Bammy giving away secrets

[JustRalph]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/unreal-obama-to-share-us-missile-secrets-to-russia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gatewaypundit2+%28Gateway+Pun dit%29

[Robert Goren]

What makes you think that the Russians and the Chinese don't already know all this stuff?

[Tom]

What makes you think they do?
Or have it right if they do?

Are you bucking to replace mostie as the house-apologist? :D

[LottaKash]

What makes you think they do?
Or have it right if they do?

Are you bucking to replace mostie as the house-apologist? :D

If memory serves me true, then they "DO"....

On "Slick Willie's" watch (remember him), he gave away our "Super Computer" technology, right along with many "key" missile and space tech.....Up until then China and most of the world only dreamed about owning our super-computer tech...Not to mention the Slick-One's pardoning of all those Chinese spy bastards....They were criminal in their actions and he just pardoned them off....

Up until then China didn't hold us in the light that they do now....They were afaraid of us, then....Now ???????...O-boy is just finishing the job...

ONE World gov't is right on our doorstep now...I see it as plain as day...

best,

[woodtoo]

What makes you think that the Russians and the Chinese don't already know all this stuff?

say WHAT?

[boxcar]

What makes you think that the Russians and the Chinese don't already know all this stuff?

If they did, why would Obama reveal the secrets already known? And are you saying that Obama has his head buried so deeply where the sun doesn't shine that he doesn't know what our enemies already know and don't know?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

This is part of deterrence. Giving some of this technology away helps preserve the nuclear deterrent between the nuclear powers. It sucks but it is necessary, especially for disarmament.

[Tom]

Better to be superior.

[elysiantraveller]

Better to be superior.

Only if you want an arms race... and instability.

[lamboguy]

If memory serves me true, then they "DO"....

On "Slick Willie's" watch (remember him), he gave away our "Super Computer" technology, right along with many "key" missile and space tech.....Up until then China and most of the world only dreamed about owning our super-computer tech...Not to mention the Slick-One's pardoning of all those Chinese spy bastards....They were criminal in their actions and he just pardoned them off....

Up until then China didn't hold us in the light that they do now....They were afaraid of us, then....Now ???????...O-boy is just finishing the job...

ONE World gov't is right on our doorstep now...I see it as plain as day...

best,so true, for 2000 years already its been the goal of the chineese to rule the world. they can't get it militarily these days, but they will have it economically.

the government of china, along with its citizens are not only mining gold, but they go on the open market and buy the stuff. and they don't over pay. the only thing i see them over pay for is jade. they just love jade for some reason.

[boxcar]

This is part of deterrence. Giving some of this technology away helps preserve the nuclear deterrent between the nuclear powers. It sucks but it is necessary, especially for disarmament.

M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) is the best deterrent possible. Furthermore, why do we spend billions on defensive weapons only to turn around and give away their secrets? Why have any defensive missiles in the first place, if we're going to give up the technological secrets?

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

Hard to get much out of that article. Looks like about 90% emotion/spin and 10% fact.

[elysiantraveller]

M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) is the best deterrent possible. Furthermore, why do we spend billions on defensive weapons only to turn around and give away their secrets? Why have any defensive missiles in the first place, if we're going to give up the technological secrets?

Boxcar

They serve other purposes other than just defense.

Anyway, if you are so pro-MAD/Deterrence why are you so upset at Iran wanting nuclear capability? Their motives of self-preservation fall right in line with the philosophy of deterrence.

[Greyfox]

Obama promised "more transparency in Government."

The link posted by JustRalph states:

"President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is planning on providing Moscow with US missile defense secrets.
The Washington Times (http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=2) reported:President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia."

Either Obama is the most naive President ever or it fits with his idea that he is a "Global Citizen" with responsibilities to the World first and America second.

Personally, I believe that he sees himself as "Above and Beyond America." That is a very dangerous world view for anyone who has the responsibility of being U.S. Commander- in- Chief. It also fits right in with his intent to reduce the Military's budget.

God bless America if he gets 4 more years to carry out his pacifist ideas.

[Tom]

He is not fit to be CNC.
He is not fi to shine the shoes of the CNC.

[elysiantraveller]

Obama promised "more transparency in Government."

The link posted by JustRalph states:

"President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is planning on providing Moscow with US missile defense secrets.
The Washington Times (http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=2) reported:President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia."

Either Obama is the most naive President ever or it fits with his idea that he is a "Global Citizen" with responsibilities to the World first and America second.

Personally, I believe that he sees himself as "Above and Beyond America." That is a very dangerous world view for anyone who has the responsibility of being U.S. Chief of Staff. It also fits right in with his intent to reduce the Military's budget.

God bless America if he gets 4 more years to carry out his pacifist ideas.


These types of sharing are important to the overall picture. The Administration was able to pass New START with Russia which allowed us to continue to develop missile defense while limiting their arsenal as well as our own. That was a huge victory. Not because we have lowered our weapons stockpiles which is really irrelevant but because its lowers the amount of decaying Soviet nuclear ordinance just sitting around with the potential of theft.

New START almost did not pass the Duma because of our missile defense programs. If sharing some tech with them keeps them compliant with the treaty so be it. Less nukes lying around in Russia is a victory for national security, no matter how you put it.

[elysiantraveller]

He is not fit to be CNC.
He is not fi to shine the shoes of the CNC.

Do you want Russia to continue to disarm their nuclear arsenal?

[boxcar]

They serve other purposes other than just defense.

Prove it. Defend your assertion with documentation.

Anyway, if you are so pro-MAD/Deterrence why are you so upset at Iran wanting nuclear capability? Their motives of self-preservation fall right in line with the philosophy of deterrence.

Why do you assume I'm upset? I know what is happening in the world and why.

But let me ask you: Why don't you believe Iran when they tell the world that they want to go nuclear strictly for energy purposes? Do you know something I don't? Has Iran stated that they want to defend themselves with nuclear weapons?

And second question: How come the U.N and its inspectors aren't taking Iran at its word? Yet, you do?

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

These types of sharing are important to the overall picture.

Sharing secrets with Putin is equivalent to trusting a wolf in a hen house.

