• 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!

Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START | U.S. Naval Institute
Weak and inexperienced is as weak and inexperienced does.

.
 
What kind of dumb **** would sign a treaty that outlawed missile defense systems? Obama's a joke.
 
Yeah, right? What kind of dumb***.

Except - Obama didn't sign a treaty that did that, and that's not what the Vice Admiral is complaining about.
Check for yourself: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

It sounds like that's what Miller is complaining about.

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”
 
Obama is trash. Absolute trash. He needs to just go away and pass away in his sleep.
 
It sounds like that's what Miller is complaining about.

Ah, you're right. I should've read the article closely.

Nonetheless, the treaty's only limitation on missile defense systems is that ICBM/SLBM launchers cannot be converted for placement of "missile defense interceptors."

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell - The Republican case for ratifying New START

According to this article, written by 5 secretaries of state for Republican administrations, converting existing launchers is not cost efficient and is less effective than building new ones, and our military leadership does not want to convert them.

So, the treaty doesn't outlaw missile defense systems, but I'm sure this has no bearing on your opinion of Obama - or the treaty, for that matter.
 
Ah, you're right. I should've read the article closely.

Nonetheless, the treaty's only limitation on missile defense systems is that ICBM/SLBM launchers cannot be converted for placement of "missile defense interceptors."

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell - The Republican case for ratifying New START

According to this article, written by 5 secretaries of state for Republican administrations, converting existing launchers is not cost efficient and is less effective than building new ones, and our military leadership does not want to convert them.

So, the treaty doesn't outlaw missile defense systems, but I'm sure this has no bearing on your opinion of Obama - or the treaty, for that matter.

What you've posted isn't true.
 
What kind of dumb **** would sign a treaty that outlawed missile defense systems? Obama's a joke.

The treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.
 
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:
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?
 
What kind of dumb **** would sign a treaty that outlawed missile defense systems? Obama's a joke.

The treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.

Why does the Preamble of the Treaty connect offensive and defensive missiles?

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:
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 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.
 
They get their information from AM radio.

WLS, am890, is Chicago's 50,000 watt blowtorch. Here's the lineup: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin.
WIND am560 is Chicago's #2 blowtorch. Here's the lineup: Beck, Dennis Miller, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Hue Hewitt, Mike Ghallagher, Dennis Prager.

Pretty sweet, huh? Yup, am radio. Don't even need Fox.
 
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.

Yes, it does. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything in the treaty about defensive ballistic missiles.

Even the Russians admit that the part about outlawing defensive missile systems is legally binding.

Russian media: The missile defense provision in the new START treaty is legally binding « Hot Air
 
WLS, am890, is Chicago's 50,000 watt blowtorch. Here's the lineup: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin.
WIND am560 is Chicago's #2 blowtorch. Here's the lineup: Beck, Dennis Miller, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Hue Hewitt, Mike Ghallagher, Dennis Prager.

Pretty sweet, huh? Yup, am radio. Don't even need Fox.

We have all of the above here, and Laura Ingraham, and a slew of locals who follow exactly the same format from the same angle. For a while Gordon Liddy and Oliver North were on daily, don't know if they are still. (I don't know why anyone would hire Gordon Liddy for public speaking, as he is a known felon and bedbug).

AM radio here in Central Florida is certain brain death. You can't learn from it. You can only be told what to believe based on the airing of selective facts.
 
We have all of the above here, and Laura Ingraham, and a slew of locals who follow exactly the same format from the same angle. For a while Gordon Liddy and Oliver North were on daily, don't know if they are still. (I don't know why anyone would hire Gordon Liddy for public speaking, as he is a known felon and bedbug).

AM radio here in Central Florida is certain brain death. You can't learn from it. You can only be told what to believe based on the airing of selective facts.

I bet ya'll the same cats that thought Obamacare wasn't going to pay for public funded abortions, too.
 
I bet ya'll the same cats that thought Obamacare wasn't going to pay for public funded abortions, too.

You one of those guys that thinks missile defense works?



Its fun to argue that way, but here are the facts:

1. Abortions will be funded by national health care, unless there are legislative changes.
2. Missile defense does not work.



(The former will be discussed truthfully on AM talk radio, the latter will certainly not)
 
Back
Top Bottom