1972 ABM Treaty
- Thread starter Snuffaluffaguss
- Start date
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 32
- 81
Yeah, I don't know if this was an appropriate time. I think he could have eventually worked something out with Russia.
The Bush Adminstration just must love to do big things on my birthday! A year ago today, Bush was declared the winner of the 2000 Presidential Election. Now this.
The Bush Adminstration just must love to do big things on my birthday! A year ago today, Bush was declared the winner of the 2000 Presidential Election. Now this.
I hate arrogant republican regimes... One day the actions of these bimbos are going to come back and bite us in the arse, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the form of some new arms race...
Besides, I didn't know you can just back out of treaties just like that...
Besides, I didn't know you can just back out of treaties just like that...
n 1972, it stood for America's Biggest Mistake.
Bravo. It's about time we ditched this ill-conceived cold war relic.
Bravo. It's about time we ditched this ill-conceived cold war relic.
This treaty aside, shouldn't we ask ourselves what the use is of a missile defense shield?
The main problems I see with such a system include that fact that it's a very ineffective system, it's very expensive to build and to maintain plus it would be ineffective against terrorist attacks and new generations of missiles which would have their own defense system, or travel under water and emerge right in front of the coastline.
IMHO it's a big waste of money, and not a wise move for a country of which the economy is in a recession.
The main problems I see with such a system include that fact that it's a very ineffective system, it's very expensive to build and to maintain plus it would be ineffective against terrorist attacks and new generations of missiles which would have their own defense system, or travel under water and emerge right in front of the coastline.
IMHO it's a big waste of money, and not a wise move for a country of which the economy is in a recession.
<< n 1972, it stood for America's Biggest Mistake.
Bravo. It's about time we ditched this ill-conceived cold war relic. >>
If it triggers a new international arms race, then you are wrong, and it is not just a cold-war relic. So I hope you are right. Otherwise, we need to get Bush and his bozos the FvCK out of office.
<< One day the actions of these bimbos are going to come back and bite us in the arse, >>
is that what Monica did to the democratic Bill Clinton?
:Q<<
<< One day the actions of these bimbos are going to come back and bite us in the arse, >>
is that what Monica did to the democratic Bill Clinton?
:Q >>I don't know, but I guess we can assume you've lived a pious and moral life and have no skeletons in your closet... Anyway whats your point that relates to this again?
busmaster11
So far you've not made ONE point!
Come up with some reasons the treaty should remain in place and quit your pitiful whining.
So far you've not made ONE point!
Come up with some reasons the treaty should remain in place and quit your pitiful whining.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
<<
If it triggers a new international arms race, then you are wrong, and it is not just a cold-war relic. So I hope you are right. Otherwise, we need to get Bush and his bozos the FvCK out of office. >>
Who ya gonna call?
If it triggers a new international arms race, then you are wrong, and it is not just a cold-war relic. So I hope you are right.
Well, I hope I'm right, too. But exactly with whom will we start an international arms race? The Soviet Union finally collapsed because we outspent it, imo. Big missles take big $. Had we actually gone warhead-to-warhead, it conceivably might have collapsed earlier. I don't see a credible enemy on the horizon that wants to start a traditional throw-weight contest with the U.S. Probable enemies don't have that kind of scratch.
If we're smart (and sometimes I wonder if we are), we'll start engineering research on the missle shield and invite Russia to share with the work and in the results. It will give something for their scientists to do and put some sorely needed $ in their economy. Putin seems to have realized that he can do a lot more for his country by tagging along with us than he can by pulling our beard.
Anything to give these yahoos a pause (like a relentless bombing campaign?) is worth it. China needs to be assuaged, probably, but that's a different story.
Well, I hope I'm right, too. But exactly with whom will we start an international arms race? The Soviet Union finally collapsed because we outspent it, imo. Big missles take big $. Had we actually gone warhead-to-warhead, it conceivably might have collapsed earlier. I don't see a credible enemy on the horizon that wants to start a traditional throw-weight contest with the U.S. Probable enemies don't have that kind of scratch.
If we're smart (and sometimes I wonder if we are), we'll start engineering research on the missle shield and invite Russia to share with the work and in the results. It will give something for their scientists to do and put some sorely needed $ in their economy. Putin seems to have realized that he can do a lot more for his country by tagging along with us than he can by pulling our beard.
Anything to give these yahoos a pause (like a relentless bombing campaign?) is worth it. China needs to be assuaged, probably, but that's a different story.
<< busmaster11
So far you've not made ONE point!
Come up with some reasons the treaty should remain in place and quit your pitiful whining. >>
Yeah, and these other guys have?
You want evidence? How about peace with the superpowers for the last 12 years?
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 32
- 81
There is that argument, that since the U.S. signed the ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union, it became irrelevant the day the Soviet Union collapsed.
<< If it triggers a new international arms race, then you are wrong, and it is not just a cold-war relic. So I hope you are right.
Well, I hope I'm right, too. But exactly with whom will we start an international arms race? The Soviet Union finally collapsed because we outspent it, imo. Big missles take big $. Had we actually gone warhead-to-warhead, it conceivably might have collapsed earlier. I don't see a credible enemy on the horizon that wants to start a traditional throw-weight contest with the U.S. Probable enemies don't have that kind of scratch. >>
If thats the case... and no one other than superpowers can afford to build missiles and there aren't any to threaten us, what are we building them for? Terrorists won't be able to.
Are you thinking the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Russia?
If thats the case... and no one other than superpowers can afford to build missiles and there aren't any to threaten us, what are we building them for? Terrorists won't be able to.
I think that there's one superpower left, and that's us. Actually, we're not building any more, we're maintaining them if not dismantling them. We've agreed to, or announced unilaterally, a very deep cut in our overall ICMB arsenal. We're paying Russia to keep a lookout on theirs, while we help dismantle them. As you point out, it't the rogue states, or China, that will be able to attack US possessions with a cheap, dirty missle tossed 1,000 miles. That's our new threat, and that's what we should be studying. It'll be the next war, not the last one.
I think that there's one superpower left, and that's us. Actually, we're not building any more, we're maintaining them if not dismantling them. We've agreed to, or announced unilaterally, a very deep cut in our overall ICMB arsenal. We're paying Russia to keep a lookout on theirs, while we help dismantle them. As you point out, it't the rogue states, or China, that will be able to attack US possessions with a cheap, dirty missle tossed 1,000 miles. That's our new threat, and that's what we should be studying. It'll be the next war, not the last one.
<< If thats the case... and no one other than superpowers can afford to build missiles and there aren't any to threaten us, what are we building them for? Terrorists won't be able to.
I think that there's one superpower left, and that's us. Actually, we're not building any more, we're maintaining them if not dismantling them. We've agreed to, or announced unilaterally, a very deep cut in our overall ICMB arsenal. We're paying Russia to keep a lookout on theirs, while we help dismantle them. As you point out, it't the rogue states, or China, that will be able to attack US possessions with a cheap, dirty missle tossed 1,000 miles. That's our new threat, and that's what we should be studying. It'll be the next war, not the last one. >>
China a threat? Are you kidding?
This is a supremely sensitive topic for people of many threads of life.
The ABM treaty may be a relic of the past, in the sense that it was made to deal with security issues that have changed dramatically, but the factors that influence int'l relations haven't changed. U.S. security is still influenced by how other major powers understand Washington's int'l goals. Because Russia and China are not confident that the U.S. will respect their vital interests, U.S. security policy, while pursuing its other requirements, should avoid fueling their fears and triggering reactions that ultimately would decrease U.S. security.
Therefore, the impact of NMD on U.S. relations with Russia and China should be the central issue. Given that the threat posed by rogue states has yet to materialize, may be delayed or eliminated by diplomacy, and can probably be deterred if it does materialize, the U.S. should not deploy NMD if this would damage relations with Russia and China.
Pentbomb
The ABM treaty may be a relic of the past, in the sense that it was made to deal with security issues that have changed dramatically, but the factors that influence int'l relations haven't changed. U.S. security is still influenced by how other major powers understand Washington's int'l goals. Because Russia and China are not confident that the U.S. will respect their vital interests, U.S. security policy, while pursuing its other requirements, should avoid fueling their fears and triggering reactions that ultimately would decrease U.S. security.
Therefore, the impact of NMD on U.S. relations with Russia and China should be the central issue. Given that the threat posed by rogue states has yet to materialize, may be delayed or eliminated by diplomacy, and can probably be deterred if it does materialize, the U.S. should not deploy NMD if this would damage relations with Russia and China.
Pentbomb
<< This treaty aside, shouldn't we ask ourselves what the use is of a missile defense shield?
The main problems I see with such a system include that fact that it's a very ineffective system, it's very expensive to build and to maintain plus it would be ineffective against terrorist attacks and new generations of missiles which would have their own defense system, or travel under water and emerge right in front of the coastline.
IMHO it's a big waste of money, and not a wise move for a country of which the economy is in a recession. >>
Well said.
I can't help but imagine how the US would react if Russia or China withdrew from a similar treaty. Probably would sanction them up the a#$
<< the U.S. should not deploy NMD if this would damage relations with Russia and China. >>
LMFAO. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
The U.S. is not Russia or China's bitch. What's China going to do? Sanction the U.S.? LMFAO. Their economy would be destroyed. We can find 101 different poor 3rd world countries to manufacture our products, but how many countries with American levels of disposable income is China going to find to sell its trinkets to? As for Russia, they also need the U.S. a lot more than the U.S. needs them. Putin isn't going to do jack sh|t; he knew all along the U.S. would start serious work on NMD by the end of Bush's term. He just wanted to get as many concessions as possible out of us. But he asked for too much, and now he gets nothing.
And if Russia or China did try to compete with the U.S. by building more nukes or their own NMD, nothing would make me happier, as it would plunge both of these pitiful states into extreme poverty.
Brought most of this in from another thread.
Just a couple of thoughts
1. SDI under Reagan was a hoax. We knew there was no quick SDI system available. It was part of his big plan to force Russia to spend themselves into oblivion. It worked.
2. We have or will remove ourselves only from the treaty that forbids missile defense. We are still commited to decreasing our nuclear arsenal.
3. The missile defense system that we are currently working on is not going to be designed to fend off Russia/China or other nation states with big arsenals. We practice a thing called deterence to do that. Trident subs, land based missiles, etc. Remember MAD. This system, it is my understanding, will be to intercept that rogue missile fired by some terrorist a$shole. For instance if Bin Laden fired a missile from the White Mountains right now, what would we do? Would we fire a sortie from USS Underway Trident. Maybe/maybe not. But it sure would be nice to have a system that could intercept that one missile. Is it worth the cost? I don't know. In my opinion it is certainly worth exploring. I also think if trustworthy nations want to share in the cost/research to share the technology then that should also be given consideration.
Just a couple of thoughts
1. SDI under Reagan was a hoax. We knew there was no quick SDI system available. It was part of his big plan to force Russia to spend themselves into oblivion. It worked.
2. We have or will remove ourselves only from the treaty that forbids missile defense. We are still commited to decreasing our nuclear arsenal.
3. The missile defense system that we are currently working on is not going to be designed to fend off Russia/China or other nation states with big arsenals. We practice a thing called deterence to do that. Trident subs, land based missiles, etc. Remember MAD. This system, it is my understanding, will be to intercept that rogue missile fired by some terrorist a$shole. For instance if Bin Laden fired a missile from the White Mountains right now, what would we do? Would we fire a sortie from USS Underway Trident. Maybe/maybe not. But it sure would be nice to have a system that could intercept that one missile. Is it worth the cost? I don't know. In my opinion it is certainly worth exploring. I also think if trustworthy nations want to share in the cost/research to share the technology then that should also be given consideration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter