• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia nears arms pact approval, warns on pullout

GPS_Flex

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Russia nears arms pact approval, warns on pullout - Yahoo! News

The amendments stipulate that Russia could withdraw if military deployments or even plans by the United States or NATO jeopardize its security.
They highlight lingering rifts over U.S. plans for a European anti-missile shield and Russian concerns over other weapons it fears the United States or NATO could deploy.
A missile system that weakens Russia's nuclear arsenal would "force us to use the article of the treaty that provides for the withdrawal of a state that feels violated in terms of security," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Duma, Interfax reported.
Click to expand...

It looks like we were lied to by Obama et al again. The Obama Administration insisted that passing the START Treaty would not impact the US antimissile defense systems.


[video]http://english.ruvr.ru/data/2010/12/30/1272017610/NV-1_2_29_12_10_START.mp3[/video]
 
GPS_Flex said:
Russia nears arms pact approval, warns on pullout - Yahoo! News



It looks like we were lied to by Obama et al again. The Obama Administration insisted that passing the START Treaty would not impact the US antimissile defense systems.


[video]http://english.ruvr.ru/data/2010/12/30/1272017610/NV-1_2_29_12_10_START.mp3[/video]
Click to expand...

Please don't act as if you are surprised that Obama was once again lying.

His record for being caught in lie in the first two years exceeds even President Bush in 8 years and I thought that was impossible.
 
Councilman said:
Please don't act as if you are surprised that Obama was once again lying.

His record for being caught in lie in the first two years exceeds even President Bush in 8 years and I thought that was impossible.
Click to expand...

No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.
Click to expand...

The above quote is from the Whitehouse website. I’m just curious how Obama is going to spin this.

“Durr…I guess I was duped” or “you knew I was a liar when you elected me” or “Sarah Palin made the Russians do it”?
 
*sigh*
There is no technologically feasible defense against ICBMs, and designing such devices would undermine our security in the first place. Have people already forgotten the concept of MAD?
 
Deuce said:
*sigh*
There is no technologically feasible defense against ICBMs, and designing such devices would undermine our security in the first place. Have people already forgotten the concept of MAD?
Click to expand...

You forgot to say "yet."
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
You forgot to say "yet."
Click to expand...

Let's say you and I have guns. We have them pointed at eachother. If one pulls the trigger, the other will do the same. We both die. Pretty unlikely that either of us would choose to do that. So we stand there, guns pointed.

Then one day you see me start to put on a kevlar suit. Once I get the suit on, I have the advantage: I can kill you, but you can't kill me. Do you
A) Allow me to put on the suit
B) Pull the trigger before I get the suit on, while things are still equal
 
Deuce said:
*sigh*
There is no technologically feasible defense against ICBMs, and designing such devices would undermine our security in the first place. Have people already forgotten the concept of MAD?
Click to expand...

http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf

44 of 57 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been successful across all programs since the integrated system began development in 2001
o Includes Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3
31 of 40 hit-to-kill intercept attempts have been achieved for THAAD, Aegis, and GMD test programs since 2001
Click to expand...

It looks pretty feasible to me. Apparently the Russians seem to think it’s feasible too. Landing a man on the moon wasn’t technologically feasible either, until we decided to do it. Look at how that turned out.

Mad is almost as outdated as our nuclear arsenal.
 
Deuce said:
Let's say you and I have guns. We have them pointed at eachother. If one pulls the trigger, the other will do the same. We both die. Pretty unlikely that either of us would choose to do that. So we stand there, guns pointed.

Then one day you see me start to put on a kevlar suit. Once I get the suit on, I have the advantage: I can kill you, but you can't kill me. Do you
A) Allow me to put on the suit
B) Pull the trigger before I get the suit on, while things are still equal
Click to expand...

C) Put on my own suit because I'll be dead if i pull the trigger
 
GPS_Flex said:
C) Put on my own suit because I'll be dead if i pull the trigger
Click to expand...

Then you both get bigger guns or better ammo to mitigate the affect of the armor, now the armor is for all practical purposes worthless and all that's been done is that each side now has a greater capacity for destruction.
 
Wiseone said:
Then you both get bigger guns or better ammo to mitigate the affect of the armor, now the armor is for all practical purposes worthless and all that's been done is that each side now has a greater capacity for destruction.
Click to expand...

As long as I get the bigger gun and better armor first, I'm cool with that. That's how life works.
 
Deuce said:
Let's say you and I have guns. We have them pointed at eachother. If one pulls the trigger, the other will do the same. We both die. Pretty unlikely that either of us would choose to do that. So we stand there, guns pointed.

Then one day you see me start to put on a kevlar suit. Once I get the suit on, I have the advantage: I can kill you, but you can't kill me. Do you
A) Allow me to put on the suit
B) Pull the trigger before I get the suit on, while things are still equal
Click to expand...

Why dost thou trouble me? Russia isn't the problem in and of itself. In fact many on earth are racing ahead with missile defenses. China. Russia. Israel. You seem to think we are still in the First Nuclear Age. Things have evolved. Check this out and get back to me if you want to talk about nuclear weapons theory:

Belmont Club » The Third Nuclear Age
 
GPS_Flex said:
http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf



It looks pretty feasible to me. Apparently the Russians seem to think it’s feasible too. Landing a man on the moon wasn’t technologically feasible either, until we decided to do it. Look at how that turned out.

Mad is almost as outdated as our nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

Shooting down intermediate range missiles and the world-ending intercontinental weapons are two entirely different things. Taking into account the number of warheads we're up against, the hellacious speed at which they travel, and the decoy/MIRV capability of those weapons, even 44 of 57 is laughable. It's armageddon. Anything short of 100% is useless.

Unless the number of incoming warheads is reduced. If only there were some way to get Russia to reduce their arsenal...
 
Deuce said:
Shooting down intermediate range missiles and the world-ending intercontinental weapons are two entirely different things. Taking into account the number of warheads we're up against, the hellacious speed at which they travel, and the decoy/MIRV capability of those weapons, even 44 of 57 is laughable. It's armageddon. Anything short of 100% is useless.

Unless the number of incoming warheads is reduced. If only there were some way to get Russia to reduce their arsenal...
Click to expand...

Why is Russia developing missile defenses?
 
Deuce said:
Shooting down intermediate range missiles and the world-ending intercontinental weapons are two entirely different things. Taking into account the number of warheads we're up against, the hellacious speed at which they travel, and the decoy/MIRV capability of those weapons, even 44 of 57 is laughable. It's armageddon. Anything short of 100% is useless.

Unless the number of incoming warheads is reduced. If only there were some way to get Russia to reduce their arsenal...
Click to expand...

Hey its only 13 ICBMs with multiple hydrogen bomb warheads landing in the US, how bad can that be? O and the Russians have at least a thousand nuclear weapons, so thats 13 for every 57 nukes. But lets say its 13 for every 60, thats only 216 that get through!
 
Deuce said:
Shooting down intermediate range missiles and the world-ending intercontinental weapons are two entirely different things. Taking into account the number of warheads we're up against, the hellacious speed at which they travel, and the decoy/MIRV capability of those weapons, even 44 of 57 is laughable. It's armageddon. Anything short of 100% is useless.

Unless the number of incoming warheads is reduced. If only there were some way to get Russia to reduce their arsenal...
Click to expand...

We’re getting a little off topic here Deuce. Before we go down this road, I have a question for you that is topic related:


Did you argue for ratification of the New Start Treaty using the Obama claim that the treaty didn’t limit missile defense?
 
GPS_Flex said:
We’re getting a little off topic here Deuce. Before we go down this road, I have a question for you that is topic related:


Did you argue for ratification of the New Start Treaty using the Obama claim that the treaty didn’t limit missile defense?
Click to expand...

It doesn't limit missile defense if that missile defense doesn't undermine ICBM capabilities.
I.E. we can still develop missile defense aimed at short-intermediate range weapons, which is a likely threat from countries like Iran and North Korea.

As for why I argue for ratification, missile defense is not the reason, no.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Please don't answer a question with a question. After you answer my question I will graciously answer yours.
Click to expand...

What developments are they working on that are relevant to ICBMs and SLBMs?
 
Deuce said:
It doesn't limit missile defense if that missile defense doesn't undermine ICBM capabilities.
I.E. we can still develop missile defense aimed at short-intermediate range weapons, which is a likely threat from countries like Iran and North Korea.

As for why I argue for ratification, missile defense is not the reason, no.
Click to expand...

I’m not asking what your argument is now. I’m asking what argument you used when ratification was on the table in the US Senate. I can go look it up if you aren’t willing to be forthcoming about it.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I’m not asking what your argument is now. I’m asking what argument you used when ratification was on the table in the US Senate. I can go look it up if you aren’t willing to be forthcoming about it.
Click to expand...

My argument was and always has been that reducing nuclear stockpiles is good for everyone.

Missile defense is irrelevant. We don't have a defense against these kinds of weapons, and trying to develop a defense is a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
My argument was and always has been that reducing nuclear stockpiles is good for everyone.

Missile defense is irrelevant. We don't have a defense against these kinds of weapons, and trying to develop a defense is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Very well, I’ll go look it up then.
 
Deuce said:
What developments are they working on that are relevant to ICBMs and SLBMs?
Click to expand...

There is a rythym in debate. One side begins, the other side responds, and the process is repeated. I initiated our exchange by asking you a question. If you wish to debate please answer my question. Then I will respond to your question. Thanks. If you don't want to debate then ignore my post. One or the other. There is no other choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom