Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: texace on July 18, 2001, 02:48:00 PM
-
Much as everyone hates to admit it, it will happen. All this s*** stirred up by the missile defense system is only going to become worse. Someone is going to get pissed off and push the red button. I would advise in the next 3 years move away from any large cities or major military production facility. I don't like the way this is turning out.
Remember the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well I think Bush is going under "If it ain't broke, yer not trying."
I appreciate the effort, but I think he could have left well enough alone.
-
Wasn't this going on since 60's? Whats the point? If we launch nukes or they, we'll both die...
-
Yeah, it's Bush.... or was it Clinton that deferred the decision to deploy? He could have killed the project, couldn't he?
This project proceeded with full funding for 8 years under Clinton, didn't it? Had plenty of chances to leave it out of the budget didn't he? Wonder why Clinton didn't do that.
Nah... you're right, it's Bush. Blame HIM for what Clinton didn't do to please you.
:rolleyes:
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
"". Someone is going to get pissed off and push the red button. ""
yeah , right....i think someone watches too many die hard movies
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yeah, it's Bush.... or was it Clinton that deferred the decision to deploy? He could have killed the project, couldn't he?
This project proceeded with full funding for 8 years under Clinton, didn't it? Had plenty of chances to leave it out of the budget didn't he? Wonder why Clinton didn't do that.
Nah... you're right, it's Bush. Blame HIM for what Clinton didn't do to please you.
:rolleyes:
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
Hey, this things been going on longer than Clinton ... I worked on the original Site Defense Program when I worked for TRW way back in 1975. Of course, back then there was a bit more concern, than today, but it seems that politicians on both sides of the house have been keeping this one alive.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yeah, it's Bush.... or was it Clinton that deferred the decision to deploy? He could have killed the project, couldn't he?
This project proceeded with full funding for 8 years under Clinton, didn't it? Had plenty of chances to leave it out of the budget didn't he? Wonder why Clinton didn't do that.
Nah... you're right, it's Bush. Blame HIM for what Clinton didn't do to please you.
:rolleyes:
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
This isn't entirely true. Sure... the plan in each Program Objective Memoranda (POM) is for 6 years, but the budget doesn't get authorized until approximately two years prior to the execution year. Need to refresh my memory on the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) but the money is not budgeted even six years in advance, let alone eight.
For example, we are currently in a POM review year for FY03 and beginning preparations for POM04 submittals. It's been only a few months since we've seen the President's Budget for FY02.
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
Exactly, Buhdman.
Every single US Citizen has had a hand in this. We don't watch what Congress is doing and we don't toss out the people that aren't doing what we desire.
Notice how it's always the OTHER states' Congressmen that are screw-ups? It's never "our" guy... it's "your" guy that's porking the program.
So now let's hang this all on GWBj. Forget Clinton just had 8 years to speak out against it.
It's a long way from passing Congress for deployment. Let's see how many of these Chicken Littles actually take the time to write their "good" Congressman and my "bad" Congressman... in fact all the little Congressmen... when the time comes to speak their will on the subject.
Don't hold your collective breath!
Sandman, each year the President submits a budget though, correct? For the upcoming fiscal year? Who, in the end, holds the responsibility for what is submitted to the Congress in the budget?
I believe it's the President, correct? Each President (theoretically) chooses what to leave in and what to leave out?1
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
It's a very large green button actuallty.
-
True. The President's Budget comes out every year, but the plan is not necessarily his. The services submit their budget proposals for ultimate approval by the President. Sure, Clinton could have simply squashed the program, but then there would probably still have been some latitude for the services to conduct technology demonstrations and experiments without it being a full-blown defense program. There's nothing in the ABM treaty (I believe) that prohibits the United States from investigating ABM technologies; we simply can't field anything.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is the intent. Bush intends to field an ABM system.
-
Doesn't matter what color the button is. If a nuclear war happens, not much will survive. Earth will certainly become uninhabitable.
I think that all sides that possess nuclear weapons know this. Why do you think they haven't outright just launched them when they wanted to?
It's a last resort weapon.
