Russians do over this issue. Most Russians are very pissed at this most recent development of Bush's.

Yoj · « **Reply #47 on:** July 17, 2001, 01:00:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
(I disagree with you on the "only pure research" aspect. I think we learn a lot from the experimentation phase, particularly the failures. Failures lead to improvements that can be cross-utilised later.)

Well sure, we do learn a lot - but only about this particular project. We learn a few things that can apply to other projects - the more similar they are, the more that applies. However, its the pure research that opens the bug doors. An example - the Manhattan Project as an engineering exercise. Some new things, like Teflon, came out of it. But it was the years of theoretical and experimental physics that came before that made an A-bomb possible. Once the basic knowledge was gained and confirmed, the engineers made it work practically. It was a tremendous feat, but not much new was learned from the engineering.

Anyway, I'd rather have my defense dollar go into better pay, training and equipment for our soldiers, or some of the more practical concepts. All this initiative does is drain resources from better things. Like having our congressmen display tonsorial splendor

- Yoj

MrLars · « **Reply #48 on:** July 17, 2001, 01:56:00 PM »

All this bruhaha 'bout a missle defence system that has only a 50% success rate and the positive results are probably suspect also...nothin' but a lot of pork IMO!

Lars

Krusher · « **Reply #49 on:** July 17, 2001, 01:57:00 PM »

what about the missle defense system ?

The bottom line is the bottom line. it is going to cost way more than estimated (wepons systems always do) and the current estimate is out of line with our budjet now.

Krush

Paxil · « **Reply #50 on:** July 17, 2001, 02:14:00 PM »

The whole thing is really rather silly... it won't be able to protect us, except from a certain kind of attack... of which none of the countries we are currently worried about have the ability to launch. Would a rogue nation launch a ballistic missile into space when it would just put one on a fishing boat and sneak on over here? Hi-tech solutions(not our hitech of course) won't solve all of our problems. And why are we even considering this when it is a violation of various treaties? Some times I really wonder about our leaders. Hopefully the international community will excuse their ignorance. Nothing but a bunch of rich people trying to give themselves a false sense of security with a HUGE waste of money.

Yoj · « **Reply #51 on:** July 17, 2001, 02:21:00 PM »

Or perhaps, a bunch of rich people trying to get richer? (Conspiracy theories anyone?)

- Yoj

Dnil · « **Reply #52 on:** July 17, 2001, 03:03:00 PM »

libyans shot down 2 f14s? thats news to me. What world are you living in boroda?

Eagler · « **Reply #53 on:** July 17, 2001, 03:06:00 PM »

maybe the White House knows of advances by Iran, Iraq, (put your 3rd world arse backwards country here) into thier development of such a delivery system that isn't on the nightly news.
But if I had a nuke homing in on my family, I'll take a 50/50 chance over a Zero chance of destroying such a threat anyday.
I think the system is designd as advertised. An attack from a rogue nation, with a limited launch capability. Or an accidental launch of a single rocket by some "patriotic" nutcase. Not against Russia or any other country nutty enough to launch an aggressive multiple missile attack.
And hey, if it kicks up the economy via new jobs, increased production, etc.. that'd just be a great side effect. Heck if the money isn't spent here, it'd just be blown somewhere else, not sent to salaries of our military or police which I hope everyone would agree are pathetically low.

Dowding · « **Reply #54 on:** July 17, 2001, 03:24:00 PM »

In 'normal circumstances' Russia would not launch a MAD (how apt) offensive against the US and her allies. But 'normal circumstances' by their very definition must have a flip-side.

How about a totalitarian coup (in whatever flavour you like) blacks out all news services, expels foreign diplomats and starts to turn up the heat, perhaps inventing some non-existent crisis which hinges on paranoia over a US attack. How will the average Russian know the truth? What stops the arsenal being used even in a limited way?

It is there. It exists. It if functional. It can be used. There are treaties to control, limit and de-activate it. Yet the US wants to turn its back on all that and the foundation it provides, all for some barely functional system with little promise. Not to mention the political motivation behind it.

Why bother?