[elysiantraveller]

Prove it. Defend your assertion with documentation.

Its a short range/intermediate interceptor. It is useless against the Russian arsenal as well as our own. So its not like it adjusts the balance of power between us. Secondly, it has been used in a kinectic-kill variant to bring down low orbit satellites so it does have an offensive capability.

Why do you assume I'm upset? I know what is happening in the world and why.

But let me ask you: Why don't you believe Iran when they tell the world that they want to go nuclear strictly for energy purposes? Do you know something I don't? Has Iran stated that they want to defend themselves with nuclear weapons?

And second question: How come the U.N and its inspectors aren't taking Iran at its word? Yet, you do?

I don't believe Iran. I would be shocked if they aren't trying to get a weapon but the evidence that the west has gathered so far has been suspect at best. The point I am making is that you and others on here are worried that about a nuclear capable Iran but if YOU personally agree with MAD why does a nuclear Iran bother you?

[elysiantraveller]

Sharing secrets with Putin is equivalent to trusting a wolf in a hen house.

Did you not read what I just wrote or choose to ignore it?

Do you want Russia, with their failing infrastructure, unpaid soldiers, and malfuctioning early warning defense systems to disarm or not?

Do you know where you were on the afternoon of January 25th, 1995? Because it was almost the last place you ever were...

gjwcqWwsoSw

[bigmack]

Do you know where you were on the afternoon of January 25th, 1995? Because it was almost the last place you ever were...
Ooooo. Scary.

Russian observers were quickly able to determine that the rocket was heading away from Russian airspace and was not a threat.

I came close to soiling myself once. Turns out it was just gas. Should I wear diapers?

[Greyfox]

Did you not read what I just wrote or choose to ignore it?


Yes, I read what you wrote and I see sharing secrets with the Russians (and most other nations) as just plain naive, stupid, or having an agenda that is designed to diminish America's standing in the world.
i.e. I don't think that sharing Defense secrets makes the world safer.
Get it??:rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Its a short range/intermediate interceptor. It is useless against the Russian arsenal as well as our own. So its not like it adjusts the balance of power between us. Secondly, it has been used in a kinectic-kill variant to bring down low orbit satellites so it does have an offensive capability.

Where's the documentation of this claim?

But if true, then the government WASTED, as in flushed down the toilet, billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on a useless defense system? How do you feel about that? Money well spent by our elected representatives?

I don't believe Iran. I would be shocked if they aren't trying to get a weapon but the evidence that the west has gathered so far has been suspect at best. The point I am making is that you and others on here are worried that about a nuclear capable Iran but if YOU personally agree with MAD why does a nuclear Iran bother you?

Do you ever listen to yourself? If you don't believe Iran, then how come when people like myself don't either, you have a problem understanding that? If you believe they are lying, then how come my belief of same doesn't justify my support of the MAD philosophy? Was not MAD adopted to try to keep evil nations HONEST? :bang: :bang: We don't keep nations, with bad designs on the world, honest by appeasing them.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Yes, I read what you wrote and I see sharing secrets with the Russians (and most other nations) as just plain naive, stupid, or having an agenda that is designed to diminish America's standing in the world.
i.e. I don't think that sharing Defense secrets makes the world safer.
Get it??:rolleyes:

If you don't think disarming Russia makes the world safer you are naive.

[boxcar]

Did you not read what I just wrote or choose to ignore it?

Do you want Russia, with their failing infrastructure, unpaid soldiers, and malfuctioning early warning defense systems to disarm or not?

Do you know where you were on the afternoon of January 25th, 1995? Because it was almost the last place you ever were...

The only way Russia would ever "disarm" is if some other nation wiped them off the face of the earth. Russia didn't choose to become real chummy with their former enemy China because they intend to disarm.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Ooooo. Scary.



I came close to soiling myself once. Turns out it was just gas. Should I wear diapers?

If a drunk Boris Yeltsin is woken up in the middle of the night to decide the fate of the world it is pretty scary...

[boxcar]

If you don't think disarming Russia makes the world safer you are naive.

And who is going to disarm Russia? China? :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

The only way Russia would ever "disarm" is if some other nation wiped them off the face of the earth. Russia didn't choose to become real chummy with their former enemy China because they intend to disarm.

Boxcar

Sigh...

SALT I
SALT II
START I
START II
New START
ABM (we threw that one out.)

Next.

[elysiantraveller]

And who is going to disarm Russia? China? :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

We do by disarming ourselves. They do not want to maintain these forces and neither do we. If you have tech that upsets the balance of power you share it. That way the path to disarmament stays the same with no country gaining a large advantage.

Surely if you understand MAD and the theory of deterrence you know thats how it works.

This is Fo-Po 101 stuff here...

[Greyfox]

If you don't think disarming Russia makes the world safer you are naive.

If you think that Russia will disarm because Obama says "Pretty Please share your secrets with us? Pretty Please." then I'll trust my naivete over yours.

[boxcar]

We do by disarming ourselves. They do not want to maintain these forces and neither do we. If you have tech that upsets the balance of power you share it. That way the path to disarmament stays the same with no country gaining a large advantage.

Surely if you understand MAD and the theory of deterrence you know thats how it works.

This is Fo-Po 101 stuff here...

Hmmm...kinda like law-abiding citizens dumping our weapons so that only dishonest crooks will be armed?

You are totally naive. Man cannot be trusted. Quite the contrary. The universal Law of Distrust proves this. The only way to real peace and security is to be armed to the teeth. The threat of massive retaliation from which no aggressor would be able to recover is the only answer -- sadly. But it is. In short, Man is a rotten egg. Not a good one.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

If you think that Russia will disarm because Obama says "Pretty Please share your secrets with us? Pretty Please." then I'll trust my naivete over yours.

Please read the New START agreement before continuing with me... since you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Greyfox]

Please read the New START agreement before continuing with me... since you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let us know when and where Putin has ever lived up to any agreement with any other country that is friendly to the U.S. and then I'll read it.

[elysiantraveller]

Let us know when and where Putin has ever lived up to any agreement with any other country that is friendly to the U.S. and then I'll read it.

