Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on December 14, 2000, 07:37:00 AM
-
I think we all know Bush's feelings regarding overseas deployment of the US armed forces.
Condoleezza Rice, chief foreign policy adviser [for the Bush campaign] said, under a Bush administration, the United States would tell its Nato allies that it would not perform a peacekeeping role in the Balkans any more.
Let us now look at a subject that might come back to the fore. The National Missile Defence (NMD) and Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) systems are aimed at defending the US against in-coming missiles. This involves using radar stations in Greenland and Europe (as well as satellites) as an Early Warning system linked to missile batteries in the US.
Clinton's postponement of the development of NMD for a year was criticised by Bush, who wants an expansion of the system.
Which is all fine and dandy except for a few details:
- It is a far from proven technology, and has failed several test launches.
- It would raise tensions between the West and China and Russia
- Perhaps the most important from my point of view: two US military installations in Yorkshire in the northern part of England; Fylingdales and Menwith Hill could be critical to the missile defence systems's success.
This system will in no way protect Britain (and indeed make it a target for pre-emptive strikes to disable NMD). So what do we get out of the deal?
Very little it seems. It is entirely possible that Bush will pull out US forces in the Balkans, and that the NMD program goes ahead with British governmental approval (not wanting to rock the 'special' relationship, which is special because only one side values it). I'm guessing that any formal approval of the system will come after the General Election next May, when the Labour government is safely installed for another parliament. This issue could really rock the boat over here, if Bush pushes the program forward (and thus goes against Clinton's postponement), before the General Election.
Would this be a case of Bush (and the American people) having their cake and eating it?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 12-14-2000).]
-
Does anyone have an opinion on NMD?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Frankly ?... NO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Maybe Bush will pull all forces back to States.
No more stupid Yanks in Germany or Italy. Maybe they even stop occupier Britannia.
-
Staga-
Why do you hang out with us stupid people then?
-
When it was stated that Greenland also was likely to be housing radar stations there was quite a reaction in both the public and parlament here in Denmark, demanding to inform the US that it would NOT be allowed.
But since the US officially didn't ask (yet) for permission to place the radars at Thule no descision was made.
I got the feeling that they would have troubles getting it once they asked tho.
-
Got a big one this time; Bring me a bigger pan! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
This Star Wars Missile Defense System or whatever it's called is the most stupid idea I've ever heard of.
First off it's going to piss off Russia, China and many other countries and could result in a re-escalation of the cold war.
At a time when national, economic and informational barriers are being dissolved this project goes against the grain by putting up a new barrier!
It's extremely expensive, so as a U.S. taxpayer I get to watch my hard-earned money get pissed away on this hare-brained nonsense.
The only people who'll benefit from this project are the research scientists who are sucking up all those big grants.
The U.S., having this missile defense system, is analogous to the citizen who feels he must have a gun to protect himself from imagined threats. It's dysfunctional!
Live by the missile.
Die by the missile.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
So what do we get out of the deal?
Very little it seems. It is entirely possible that Bush will pull out US forces in the Balkans, and that the NMD program goes ahead with British governmental approval (not wanting to rock the 'special' relationship, which is special because only one side values it).
Are you serious? Do we really need to get into the benefits from a good UK/US relation? I'm just wondering why you think we should continue to be involved in the Balkans? If the same situation was taking place in Central America, do you think the UK would have an obligation to send troops? The treaties of NATO were for mutual defense, not for peacekeeping. The situation in the Balkans is no longer a threat to any NATO member, so what obligation do we have to be there?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-14-2000).]
-
In case you didn't realise, I was pointing out the potenial hypocisy of pulling out of Europe ('because it's not our fight'), yet asking Britain to put its arse on the line for the sake US defence. With no obvious benefit to the UK.
There's only one side that believes the 'special' relationship is significant; and it isn't America.
Snefens - if you are a little unsettled by the prospect of a radar station being used for NMD on an island a few hundred miles away, imagine how I feel about a radar station 60 miles from my house.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 12-14-2000).]
-
Well, if the rest of Europe weren't so stupidly anti-American and anti-British, then the bases might be placed further east.
We can only hope that Mr Vague somehow pulls a rabbit out of the hat and defeats The roadkillter. Given the apparent fawning attitude of the Blair roadkill Corps, this is going to be difficult.