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Eagler · « **Reply #55 on:** July 17, 2001, 03:31:00 PM »

Dowding
Your scenario can happen with or without our "shield" in place. Treaty or no treaty we have the ability to wipe ourselves from the face of the earth at anytime. Some make it sound like the world is a safe place now and this missile defense will make it unsafe. How absurd!

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** July 17, 2001, 03:48:00 PM »

"Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty..."

Yeah, THERE'S some "legalese" mumbo-jumbo that the average guy simply can't understand.

Remember, BOTH countries wrote, approved and signed that part.

Leonid, if it was Russia pulling out of this treaty you'd defend it as their sovereign right and quote the treaty as proof. Then you'd blame the USA for forcing them to withdraw.

It just so happens that this TIME it's your favorite premier hobgoblin that's making the move. I can understand that you can't pass the chance to snipe at Bush, however.

Tell me this Leonid: The US and Russia still have global nuke capability. Which of the two do you think are more likely to actually USE one FIRST? Say in the next 15 years? (Go ahead and say the USA... I'd love to see you justify that flight of fancy!)

Now we won't count the nukes that have "slipped out" of Russia to Arab and other nations as "Russian". After all, can't hold them responsible for selling nukes to any bozo with a suitcase full of cash, now can we? Wouldn't be fair.

I'd say the US probability is essentially NIL. I'd put the Russian probability at the same level, perhaps a smidge less than that due to the instability generated by their persistent problems in coming to grips with the total failure of their previous system.

BOTH of these powers have a ~55 year history of handling the USE of nukes with reason and responsibility. That is to say, NEITHER side has used a nuke offensively or defensively in ~55 years.

The US and the Russians aren't the problem. Any sane, unbiased person knows the US has a strict policy of "no first use". I believe the Russians see the value of that policy as well and will also adhere to it.

This treaty IS outdated. The US nuke arsenal isn't a threat to the Russians. I'd like to think their's isn't to us.

If the Russians are pissed, I suggest they be pissed at their own leadership and fellow countrymen. They're the ones that have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars of grants, gifts, aid, IMF funds and loans from the various nations of the world to be stolen from the intended recipients or wasted without positive result. Yeah, that Bush, HE'S the real problem. LOL. Sorry, I forgot... that was all the Clinton Administrations fault. LOL again. Wait... maybe it was Kennedy with that "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech! No... had to be Reagan with the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Yah, THAT'S where it all STARTED! That sentence made the PERFECT system of government collapse. Just ask Mietla and Miko; I'm sure they'll agree.

But hey, it's way easier to get all worked up about a presently non-existent ABM system that will have absolutely NO EFFECT on the status of "World Peace and Security".

Never gets used if a nuke missile isn't fired, now does it? If a nuke missile gets fired "World Peace and Security" are already non-existent anyway aren't they?

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

Toad · « **Reply #57 on:** July 17, 2001, 03:56:00 PM »

Before all of your shorts are irretrievably wadded up, don't forget that the US and Russian are going to sit down and NEGOTIATE.

"Alexander Yakovenko, spokesman for Russia's Foreign Ministry said Russia is open "for an early and substantive dialogue with the U.S. on the START [treaty] and ABM problems" and other strategic issues on the basis of understandings reached by the Russian and U.S. presidents at their recent meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia."

They'll work it out.

The world isn't going to end over this minor issue.

It'll be something like whether or not Miller Lite is "less filling" or "tastes great" that starts the "Final Conflict".

Eagler · « **Reply #58 on:** July 17, 2001, 04:08:00 PM »

Yep Toad
They'll "work it out"
How much do you think it'll cost us?? How many more million/billions of our hard earn money will be handed over in "aid" so that they,probably China and a few other "world leaders" with their hands out finally see the light.....greasing the old palms, thats how it'll finally be negotiated, like most things.

MrLars · « **Reply #59 on:** July 17, 2001, 04:34:00 PM »

Unfortunatly, the bigest nuclear threat isn't from any missle launched systems. It is the terrorist that, for a few thousand dollars, has bought a small device that will be easly smuggled into the his target country and detonated without any warning. I would hope that the Bush administration and his successors will address this real problem like they have with their "Star Wars Fantasy" hardware. Which, IMO will do nothing to reduce the real danger of small well equipped terrorist organizations.