For starters:

- Both sides are required to release telemetry, and flight data from all current nuclear ordinance. (BTW a much more important data than a mid-range missile interceptor like the SM-3)

- Both sides are subject to foreign inspection up to but not to exceed 18 times a year for compliance. (I'm not talking Hans Blix, I'm talking United States Military conducting surveys)

- Both sides are required to release deployment location, force strength, and readiness reports. (Again verified by our people in their facilities)

- Both sides are required to demonstrate all existing delivery systems. (Again)

So those are a few things... Nevermind the fact Putin has been pushing for a new arms reduction for almost 10 years now. You want an example of them honoring something? How about the ABM treaty, the one we pulled out of.

This story is a non-starter but once again since it can be spun into something anti-Obama people latch on to it even though there is nothing there...

[Greyfox]

Obama sees the world through "pink" (pinko?) colored glasses. I don't.
The fact is he won't see the forest for the trees until it's too late.
Any agreement with Putin is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

[elysiantraveller]

Obama sees the world through "pink" (pinko?) colored glasses. I don't.
The fact is he won't see the forest for the trees until it's too late.
Any agreement with Putin is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

Sucks when facts get in the way of opinions doesn't it?

[Greyfox]

Sucks when facts get in the way of opinions doesn't it?

You have yet to present any facts, except that an agreement was signed with a scumbag that Obama trusts.

[boxcar]

For starters:

- Both sides are required to release telemetry, and flight data from all current nuclear ordinance. (BTW a much more important data than a mid-range missile interceptor like the SM-3)

- Both sides are subject to foreign inspection up to but not to exceed 18 times a year for compliance. (I'm not talking Hans Blix, I'm talking United States Military conducting surveys)

- Both sides are required to release deployment location, force strength, and readiness reports. (Again verified by our people in their facilities)

- Both sides are required to demonstrate all existing delivery systems. (Again)

So those are a few things... Nevermind the fact Putin has been pushing for a new arms reduction for almost 10 years now. You want an example of them honoring something? How about the ABM treaty, the one we pulled out of.

This story is a non-starter but once again since it can be spun into something anti-Obama people latch on to it even though there is nothing there...

Why wouldn't a thief try to win the confidence of his mark by pretending he's something that he isn't? (Hint: Substitute Putin for "thief" and "mark" for U.S.) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Why wouldn't a thief try to win the confidence of his mark by pretending he's something that he isn't? (Hint: Substitute Putin for "thief" and "mark" for U.S.) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Are you all really this neurotic?

Russia on the topic of disarmament has been much more trustworthy than the United States over the past 30 years. We are the ones that unilaterally pulled out of a 30+ year agreement without just cause...

[boxcar]

Are you all really this neurotic?

Russia on the topic of disarmament has been much more trustworthy than the United States over the past 30 years. We are the ones that unilaterally pulled out of a 30+ year agreement without just cause...

Are you really this naive? If you are, send me the keys to your house and your cars along with your address. I'll auction both off on Ebay. And if you think this is an irrational or "neurotic" request, then consider why you blindly trust the Russians. You really think Russia is a friend of the U.S.? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Elysian,
I appreciate your faith in these TWO countries to do the right thing.
But, Let me ask you this...if we as a country can't trust OUR OWN POLITICIANS to do the right things (and i could list many examples and you know it as well), why would I think I I can trust Russia and Putin?
Paper is no more credible then the ink its written with.
Think back to the fifteies and sixties when our government told us how scary the russian bear was and how we need to keep up that nuclear race to assure M A D. Later, it was all determined that russia didnt have near what was thought.
Remember now how Bush is being criticized for all of the Bad intel which took us into Iraq? Remember how there were no weapons of mass destruction ???
But now you want to believe all of those same politicians?????
Sorry but I will stick with the dont trust their azzes theory on this one!!!

[elysiantraveller]

What part of:

"To verify limits, each side is allowed up to 18 inspections a year on the other’s territory, as well as by satellite and other remote means."

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1118_new_start_ohanlon.aspx

Is so hard for some of you to understand?

I point out we are the ones who shouldn't be trusted. You respond with nothing.

I point out that we are giving away missile data far more important than the OP. You respond with nothing.

I point out doing everything we possibly can to disarm Russia is of National Security concern. You respond with nothing.

Then you try to turn this into a "trusting" the Russians argument with some stupid house key analogy. Why? Because you have absolutely nothing else to fall back on and given the enforcement of this treaty that point is completely moot.

Hate away on Obama but again this is a NON-ISSUE find something that is...

[elysiantraveller]

Elysian,
I appreciate your faith in these TWO countries to do the right thing.
But, Let me ask you this...if we as a country can't trust OUR OWN POLITICIANS to do the right things (and i could list many examples and you know it as well), why would I think I I can trust Russia and Putin?

I've already explained that. The treaty is enforced through shared information and on the ground inspections.

Paper is no more credible then the ink its written with.

Of course it is. This treaty has proper enforcement.

If you don't honor this treaty you will be publicly forced to withdraw from it. See Bush and the ABM Treaty...

Think back to the fifteies and sixties when our government told us how scary the russian bear was and how we need to keep up that nuclear race to assure M A D. Later, it was all determined that russia didnt have near what was thought.
Remember now how Bush is being criticized for all of the Bad intel which took us into Iraq? Remember how there were no weapons of mass destruction ???
But now you want to believe all of those same politicians?????
Sorry but I will stick with the dont trust their azzes theory on this one!!!

What don't you trust here? Its a bilateral treaty with the Russians enforcing our compliance and we enforce theirs... I don't need to worry about whether or not my government follows the rules because the Russian government will make them. If the United States doesn't live up to its agreements in this treaty do you think the Russian's will just say ho-hum and move along? Or Vice-Versa?....

[boxcar]

What part of:

"To verify limits, each side is allowed up to 18 inspections a year on the other’s territory, as well as by satellite and other remote means."

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1118_new_start_ohanlon.aspx

Is so hard for some of you to understand?

I point out we are the ones who shouldn't be trusted. You respond with nothing.

I point out that we are giving away missile data far more important than the OP. You respond with nothing.

I point out doing everything we possibly can to disarm Russia is of National Security concern. You respond with nothing.

Then you try to turn this into a "trusting" the Russians argument with some stupid house key analogy. Why? Because you have absolutely nothing else to fall back on and given the enforcement of this treaty that point is completely moot.

Hate away on Obama but again this is a NON-ISSUE find something that is...

There you go with your juvenile hate stuff.

I didn't respond initially because it was unworthy. We shouldn't enter into treaties with our enemies. We should not trust our enemies. And by the way, while we're making nice with Russia, what about China? Is China part of this deal, too? You act as though only two nations in the entire world possess nuclear weapons. So, while we weaken ourselves for Russia's sake, China doesn't stand to benefit from it's ally's con game with us?

What would posses you to think for a nanosecond that communist nations would not want to weaken the U.S.? Because deep down commies are really nice people, maybe? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

There you go with your juvenile hate stuff.

I didn't respond initially because it was unworthy. We shouldn't enter into treaties with our enemies. We should not trust our enemies. And by the way, while we're making nice with Russia, what about China? Is China part of this deal, too? You act as though only two nations in the entire world possess nuclear weapons. So, while we weaken ourselves for Russia's sake, China doesn't stand to benefit from it's ally's con game with us?

What would posses you to think for a nanosecond that communist nations would not want to weaken the U.S.? Because deep down commies are really nice people, maybe? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

You haven't responded PERIOD because you have nothing to offer other than your own misguided opinions. The facts don't line up with your opinions yet again so now you are going to try and bring up China... you are grasping for straws at this point.

Also, boxie, since you are such a big fan of MAD you should actually like the treaties' because they end the arms races and maintain parity.... just another one of your many idiosyncrasies.

[boxcar]

You haven't responded PERIOD because you have nothing to offer other than your own misguided opinions. The facts don't line up with your opinions yet again so now you are going to try and bring up China... you are grasping for straws at this point.

Really? China is our friend and ally, eh?.

Also, boxie, since you are such a big fan of MAD you should actually like the treaties' because they end the arms races and maintain parity.... just another one of your many idiosyncrasies.

I'll tell you what MADness is: Entering into a treaty with one enemy, while ignoring the other big one. Russia is playing the U.S. like a fiddle and meanwhile China is quietly biding its time while building its military strength. Of what value is disarming with one enemy, while the other is arming itself to the teeth? Great foreign policy. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Really? China is our friend and ally, eh?.

China has nothing to do with the release of the SM-3 data or our disarmament policies with Russia.

I'll tell you what MADness is: Entering into a treaty with one enemy, while ignoring the other big one. Russia is playing the U.S. like a fiddle and meanwhile China is quietly biding its time while building its military strength. Of what value is disarming with one enemy, while the other is arming itself to the teeth? Great foreign policy. :rolleyes:

China has nothing to do with this... they have another 15-20 years before they join the party at the top of the Nuclear hill.

Do you like MAD? If yes, you must like treaties because they create a stable environment for deterrence... If you like one you like both...

Also if you think MAD is good policy you should be upset we even have these interceptors in the first place...

[newtothegame]

hey elysian....how would you explain this.......???

"
1. A Long History of Arms Control Violations: Russia repeatedly violated the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) all the way to its expiration in December 2009, as clearly stated in 2005 and 2010 State Department compliance reports. Specifically, Russia tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with Multiple Individually Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (warheads) while START was in force. Such activities, however, were explicitly banned.
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia

"3. Helping Iran and North Korea: According to U.S. intelligence, Russia violated nonproliferation agreements by providing ballistic missile technology to Iran and North Korea, which have continually threatened America and its allies."

"5. Not in Compliance on Other Treaties: The U.S. believes Russia to be in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. In 2009, the Strategic Posture Commission told Congress: “Russia is no longer in compliance with its PNI [Presidential Nuclear Initiatives] commitments.” Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal may be 10 times larger than that of the U.S."

"
8. Ties to Terrorist Organizations: Russia cultivates ties with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and provides military and diplomatic support for anti-American “rogue states” such as Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Russia voted with the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council to pass sanctions on Iran—but only after working hard to water them down to practically nothing."

[newtothegame]

and just so you dont think I am only picking on Russia,

http://www.vote.org/treaties

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-griffith/us-quietly-breaks-un-trea_b_88347.html

[elysiantraveller]

hey elysian....how would you explain this.......???

"
1. A Long History of Arms Control Violations: Russia repeatedly violated the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) all the way to its expiration in December 2009, as clearly stated in 2005 and 2010 State Department compliance reports. Specifically, Russia tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with Multiple Individually Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (warheads) while START was in force. Such activities, however, were explicitly banned.
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia

"3. Helping Iran and North Korea: According to U.S. intelligence, Russia violated nonproliferation agreements by providing ballistic missile technology to Iran and North Korea, which have continually threatened America and its allies."

"5. Not in Compliance on Other Treaties: The U.S. believes Russia to be in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. In 2009, the Strategic Posture Commission told Congress: “Russia is no longer in compliance with its PNI [Presidential Nuclear Initiatives] commitments.” Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal may be 10 times larger than that of the U.S."

"
8. Ties to Terrorist Organizations: Russia cultivates ties with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and provides military and diplomatic support for anti-American “rogue states” such as Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Russia voted with the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council to pass sanctions on Iran—but only after working hard to water them down to practically nothing."

You have to consider the source. Nothing against the Heritage Foundation but they take some leaps here.

The only violation to START on there is the MIRV test with the SS-27. It is a violation as the missile system was built specifically to defeat our missile defense systems which we were not legally allowed to have because of the ABM Treaty. The testing was done in 2005, three years after we withdrew from the ABM Treaty. So who broke the rules?.... both of us...

[elysiantraveller]

and just so you dont think I am only picking on Russia,

http://www.vote.org/treaties

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-griffith/us-quietly-breaks-un-trea_b_88347.html

Oh I get what you are saying but to the point of the OP... Sharing this data is how politics work. Fact of the matter is this data they are getting isn't really even that important when compared to whats discussed in our new Arms agreement.

