Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    11.30.17 @ 06:15 PM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    Ballsy move. Steps on a lot of toes, stirs up a bunch of politics.....

    quote:
    WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, anxious to deploy a missile shield long sought by Republicans, will soon give Russia notice that the United States is withdrawing from a landmark 1972 nuclear treaty, U.S. government officials said Tuesday. The pact bans missile defense systems.

    He will announce the decision in the next several days, effectively invoking a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that requires the United States and Russia to give six months' notice before abandoning the pact.

    Initial White House plans called for announcing the decision Thursday, but officials cautioned that date could change. The four government officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

    With the decision, Bush takes a huge step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that he says will protect the United States and its allies, including Russia, from missiles fired by rogue nations.


    Bush has said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system.

    Russia and many U.S. allies have warned Bush that withdrawing from the pact might trigger a nuclear arms race. Critics of the plan also question whether an effective system can be developed without enormous expense.

    Conservative Republicans have urged Bush to scuttle the ABM, rejecting proposals to amend the pact or find loopholes allowing for tests.

    The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Bob Stump, R-Ariz., said he has received no advance tip from the administration, but he backs the plan.

    "There's all these questions about Russia upholding their end of the treaty anyway, and I just don't think we should penalize ourselves," Stump said. "We shouldn't delay our ballistic missile defense. If it takes withdrawing from the ABM treaty, that's fine."

    Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told CNN he was opposed to pulling out of the pact. "It is not a good idea. It would be a real setback for defense and foreign policy to violate the ABM treaty." He added: "It's a slap in the face for many people who have committed years if not decades" to arms control.

    The president defended his push for a missile shield during a national security speech Tuesday at the Citadel in South Carolina.

    "For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work," Bush said. "In order to do so, we must move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that was written in a different era, for a different enemy."

    "America and our allies must not be bound to the past. We must be able to build the defenses we need against the enemies of the 21st century," he said.

    According to Bush administration officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured Bush during their October talks in Washington and Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russian relations would not suffer even if Bush pulled out of the treaty.

    They said Bush's decision reflects a desire by the Pentagon to conduct tests in the next six months or so that would violate the ABM.

    Tests may be conducted on sea-based radars and missile interceptors, which could be fielded in combination with the land-based systems that the Pentagon has been testing for years and which are permitted under the treaty.

    The Pentagon later might test space-based missile defense technologies.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that even after the administration gave notice of its intent to withdraw, the administration would be interested in continuing discussions with the Russians on an arrangement to replace the ABM treaty. If that produced agreement within six months, there would be no need for a formal withdrawal.

    The decision came as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in Moscow, said Russia and the United States are near agreement on drastic cuts in long-range nuclear arsenals.

    But the U.S.-Russian disagreement over missile defense is so deep that Russia is bracing for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from the landmark ABM treaty, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told a joint news conference with Powell on Monday.

    Another major nuclear treaty, the 1993 START II treaty to reduce stockpiles of long-range nuclear warheads to 3,000 to 3,500 by 2003, appeared to be in jeopardy.

    The Cold War-era ABM treaty is based on the proposition that stripping a nuclear power of a tough defense against missile attack would inhibit launching an attack because the retaliation would be deadly.

    Past supporters of the treaty, such as former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, support Bush in his view the world has changed over the past three decades.

    Russia is no longer an enemy, and the United States needs to mount a defense against potential attack from North Korea, Iran or other states with nuclear ambitions, they say.

    But Jack Mendelsohn, a former U.S. negotiator, sharply criticized Bush's decision.

    At a time when the United States seeks allied support in coalition operations against terrorism, Mendelsohn said Tuesday "to unilaterally abrogate part of a formal treaty structure makes no bloody sense."


    Sometimes people can get so cranky, even if its for the better good of a new generation. Pride. Pride in invested time and thought.

    Your thoughts?
    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

  2. #2
    Sinner's Swing!
    Join Date
    03.09.00
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    3,412
    Favorite VH Album

    A Different Kind of Truth
    Favorite VH Song

    As Is
    Last Online

    10.09.12 @ 02:50 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Bush has said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system. <hr></blockquote>

    So it wasn't needed so much when the Soviet Union had 5000 warheads pointed at the US, but now it's needed more after 19 guys armed with boxcutters crashed planes into buildings?
    Delusions of eloquence

  3. #3
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    Don't rock the boat, Jonathan. We all know there's no effective defense against terrorists, but saying that will frighten people, so don't do that.