------------------
qts
-
I'm not a great fan of Blair (in many ways).
But I'd rather see his government in power, than Hague's all-singing freak show (kindly sponsored by the Daily Mail).
"Now performing off the back of a Band-wagon near you!"
-
Maybe I'm missing something here Dowding, but how are radar stations any different than the air bases we have had in the UK for years? And you know damn well that if the UK were threatened, the US would be the first country to come to its aid. You act as if the UK gets no benefit from a relationship with the US. We both know that is false, don't we?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-14-2000).]
-
Perhaps you haven't looked into the NMD system enough. It is a system to defend America (and America only) from ICBM attack. Here's a sequence of events for you:
1) County X decides to launch a missile attack on the States, for whatever reason.
2)Only problem is the NMD system, the eyes of which are the radar stations in Britain.
3) Country X uses a few warheads on the radar stations in Britain, to render NMD blind and pave the way for a large scale attack on the States.
4) The UK is hit by nuclear weapons, for the simple reason that we had radar stations used for a defence system that doesn't even protect us.
Also - as I have said twice now ( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))- only Britain values the 'special' relationship - America really couldn't care less.
-
Which brings me back to my first point in my last post. How is that different than having our airbases in the UK during the entire Cold War? Also, you keep saying that you don't benefit from it? I'm pretty sure that it is in the UK's best interest for the US to not get nuked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-14-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
This system will in no way protect Britain (and indeed make it a target for pre-emptive strikes to disable NMD). So what do we get out of the deal?
You should llok up a geography atlas, Dowding!
An advanced warning station would be able to protect England against sudden attack from, say, Russia, if you place it in Kiev or Smolensk. Or maybe in Belgrade... Otherwise the missles will arrive few seconds later then the warning.
Does the fact that England is closer to a potential enemy mean that US should not be defended just our of spite?
Wouldn't enemy considering a "preemptive strike" against England be deterred by the fact that US will get early warning and retaliate for it's ally? Isn't that why NATO is for? Americans using their strategic geographical advantage to guarantee safety of it's european allies?
As for technology, it will improve, but only if someone is working on it. With the current technological progress it is possible that US will be able to create a working NMD system by the time some terrorist group can create a working delivery system. Russia is not the only threat, you know. Not even a major one and hopefully with the end of the Cold War.
miko
-
Let's not forget that the NMD violates a missile treaty.
Really, if Bush goes through with this, *he* is the violator and starter of tensions.
While the US is the only superpower, it's not immune and it's not unbeatable. Great at conventional warfare, the US public is very reluctant to accept casualties and I don't think any country fighting the US will be using conventional methods.
It's not a very good thing to break a treaty when now we have a great shot at actually improving relations between most countries on earth.
One of the most frightening aspects of Bush is his apparent lack of interest in the environment. The deal that broke down in Europe with greengas omissions stuff will be almost impossible to get through now. Sure, Americans are gas guzzlers, but there was some kind of a compromise in the works. I fear that with Mr Bush, green gas production in the US will rise, not be lowered.
And the US is about the worst country in the world with regards to gasses coming from oil products.
Oh well. The sad thing is that many of these things DO influence us Europeans. Therefore, we have a legitimate interest in who's the US presidency and you really cannot say "only Americans reply".
We might not be able to in any way affect the US election, but we do have our own worries and opinions, as noteworthy as those of extremist left/right wingers and centrists.
Anyway, let's just hope he grows with the job. He'll have a lot of help.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
Raubvogel - but those airbases (which are still there, by the way) would be of no consequence if a nuclear warhead equipped nation wanted to attack America. Why should they 'waste' warheads on a few air bases, when they could hit a major US city instead? But there is every reason why a strike should be used to knock down the defence system, before an attack on mainland USA.
Mietla - I think you mistake NMD for the ICBM Early Warning System that has been around for decades. That does benefit us all, but NMD only benefits the States; the anti-ICBM missile system coverage does NOT extend to UK, and simply adds an incentive for a UK attack, with no benefit to the native population.
Great - so we get a few minutes warning about an incoming ICBM strike. Just enough time to gather the family under the table, kill your pets, and get those tins of canned Spam ready. Frankly, I'd rather not know.
Does the fact that England is closer to a potential enemy mean that US should not be defended just our of spite?