Russia's record on these agreements is very good... ours... not so much going back to Reagan and Star Wars. And personally in a country where you have a decaying military, unpaid soldiers, and stockpiled nuclear weapons sitting around ANYTHING you can do to get them under control and more manageable is of utmost importance to our national security.

I don't really give a damn how many nukes Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, et al. have since it doesn't change the balance and stability of deterrence. What scares me are unpaid soldiers selling weapons to non-state actors... This agreement goes a long way into making actual "head counts" of weapons.

[newtothegame]

I agree elysian....
But to my point, in public they sign treateies, behind doors they are both trying to get the upper hand on each other.
And sorry, but when it comes to these forms of weapons, "very good" record isnt good enough!
We don't really have any clue as to how much, how safe, how their soldiers are paid, etc etc of their nuclear stockpiles except for what they wish us to know.
Hell, we can't even determine how close Iran is with so many varrying reports.
Treaties are supposed to be made in good faith. Good faith requires a trust between the agreeing parties. Do you really believe we as a country, have that type of trust in them or them in us?
The ONLY assurance we do have is M A D. And, given that, I personally wouldnt give them crap! Let then continue to guess what we do or do not have. The one thing they are not guessing about is MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION!

[Tom]

You have yet to present any facts, except that an agreement was signed with a scumbag that Obama trusts.

Then it was signed by two lying scumbags.

[boxcar]

China has nothing to do with the release of the SM-3 data or our disarmament policies with Russia.



China has nothing to do with this... they have another 15-20 years before they join the party at the top of the Nuclear hill.

Do you like MAD? If yes, you must like treaties because they create a stable environment for deterrence... If you like one you like both...

Also if you think MAD is good policy you should be upset we even have these interceptors in the first place...

You're out of your mind. China is spending money like a drunken sailor to arm itself to the teeth. Maybe North Korea has that much time, but China is light years ahead of them. They are far more advanced than you think. China is no third-world nation.

And, yes, China and all other nuclear nations should figure into any treaty equation the U.S. makes with another nuclear country. It's doesn't make an iota of sense to make a pact with the Devil if the deal doesn't include all Hell. Disarmament treaties should be global in nature, not just nation-specific. What sense does it make for us to disarm when China is doing the exact opposite? :bang: :bang:

And your logic is warped about M.A.D. This philosophy is grounded in DISTRUST, whereas these treaties presume TRUST. And spare me the empty rhetoric about inspections that verify, etc. Shell games can be played, things can be hidden, things can be built underground, inside mountains, even beneath the seas, etc. We cannot have eyes and ears everywhere.

This ill-conceived treaty will weaken world security and U.S. security.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Then it was signed by two lying scumbags.

And one that is very unpopular right now in Russia. Recently, tens of thousands of Russians have demonstrated against this power-hungry Putin, who obviously wants to be president for life.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You have to consider the source. Nothing against the Heritage Foundation but they take some leaps here.

The only violation to START on there is the MIRV test with the SS-27. It is a violation as the missile system was built specifically to defeat our missile defense systems which we were not legally allowed to have because of the ABM Treaty. The testing was done in 2005, three years after we withdrew from the ABM Treaty. So who broke the rules?.... both of us...

Assuming this is true, then you have just made my case for why Man cannot and should not be trusted. Do you understand what I'm saying? Man is a Deceiver. There is no truth in Man. This is what Man is by nature. And this is what makes Man the most the dangerous "animal" on the face of the earth.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

This ill-conceived treaty will weaken world security and U.S. security.

Boxcar

Bingo. :ThmbUp:

[elysiantraveller]

You're out of your mind. China is spending money like a drunken sailor to arm itself to the teeth. Maybe North Korea has that much time, but China is light years ahead of them. They are far more advanced than you think. China is no third-world nation.

I'm not talking about China with you... we outspend them at a ratio of 4-1 on defense... This topic has ZERO to do with China.

And, yes, China and all other nuclear nations should figure into any treaty equation the U.S. makes with another nuclear country. It's doesn't make an iota of sense to make a pact with the Devil if the deal doesn't include all Hell. Disarmament treaties should be global in nature, not just nation-specific. What sense does it make for us to disarm when China is doing the exact opposite? :bang: :bang:

Again you are wrong. The treaty places limits on technology China doesn't even have yet. MIRV's for instance. China doesn't have any and the rockets capable of carrying them could only carry 3 at most. China is in the stone-age compared to both of us on this tech. China still doesn't have First-Strike capability and even after they get that they have a very long way to go before they reach the United States and Russia in terms of Second-Strike capability. Look those terms up and you will realize China is a long ways away. 15-20 years...

And your logic is warped about M.A.D. This philosophy is grounded in DISTRUST, whereas these treaties presume TRUST. And spare me the empty rhetoric about inspections that verify, etc. Shell games can be played, things can be hidden, things can be built underground, inside mountains, even beneath the seas, etc. We cannot have eyes and ears everywhere.

No, MAD is not grounded on distrust its grounded on gaurantees. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Go watch Doctor Stranglove when discussing the "Doomsday" device the Dr. says "Why wouldn't you tell the world about such a device." The whole point of deterrence is that both saids will mutually agree to destroy eachother. If one side gains a clear advantage the other arms to catch up... thats how these things called arms races occur. If both sides wish to disarm it is done transactionally so their respective forces remain on par, thus, assuring a credible deterrent and MAD.

The empty rhetoric you are talking about is a cop-out response to a well written treaty that actually makes sense to American security.

What would propose in dealing with the Russian nuclear aresenal? From the way you talk the only option is another arms race with inherently hurts the philosophy of deterrence.

[elysiantraveller]

Assuming this is true, then you have just made my case for why Man cannot and should not be trusted. Do you understand what I'm saying? Man is a Deceiver. There is no truth in Man. This is what Man is by nature. And this is what makes Man the most the dangerous "animal" on the face of the earth.

Boxcar

So now you want to warp this into some Nature of Man argument.....?


Priceless...