    Beyond all of the stir around NBMD (you wanna know why it won't work? Look at our old topics on it!), it'll make securing treaties that much more difficult for us in the future. Our good will won't be worth near as much as it was prior to this decision.

  4. #4
    Eruption BigBadBrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.27.00
    Age
    53
    Location
    A Fat City Address on Mean Street
    Posts
    1,402
    Favorite VH Album

    VH II
    Favorite VH Song

    Any Song Hagar Doesn't Sing
    Last Online

    08.12.10 @ 07:15 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Without releasing any classified info, I was part of a Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD)project in the early to mid 90's. The technology does exist and it DOES work. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
    "Tardy? I don't feel tardy!"

    "I won't go down in history, but I will go down on your sister!" - DLR

    Pride and Glory - the Packer Story!

  5. #5
    Atomic Punk FORD's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.26.00
    Age
    51
    Location
    The Mighty Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,807
    Favorite VH Album

    All 6 of em!!
    Favorite VH Song

    Unchained
    Last Online

    10.22.17 @ 08:55 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Junior must be back on the Peruvian flake.

    There is no fucking way in Hell that his Star Wars toys would have done a goddamn bit of good on September 11th. Nobody thought of commercial airliners as "weapons" before then, and they certainly wouldn't have launched a missile at one

    (except possibly TWA flight 800. We may never know the real story there...)

    Bush, like his last several Republican predecessors, simply won't stop until he's built up trillions of dollars of debt on a bunch of bullshit that has no real use in the real world.

    It's as simple as this.... If the Russians start launching nukes, we'll launch them right back and the fucking world is over. So who needs Star Wars for that? Furthermore, the Cold War is over, and for the time being, nobody expects the Russians to nuke us. And to my knowledge, nobody else has missiles with that sort of range.

    Fuck it.... why bankrupt the world for a useless system?

    [ December 11, 2001 at 06:59 PM: Message edited by: FORD ]</p>
    Eat Us And Smile

    Welcome back, Van HALEN!!!!

    ...It's the BAND and Dave is really the cat that can front VH. He sang his ASS off and was really cool. No cheese here guys, this is filet Mignon! - Steve Lukather's comment after witnessing a Van HALEN 2007 rehearsal

    "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?"- 1 Samuel 15:14

  6. #6
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by BigBadBrian:
    Without releasing any classified info, I was part of a Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD)project in the early to mid 90's. The technology does exist and it DOES work. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

    Yup. TBMD is both needed and possible. Unfortunately, there are completely different issues surrounding NBMD, and NBMD is neither needed nor technologically sound.

  7. #7
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    11.30.17 @ 06:15 PM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    quote:
    Originally posted by FORD:
    Junior must be back on the Peruvian flake.

    There is no fucking way in Hell that his Star Wars toys would have done a goddamn bit of good on September 11th. Nobody thought of commercial airliners as "weapons" before then, and they certainly wouldn't have launched a missile at one

    (except possibly TWA flight 800. We may never know the real story there...)

    Bush, like his last several Republican predecessors, simply won't stop until he's built up trillions of dollars of debt on a bunch of bullshit that has no real use in the real world.

    It's as simple as this.... If the Russians start launching nukes, we'll launch them right back and the fucking world is over. So who needs Star Wars for that? Furthermore, the Cold War is over, and for the time being, nobody expects the Russians to nuke us. And to my knowledge, nobody else has missiles with that sort of range.

    Fuck it.... why bankrupt the world for a useless system?

    [ December 11, 2001 at 06:59 PM: Message edited by: FORD ]



    Wow. I think your missing the logic FORD. I'm sure he realizes that they would not have done a bit of good on 9-11. But I'm also sure he realizes that those events have exposed some pretty realistic threats with terrorists having access to weapons technology that they never had before. The russian mafia sells anything to the highest bidder and they (from what I gather) have quite a bit to sell. Nukes are a real threat now, probably more than they have been in the last 15 years.

    The war is certainly not with Russia. Thats totally not what this is about.


    edit note- I had FORD confused with MikeL in the quote [img]redface.gif[/img] Doh!!