But how can Bush credibly want a withdrawal of forces from Kosovo, yet still demand that Britain make itself vulnerable for America's defence?
'You cannot have your cake and eat it.'
I've got to say that Bush's ignorance is pretty unnerving. He didn't seem to realise that the majority of the money and man power in Kosovo is European in origin. Or that Kosovo is still an ethnic timebomb. I just hope that he doesn't get involved in Northern Ireland.
Like Santa says, I hope his team if advisors bring him up to speed.
-
Does Kosovo threaten your national security? As far as I know, the Nato treaty is for mutual defense, not peacekeeping. And Dowding, I think you would have a different outlook on this if you had to rotate through Bosnia or Kosovo. (US Army 1989-present). When I went to Desert Storm, I knew I was there to kick someones ass, thats what we train for. We dont train to be the worlds policemen. You put soldiers into a situation they arent trained for, and bad things happen. Not to mention that our readiness for conflicts suffers.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
Does Kosovo threaten your national security?
I'm sure people were saying the same thing about Czechoslovakia in 1938. Ethnic tensions spread like wildfire; conflict between Muslims and Christians will spread to neighborouring European countries, and would impact on Britains immigrant populations eventually. We all cannot afford to let instability and chaos reign, where we know we can make a difference (which is the case with Kosovo).
Don't you think that the developed world should use its military influence to try to help peace get a foothold? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are against using soldiers as peace keepers in all situations.
BTW - I recently had interviews to get an RAF commission, and one of things they emphasise is Britain's increasing committment to peace-keeping. Indeed, the idea of being an officer in the RAF is sold on the issue of going to foreign countries and helping to keep the peace. Moreover, the last part of the IOT (initial officer training) is called 'Peacekeepers'. You basically have a command position on a mock air field and have to spend a week defending it from either the 'rebels' or 'protestors'.
-
Pull peacekeepers out, choose a side and arm them...
Don't remember any "peacekeepers" in Afghanistan
If necessary, carpet bomb the borders to contain a particular conflict.
Eagler
-
Right Eagler and look what happened in Afghanistan...
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Don't you think that the developed world should use its military influence to try to help peace get a foothold? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you are against using soldiers as peace keepers in all situations.
I will tell you this much: I am sure as hell glad that no one sent peacekeepers to N America back in the late 1700's. Or back in the 1860's. I am all for keeping the peace if 1 nation is threatening the soverignty of another. But internal conflicts, no.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
-
Dowding,
England is not made more vulnerable for america's defence. Ther radar station warns against threats to england as well as to US.
It is the missle launchers that are in US. So England is less vulnerable, not more.
If someone blows up a radar warning station, it will probably be unnecessary by then. But the missles will be intact and ready to respond.
American army is located in Europe, in front of England, not behind it.
So all England does is rents us some space and gets lots of protection from US for that.
Does it mean that if Englang is threatened with potential immigration problems, US soldiers should die?
As for Chechoslovakia, England and her european allies were caught with their pants down in both World Wars. If you are afraid of repeat of Chechoslovakia, shouldn't you have an army that could defeat at least Serbia?
I bet that if M. Thatcher was running things now, americans would never have been involved in Ugoslavia.
miko
-
NMD may be against the treaty but the situation changed drastically.
When the treaty was signed US and USSR were the only superpowers with nuclear capability and both could keep their secrets, especially USSR.
Now Russia is not an enemy but it leaks nuclear and missle technology like a sieve.
So we are concerned about terrorist groups and dictators that can get their hands on those weapons.
Russia should be concerned about them too because they have a religious war and terror campaign going on already.
They do not want US to get NMD because there is no chance they could afford it and even if they did, they are too close to the potential enemy for it to do any good.
That would much prefer that US doesn't have NMD and had to go after the terrorists themselves.
miko
-
If you are serious, then thanks Eagler for another well argued, rational response. You're not exactly a fan of 'Compassionate Conservatism', are you?
England is not made more vulnerable for america's defence. Ther radar station warns against threats to england as well as to US.
This is not the issue; we've had a radar system for years. The problem is that the radar is used for a system that brings not a single benefit to Britain, and just increases the likelihood of an attack. At the same time Bush wants less to do with Europe.
Does it mean that if Englang is threatened with potential immigration problems, US soldiers should die?
