Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 115

Thread: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    You gonna offer proof of that?
    Spud,

    I just got three infraction points responding to you in another thread, as well as a thread ban. Don't talk to me again.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.
    Why does the Preamble of the Treaty connect offensive and defensive missiles?

  3. #13
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Why does the Preamble of the Treaty connect offensive and defensive missiles?
    Both sides agree that existing defensive weapons to not undermine the offensive capabilities of existing stockpiles. Ergo, the treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.

    The one "limitation" the treaty does spell out is that we can't convert old launchers into interceptors... something the DOD has already expressed it wasn't planning to do anyway because it's cheaper and easier just to build new interceptors.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-23-10 at 10:14 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Both sides agree that existing defensive weapons to not undermine the offensive capabilities of existing stockpiles. Ergo, the treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.
    Thanks, but that's not the question I asked.

    I asked why the Preamble of the Treaty ties offensive and defensive missiles together?

  5. #15
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Spud,

    I just got three infraction points responding to you in another thread, as well as a thread ban. Don't talk to me again.
    I love you too.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  6. #16
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What kind of dumb **** would sign a treaty that outlawed missile defense systems? Obama's a joke.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Why does the Preamble of the Treaty connect offensive and defensive missiles?
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Thanks, but that's not the question I asked.

    I asked why the Preamble of the Treaty ties offensive and defensive missiles together?
    I know it's not what you asked. It is, however, what the conversation was about. As for why offensive and defensive weapons are tied together, I'll have to explain Mutually Assured Destruction to you.

    Let's say you and I are holding guns, pointed at each other. We don't like or trust each other, but we still aren't inclined to pull the trigger because if we do that, the other will pull his trigger and we both die. So we stand there, guns in hand, but everyone stays alive. However, one day you see me start to put on a kevlar vest. Once the vest is on, I am well-protected from your gun. (let's ignore "shoot the head." for this scenario, your odds of penetrating the vest are very low) What would you do? Let me gain that advantage over you, or pull the trigger before I get the vest on?

    That's what we have going here. Nuclear arsenals that are guaranteed to destroy each other. He who pushes the proverbial button to destroy the other will himself be destroyed, and the human race may fall as a result. Right now, defensive interceptors just aren't up to the task of stopping ICBMs. They're just too freaking fast, the intercept success rate is abysmally low, and that's not even counting the effects of decoys and MIRVs. If some defensive system did come up that truly threatened the capabilities of ICBMs, do you think the Russians would:
    A) Allow us to finish building the defensive shield and gain a potentially decisive advantage over them
    B) Blow us all to hell before being forced to their knees before us

    Developing systems capable of stopping these strategic weapons actually makes us less safe.
    Developing systems to protect us from smaller-scale weapons like Iran or North Korea might come up with is not in violation of the treaty, as long as it doesn't seriously threaten the existing strategic stockpiles.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-23-10 at 10:26 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #17
    Student
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    North Central Illinois
    Last Seen
    12-25-10 @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    232
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What kind of dumb **** would sign a treaty that outlawed missile defense systems? Obama's a joke.
    You are misinformed. The treaty does not prevent our continued development of Star Wars.

    U.S. Senator Dick Lugar

    U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, the Ranking Republican of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

    In anticipation of our consideration of the New START Treaty, some have advocated that the preamble to the Treaty be amended to address concerns regarding missile defense. I believe that this course is unnecessary and will not ultimately serve U.S. interests.

    As you are aware, the preamble includes a clause that states: “Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.” Some have argued that it is necessary to delete this clause from the treaty text to prevent Russia from threatening to withdraw from the Treaty if we expand missile defense.

    But Russia’s ability to withdraw from the New START Treaty over concerns about U.S. missile defense plans does not depend on language in the treaty’s preamble. Russia’s ability to withdraw from the New START Treaty is governed by Article XIV of the Treaty, which reads, in pertinent part, that: “Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme national interests.” Removing language from the treaty’s preamble will not constrain Russia’s ability to decide for itself whether to withdraw from the treaty pursuant to Article XIV.

    Some might argue that the Senate should seek to amend Article XIV to assert that Russian objections to U.S. missile defense are not a basis for withdrawing from the treaty. But such a course would not be in our interest because it would likely require us to agree to corresponding constraints on our right to decide for ourselves under what circumstances we may withdraw from the treaty.

    Instead, the best course for the United States is to make clear that we will pursue our missile defense plans whether or not Russia decides now or in the future not to be a party to the New START treaty, and that Russian threats to withdraw from the treaty will accordingly have no impact on our missile defense plans. Just as we were not deterred from withdrawing from the ABM Treaty by Russian threats that such a withdrawal might prompt them to pull out of START I, Russian threats with regard to New START will not deter us from pursuing our missile defense plans.

    Where do you guys get your information? Wait - nevermind. Misinformation central. Most of what you're mad at isn't even happening.
    I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic. - Abigail Adams

  8. #18
    Steve
    tryreading's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    02-26-13 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,809

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I know it's not what you asked. It is, however, what the conversation was about. As for why offensive and defensive weapons are tied together, I'll have to explain Mutually Assured Destruction to you.

    Let's say you and I are holding guns, pointed at each other. We don't like or trust each other, but we still aren't inclined to pull the trigger because if we do that, the other will pull his trigger and we both die. So we stand there, guns in hand, but everyone stays alive. However, one day you see me start to put on a kevlar vest. Once the vest is on, I am well-protected from your gun. (let's ignore "shoot the head." for this scenario, your odds of penetrating the vest are very low) What would you do? Let me gain that advantage over you, or pull the trigger before I get the vest on?

    That's what we have going here. Nuclear arsenals that are guaranteed to destroy each other. He who pushes the proverbial button to destroy the other will himself be destroyed, and the human race may fall as a result. Right now, defensive interceptors just aren't up to the task of stopping ICBMs. They're just too freaking fast, the intercept success rate is abysmally low, and that's not even counting the effects of decoys and MIRVs. If some defensive system did come up that truly threatened the capabilities of ICBMs, do you think the Russians would:
    A) Allow us to finish building the defensive shield and gain a potentially decisive advantage over them
    B) Blow us all to hell before being forced to their knees before us

    Developing systems capable of stopping these strategic weapons actually makes us less safe.
    Developing systems to protect us from smaller-scale weapons like Iran or North Korea might come up with is not in violation of the treaty, as long as it doesn't seriously threaten the existing strategic stockpiles.
    You are being diplomatic. But you obviously know that missile defense does not work. Others on this thread don't realize that, I guess.

    Also, we wouldn't use existing technology and vainly attempt to retrofit it for a system that, at this time, is still science fiction.
    Do not write in this space!

  9. #19
    Student
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    North Central Illinois
    Last Seen
    12-25-10 @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    232
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    What you've posted isn't true.
    It is true and no president of the United States can ratify a treaty on his own. Sorry, doesn't work that way. That whole 2/3 of the Senate thing, ya know?
    I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic. - Abigail Adams

  10. #20
    Steve
    tryreading's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Last Seen
    02-26-13 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,809

    Re: Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev316 View Post
    Where do you guys get your information? Wait - nevermind. Misinformation central. Most of what you're mad at isn't even happening.
    They get their information from AM radio.
    Do not write in this space!

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •