ABM Treaty

[KHaN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AzureWolf:


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.

---

To true...ya know I served in the Army during Clintons 2 terms in office and not one time was a field problem or any type of training or ANYTHING for that matter canceled because of "lack of funds". Every year I also got a raise and never a paycut.

As far as the missile defense thing-a-mabob goes I think it will be a huge boon for defense contractors and another large waste of taxpayers money.

[Ronn_Bman]

We aren't breaking the treaty. It has a legal out, for either side, if six months notice is given. This hasn't come out of the blue either. The negotiation has been going on for a year with Russia to make an ammendment which would satisfy both sides regarding testing, not implementation, but an agreement couldn't be reached.

The money spent in the early 80s developed technology which is in use today, including the patriot missle. There are many more benefits to this than just shooting down nukes, but if the program shot down one nuke, it be worth the cost.

I don't believe this will start a new arms race. The idea any program, in the near future, could shoot down a massive nuclear launch by anyone isn't realistic. Keep in mind that the Chinese aren't restricted by this treaty and are free to build as many nukes as they please and to improve their delivery systems.

Working towards a defensive deterant instead of an offensive one should be applauded, but people don't like change. It's said the ABM treaty works, but it didn't stop the nuclear stockpiles from growing during the following years to the point that all of the nuclear arsenals can no longer be accounted for.

The idea "we can kill them, so they won't kill us" has never made much sense to me. We don't want a missle defense shield so we can begin using nukes, but instead, so that if one is ever fired at US we can knock it down.

Is it unlikely a legitimate nation would launch a nuke? Yes. Is it impossible? No, but what if there was an unauthorized launch from such a country? Wouldn't it be better to be prepared than to try to evacuate a city? No one thought September 11th could happen either, but when it did people said, "We knew the possibility was there, so why weren't we prepared?" Can you imagine what they would say if we were hit by a nuke?

[Sir ReGiN]

Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.

quote:

---

we can finaly be the military power that we used to be.

---

Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.

---

How was it a leap in the right direction? Nuclear weapons production wasn't reduced in the least by this treaty and continued. Having enough weapons to destroy the world wasn't enough, both the US and Russia insisted on having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and over (like anyone would be impressed after the first time )We are still interested in reducing our nuclear stockpile in conjunction with the Russians to around 2,000. Maybe one day they'll all be gone. Maybe if they can be rendered useless, they can be completely removed.

Is the ABM considered worthy because we didn't blow ourselves up after 1972 despite the continuing nuclear arms race? If you use that logic, it was worthless to start with since we didn't blow ourselves up between 1945 and 1972.

I still find it interesting that people are upset about testing a nuclear defense. How does each side having weapons, against which the other can't defend, make the world safer? Because if one dies, we all die?

What Americans think? We think that a world that would accuse US of having "violence on the brain" for creating defensive weapons doesn't think that much of US to start with. Americans basically think the way this should look to the rest of the world is "they are pulling out of a treaty, by the legal means required, to pursue testing of a defensive, not offensive, nuclear deterrant. It's their option."

[MILAMBER]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.



Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.

---

And so it starts. Do me a favor and don't level any blanket accusations on Americans. Americans don't have "violence" on the brain any more then any other country does.

Ron Bman, that was excellently stated. I completely agree.

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

---

There are ways to detect a nuke in transit [img]smile.gif[/img] It can be done from orbit even [img]smile.gif[/img] and no this is not a widley known thing because they dont publicize every little thing about nuclear weapons and policys.

Do you think it is an accident that no one has yet managed to use fissionable materials in a terrorist action yet? It aint easy to cart that stuff around.

As for the ABM treaty.....Was the treaty actually ratified by congress or did they just not oppose it? If they did not ratify it (and I really think they didn't) then "breaking it" is not an issue.

It is a useless treaty at this time and really no longer applies because one of the 2 principle participants the USSR no longer exists.
It is only sane for the USA and any nation who wants to join up to build just such a system, it might be a technological stretch to do it, but there will always be spin off gains put into use in the private sector. People claimed the space race was a waste of money but ignore the incredible advances that stretching our minds and money brought about. Computers, electronics, medicine, synthetic materials..all leaped forward because of money doing things some thought were a waste of time. Id rather have the system and it never be needed than loose even one single city due to not having it.

So the ABM system might not stop terrorists but it will stop (it is assumed) a particular kind of attack. In the mean time to keep the terrorists out of the game, give the people who take care of those kinds of things a reasonable budget..after all they just got done seeing 8 years of continual budget cuts...while officials bombed asprin factories to take peoples minds off certain stained blue dresses. just my thoughts on the subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.



Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.

---

Sir You show a total lack of knowledge of what the ABM treaty was and was ment to do. The treaty had nothing to do with the rest of the world, it was strictly between the USA (still exists) and the USSR (does not exist) and it was made to keep each of those two countries (supposedly) from comitting a first strike by ensureing that the MAD policy (that is Mutually Assured Destruction) stayed in effect...so by advocating a treaty that guarentees no ABM you are advocating the principle of MAD...make sure every one can be destroyed if they launch a missile. Give me a break that is idiocy..it was all that could be done in the 60's but the world has moved on beyond MAD and the USSR is no more so there is no ABM treaty any longer. An ABM system will only protect us against rogue nations and only they need worry about it...this in no way makes the world more dangerous for you or your country...than it was or has been.

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.

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 behaviours to see if they have a uniting or isolating effect.....

---

Each system has its place and job, the ABM isnt the method for controlling terrorist types of attacks. There ARE other systems that safeguard against that, some are orbital sensors to track neutron emmisions others are land based. Just because the system doesnt guard against things it isnt designed to protect against..is not justification to cancel the program....not to mention this program can lead to advances in many many different scientific areas......again some people thought the space race was a waste of time..and yet we are far better having had it than not.

[MILAMBER]

Wow MagiK you seem very educated on the matter. I had no idea that we could track neutron emissions from space.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
As for the ABM treaty.....Was the treaty actually ratified by congress or did they just not oppose it? If they did not ratify it (and I really think they didn't) then "breaking it" is not an issue.

---

Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate August 3, 1972
Ratified by U.S. President September 30, 1972
Proclaimed by U.S. President October 3, 1972
Instruments of ratification exchanged October 3, 1972
Entered into force October 3, 1972

The 1972 treaty was further modified in 1974...

Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate November 10, 1975
Ratified by U.S. President March 19, 1976
Instruments of ratification exchanged May 24, 1976
Proclaimed by U.S. President July 6, 1976
Entered into force May 24, 1976

By exiting the treaty, we are not "breaking" the treaty. The treaty gives either nation the right to vacate the treaty with 6 months notice to the other. Today we gave notice.