I think you misunderstand what I mean about ethnic tensions. I'm not talking about an influx of refugees, I'm talking about the people of the various ethnic groups that are already here (and have been for years). Raised tensions between ethnic groups, have a (proven) knock on effect around the world. This is why I'm saying we should have our peace-keepers deployed where we know we can make a difference.
As for Chechoslovakia, England and her european allies were caught with their pants down in both World Wars. If you are afraid of repeat of Chechoslovakia, shouldn't you have an army that could defeat at least Serbia?
I'll ignore the snide remark for the sake of the argument. The whole was caught 'with their pants down' - if you study history, you'll see that there was no single reason why the Nazi party came to power. Versailles was a factor, but so was the Wall Street Crash. Before 1929, the Nazi party was on the fringe, and German middle classes had no interest in them. But when the crash ruined the middle classes (taking their savings and other assets), they flocked to the Swastika.
I bet that if M. Thatcher was running things now, americans would never have been involved in Ugoslavia.
If Maggie was still in power, then this country would probably be in the middle of a civil war. Because there is no way on earth she could have stayed in power democratically.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 12-15-2000).]
-
Dowding,
As long as the USA holds onto bases in foreign countries and territories, then it should be expected to provide a significant percentage of peace-keeping forces for the UN.
I won't even go into questioning the concept of peace-keeping, because there's nothing to question: the only alternative is war, and in this age war is just too destructive. The world's getting too small for that sort of nonsense to continue.
And, putting an ally in dire straits over a system that isn't cost effective, or reliable, or mutually inclusive, is pretty poor.
-
It`s time for the euros to wipe their own ass,after 55 years you would expect them to be potty trained.
Its time to bring our men home.
-
Is this about missile defense or is it about the US role in UN Peacekeeping?
-
A bit of both Toad.
-
I find them pretty much unrelated. Sorry.
In Powell I believe we will have a Secretary of State that actually understands the costs, the risks and the possibilities when politicians turn to force to execute political policy.
I see this as a benefit that we have not enjoyed for quite some time.
As for the missile defense, it may or may not be ready for deployment as yet. We've kept bigger things secret before. Anyone here know what the Aurora actually does? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
If it was ready and I was in charge, I'd be building it as fast as possible in secret using the funds from all those $600 hammers. I'd probably toss out a few well-publicised tests that failed as well. Disinformation, don't you know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If it wasn't ready, I'd sure keep up the research on it. Sooner or later there's going to be a need. Not just in the US but in countries around the world. Better to have this technology and never need it than to need it and not have it. Face it, there's some mighty BAD people out there.
All new technology ideas and concepts are intially derided as "impossible" and "prohibtively expensive". The naysayers are convinced they are right; they ridicule the dreamers. Then one fine day, a bright, determined guy who just won't give up finds the answer.
Read the story of Thomas Edison's search for a light bulb filament.
Believe. The human race is not done creating yet.
Edit:
OH, BTW Dowding...when are you Brits going to send a division down to Palestine and straighten out that mess? As I recall you guys figured pretty prominently in setting it all up. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Obviously, the US is too well identified with one side to take a military role, so how about we maintain Bosnia and you guys be totally responsible for Palestinian issues? Body count is up over 300 now, isn't it? Are you guys ready to act?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-17-2000).]
-
Dowding
I didn't say land mine the borders, that makes me a 'Compassionate Conservative' doesn't it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Not serious, not that cold hearted. Do believe we have our military in place without an end plan. Nothing like permanent deployment. I do not believe the US has to play global cop. All it does it makes us enemies around the globe.
I'm not against going in, kicking arse, setting it right and getting the hell out. ie Desert Storm. Plus it makes great tv and good material for Discovery Wings (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Mietla - I think you mistake NMD for the ICBM Early Warning System that has been around for decades. That does benefit us all, but NMD only benefits the States; the anti-ICBM missile system coverage does NOT extend to UK, and simply adds an incentive for a UK attack, with no benefit to the native population.
Huh? I did not say anything. I've been away for a while and you jump on me behind my back (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). But since you dragged me into it...
At least you are consistent. Your logic is actually prety straight forward:
"Benefits me? --- good, does not benefit me? --- bad." And you seem to evaluate your position daily.
A while ago we had a similar discussion. You had no problem whatsoever with UK bailing out of the treaty they had signed with Poland.