[hcap]

Assuming this is true, then you have just made my case for why Man cannot and should not be trusted. Do you understand what I'm saying? Man is a Deceiver. There is no truth in Man. This is what Man is by nature. And this is what makes Man the most the dangerous "animal" on the face of the earth.

You do a pretty good job all by your little lonesome humble self proving your point.

[boxcar]

You do a pretty good job all by your little lonesome humble self proving your point.

You're a riot. You're the biggest deceiver on this forum. Sadly, you're too self-deceived to see it.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So now you want to warp this into some Nature of Man argument.....?


Priceless...

You've been covertly trying to bend this into Man is Trustworthy argument, which, of course, is absurd on the face of it.

Btw, I've been meaning to ask you: You said earlier that little ol' backwards China is about 20 years behind the U.S. in the arms race, right? Would this have been before or after Slick Willy gave away the farm to the Chicoms?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

You've been covertly trying to bend this into Man is Trustworthy argument, which, of course, is absurd on the face of it.

Btw, I've been meaning to ask you: You said earlier that little ol' backwards China is about 20 years behind the U.S. in the arms race, right? Would this have been before or after Slick Willy gave away the farm to the Chicoms?

Boxcar

After.

For example:

The New Start Treaty limits the number of missles and warheads (MIRVS) per missile down to 4. China doesn't yet have this capability but you want us to stop disarmament because of them... thats absurd...

IE: Our Submarine force has 288 missiles with 1,152 warheads. (BTW the UGM-133 Trident can carry up to 12. We have 288 of them... thats 3,456 warheads if we feel like it. :eek: )

Inviting China to the New START table would have been like throwing a baby-shower for someone who isn't pregnant.

These are simple facts Hawks over look before opening their mouths...

Spin this stuff anyway you want, China, Nature of Man, Russia's integrity, I don't care... you don't have a leg to stand on with this one. If you do please provide your solution....

[boxcar]

After.

For example:

The New Start Treaty limits the number of missles and warheads (MIRVS) per missile down to 4. China doesn't yet have this capability but you want us to stop disarmament because of them... thats absurd...

IE: Our Submarine force has 288 missiles with 1,152 warheads. (BTW the UGM-133 Trident can carry up to 12. We have 288 of them... thats 3,456 warheads if we feel like it. :eek: )

Inviting China to the New START table would have been like throwing a baby-shower for someone who isn't pregnant.

These are simple facts Hawks over look before opening their mouths...

Spin this stuff anyway you want, China, Nature of Man, Russia's integrity, I don't care... you don't have a leg to stand on with this one. If you do please provide your solution....

You're absolutely clueless. China successfully tested it's first MIRV back in 2002. Not only this, but other countries are on the verge of getting this technology -- e.g. India and Pakistan.

The solution is M.A.D., not appeasement. Russia is in bed with China and God only knows how much of its MIRV technology it has shared or sold to its new found ally. It's pure unadulterated insanity for the U.S. to make a pact with only one nuclear power when the world is becoming filled with them! All the players must come to the table -- nothing short of global agreement. And this is just for starters.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Anyone who trusts the Russians or the Chinese is a fool.

[elysiantraveller]

You're absolutely clueless. China successfully tested it's first MIRV back in 2002. Not only this, but other countries are on the verge of getting this technology -- e.g. India and Pakistan.

Source?

The Dong-Feng 21 with a operational range of 1,900 miles? Honolulu is 5,000 miles away from Beijing... START doesn't even address a system like this...yawn.... :sleeping: this is getting boorish... Facts again get in the way...

The solution is M.A.D., not appeasement. Russia is in bed with China and God only knows how much of its MIRV technology it has shared or sold to its new found ally. It's pure unadulterated insanity for the U.S. to make a pact with only one nuclear power when the world is becoming filled with them! All the players must come to the table -- nothing short of global agreement. And this is just for starters.

Disarmament is now appeasement? I have told you countless times disarming Russia is in OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

How do you possibly expect the rest of the world to come to the table to disarm when we hold a monopoly in terms of capability and technology?!?!? (Its literally like a marine asking a caveman to give up his stick)

This is simple Nuclear Deterrent stuff... for someone who is still continuing this discussion you know very little about it.

[elysiantraveller]

You're absolutely clueless. China successfully tested it's first MIRV back in 2002. Not only this, but other countries are on the verge of getting this technology -- e.g. India and Pakistan.

I think its funny that you think this kind of stuff is as easy as changing a lightbulb too... with statements like India and Pakistan are "on the verge." What does that even mean?

This isn't rebuilding the carb on your old chevy it literally is "rocket science." :cool:

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=elysiantraveller


I have told you countless times disarming Russia is in OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

.[/QUOTE]

Of course disarming Russia is in OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.
What you don't get is:
Russia is not going to be disarmed.
They won't disarm.
No matter what agreement they sign- RUSSIA WILL NOT DISARM.

That should be an easy enough idea for even a Grade 5 to grasp.

[elysiantraveller]

Of course disarming Russia is in OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.
What you don't get is:
Russia is not going to be disarmed.
They won't disarm.
No matter what agreement they sign- RUSSIA WILL NOT DISARM.

That should be an easy enough idea for even a Grade 5 to grasp.

So these agreements aren't followed at all is what you are saying and we still have 30,000 operational nuclear weapons out there and the Russians 45,000?

Thats what you are saying?... There has been no disarmament whatsoever from 1970's levels?

[Greyfox]

So these agreements aren't followed at all is what you are saying and we still have 30,000 operational nuclear weapons out there and the Russians 45,000?

Thats what you are saying?... There has been no disarmament whatsoever from 1970's levels?

I can't count that high.
They still have enough weapons to kill each of us 500 times.
We still have enough weapons to kill each of them 1000 times.
Nuclear disarmament won't happen in our life times.
It's just that simple.

[elysiantraveller]

I can't count that high.
They still have enough weapons to kill each of us 500 times.
We still have enough weapons to kill each of them 1000 times.
Nuclear disarmament won't happen in our life times.
It's just that simple.

But with the risk of theft in Russia which is very real no matter what source you use isn't a lot better to account for say 5,000 as opposed to 35,000?