    [ December 11, 2001 at 09:14 PM: Message edited by: seenbad ]

    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

  8. #8
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by seenbad:
    The russian mafia sells anything to the highest bidder and they (from what I gather) have quite a bit to sell. <hr></blockquote>

    There's a considerable difference between having access to a nuclear warhead, and having the skills/tools/resources needed to support the launch of an ICBM. Especially older Russian ones. It's not reasonable to assume that a terrorist group would have the resources to acquire both a missile and its warhead(s), and then be able to launch it successfully.

    It is reasonable to assume that they might have access to a warhead. How do you keep a warhead from entering Puget Sound? NBMD sure won't stop that.

    Along the same lines, once NBMD is in place these hypothetical terrorists won't bother even thinking about the missile (which we both now understand that they can't aquire/maintain/launch).

    In the end, what has this accomplished? We're back to the nuke floating into Puget Sound.

  9. #9
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    11.30.17 @ 06:15 PM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    quote:
    Originally posted by MikeL:


    There's a considerable difference between having access to a nuclear warhead, and having the skills/tools/resources needed to support the launch of an ICBM. Especially older Russian ones. It's not reasonable to assume that a terrorist group would have the resources to acquire both a missile and its warhead(s), and then be able to launch it successfully.



    Wow, kind of risky thinking if you ask me. I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet x # of lives on the arguement "its not reasonable". Why isnt it? Granted its not the easiest or most likely thing to happen, but in this day and age, I'd say it was our biggest threat. Plus, match a terrorist agenda up with say a N. Korea interest or two (not to mention Iraq), and what do you get? A very shady combo of low tech angry religious jihad on a mission from god matched with a third world country wanting to jump on to at least the second tier. Sounds like a win win from their perspective I'd say. Even that could be far fetched and very circumstantial, I know that, but the possibility cant be ignored can it? Not imo. You could come up with a million scenerios like that. Chances are, you could combat 95 percent as impossible or as unlikely as all possible, but that would still leave a big question mark out there on 50k scenerios wouldnt it? [img]smile.gif[/img]

    As for your analogy with the peugot sound, thats a good one and your right. It wouldnt do anything for that.
    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

  10. #10
    Atomic Punk FORD's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.26.00
    Age
    51
    Location
    The Mighty Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,807
    Favorite VH Album

    All 6 of em!!
    Favorite VH Song

    Unchained
    Last Online

    10.22.17 @ 08:55 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    The best defense against nukes in Puget Sound would be the nukes already in Puget Sound at the Bangor submarine base.

    Obviously, I'm a little biased, but any nukes launched from the Puget Sound would be a really really bad idea. Especially if they aim for the State Capitol, in which case I'm fucked [img]graemlins/scared.gif[/img]
    Eat Us And Smile

    Welcome back, Van HALEN!!!!

    ...It's the BAND and Dave is really the cat that can front VH. He sang his ASS off and was really cool. No cheese here guys, this is filet Mignon! - Steve Lukather's comment after witnessing a Van HALEN 2007 rehearsal

    "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?"- 1 Samuel 15:14

  11. #11
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by seenbad:


    Wow, kind of risky thinking if you ask me. I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet x # of lives on the arguement "its not reasonable". Why isnt it?
    <hr></blockquote>

    It might seem risky, but take a few moments and do some reading on ICBMs. They're fragile, tempermental beasts that'll eat their operators for breakfast at the very first careless mistake. The ones in the silos are designed only to be launched from the silos. The liquid-fueled ones can't sit in a fueled state, and the fuel itself is one of the most volatile substances that rocket-scientists ( [img]smile.gif[/img] ) have managed to come up with. You also have to take into account the monitoring that goes one between the Russians and ourselves, as per treaty.

    Starting to dismantle arms control treaties cuts in more than one way.

    The most likely 'purchase' attempt would be on one of the mobile ICBMs. Those are Russia's crown jewels, and are the equivalent to someone stealing one of our B-2s. It's more trouble than the risk is worth.

    Particularly when you can simply float a nuke into Puget Sound. Why go to the expense/danger/possibility of failure associated with an ICBM?

    If the government really wanted to safeguard a maximum number of lives against a realistically possible threat, they'd be issuing NBC suits to each and every one of us. Not only would it be cheaper than NBMD, but it'd protect us against a much more likely threat. How hard is it for someone with a commercial license to purchase chemicals necessary for building a chemical weapon right here in the US? Terrorists have already shown a penchant for using our systems against us. I think something along those lines is more likely (hell, with the anthrax attack it has happened!) than them mangaging to procure an ICBM and warhead.