Neither you had a problem with Poland being sold to Soviets, when the war was over for you.
Heck, you had no problem with charging Polish government for planes and other war materiel used by Polish pilots who fought and died for your country in BoB.
US bases? good, they protect us.
Nukes/radars on bases? bad, they may make us a target.
Like Clinton, you "feel other people's pain", but you'd rather have someone else to send his money to pay for it and his son to die for it.
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 12-17-2000).]
-
First.
US is unable to make a reliable anti-ICBM system. They tried in 70-s and failed. According to the 1972 treaty USSR and USA had to chose one area to protect with ABM system. USA have chosen North Dakota, their ICBM farm. USSR have chosen Moscow. Now there is a second generation of ABMs around Moskow - a so-called "triangle" with a control center in Sofrino. This system is far beyond any US research, it's previous version intercepted ICBM warheads in early 70-s, while US can't make a single ABM even in 90-s.
Second.
This system has a capability to intercept no more then 5-10 warheads aimed at Moscow. It's no more then a protection from an accidental launch. So - I doubt that US is able to develop any kind of protection. They plan to deploy 110 ABMs, AFAIR. It's less then the quantity deployed around Moscow. Funny.
Third.
Early warning radars can be built only according to the same treaty. So - any new early warning station that US builds automaticaly violates this traty. (Played "F-19"? Remember that radar long-range site at Olenegorsk in Northern theatre? I've seen it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)).
Fourth.
AFAIU the whole NMD project is to satisfy the US military-industrial complex. Well, it's as useless as "peacekeeping" operations in Yugoslavia, but at least it doesn't suppose outright killing of innocent people and support for Moslim terrorists. Maybe it's better to leave the little boys play? Dowding, they will pay your government for the land they use! And noone will plan to nuke UK beause of that useless toys.
Looks like the US government's goal is to make the rest of the world angry and to feed their military-industrial complex (backward and ineffective) at any cost, including human lives. At least this was a policy in Klingon times. Wonder if Bush will be strong enough to break this trend.
P.S.: Don't take part 4 seriously, just think about what I said (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
First.
US is unable to make a reliable anti-ICBM system. They tried in 70-s and failed.
Now there is a second generation of ABMs around Moskow - a so-called "triangle" with a control center in Sofrino.
This system is far beyond any US research, it's previous version intercepted ICBM warheads in early 70-s, while US can't make a single ABM even in 90-s.
So - I doubt that US is able to develop any kind of protection.
I see the Russian propaganda machine is alive and well. Silly me, I had no idea that Russian technology was so cutting edge. I'm going right out to buy me a Bolshevik-III 5Ghz CPU (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-17-2000).]
-
Dowding,
A couple of points.
US and Britain are members of NATO. That treaty calls for mutual aid in the event of aggression. That means that if the US is attacked, YOU as a country and treaty signatory are involved. Therefor you are already a target. You have been ever since NATO was formed. No difference.
Great Britain does not now have a way to defend from an atomic missile attack. That means you're vulnerable today without the "missile umbrella". How could you be more vulnerable with it?
Those bases you dismiss so lightly. Do not think that there are no chances of any "special weapons" being there. Why do you think the US and Britain are interested in having a "forward defense" in Europe and a fall back position on an "unsinkable aircraft carrier"? There are quite a few bombers there that drop much more than mk82's and their "smart" brethren. That is to allow a starting point and a position to maintain the continent in the event of a theater wide conflict. The Soviets knew this and so does every other power there. Therefor GB is still a target.
It has been the policy of the US that the use of nuclear weapons would not be ruled out in a large scale invasion. GB also bought into that policy. That makes GB even more a target.
If you haven't figured it out yet you are on the second step out from the front lines in an east/west conflict assuming the Russians are the protagonists. You will be the third or fourth step out in the case of a Chinese protagonist. Lets not even think about a middle east eruption with weapons of mass destruction.
Finally let me reiterate that in the event of an attack on the US you are obligated by the treaty your government signed to become involved in the conflict, immediately. That goes for conventional as well as non conventional situations. All those who would think of an attack on the US know this. That means they know they would have to be prepared to deal with the Brits in that conflict as well.
Tell me how you are not a target at the present time. As far as I can see, you are more vulnerable with the US being vulnerable. If the US is taken out, who will pull your kidney pie out of the oven before it gets burnt???
