Hey, REALLY need to worry about SOMETHING?

[Toad]

"Your're fooling yourself... but that's okay. It's the typical American perception that we can do no wrong."

Oh, no no no no, Alphonse! Your're fooling yourself... but that's okay. It's the typical ANTI-American perception that we can do no right.  

Taiwan? Basically we agree.. pretty shocking, that.

Bush may have pledged to defend them but I think he'll have a REAL HARD time getting it past Congress or the American people.

Clinton slid us into Bosnia against the will of the House and against the popular will of the people (albeit as expressed in polls). That wasn't a red-hot shooting war, however. Big difference, I think.

If the Taiwanese really want to be Independent, let them do their own fighting. We can't "make" someone free.

Mercenaries? WE (the US government) SENDS mercenaries?

Gee, I'd have thought they'd have to volunteer. Sort of what a mercenary is, isn't it? Volunteer to fight for money? You have evidence that the US forces people to go to fight in South America?

Extortion? China is believed to have about 410 nuclear weapons. Approximately 20 warheads are on long-range missiles that can reach the United States.

With all that power we have and can project, are we willing to sacrifice LA for anything or any one in Asia? That's the scenario you face. If they're doing something the world community can't abide and the US tries to stop them are you willing to sacrifice US cities to do so? Or at least call their bluff with the attendant risk that they are not bluffing? That's simply a form of nuclear extortion.


China is not Germany? Nice diversion attempt. It's not which countries are like which countries at all. It's what extortion tactics work and which don't. The Rhineland, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia those tactics worked. A shooting war with Poland did not. Tactics.

[Boroda]

Here we come to the real purpose of 1972 ABM treaty.

If US fields NMD system - they can feel safe against Cina's "20 warheads mounted on ICBMs", and therefore can start a nuclear attack on China without fear of retaliation.

Better try to build a local ABM system around LA if you are afraid it will be nuked. Oh, I forgot, US decided that their "missile farm" in North Dakota is more valuable then 10 million city...

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Boroda:
If US fields NMD system - they can feel safe against Cina's "20 warheads mounted on ICBMs", and therefore can start a nuclear attack on China without fear of retaliation....

THat's it!! You figured out our master plan!
Along that line of thought, anyone carrying a firearm isn't carrying it for self protection, but to run out and kill anyone who does not carry one...
what a whack job line of thought. I hope you are the minority in your society.

[Boroda]

Eagler, believe it or not - but that was the main reason for ABM treaty. MAD.

If you know other reasons - please tell us, it's interesting.

BTW, wasn't it American press who was shouting about USSR violating the ABM treaty in 80s? They said we "violated" this treaty by building one more early-warning radar station near Krasnoyarsk. They said that Krasnoyarsk radar station could be used in ABM system.

[Eagler]

Boroda
You keep refering to the treaty. The treaty is out dated. It has clauses in it to allow the US to do exactly what it is doing. THe world is not the same in many ways when the treaty was first drawn up. Neither is technology. I see no harm in the shield except it will not stop the suitcase bomb. It isn't like the US is saying we are going to build an umbrella over us and forget the rest of the world. The plan is to cover all of our allies. I think of it as nothing but a deterrent, not a 100% fail proof method. Just one more thing to put doubt in the mind of the nutcase considering pressing his button. What in this life is guaranteed 100%? Other than an end to this physical body one day, I see none.. I think it's just another thing the dumocrats here and their counterparts around the world can throw stones at GW about. I think they'd squeak if he gave each a check for $100k. Nothing but politics as most things have become ...

[Boroda]

Eagler, the treaty is still actual.

Tell me what changed so drasticaly to make it outdated.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Boroda:
Eagler, the treaty is still actual.

Tell me what changed so drasticaly to make it outdated.

One that comes to mind would be this missile shield, technically not possible when the treaty was established. Another is your country, it is not the same country which signed on the dotted line, neither politically nor geographically.

[Boroda]

Missile shield was possible in 1972. As I already said - first ICBM interception was performed in 1963. By 1972 USSR had all systems ready for deployment, first generation ABMs with 1 megaton warheads that were replaced by conventional around 1975.