What we should be afraid of are those unstable smaller nuclear countries that have their head powers capitulating weekly.
You never know who will be dangling their hand over the launch button the next week.
-SW
-
Really?
So what then was Clinton's intent in funding it throughout his Presidency?
-
hope it doesn't happen before 1.08 :)
"paranoia - big destroyer"
I think you have a better chance of winning the lottery than dying in a nuclear war :)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Really?
So what then was Clinton's intent in funding it throughout his Presidency?
to pass the buck, like he did other most things that Bush is getting blamed for now, 6 months vs 8 years. FBI is another great example. It was one big party up there for the last eight years and Bush looks like the bad guy trying to get it straight again.
-
Funny how this kind of discussion always divides along party lines. I can't see a party difference on this (or most things), and it certainly has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush (or Bush pere, for that matter). If you want to blame any president, look at Reagan, since SDI started with him. But it wasn't his idea either.
It was Ike who spoke about the "Military/Industrial Complex", and thats where stuff like this comes from. Projects acquire their own inertia and are maintained by political "best interests", and don't give a damn about parties.
- Yoj
-
Yoj shoots! Yoj scores!
I agree.
It is up to the Citizenry to exercise oversight.
We didn't. So we don't have the right to b*tch now.
When it comes up for the deployment vote we get another chance.
As if the great mass of Entertainment Tonight! worshippers will even notice. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yoj shoots! Yoj scores!
I agree.
It is up to the Citizenry to exercise oversight. :eek:
Good luck. The Citizenry doesn't get to see the POM in all it's grizzly detail. Until it becomes a major acquisition program, you probably won't know it exists. Look to your chosen representatives in the respective defense appropriations committees of the House and Senate.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Really?
So what then was Clinton's intent in funding it throughout his Presidency?
Because we had to keep up with the technology in the event that the Soviet Union (Russia) might violate the treaty (as we are about to).
-
Toad, don't tell fairy tales about "democracy" and "people's decision".
Americans, or their Congress will vote exactly as they will be supposed to. The party that will have more money and access to media will win undoubtely. "Democratical process" will finaly end up as something like Lokheed against NMD in case McDonnel will get the contract, and vise versa.
It happens everywhere, in Russia (Putin's elections), Europe, etc. :(
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
Because we had to keep up with the technology in the event that the Soviet Union (Russia) might violate the treaty (as we are about to).
We're about to violate the treaty?
We may withdraw, but they've already said they won't violate it.
I'm sure you are aware of this part of the treaty, so why do you try to put the negative spin on it?
"TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS
Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
Article XV
1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty...
Your aside reminds me of Hitler’s Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, who once boasted: ‘Tell a big enough lie often enough and people will believe it’s true.’
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Well, Boroda, must be tough for a guy used to continually and completely rigged elections to accept that the people do have the ability to remove a politician and replace him.
If the US citizens fail to exercise their obligation to oversee the process, they have no one to blame but themselves for what happens.
There will be lively debate about this one for sure. The result is unforseeable at this point. I think it will have a lot to do with world events. If North Korea tests another missile across Japan or something similar happens, it might pass easily. If things stay pretty quiet and stable, it will probably not pass. Just my speculation.
-
LOL, Boroda, you poor, poor, little man.
-
My god, Toad. You cry about how Bush is being unfairly accused of starting the whole ABM testing thing when blame should be placed a Clinton's feet. Then, two people knowledgable of these projects at some level explain the bureaucracy of it all, and how it really isn't influenced much by the Presidency. You ignore that part, and promptly ask why Clinton funded it. Someone else brings up the suggestion that maybe it's not something that can really be placed along party lines, but may be the action of the government and military/industrial complex, in general. You then applaud that person for seeing the light. You are a riot! Have you considered running for political office, because you definitely have what it takes ;)
Don't mean to be cruel, Toad, but I couldn't help it :)
-
I prefer to take the things out of the political context, whenever possible. What I mean is, I look at, say, SDI, and don't really care about who did it.
I look at it from the standpoint of: Is this a good thing or a bad thing. SDI is a good thing, and every nation should be putting it in the field ASAP.
It is not that nations will build more nukes to defeat it; it is that they should all build it so that nukes are worthless.
Politics can be layered on to any subject, but by the same token, they should be removed.
-
Leonid, look at it as an evolutionary thread. Really; read it step by step.
Notice particularly that almost all the posts are framed as questions.
I like the Socratic method. :D
Sorry, I could never be an politican. I passed an integrity test. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
We're about to violate the treaty?
We may withdraw, but they've already said they won't violate it.
I'm sure you are aware of this part of the treaty, so why do you try to put the negative spin on it?
...yadda yadda yadda...
[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
Violate... withdraw... whatever.
-
Yeah, the meaning of words.
How immaterial THAT is to an argument, eh? :D
-
The end result is the same, an increase in MIRV threats.
-
That would simply be mere speculation on your part. Nothing has been decided as yet, so there's nothing to support your hypothesis.
As a side note, it would still be highly unlikely that the number of MIRV's would ever reach the previous highs. The world survived that, too, for an awfully long time without mishap.
The main point, however, is that your choice of terminology is just one more example of your non-stop campaign to negatively characterize the US in any way you can. Deliberately using an incorrect and negative connotation that simply isn't true, for example.
-
If the bombs didn't fly during Kennedy's administration, they're not gonna be flying now either.
More MIRVs... so what? does that really increase the chances that Russia, China or US will use them? Besides, if a 16 ton lead weight fell on you (a la Looney Toons) would you be any more dead if a 1 ton weight fell on you?
I'm against the deployment, because it's pointless. If there's a full scale launch, we're all dying. Plain and simple. You may not get incinerated, but you will die from the radiation. However, I don't think this will ever happen. We'd go through a Deep Impact/Armaggedon scenario before we go through a The Last Day (whatever that movie in the 80's was) scenario.
-
Yep, Cuba was the test, an "excuse" like that to launch is not likely to come again in our lifetimes.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
That would simply be mere speculation on your part. Nothing has been decided as yet, so there's nothing to support your hypothesis.
Not mine. Putin has stated as much.
-
Speculation until and if it happens.
The Putin/NATO thing would make that interesting as well.
[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Toad, with such logics we can call all NMD program a speculation.
-
Exactly... Putin has stated in no uncertain terms that if the United States fields an NMD system, Russia will increase the number of MIRVs on their ICBMs.
Doesn't sound speculative to me.
-
what Nifty said
how many nukes do you think it takes to destroy a city? whats the big deal if putin increases his warhead count? they can destroy us now 100 times over and us them. all this hoopla over a defensive weapon amazes me. sounds like the ruskies just needed an excuse to publicly play with their nukes. he's probably thankful for the excuse, though he better be sure to point a few more at his new red friend..
-
The more warheads Russia has, the more they can lose, or sell, the more that can end up in a smaller "rogue" state.
-
Pretty funny how now we fear total nuclear war when before there was some threat of a few rogue nation nuclear warheads :).
Yeah yeah, I know.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Toad, don't tell fairy tales about "democracy" and "people's decision".
Her is talking about US, not Russia.
Americans, or their Congress will vote exactly as they will be supposed to.
Supposed by whom? Was last year 50/50 (withing a fraction of one percent) result planned and staged by someone? It wouls be much easier to stage a victory by a significant margin then an almost even score.
The party that will have more money and access to media will win undoubtely.
We have only two parties worth mentioning - Democratic and Republican. They raise similar amounts of money and similar access to media.
miko
-
The difference between Clinton and Bush is the intent. Bush intends to field an ABM system.[/QB][/QUOTE]
So, somehow it's better that Clinton continued funding a program he had no intention of building? PORK!!!!!!!!!
And who benefitted from his sabre rattling? The Chinese, the arms dealers, and the DNC.
I am ambivalent to missile defense, but this thread interests me for it's political flavor...always interesting to hear viewpoints OTHER than the ones we are told we should have here in the U.S.
However, in my childlike heart of hearts, I wish Bush had said "I am going to be the President that takes man back to the moon and starts us on a course for permanent existence on other worlds."
Disappointed, as usual.
PapaH
:(