Mav
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Finally let me reiterate that in the event of an attack on the US you are obligated by the treaty your government signed to become involved in the conflict, immediately.
Mav
He, he... we tried that once already in 1939.
-
LJK Raubvogel, even the S-225 ABMs intercepted ICBMs with multiple false-targets and active jammers in early 70-s. Interception thresholds were 300km - 5km, with 1 megaton warhead. Later the target selection (the part my Uncle worked on) and general accuracy was increased, so they switched to a conventional warhead. It's a fact. Call it propaganda if you wish. The next generation of Soviet ABMs is so far the only working missile-defence system. Look at the US progress - it haven't reached a Soviet late-60s level.
Maverick, noone has a way to defend from a massive atomic missile attack. Even the 110 proposed US ABMs with estimated hit ratio of 50% (very optimistic IMO) will intercept 55 warheads. It's 5 modern ICBMs.
Mietla - very well said!
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
So the NMD is supposed to protect the US from launches of missiles by terrorists or hostile nations?
To me, it would seem that the same guys who can smuggle in tons of coke can smuggle in a small nuclear device, drive it downtown Washington and set it off. Booom.
And the way I've read it building that NMD violates a 1972 missile treaty agreement. Does this not make the *Americans* the "aggressors" or direct cause of higher tensions?
Just curious.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
Do you really think a nuclear attack would come from above? I think it would be in a suitcase either carried (martyr) or mailed (Fed Ex, UPS, etc). Why risk a missile? China or whoever would just give the means to one of our enemies and have them do the dirty work. Imagine if the van in the World Trade Center would have been nuclear? Me don't see the missile threat. Me sees the terrorist threat. Maybe missiles after terrorist knock out major centers or cause mass confusion but terrorists 1st.
Eagler
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
To me, it would seem that the same guys who can smuggle in tons of coke can smuggle in a small nuclear device, drive it downtown Washington and set it off. Booom.
Yep, Santa. Except they'll probably pick NYC. They'd be doing us way to much of a favor if they took out DC while the government was in session and both houses of Congress in town.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As far as the treaty....Realpolitik says the former USSR doesn't even exist anymore and, in any event, they are not a true threat. It's like having a treaty with the old Roman Empire. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The true threat is now China and we don't have a treaty with them.
-
Toad, if Russia is not a successor of the USSR - then why the hell do we pay it's debts? Did you try to make the Roman Empire pay the debts?
Russia follows all the treaties signed by USSR. So should the US, but so far they have spat at all the international agreements that doesn't suite them.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Boroda,
With respect, the USSR is no more. I hope we have all found a better, non-antagonistic relationship with the various Republics that have emerged from what was the USSR.
Do you in Russia still feel that the US might unilaterally start a nuclear exchange with any of the former members of the USSR? I certainly hope not; I doubt very many people here view any of the Republics as "the enemy" now.
However, politics move on. The Chinese have publicly stated that they will launch nuclear ICBMS at Los Angeles in the event the US interferes with their coming showdown with Taiwan.
Where is the threat to the US now? Indeed, are not people who publicly threaten to launch nuclear ICMBS in a first strike a threat to the ENTIRE WORLD?
It would seem to be beneficial to all to have this anti-missile technology developed. Who would you prefer to own this technology first, the US or China? Which country do you think would use it in the best interest of the entire world?
The US and the former Soviet Republics are no longer enemies, IMHO. We do not threaten them and they do not threaten us. There is however, a new mutual threat that should be addressed. An old, outdated non-relevant treaty shouldn't stand in the way of that, IMO.
-
For a start, mietla, I keep mistaking you for miko2d. I don't know why, but it keeps happening. Sorry.
Mietla, you're right, we've had a similar discussion before (superficially similar mind you). I've also said that there is no way on Earth Britain could have got enough troops supplied, deployed and ready to halt the German invasion of Poland. We couldn't even stop them in France. That is a fact.
You now seem to be suggesting that Britain should have gone to war with the USSR in attempt to keep Poland free. Towards the end of the war, it became clear who the new enemy was - Stalin. The race was on to claim as much land as possible for the West, before communism over-ran everything. There was also a need to reach an agreement so that the Allies could re-group and have a bit of a breather - 6 years of total war had taken it out of Britain, by the way (it has never really recovered in terms of economy and military capability). It was clear Stalin was pretty much immovable on the subject of territory - how could Britain have taken back Poland or pushed back the USSR back to the borders of Russia at the negotiation table when you were dealing with Stalin?
Also remember that Britain and the US contemplated nuking Russia to win back Eastern Europe, but by that time Stalin had developed atomics for himself.
...died for your country in BoB.
They weren't just fighting for Britain - they were fighting for 'freedom' and for the people back home who had been put into forced labour camps, or worse.
"Benefits me? --- good, does not benefit me? --- bad." And you seem to evaluate your position daily.
Well thanks for telling me what I think, I appreciate it. But isn't that what Bush thinks? Benefit America - good (NMD). Doesn't benefit America - bad (Kosovo). I'm not being cynical when I say that self-interest if the underlying principal in all foreign policy.
Toad:
Of course the Middle East situation is all Britain's fault. Perhaps you could do the world a favour and nuke Britain - nothing good has ever come out of this country, except the American people, who are above all blame and have never, ever done anything questionable, abhorrant or 'evil'. Above all (literally), it's an irrefutable fact that no American government has ever made a mistake. Vietnam was a victory. God would never allow an error to be made by His country. The world's problems are all the fault of those god-damned Europeans. Let's buy up all their manufacturing industries and then lay all the workers off - that'll show them who's king of this castle. Keep that flag flying higher than the rest, boys, they might forget that we are superior. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Not serious, not that cold hearted.
Glad to hear it. But I think America would have enemies even if it was in splendid isolation; you would have to ban all American financial influence from anywhere outside the States to trully escape from the world.
That means you're vulnerable today without the "missile umbrella". How could you be more vulnerable with it?
The missile umbrella doesn't cover us, for a start. It only covers the States.
Finally let me reiterate that in the event of an attack on the US you are obligated by the treaty your government signed to become involved in the conflict, immediately. That goes for conventional as well as non conventional situations. All those who would think of an attack on the US know this. That means they know they would have to be prepared to deal with the Brits in that conflict as well.
Firstly, I really doubt that the UK government would respond with nuclear weapons if America was attacked on a limited scale (i.e. not a MAD type scenario). For instance, if Iraq somehow managed to get a nuclear bomb to detonate within a US city (either by ICBM or 'suitcase'). Conventional warfare would be used.
Secondly, we are already a target - of course I know that. But why add another reason to the list of why the UK should be obliterated? The way Bush seems to want it, US forces should be withdrawn from Europe ('wiping their own asses' as some great intellectual observed in this thread), yet Britain would still form a cornerstone of NMD (which doesn't cover the UK). It doesn't seem realistic to me.
BTW, I can't wait until we have a European superstate with the financial and military might of the States. I reckon we'll have it within 50 years. The world will be a much safer place with two democratic super-powers.
"unsinkable aircraft carrier".
I hate that phrase, BTW, it's so patronising. What good is an 'aircraft carrier' that is too radioactive to live on?
He, he... we tried that once already in 1939.
And wasn't war declared, despite the fact Hitler would have gladly have left Britain alone, if we had wanted it? We could have sued for peace after Dunkirk. But we didn't.
-
Toad, if you think that you are not obliged by treaties signed with USSR - then I think it's OK if Russia stops paying you back your money.
Looks like you don't know some things. Very sad for me, probably for you too. Current Russian military doctrine is based on a "PREVENTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE". We don't have 20000 tanks to stream towards the Atlantic any more (and I think it's not bad), and the only protection is the nuclaear shield. Security of my country now relies onto that 12-headed nuclear beasts.
Yes, the treaty is old and obsolete. But there is another case: modern big ICBMs are now going out of service according to USSR's treaties that we obey. And new small missiles are unable to penetrate the modern ABM system, like the one around Moscow. If in any case US succeeds in building NMD - we are helpless, take us with bare arms.
I am not reasoning here, just repeating opinions I've heard.
And I was frightened, REALLY frightened in Spring, 1999. You probably don't have any idea of how close Russia was to threatening nuclear strike...
Anyway - my strong wish is that status quo will be preserved.
As for Chneese - think about Siberia. They need space. That's where they can get it. Only one bomb to cut the tiny Transsib railroad line - and that's all. Baikal-Amur railroad is under conservation now, and it's one way, and useless in case of war. Tunnels at the north shore of Baikal can be destroyed for years with conventional bombs.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
For a start, mietla, I keep mistaking you for miko2d. I don't know why, but it keeps happening. Sorry.
No problem. My entire post was designed to yank your chain. I keep forgetting those silly faces. Here we go (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The bottom line is that I agree with you to a significant degree. Each nation's government has an obligation to this nation and nobody else. States enter the treaties to benefit themselves, and most treaties are mutually beneficial at first. The problem is that with time, the situation changes, and thus the willingness to keep the word diminishes.
I could say that I'm pretty sure that, had Hitler attacked GB first in 1939, Poland would start the war (not just the declare it) the next day, but that of course would be just an empty statement.
At the same time I'm sure that the Brits would be a bit "disappointed" if Hitler devoured them while France and Poland watched (after they declared war).
So, let's be honest here. You can't have it both ways. If you are willing to bail out of the treaty which is not convenient anymore, why would you be so upset if others would do it to you.
-
Dowding, you're too easy. I'll try to stop. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
However, I like your idea of a European super-state. I think if you guys can pull that off without killing each other again it would be great.
We'll go back to minding our own business here in the states because basically we (the real "average americans") have no desire whatsoever to be involved in world affairs other than open commerce. Washington laid it out for us at the very beginning.
You Euros can then go around trying to make the world conform to your particular image of paradise.
The problem IMHO is you keep attributing European characteristics/world views to us...and they just don't apply.
We're not the ones thinking that everyone should "conform" for the "common good". To the contrary, this county was based on having the liberty to be different as long as you are not damaging anyone else.
Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice are going to start bringing US troops home where they belong. It's long overdue. We never wanted to be the world's police force. We'll probably develop an effective large "quick reaction" force but it should be based here. Maybe we'll finally get our Armed Forces down to an equivalent size for the average European country as a % of population, funded by an average % of GDP. (Man, just think of all we could spend on health care and education THEN...without raising taxes!)
As for Palestine, I was just wondering why I'm not hearing your pleas for a UN force to go in and "save the world". You seem to be stuck on Kosovo. Don't care for Palestinians or what? 300 dead not enough to stir you to action? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Once again, with apologies to Country Joe and the Fish:
"Yeah, come on all of you European men,
The UN needs your help again.
The world’s got itself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in the Holy Land
So put down your babes and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is the Holy Land;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die."
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Very well said Toad. You've pretty much summed up my feelings on our role as "peacekeepers."
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-18-2000).]
-
What Toad said!
Eagler
-
Boroda, why would anyone think the US would attack the any of the Republics?
What danger does the US present to them? Do we desire territory? No. Do we threaten to invade? No. Do we threaten to launch nuclear missiles at ANYONE? No.
In fact, we offer help whenever we can.
Right now China is the nation threatening to nuke the US. Why should it seem strange that we would want to research a defense against that threat?
The treaty can always be renegotiated, with a provision for sharing the technology.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-18-2000).]
-
CNN website, 20Dec00:
"The deaths brought the toll to 368 people, most of them Palestinians, killed in a Palestinian uprising that erupted in late September."
-
I wasn't wound up, guys, I was just enjoying the opposition. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
A wise man fights the battles he can win.
That is something that has been true both in war and peace for thousands of years. Only martyrs and desperados think otherwise.
If the Europeans (and Americans who don't agree with you, of which this BB is generally not representative) were intent on creating a 'paradise' based on some altruistic ideal, then we'd be in Zimbabwe and another half-dozen 'hot-spots'. The truth is it would be too costly financially and politically to do such a thing; stability in the Western democracies might be compromised.
But where we can make a difference, we should make a difference, especially when it's on the same continent. Moreover, if we want stability in our countries, considering the many ethnic tensions already present, preventing preventable ethnic conflict overseas is good foreign policy.
In relation to the US Armed Forces overseas, withdraw all American troops from abroad and your grand-children will pay for it. If anything can be learned from the 20th century, it's that isolationism and appeasement do not work.
As for Israel etc., what could a UN force do there? The Arabs are not isolated, but are in fact well supplied by sympathetic nations. It would be hard for a bunch of caucasian troops to be seen as objective, and would be targetted by Arabs whom it would be hard to isolate.
As for the number of dead, in some African countries 368 people die every DAY.