Go Back   The Liberty Lounge Political Forums > Liberty Lounge Discussions > The Floor

Political Forum Click HERE to register your free account and become a member of our community today!
Register to Post a Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-20-2008, 07:35 PM   #81
Master Debator
Election Moderator
 
DosEquis's Avatar

Democrat
Omaha, NE
DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by C4Casey View Post
And where did you come up with that statistic? I think people assume that both nations have thousands of missiles, which is false. The U.S maintains a fleet of less than 500 Minuteman III missiles and around 340 Trident II missiles,which brings the total to less than 840 missiles. I'm not sure what the Russian count is, but because of treaties signed in the '90's they are officially supposed to have a similiar number of ICBMs. Missile interceptors are far smaller, and thus far cheaper, than ICBMs, and therefore many more missile interceptors can be manufactured and fielded than ICBMs. We don't have the capability to shoot down all of Russia's nukes yet, but we certainly have the ability to deploy enough interceptors to counter Russia's arsenal in the near future. Plus the ABL is set to come online soon, and that could be a game-changer in missile defense.
A missile defense that is good at stopping missiles.... its really not in the best interests of a scaled reduction or draw down of nuclear weapons in both countries arsenals.

The better at it we get the more problems we will see from Russia. Mutual assured destruction and the fact they went broke is really what kept the peace and "ended" the cold war.

They are starting to make more money....and we are unbalancing mutual assured destruction with missile defense. We might think we are making ourselves more secure but I fear we are heading toward the opposite.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 07:40 PM   #82
Lurker
 
C4Casey's Avatar

Conservative Party
C4Casey has political potential

Originally Posted by DosEquis View Post
A missile defense that is good at stopping missiles.... its really not in the best interests of a scaled reduction or draw down of nuclear weapons in both countries arsenals.

The better at it we get the more problems we will see from Russia. Mutual assured destruction and the fact they went broke is really what kept the peace and "ended" the cold war.

They are starting to make more money....and we are unbalancing mutual assured destruction with missile defense. We might think we are making ourselves more secure but I fear we are heading toward the opposite.
I see it more as moving from "mutually assured destruction" to "assured destruction". Having the capability to annihilate your enemy while denying him the same capability can pretty much give you complete control at the negotiation table.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 07:48 PM   #83
Master Debator
Election Moderator
 
DosEquis's Avatar

Democrat
Omaha, NE
DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by Donkey® View Post
There is no possible way we could shoot down even 5% of the Russian missiles if they decided to launch them.
You are at least correct in that they can get enough missiles through right now that it really doesn't matter we have the defense system at the moment.

I would bet that unless we have a few presidents with a change in policy, we are well on our way to a global deployment of this system. It's on ships already, soon to be in poland, and it will soon be in other countries. We are using Iran as an excuse. If we were truly interested in ending a threat from Iran they should say something like...."Russia, Iran is a threat, you know this and have publically agreed they should not and can not have nuclear weapons. Work with us to give Iran a firm demand to end any and all enrichment or we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our European allies." or some shit.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 07:49 PM   #84
Master Debator
Election Moderator
 
DosEquis's Avatar

Democrat
Omaha, NE
DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by C4Casey View Post
I see it more as moving from "mutually assured destruction" to "assured destruction". Having the capability to annihilate your enemy while denying him the same capability can pretty much give you complete control at the negotiation table.
They know that too and won't let it happen. If we want world war 3, the quickest way is to upset the balance we had. Defense build up is not the fastest way to peace or the best way to maintain peace.

Not to mention, the US is supposed to be a peaceful nation. Is that kind of negotiation conduct of a peaceful country?
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 08:07 PM   #85
Viva Fidel
 
Joe Castro's Avatar

Socialist
Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Joe Castro has political potential

Originally Posted by DosEquis View Post
You are at least correct in that they can get enough missiles through right now that it really doesn't matter we have the defense system at the moment.

I would bet that unless we have a few presidents with a change in policy, we are well on our way to a global deployment of this system. It's on ships already, soon to be in poland, and it will soon be in other countries. We are using Iran as an excuse. If we were truly interested in ending a threat from Iran they should say something like...."Russia, Iran is a threat, you know this and have publically agreed they should not and can not have nuclear weapons. Work with us to give Iran a firm demand to end any and all enrichment or we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our European allies." or some shit.

Russia did try to work with the US. Wasn't it Azerbaijan they suggested hold the missiles, but the US refused.
__________________
"Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the people's unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America. Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle cry, may have reached some receptive ear, that another hand may be extended to wield our weapons, and that other men be ready to intone our funeral dirge with the staccato singing of the machine guns and new battle cries of war and victory" - Che
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 09:04 PM   #86
Friend to all.
 
Donkey®'s Avatar

Socialist
Maryland
Donkey® is the Speaker of the HouseDonkey® is the Speaker of the House

Originally Posted by DosEquis View Post
You are at least correct in that they can get enough missiles through right now that it really doesn't matter we have the defense system at the moment.

I would bet that unless we have a few presidents with a change in policy, we are well on our way to a global deployment of this system. It's on ships already, soon to be in poland, and it will soon be in other countries. We are using Iran as an excuse. If we were truly interested in ending a threat from Iran they should say something like...."Russia, Iran is a threat, you know this and have publically agreed they should not and can not have nuclear weapons. Work with us to give Iran a firm demand to end any and all enrichment or we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our European allies." or some shit.

I keep hearing this "Iran" excuse out of people and I am wondering, still, if Iran is the reason...why not just put the missiles in Germany?
__________________
www.otraw.com
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 09:42 PM   #87
The one and only
 
wanna be drummer's Avatar

libertarian
wanna be drummer has political potential

Originally Posted by Donkey® View Post
I keep hearing this "Iran" excuse out of people and I am wondering, still, if Iran is the reason...why not just put the missiles in Germany?
Simple. Because Iran is not the reason for missiles in Poland.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Old 08-20-2008, 11:11 PM   #88
Master Debator
Election Moderator
 
DosEquis's Avatar

Democrat
Omaha, NE
DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!DosEquis Has a place in history!

Originally Posted by Donkey® View Post
I keep hearing this "Iran" excuse out of people and I am wondering, still, if Iran is the reason...why not just put the missiles in Germany?
Its not a valid reason. Its bullshit. The russians know its bullshit.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Stumble Upon this Post!
Register to Reply to This Post
Register to Post a Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
bush, medvedev, missile defense shield, poland, putin, russia, united states

Go Back   The Liberty Lounge Political Forums > Liberty Lounge Discussions > The Floor



Thread Tools



SEO by vBSEO

vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge