ABM Treaty - Page 2

MILAMBER · 12-13-2001, 07:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Medicina the druid:
hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........?
but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on.

Thank you for your learned discourse on where you think this thread should be.

1st off, this is not the BG forum, this is general discussion. I was interested in having a DISCUSSION on the ABM treaty.

Secondly, there is no international news forum. There is a war forum. This has nothing to do with the war, so I would be out of line to post it there.

In light of these facts, did I still make a mistake? Is it ok with you to post this here?

MILAMBER · 12-13-2001, 07:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless

I agree to an extent, but I think there still are benefits to it. Not every country has the technology to create a suitcase sized nuke, and even if they did, a suitcase nuke has nowhere near the destructive power of a ICBM. An hydrogen ICBM detonated above ground is a whole order of magnitude more deadly then a suitcase nuke. I think in general it might cost more then it's worth, but for the most part I"m not against the idea.

Sir Taliesin · 12-13-2001, 08:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless

Oh, I agree totally on this one. For defense it is next to useless. Too many ways around it. However a lot of good off shoots could come from it as well. Alot of stuff spun off the old Star Wars research.
Alot of the stuff that is being used on the international space station came from the Old Star Wars program.

Lord of Alcohol · 12-13-2001, 09:13 PM

Thats what I meant about not a waste of money Sir Talieson, but Milamber I'm not just talking about "suitcase" there are far easier ways to hit us than a missile thats my point. While the money spent on this pointless projecy WILL increase our overall technology in MANY ways, it wont increase our defense capability to any marked degree, so I say its a sham

MILAMBER · 12-13-2001, 09:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
Thats what I meant about not a waste of money Sir Talieson, but Milamber I'm not just talking about "suitcase" there are far easier ways to hit us than a missile thats my point. While the money spent on this pointless projecy WILL increase our overall technology in MANY ways, it wont increase our defense capability to any marked degree, so I say its a sham

I see what you're saying. Do you think it's worth the investment overall? Is it worth breaking a treaty with Russia and changing the balance of power when taking into consideration the limited benefit it will be?

Scholarcs · 12-13-2001, 09:44 PM

Well, you have to ask yourself, what would the USA have done if the USSR had dropped out of the treaty first? Would the USA have imposed sanctions etc? Why should we expect the USSR to do any different?
Just some thoughts.

*\Conan/* · 12-13-2001, 10:04 PM

Remember 1959 when the nation had to " rethink security measures and tactics". So what is different this day and age? That year our nuclear secrects were stolen by Russia. So started the cold war. Darn it..if I keep going this will end up in the war forum..

Morgan_Corbesant · 12-13-2001, 10:06 PM

absurd things about missle defence:
an icbm is an unlikely threat

more likely is chemical /biological/or "dirty" radiation leaking bomb... none of which need a missle to deliver, only suitcases and devoted individuals who hate america...

i dont think a missle defense shield can stop suit case smuggling unless someone goes to all the effort of duct taping a suitcase to an icbm...very unlikely

so why spend billions possibly a trillion bucks on something that will not protect us from the REAL dangers?

our only hope is to eliminate the real threat:

isolation

it means recognizing that our life and wellbeing is connected to the wellbeing of other peoples
it means reforming our economies to benefit all the peoples of the world so that no part
of humankind suffers from isolation or oppression.
It means recognizing that we are one Human family and must not neglect
any members.
It means examining our concepts, beliefs, insitutions, and behaviour
s to see if they have a uniting or isolating effect.....[/QB][/QUOTE]

um........... true, IF the only thing we had to worry about were terrorists. however, MANY countries can shoot icbm's and it is better to be safe than sorry. iraq may be able to launch an icbm. if not, how hard would it be to get a shit into the ocean, and launch a missle from the middle of the atlantic? given, it wont stop a suitcase bomb, however, if another country decided to get a dumb hair up their butt, and lauch a missle, then i think an anti missle system is a good defensive measure. its the beginning of a new century, all sorts of new weapons could possibly be built at any given time, by any given person. im sorry, but we have a republican in office now, not a pansy ass liberal. that means that our military is going to get some MUCH needed revamping. its about time in my opinion. we can finaly be the military power that we used to be. anyway, i agree with some points, but not all. i only wanted to put my opinion on the board. thanks for all of your time all.

[img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img]

Donut · 12-14-2001, 06:20 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Medicina the druid:
hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........?
but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on.