Russia is a successor of the USSR in all international treaties and agreements, including USSR and Russian Empire's debts that we pay in time.

Any other reasons?

What about that mid-80s Krasnoyarsk radar station hype? In 1980s the treaty was OK, and now suddenly it becomes outdated?

[R4M]

Heh.

20 nukes against 10200.

And they are the danger   .

My math does not work that way.

but of course I'm only a poor spanish barbarian that does not know anything...except that if someone lofts one F%$ˇing nuke, for any reason cabal or not, the one living in a nuclear winter will be me. And that If I survive. And I have no god-damned interest in Taiwan, china , USA, LA, etc etc etc. Still I, and all the rest who hs nothing to do with you nor with china. maybe have to pay for other's errors. For YOUR errors. For THEIR errors-

And I love how you talk about the chinese, their 500 million losses without blink. Or about you and your ABM system. But in all this thread noone has said that YOUR problems are YOURS and that your F"ˇ$"ˇkng nukes can ruin life for the rest of the people. There is a world out of the USA, did you know?. And most of us are not happy to see what's going on.

So if the nukes fly, who is the one I have to thank?... the chinese who build nukes or the guy in the whitehouse who provokes them to buy more?

Both stink   . Now they'll call me antiamerican. Would be funny, but it isnt.

[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[Animal]

Bring on the nukes like its 1999!

C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Animal:

C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?

One of my more infamous lines is:

Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean I shouldn't be...  

[Nifty]

Originally posted by Animal:
Bring on the nukes like its 1999!

C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?

well, next year will be the 30th anniversary of the Cuban Missle Crisis.  Guess we're just trying to "celebrate" it by re-enacting it.  

[Toad]

Remember the old joke about wearing garlic around your neck to keep away vampires? Does it work? Don't see any vampires around here do you?

The US has had either the largest or the next to largest nuclear inventory in the world from 1945 until the present. Undeniable fact.

What's the result been? Well, not a single "World War" since 1945, for one thing.

Not a single use of a nuke in any type of conflict since we bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki for another thing. (Yes, we certainly did use two at the end of WW2).

Now, a greatly reduced US nuke arsenal is suddenly a HUGE threat to the world because we are testing and developing an ABM system. No decision to deploy as yet; that will have to come from Congress.

Well, we're the same guys that have had the much BIGGER arsenal all along. We've also had a large and very capable military all along. During that period there have been NO world wars.

Suddenly we're going to nuke the world?

LOL.

[Fury]

Originally posted by Animal:
Bring on the nukes like its 1999!

C'mon guys.
Lots of paranoia around this BBS, huh?

All this sudden interest in nukes is pretty laughable. To think that any of the larger nations would resort to nukes as an offensive strike for any reason is laughable.  Just my opinion.

[PapaH]

Originally posted by fd ski:
[QB]If Stalin didn't push the red button, i doubt anyone will.

Ummm...I didn't study Stalinist Russia in COLLEGE or anything, but I'm pretty sure the concensus now is that Stalin never had a valid 'button' to push...The Sovs didn't have a credible threat till very late, and perhaps even AFTER Stalin died.

If countries start building "shields" it will become:
i shoot = he shoots = hopefully i intercept and only his people die

Once again, we already HAD that equation...when we were the bully boys, and no one but us and a few exclusive pals had ANY nuclear weapons.  Guess what happened?  NOTHING!  We didn't blow anybody up.  The imbalance you predict is not certain, or even credible.  

Am i a sinophobe?  Perhaps, but they have given us reasons to fear them before...we have a few old Korean War vets to prove it. They have been actively trying to manipulate our government's trade and military policy for a decade or so now.

 North Korea with ANY WMDs is a very scary proposition...and if you aren't afraid of that, you are not paying close attention to how they do things.  They are the true believers, and I do not doubt for a moment that they would pop a nuke on us without hesitation.  Would China stop them?  Do you really want to find out?

PapaH

[ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: Greg Smithwick ]