Thats the whole motive the United States has for disarmament at this point. Getting them to agree to lower their numbers is of utmost importance to our national security. Hence why sharing information with them is necessary to keep them compliant. Hell, the Russians want us to defend them in OUR missile shield. Helping them helps us its that simple but people get so short-sighted in our US VS THEM tunnelvision they miss it.

[boxcar]

I think its funny that you think this kind of stuff is as easy as changing a lightbulb too... with statements like India and Pakistan are "on the verge." What does that even mean?

This isn't rebuilding the carb on your old chevy it literally is "rocket science." :cool:

If anyone is 20 years behind the curve here, it's not "backward" China who you, evidently, think has barely emerged from the light bulb age. rolleyes: It's you!

http://defense-update.com/covers/cover_large/d-21c.jpg

New missiles were demonstrated today at a military parade, part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Among the missiles demonstrated at the parade were several intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), such as the road-mobile Dong Feng 31 (DF-31A) modified to carry three multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV). The Chinese are also working on a larger ICBM – known as DF-41 carrying 10 MIRVs over a distance of 11,000-13,000.

For historical context, "today" was sometime back in 2009 when the article was written.

Since the Chicoms already had missiles that can deploy three MIRVS back in '09, how far away do you think they still are from having missiles that can carry 10 MIRVS! If they don't have such a missile yet, then I'd say they're "on the verge", wouldn't you? :rolleyes:

http://defense-update.com/newscast/1009/news/chinese_missile_parade_011009.html

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Obama's agenda of course is to disarm America.
Check out the 5:30 min mark of this video.

QllmpCG3DcQ

[boxcar]

Obama's agenda of course is to disarm America.
Check out the 5:30 min mark of this video.

QllmpCG3DcQ

I wonder if that utopian pipe dream, i.e. a "world without nuclear weapons" includes China who is spending unprecedented amounts of money building its nuclear arsenal? :rolleyes: So, the brilliant U.S. game plan is to downsize our arsenal to appease Russia, while simultaneously allowing Russia's ally China to upgrade and increase their nuclear arsenal? I guess this brilliant strategy proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Obama really is the smartest guy in the room, eh? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Hell, the Russians want us to defend them in OUR missile shield.

Excuse the interruption but...

Defend them from whom?

I thought all the other cavemen had sticks.

[Tom]

If anyone is 20 years behind the curve here, it's not "backward" China who you, evidently, think has barely emerged from the light bulb age. :rolleyes: It's you!

Ironically, Mac, just in tome for the light bulb age to end! Drat!

[boxcar]

Excuse the interruption but...

Defend them from whom?

I thought all the other cavemen had sticks.

The U.S. has signed a secret treaty with Russia to defend them against attack by Israel's nuclear arsenal. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Excuse the interruption but...

Defend them from whom?

I thought all the other cavemen had sticks.

They want a say in the implementation of the system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/world/europe/us-official-says-missile-defense-shield-will-move-forward.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/dmitry-medvedev-russia-missiles_n_1109660.html

[elysiantraveller]

If anyone is 20 years behind the curve here, it's not "backward" China who you, evidently, think has barely emerged from the light bulb age. rolleyes: It's you!

http://defense-update.com/covers/cover_large/d-21c.jpg

New missiles were demonstrated today at a military parade, part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Among the missiles demonstrated at the parade were several intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), such as the road-mobile Dong Feng 31 (DF-31A) modified to carry three multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV). The Chinese are also working on a larger ICBM – known as DF-41 carrying 10 MIRVs over a distance of 11,000-13,000.

For historical context, "today" was sometime back in 2009 when the article was written.

Since the Chicoms already had missiles that can deploy three MIRVS back in '09, how far away do you think they still are from having missiles that can carry 10 MIRVS! If they don't have such a missile yet, then I'd say they're "on the verge", wouldn't you? :rolleyes:

http://defense-update.com/newscast/1009/news/chinese_missile_parade_011009.html

Boxcar

None of these systems have even been has ever flown...

AND even if they do exist they STILL don't fall under the guidelines of START they simply aren't advanced enough. Your tenacity to keep falling back until you finally arrive on something you are right about is admirable or pathetic. This conversation started talking about sharing information with the Russians. I just posted two articles that explain why sharing that information it important.

[boxcar]

None of these systems have even been has ever flown...

Can you back up this newest wild claim? :rolleyes: So, now you have gone from (to paraphrase), "China is backwater third-world nation who is at least 20 years away from having MIRVS to they have never been flown"? And I'm the pathetic one? :rolleyes: For your info, China has successfully tested MIRVS! (For that matter so has India!) Google it. I'm tired of doing lazy or ignorant people's homework for them.

AND even if they do exist they STILL don't fall under the guidelines of START they simply aren't advanced enough.

You say, "if they do exist"? Remove your rose-colored utopian goggles and research the matter out on the 'net. They do exist. And we have Slick Willy to thank for helping our enemies to get to that point!

And now you're going to con us into believing that there are MIRVs and then there are REAL MIRVs!? There are really advanced MIRVs and then there are some that cavemen slapped together and launch by lighting their long fuses? :rolleyes: Is that the deal? But you were almost right in one thing. What doesn't "fall under the guidelines of START" is China! China is exempt from that treaty and can build weapons with impunity. They are free to grow stronger while we grow weaker due to our leaders' unbelievable stupidity and naivete.


Your tenacity to keep falling back until you finally arrive on something you are right about is admirable or pathetic. This conversation started talking about sharing information with the Russians. I just posted two articles that explain why sharing that information it important.

And I have proven why any NON-global nuclear treaty is pure insanity. We shouldn't even be in a treaty with Russia, let alone sharing secrets with them -- all in the name of "world peace". Isn't China a big part of this world? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

They want a say in the implementation of the system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/world/europe/us-official-says-missile-defense-shield-will-move-forward.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/dmitry-medvedev-russia-missiles_n_1109660.html

Funny how the NY Slimes piece doesn't mention that Russia wants protection from the U.S. But it did say:

“Whether Russia likes it or not, we are about defending NATO-European territory against a growing ballistic missile threat,” Mr. Daalder said.

A "growing...threat", the article says. So, what do we do? We meet the threat by reducing our arsenal? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) is the best deterrent possible. Furthermore, why do we spend billions on defensive weapons only to turn around and give away their secrets? Why have any defensive missiles in the first place, if we're going to give up the technological secrets?

Boxcar

Did you say that?

If you did you aren't in support of missile defense. They are mutually exclusive.

[boxcar]

Did you say that?

If you did you aren't in support of missile defense. They are mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive. Good grief! We have another Obama-type egghead in the room with us. :D

A country can at once pursue both avenues for national security purposes. It can try to develop highly sophisticated offensive weapons to challenge or test potential enemies lines of defense, as well as develop defensive ones to protect its own territory or the territories of its allies that would in turn challenge enemies' offensive capabilities.

The fact that Russia has been squealing like a stuck pig for years now over the missile defense system we have in place in Europe tells me they don't like defensive missiles there because they would be strong deterrents against their own attacks. Why else would one country balk at another country's God-given right to self-defense?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

You are wrong...

You can't support MAD and missile defense. Nixon and Kissinger would both disagree with you. From Wikipedia on the ABM Treaty.

"At about the same time, the USSR reached strategic parity with the US in terms of ICBM forces. A nuclear war would no longer be a favorable exchange for the US, as both countries would be devastated. This led in the West to the concept of mutually assured destruction, MAD, in which any changes to the strategic balance had to be carefully weighed. To the U.S., ABMs now seemed far too risky—it was better to have no defense than one that might trigger a war."

[Tom]

Nixon and Kissenger are always correct? :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

Nixon and Kissenger are always correct? :lol:
:bang:

They are responsible for making it our foreign policy. They defined what it was. So in this case... Yes.

Thanks for adding.

[Tom]

That is your criteria for being correct?
Pretty loose.


btw, how'd their foreign policy work for ya in Viet Nam?
You remember, the one we lost?

[elysiantraveller]

That is your criteria for being correct?
Pretty loose.


btw, how'd their foreign policy work for ya in Viet Nam?
You remember, the one we lost?

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It's how you define what MAD and the concept of deterrence. They defined the term. It's not up for debate.

[Tom]

Seeing how Boxcar disproves your theory.....he CAN be for both and he is.
Nice try, but no cigar.

[elysiantraveller]

Seeing how Boxcar disproves your theory.....he CAN be for both and he is.
Nice try, but no cigar.

Then he doesn't know what he is talking about. They are mutually exclusive.

Christ I give up.

[boxcar]

You are wrong...

You can't support MAD and missile defense. Nixon and Kissinger would both disagree with you. From Wikipedia on the ABM Treaty.

"At about the same time, the USSR reached strategic parity with the US in terms of ICBM forces. A nuclear war would no longer be a favorable exchange for the US, as both countries would be devastated. This led in the West to the concept of mutually assured destruction, MAD, in which any changes to the strategic balance had to be carefully weighed. To the U.S., ABMs now seemed far too risky—it was better to have no defense than one that might trigger a war."

I don't give a flip what those two knuckleheads defined or decided.

Tell me: Are you a chess player? I am, and I'm fairly aggressive in my play; but that doesn't mean that I don't protect my King while I simultaneously attack my opponent's.

Any good war general will tell you that when you go about busily attacking the enemy, you should never leave yourself vulnerable for a counter-attack. You set up lines of defenses, no matter what kind of offense you launch.

The addition of missile defense systems simply adds a layer of technological complexity to the M.A.D. scheme.

But all this is truly a moot point. The major reason why the U.S. brainiacs who agreed to this START treaty make the inmates in the asylum look sane by comparison is because the entire nuclear club on the planet isn't participating. The vast majority of nuclear powers have no skin in the game! End of story. The world still has its share of loose canons out there. This is hardly the time for us to be disarming -- unless, of course, some on the planet are are secretly harboring an Armageddon wish. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

The addition of missile defense systems simply adds a layer of technological complexity to the M.A.D.

In thinking this your are wrong... History shows that.

Responses of "I don't give a flip" don't work. The creators of our MAD policy drafted and created the ABM Treaty.

You are wrong or you don't understand the meaning of the terms.

[boxcar]

In thinking this your are wrong... History shows that.

Responses of "I don't give a flip" don't work. The creators of our MAD policy drafted and created the ABM Treaty.

It works for me because history is also replete with examples of world leaders making very poor and unwise decisions, and subsequently paying the price for those.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

It works for me because history is also replete with examples of world leaders making very poor and unwise decisions, and subsequently paying the price for those.

Boxcar

Exactly!:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

You are wrong or you don't understand the meaning of the terms.

Re-phrasing, Boxcar does not understand that he is usually wrong. :jump: :p

[elysiantraveller]

What amazes me about this is how you guys can't seem to understand what MAD.

It was a strategy created by our government in dealing with the arms race. It's purpose as I posted above was create a level of parity between the powers and then not do anything to drastically alter it. Missile Defense was something a proponent of MAD would not support because it tilts the balance. In fact, MAD was the logic AGAINST missile defense. If one power was to acquire a effective ABM system then destruction isn't "mutually assured" and the conditions for MAD to work aren't there leading to a potential war.

So when Box says he thinks MAD is great and then turns around and supports missile defense he is supporting to radically different and directly opposing ways of dealing with nuclear security. To take it a step further, if a country gets missile defense technology a proponent of MAD would either A) share it with other force or B) not deploy it.

Literally ANY book worth it's weight in salt regarding the Arms Race can explain this to you.

Make any soapbox comments you want but the two by the way they are defined do not go hand in hand

[Greyfox]

What amazes me about this is how you guys can't seem to understand what MAD.



What amazes the critical analytic thinkers on this board is your naivete.

[PaceAdvantage]

Then he doesn't know what he is talking about. They are mutually exclusive.

Christ I give up.Don't you mean Crist? :lol:

[boxcar]

Re-phrasing, Boxcar does not understand that he is usually wrong. :jump: :p

Eternity itself would not be long enough for you to ever see that day, most especially if it's you I'm debating. ;)

Boxcar