As has been pointed out this is a General Discussion forum so the thread is valid here.

Apart from that I have to agree with all of the points you made in your post.

Oh - BTW, welcome to Ironworks. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

AzureWolf · 12-14-2001, 06:34 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant:
im sorry, but we have a republican in office now, not a pansy ass liberal. that means that our military is going to get some MUCH needed revamping. its about time in my opinion. we can finaly be the military power that we used to be.
[img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img]

Uh excuse me? Pansy ass Liberal?
Why? Because they dont want to spend a shit load of money on the military when there is other much more needed places to use the money. Or would you rather see Americans go unemployed just so the army have a few new toys to play with?
And as for being the military power that you used to be? That is total BS. America already is the single most militarily powerful nation in the world. Maybe a better thing would be to spend LESS on the army and more on public welfare.

12-13-2001, 07:51 PM	#11
MILAMBER Lord Soth Join Date: March 5, 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,948	quote: Originally posted by Medicina the druid: hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........? but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on. Thank you for your learned discourse on where you think this thread should be. 1st off, this is not the BG forum, this is general discussion. I was interested in having a DISCUSSION on the ABM treaty. Secondly, there is no international news forum. There is a war forum. This has nothing to do with the war, so I would be out of line to post it there. In light of these facts, did I still make a mistake? Is it ok with you to post this here? __________________ \"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.\"<br />-General George Patton (1885-1945)<br /> <br />Member of CLAN HADB<br />Founder of The Anti Clan Coalition

12-13-2001, 07:56 PM	#12
MILAMBER Lord Soth Join Date: March 5, 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,948	quote: Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol: I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless I agree to an extent, but I think there still are benefits to it. Not every country has the technology to create a suitcase sized nuke, and even if they did, a suitcase nuke has nowhere near the destructive power of a ICBM. An hydrogen ICBM detonated above ground is a whole order of magnitude more deadly then a suitcase nuke. I think in general it might cost more then it's worth, but for the most part I"m not against the idea. __________________ \"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.\"<br />-General George Patton (1885-1945)<br /> <br />Member of CLAN HADB<br />Founder of The Anti Clan Coalition

12-13-2001, 08:56 PM	#13
Sir Taliesin Silver Dragon Join Date: March 4, 2001 Location: Knoxville, TN USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,641	quote: Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol: I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless Oh, I agree totally on this one. For defense it is next to useless. Too many ways around it. However a lot of good off shoots could come from it as well. Alot of stuff spun off the old Star Wars research. Alot of the stuff that is being used on the international space station came from the Old Star Wars program. __________________ Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye.

12-13-2001, 09:13 PM	#14
Lord of Alcohol Xanathar Thieves Guild Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Charlotte,NC Age: 61 Posts: 4,570	Thats what I meant about not a waste of money Sir Talieson, but Milamber I'm not just talking about "suitcase" there are far easier ways to hit us than a missile thats my point. While the money spent on this pointless projecy WILL increase our overall technology in MANY ways, it wont increase our defense capability to any marked degree, so I say its a sham __________________ No

12-13-2001, 09:18 PM	#15
MILAMBER Lord Soth Join Date: March 5, 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,948	quote: Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol: Thats what I meant about not a waste of money Sir Talieson, but Milamber I'm not just talking about "suitcase" there are far easier ways to hit us than a missile thats my point. While the money spent on this pointless projecy WILL increase our overall technology in MANY ways, it wont increase our defense capability to any marked degree, so I say its a sham I see what you're saying. Do you think it's worth the investment overall? Is it worth breaking a treaty with Russia and changing the balance of power when taking into consideration the limited benefit it will be? __________________ \"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.\"<br />-General George Patton (1885-1945)<br /> <br />Member of CLAN HADB<br />Founder of The Anti Clan Coalition

12-13-2001, 09:44 PM	#16
Scholarcs Red Dragon Join Date: December 5, 2001 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Age: 39 Posts: 1,557	Well, you have to ask yourself, what would the USA have done if the USSR had dropped out of the treaty first? Would the USA have imposed sanctions etc? Why should we expect the USSR to do any different? Just some thoughts. __________________ <br />\"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five\" - Groucho Marx<br />Member of the ORT Clan. <br />\"Some birds are not meant to be caged because their feathers are too bright\"<br />Ma bouche sera la bouche des malheurs qui n\'ont point de bouche, ma voix, la liberté de celles qui s\'affaissent au cachot du désespoir. - Aimé Césaire<br />La plus perdue de toutes les journées est celle où l\'on n\'a pas ri. - Sébastien Roch Nicolas

12-13-2001, 10:04 PM	#17
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 63 Posts: 1,512	Remember 1959 when the nation had to " rethink security measures and tactics". So what is different this day and age? That year our nuclear secrects were stolen by Russia. So started the cold war. Darn it..if I keep going this will end up in the war forum.. __________________ \\Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

12-13-2001, 10:06 PM	#18
Morgan_Corbesant Symbol of Cyric Join Date: August 19, 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Age: 47 Posts: 1,224	absurd things about missle defence: an icbm is an unlikely threat more likely is chemical /biological/or "dirty" radiation leaking bomb... none of which need a missle to deliver, only suitcases and devoted individuals who hate america... i dont think a missle defense shield can stop suit case smuggling unless someone goes to all the effort of duct taping a suitcase to an icbm...very unlikely so why spend billions possibly a trillion bucks on something that will not protect us from the REAL dangers? our only hope is to eliminate the real threat: isolation it means recognizing that our life and wellbeing is connected to the wellbeing of other peoples it means reforming our economies to benefit all the peoples of the world so that no part of humankind suffers from isolation or oppression. It means recognizing that we are one Human family and must not neglect any members. It means examining our concepts, beliefs, insitutions, and behaviour s to see if they have a uniting or isolating effect.....[/QB][/QUOTE] um........... true, IF the only thing we had to worry about were terrorists. however, MANY countries can shoot icbm's and it is better to be safe than sorry. iraq may be able to launch an icbm. if not, how hard would it be to get a shit into the ocean, and launch a missle from the middle of the atlantic? given, it wont stop a suitcase bomb, however, if another country decided to get a dumb hair up their butt, and lauch a missle, then i think an anti missle system is a good defensive measure. its the beginning of a new century, all sorts of new weapons could possibly be built at any given time, by any given person. im sorry, but we have a republican in office now, not a pansy ass liberal. that means that our military is going to get some MUCH needed revamping. its about time in my opinion. we can finaly be the military power that we used to be. anyway, i agree with some points, but not all. i only wanted to put my opinion on the board. thanks for all of your time all. [img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img] __________________ Morgan Corbesant, Elven BladeSinger, Captain of the army of the Seldarine<br /><br /> [img]\"http://www.rleeermey.com/images/linkbanners/usmcredwhiteblue.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Protector of Elves<br />Slayer of Orcs<br /><br />ALL YOUR BASE, ARE BELONG TO US!!!<br />I DON\'T FIGHT FOR HONOR, I FIGHT TO WIN!<br />\"One who is a samurai must before all things keep constantly in mind, by day and by night...the fact that he has to die\". <br />-Daidoji Yuzan-<br />16th Century

12-14-2001, 06:20 AM	#19
Donut Jack Burton Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Airstrip One Age: 41 Posts: 5,571	quote: Originally posted by Medicina the druid: hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........? but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on. As has been pointed out this is a General Discussion forum so the thread is valid here. Apart from that I have to agree with all of the points you made in your post. Oh - BTW, welcome to Ironworks. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] __________________ [img]\"http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> <br />Proud member of the Axis of Upheaval<br />Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas<br />Josiah Bartlet - the best President the US never had.<br />The 1st D in the D & D Show

12-14-2001, 06:34 AM	#20
AzureWolf 20th Level Warrior Join Date: May 3, 2001 Location: . Age: 41 Posts: 2,762	quote: Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant: im sorry, but we have a republican in office now, not a pansy ass liberal. that means that our military is going to get some MUCH needed revamping. its about time in my opinion. we can finaly be the military power that we used to be. [img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img] Uh excuse me? Pansy ass Liberal? Why? Because they dont want to spend a shit load of money on the military when there is other much more needed places to use the money. Or would you rather see Americans go unemployed just so the army have a few new toys to play with? And as for being the military power that you used to be? That is total BS. America already is the single most militarily powerful nation in the world. Maybe a better thing would be to spend LESS on the army and more on public welfare.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Worldwide anti-smoking treaty comes into force	Dreamer128	General Discussion	4	02-28-2005 06:02 AM
EU Carbon trading starts as the Kyoto treaty comes into force	shamrock_uk	General Discussion	2	02-18-2005 03:19 PM
UK government publishes case for EU treaty	Dreamer128	General Discussion	0	09-16-2004 09:13 AM