    Rogue states? People always bring that up, but never follow it to it's conclusion. This NBMD is designed to defeat a very limited number of incoming RVs. Why would a rogue state launch a limited number of missiles at us? They'd simply be wiped out by our retaliation. It's not hard to determine where a missile is launched from. We have systems in place to detect launches instantaniously.

    There'd be no benefit found by a rogue state in launching a missile at us. It would simply lead to their complete and utter destruction less than an hour later. They know that.

    This brings us to the idea of being in a conventional war with a rogue state, with them losing. If they've got an ICBM, they have to threaten to use it. And of course we can't back down. So they launch. Does NBMD protect us from that?

    No. TBMD would be in place (we're already at war with them, and prosecuting it successfully) and make the interception over enemy territory. Better to kill it in its boost phase over the bad guy, than to try and kill it while it's over Washington D.C.

  12. #12
    Damage your reputation seenbad's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.00
    Age
    45
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    26,946
    Favorite VH Album

    Halen 1
    Favorite VH Song

    I'm the one
    Last Online

    11.30.17 @ 06:15 PM
    Likes
    73
    Liked 257 Times in 92 Posts


    Donor

    All very good points that I cant argue. But there is still a chance....as far as handing out suits as a cheaper alternative, refer to your comment to jonathan about rocking the boat. Public perception and all that. Never happen. And as for them "knowing" that they would be creamed soon after.....so? Like they give a shit about that. This would be for god. Their lives and ours dont matter. Cant forget that element of thinking, or try to apply it to ours. But really, it wouldnt be able to happen on their own. They would need to comprimise reasoning behind such a thing with another entity. I agree, this is totally fringe, but so is bin laden and kim jung il etc..

    I certainly cant say I'm not flexible in my thinking on this stuff. But it sure does seem like there is a lot left open ended. I doubt any one of us knows exactly what capabilities or aliances one of the rogue entities holds. Thats probably why you see them brought up but never to conclusion. 1. They are not taken seriously enough for some to think about a whole lot, yet bring them up on occasion to bolster a political point....pfft. 2. People dont really know enough about their specific capabilities to tie them to anything specific being that out of 10k of them, maybe 10 have power, money, alliances or both and they are pretty adept at keeping their agendas stealth.
    sheepa latta peepah dabba looka foh a moopy

    Gunter glieben glauchen globen

  13. #13
    Atomic Punk MikeL's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.17.00
    Posts
    11,536
    Last Online

    03.03.15 @ 08:31 PM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 2 Times in 1 Post


    Donor

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by seenbad:
    People dont really know enough about their specific capabilities to tie them to anything specific being that out of 10k of them, maybe 10 have power, money, alliances or both and they are pretty adept at keeping their agendas stealth.<hr></blockquote>

    I think we know enough about the various rogue states to judge their level of expertise in some fields. It took North Korea some 30+ years to develop a rocket that can get beyond the far side of Japan. Nations like Pakistan and India have spent huge sums in both money and time to gain nuclear capability, yet neither yet posesses the ability to make an ICBM to go along with their bomb. In the early 80's Iraq purchased a reactor from France that would have been capable of producing materials for a bomb. Israel destroyed it before it ever became operational.

    It's damn difficult and expensive to design and build both an ICBM and a warhead. The UK found it to be too expensive, and purchased American SLBMs instead. It's not a trivial thing to do.

    We're going to spend money that we don't necessarily have on a system that may or may not work, and isn't necessary. It'll cost us a fair amount of good will amongst nations that we might want to sign treaties with, and cause trepedation amongst our allies. It doesn't seem like a good buy, or a good time to be shopping.

    I'm all for continuing the development of these systems. It's their deployment in the immediate future that I question. There are serious doubts as to whether the system as envisioned will function as designed. Why not continue the developement, and prepare them for deployment (partially-capable or not) when a threat begins to emerge? It would seem to be a more prudent course of action than the one we are about to embark on.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. We should nuke Iran
    By Phatie in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 09.11.06, 06:15 AM
  2. The Serious Goddamn Nuke Thread!
    By janthraxx in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09.18.05, 01:30 AM
  3. Valentines Internet Suicide Pact
    By Phatie in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02.13.05, 08:32 PM
  4. North Korea pulls out of Nuclear Pact
    By ericgtr in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01.13.03, 08:32 PM
  5. A reason to Nuke...
    By el_jalepeno in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09.14.02, 01:26 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •